Assessing the Spatial Dimensions of Economic, Social and Territorial Development Investments A EU/US Comparison during the 2007-2013 Period
Iman Ahmed, Louis Colnot, Sara Ibos, Caterina Orlandi June 2016
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General Regional and Urban Policy DGA1 Policy Performance and Compliance Unit DGA1.01 Policy Development, Strategic Management and Relations with the Council Contact: Peter Berkowitz E-mail:
[email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Assessing the Spatial Dimensions of Economic, Social and Territorial Development Investments A EU/US Comparison during the 2007-2013 Period
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 2016
EN
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 ISBN 978-92-79-59226-3 doi: 10.2776/944989 © European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
About this document This document is the final report of the study Assessing the Spatial Dimensions of Economic, Social and Territorial Development Investments - A EU/US Comparison during the 2007-2013 Period, carried out in the framework of a collective project by a group of masters students from the "Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris", under the contract n° 2015CE16BAT072. The authors are Iman Ahmed, Louis Colnot, Sara Ibos, Caterina Orlandi, Master of Urban and Regional Policies and Strategies (Urban School, Sciences Po).
Acknowledgement We would like to thank all the people who guided and supported us, with their precious help and remarks, during the development of our study and the elaboration of this report. We would like to thank the Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission, and in particular Peter Berkowitz, Head of the Unit DGA1.01 – Policy Development, Strategic Management, Relations with the Council, Mélanie Villiers, former National Expert at the DG Regio, in the Unit Policy and Conception and current Director of the Cabinet of the Prefect of the Hauts-de-Seine Département, and Angel Catalina Rubianes, Policy Analyst in the Unit for Economic and Quantitative Analysis. We would like to thank the Urban School of Sciences Po Paris and, in particular, the team who followed us more closely: Brigitte Fouilland, Executive Director of the Urban School of Sciences Po, Irène Mboumoua, Policy advisor for the Master STU team projects, Basma Daouadi Guinnefollau, Administrative and Account Manager of the Urban School and Béatrice Susana-Delpech, Pedagogical Assistant. Moreover, we would like to address special thanks to two people, whom we are grateful to and who guided us since the beginning of our study: our tutor, François Duluc, Head of Department at the French National Assembly and Professor at Sciences Po Paris, and Amélie Barbier-Gauchard, Lecturer with Authority to Conduct Research (HDR) in Economic Sciences at Strasburg University. Iman Ahmed, Louis Colnot, Sara Ibos, Caterina Orlandi Members of the team Project between the DG Regio and the Sciences Po Urban School (Master of Urban and Regional Policies and Strategies)
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ I GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................... IV LIST OF ATTACHED FILES ................................................................................ VI LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ VII LIST OF GRAPHS ........................................................................................... VII LIST OF MAPS ................................................................................................. X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... XII I. STUDY BACKGROUND OF THE EU/US COMPARISON.......................................... 1 1. Intellectual Framework .......................................................................... 1 1.1 Subject of the study .................................................................... 1 1.2 Context of the study .................................................................... 2 1.3 Previous EU/US comparisons ........................................................ 2 2. Characteristics of the two entities............................................................ 3 2.1 Structural differences .................................................................. 3 2.2 Approaches of ESTI allocations ..................................................... 5 2.2.1 ESTI legal frameworks .................................................. 5 2.2.2 Territorialisation of investments...................................... 6 2.3 Mechanisms of ESTI allocations..................................................... 7 2.4 Similarities and common issues .................................................... 8 3. Objective of the study............................................................................ 9 3.1 Study goal ................................................................................. 9 3.2 Means........................................................................................ 9 4. Research questions ............................................................................... 9 II. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH .................................................................... 11 1. Typology elaboration ............................................................................ 11 1.1 Typology design ......................................................................... 11 1.2 Excluded fields ........................................................................... 14 1.3 Ambiguous fields ........................................................................ 14 2. Details for typology categories ............................................................... 14 2.1 Applied R&D and Innovation ........................................................ 14 2.2 Transport .................................................................................. 15 2.3 Information and Communication Technologies ............................... 15 2.4 Social infrastructures .................................................................. 16 2.5 Human capital ........................................................................... 16 2.6 Enterprises support .................................................................... 17 2.7 Natural Resources and Energy ..................................................... 17 2.8 Environment .............................................................................. 17 2.9 Touristic and Cultural Development .............................................. 18 2.10 Territorial Development............................................................. 18 3. Typology application ............................................................................. 19 3.1 Classification of EU priorities and US programmes .......................... 19 3.2 Explicitly targeted territories ........................................................ 20 I
4. ESTI database development .................................................................. 20 4.1 Data sources ............................................................................. 21 4.2 Design and assumptions ............................................................. 22 4.3 Procedure ................................................................................. 25 4.3.1 EU data ...................................................................... 25 4.3.1.1 EU NUTS 2 ............................................................... 25 4.3.1.2 EU Member States .................................................... 26 4.3.2 US data ...................................................................... 27 4.3.2.1 Yearly US database ................................................... 31 4.3.2.2 Unified 2007-2013 US database .................................. 32 4.3.3 Finalised ESTI database ................................................ 32 5. Limits of the study ............................................................................... 35 5.1 Limits of the comparability .......................................................... 35 5.1.1 ESTI definition............................................................. 35 5.1.2 Level of development threshold ..................................... 36 5.2 Limits related to technical choices ................................................ 36 5.2.1 Specificity of the temporal framework ............................ 36 5.2.2 Allocated expenditures ................................................. 37 5.2.3 Comparison scale ........................................................ 37 III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EU/US ESTI .............................................. 38 1. Presentation of the ESTI database .......................................................... 38 1.1 EU database (NUTS 2 regions and Member States) ......................... 39 1.2 US database (US States)............................................................. 40 2. Scope of the budget ............................................................................. 41 2.1
Share of ESTI in the Community/Federal budget .......................... 42
2.2
Share of ESTI in the EU/US total public expenditures .................... 43
2.3
Share of ESTI in the EU/US GDP ................................................ 44
3. Analysis of ESTI sectoral distribution ...................................................... 45 3.1 General description .................................................................... 45 3.2 Major sectoral findings ................................................................ 48 3.2.1 Transport.................................................................... 48 3.2.2 Territorial development ................................................ 51 3.2.3 Human Capital ............................................................ 53 3.2.4 R&D and Innovation ..................................................... 54 3.2.5 Environment ............................................................... 56 3.2.6 Social infrastructures ................................................... 58 3.2.7 ICT Infrastructures and Enterprises support .................... 59 4. Analysis of ESTI geographical distribution ............................................... 60 4.1 Geographical background ............................................................ 60 4.1.1 Population .................................................................. 60 4.1.2 Density ...................................................................... 64 4.1.3 Production and level of development .............................. 68 4.2 Distribution of ESTI as allocated amounts ..................................... 74 4.3 Distribution of ESTI as share of local GDP ..................................... 78 4.4 Distribution of ESTI per capita ..................................................... 83 5. Research questions findings .................................................................. 88 5.1 Population ................................................................................. 89 II
5.2 Production and Level of development ............................................ 91 5.3 Rural/urban divide ................................................................... 100 5.4 US specificities......................................................................... 103 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 107 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 109 APPENDIX .................................................................................................... 114 1. Typology application ........................................................................... 114 Appendix – Table 1. Typology applied to EU Priorities. ........................ 114 Appendix – Table 2. Typology applied to US Programmes. .................. 115 2. Robustness check............................................................................... 195 2.1. Internal consistency ................................................................ 195 2.2 Spatial consistency ................................................................... 195 Appendix – Table 3. Spatial consistency at the EU NUTS 2 regions level. ................................................................................ 196 Appendix – Table 4. Spatial consistency at the EU Member States level. ................................................................................ 197 Appendix – Table 5. Spatial consistency at the US States level. ........... 198 2.3 Sectoral consistency ................................................................. 198 Appendix – Table 6. ESTI allocations by category as shares of comparable COFOG budgets (all government levels) during the 2007-2013 period. ........................................................ 199 3. Database presentation ........................................................................ 200 Appendix – Table 7. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in EU NUTS 2 regions by level-1 category in EUR million during the 2007-2013 period. ............ 200 Appendix – Table 8. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in EU Member States by level-1 category in EUR million during the 2007-2013 period. ............ 219 Appendix – Table 9. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in US States by level-1 category in USD million during the 2007-2013 period. ......................... 222 Appendix – Table 10. Yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in US States by level-1 category in USD million during the 2007-2013 period.............................. 225
III
GLOSSARY Acronyms ARC
Appalachian Regional Commission
BEA
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
CBO
Congressional Budget Office
CF
Cohesion Fund
CFDA
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
COFOG
Classification of the Functions of Government
DG
Directorate-General
DG Empl
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
DG Regio
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
EAFRD
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
EMFF
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
ERDF
European Regional Development Fund
ESF
European Social Fund
ESTI
Economic, Social and Territorial Investments
EU
European Union
EU27
European Union (27 Member States)
EUR
Euro
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
MS
Member State
NGO
Non-governmental organisation
NSRF
National Strategic Reference Framework
NUTS 2
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 2: regions
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OP
Operational Programme
PPP
Purchasing Power Parity
SME
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise
U.S. GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
US
United States
USD
United States Dollar
EU Member States AT Austria BE Belgium CY
Cyprus
CZ
Czech Republic
DE
Germany
DK
Denmark
EE
Estonia
GR
Greece
ES
Spain
FI
Finland
FR
France IV
HU
Hungary
IE
Ireland
IT
Italy
LT
Lithuania
LU
Luxembourg
LV
Latvia
MT
Malta
NL
Netherlands
PL
Poland
PT
Portugal
RO
Romania
SE
Sweden
SI
Slovenia
SK
Slovakia
UK
United Kingdom
US States AK
Alaska
AL
Alabama
AR
Arkansas
AS
American Samoa
AZ
Arizona
CA
California
CO
Colorado
CT
Connecticut
DC
District of Columbia
DE
Delaware
FL
Florida
GA
Georgia
GU
Guam
HI
Hawaii
IA
Iowa
ID
Idaho
IL
Illinois
IN
Indiana
KS
Kansas
KY
Kentucky
LA
Louisiana
MA
Massachusetts
MD
Maryland
ME
Maine
MI
Michigan
MN
Minnesota
MO
Missouri
MP
Northern Mariana Islands V
MS
Mississippi
MT
Montana
NC
North Carolina
ND
North Dakota
NE
Nebraska
NH
New Hampshire
NJ
New Jersey
NM
New Mexico
NV
Nevada
NY
New York
OH
Ohio
OK
Oklahoma
OR
Oregon
PA
Pennsylvania
PR
Puerto Rico
RI
Rhode Island
SC
South Carolina
SD
South Dakota
TN
Tennessee
TX
Texas
UM
U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
UT
Utah
VA
Virginia
VI
U.S. Virgin Islands
VT
Vermont
WA
Washington
WB WI
World Bank
WV
West Virginia
WY
Wyoming
Wisconsin
LIST OF ATTACHED FILES
EU US Database.xlsx: the ESTI database Excluded expenditures.xlsx: expenditures matching formal criteria but outside of the field of this study because of their content (not considered as ESTI)
VI
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. ESTI TYPOLOGY. ............................................................................... 12 TABLE 2. PRESENTATION OF DATA SOURCES. ................................................... 21 TABLE 3. LIST OF VARIABLES IN THE ESTI DATABASE. ....................................... 23 TABLE 4. DATA ERRORS (EXPENDITURES MISSING PLACE AND/OR RECIPIENT) IN THE US FEDERAL GRANTS DATABASE. ................................................... 27 TABLE 5. DATA ERRORS (EXPENDITURES NOT CLASSIFIED IN THE TYPOLOGY) IN THE US FEDERAL GRANTS DATABASE. ................................................... 29 TABLE 6. DECOMMISSIONS OF FUNDS AS SHARE OF ALLOCATIONS OF FUNDS IN THE US DATABASE. ............................................................................. 30 TABLE 7. SHARE OF EXCLUDED EXPENDITURES IN ALL FEDERAL GRANTS MATCHING FORMAL CRITERIA. .................................................................. 31 TABLE 8. AVERAGE EUR/USD EXCHANGE RATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 32 TABLE 9. AVERAGE EU27 GDP DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................... 33 TABLE 10. AVERAGE US GDP DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ........................... 33 TABLE 11. ESTI BUDGET IN THE EU DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .................. 34 TABLE 12. ESTI BUDGET IN THE US DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................. 34
LIST OF GRAPHS GRAPH 1. SHARE OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY/FEDERAL EXPENDITURES (HIGHEST LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT) DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 42 GRAPH 2. SHARE OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE EU/US TOTAL PUBLIC EXPENDITURES (CENTRAL + NATIONAL + LOCAL) DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 43 GRAPH 3. SHARE OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE EU/US GDP DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 44 GRAPH 4. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS BY LEVEL-1 CATEGORIES IN EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ..................................... 45 GRAPH 5. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS BY LEVEL-1 CATEGORIES IN EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .................................... 46 GRAPH 6. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS BY LEVEL-1 CATEGORIES IN US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .................................................. 47 GRAPH 7. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “TRANSPORT” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 49 VII
GRAPH 8. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “TRANSPORT” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ......... 50 GRAPH 9. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................................................................... 51 GRAPH 10. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................. 52 GRAPH 11. SHARE OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “HUMAN CAPITAL” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN THE EU/US GDP DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ............................................................................................................. 53 GRAPH 12. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “R&D AND INNOVATION” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................................................................... 54 GRAPH 13. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “R&D AND INNOVATION” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN US STATES DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 55 GRAPH 14. SHARE OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND POLLUTION CONTROL” BY LEVEL-3 SUB-CATEGORIES IN THE EU/US GDP DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ............................................. 56 GRAPH 15. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND POLLUTION CONTROL” BY LEVEL-3 CATEGORIES IN EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ......... 57 GRAPH 16. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND POLLUTION CONTROL” BY LEVEL-3 CATEGORIES IN US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD....................... 57 GRAPH 17. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURES” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .............................................................. 58 GRAPH 18. DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURES” BY LEVEL-2 CATEGORIES IN US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................. 59 GRAPH 19. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AND THE POPULATION OF EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ........ 89 GRAPH 20. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AND THE POPULATION OF EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ........ 90 GRAPH 21. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AND THE POPULATION OF US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ..................... 91 VIII
GRAPH 22. CONCENTRATION CURVE FOR AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS RANKED BY GDP PPP PER CAPITA AT THE EU MEMBER STATES LEVEL DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 92 GRAPH 23. CONCENTRATION CURVE FOR AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS RANKED BY GDP PPP PER CAPITA AT THE NUTS 2 REGIONS LEVEL DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 93 GRAPH 24. CONCENTRATION CURVE FOR AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS RANKED BY GDP PPP PER CAPITA AT THE US STATES LEVEL DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ....... 94 GRAPH 25. CONCENTRATION CURVE FOR AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT” RANKED BY GDP PPP PER CAPITA AT THE EU MEMBER STATES LEVEL DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ............................ 95 GRAPH 26. CONCENTRATION CURVE FOR AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT” RANKED BY GDP PPP PER CAPITA AT THE NUTS 2 REGIONS LEVEL DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ........................... 95 GRAPH 27. CONCENTRATION CURVE FOR AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS DEDICATED TO “TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT” RANKED BY GDP PPP PER CAPITA AT THE US STATES LEVEL DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .................................... 96 GRAPH 28. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA AND THE GDP PPP PER CAPITA OF EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 97 GRAPH 29. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA AND THE GDP PPP PER CAPITA OF NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 98 GRAPH 30. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA AND THE GDP PPP PER CAPITA OF US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ............................................................................................................. 99 GRAPH 31. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA AND THE GDP PPP PER CAPITA OF US STATES (DC DROPPED) DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 99 GRAPH 32. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA AND THE DENSITY OF EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007 – 2013 PERIOD. ... 101 GRAPH 33. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA AND THE DENSITY OF EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ..... 101 GRAPH 34. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA AND THE DENSITY OF US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .................. 102 GRAPH 35. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AND THE DENSITY OF US STATES (DC DROPPED) DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................ 103 IX
GRAPH 36. CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AND THE POLITICAL ALIGNMENT OF US STATES WITH THE CONGRESS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ............................................................................................... 104 GRAPH 37. YEARLY COMPOSITION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE US AS SHARE OF THE US GDP. ................................ 105
LIST OF MAPS MAP 1. AVERAGE POPULATION OF THE EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 61 MAP 2. AVERAGE POPULATION OF THE EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 62 MAP 3. AVERAGE POPULATION OF THE US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 63 MAP 4. AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY OF THE EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................................................................... 65 MAP 5. AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY OF THE EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................................................................... 66 MAP 6. AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY OF THE US STATES DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 67 MAP 7. AVERAGE GDP OF THE EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 69 MAP 8. AVERAGE GDP PPP PER CAPITA OF THE EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................................................................... 70 MAP 9. AVERAGE GDP OF THE EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 71 MAP 10. AVERAGE GDP PPP PER CAPITA OF THE EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................................................................... 72 MAP 11. AVERAGE GDP OF THE US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ....... 73 MAP 12. AVERAGE GDP PPP PER CAPITA OF THE US STATES DURING THE 20072013 PERIOD. ......................................................................................... 73 MAP 13. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................. 75 MAP 14. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................. 76 MAP 15. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN THE US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................................. 77 MAP 16. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AS SHARE OF THE EU MEMBER STATES GDP DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .............................................................. 79
X
MAP 17. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AS SHARE OF THE EU NUTS 2 REGIONS GDP DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .............................................................. 81 MAP 18. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AS SHARE OF THE US STATES GDP DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .......................................................................... 82 MAP 19. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA IN THE EU MEMBER STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .............................................................. 84 MAP 20. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA IN THE EU NUTS 2 REGIONS DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. .............................................................. 86 MAP 21. AVERAGE YEARLY ALLOCATIONS OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS PER CAPITA IN THE US STATES DURING THE 2007-2013 PERIOD. ................................................................................. 87
XI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was elaborated by students of the Urban School of Sciences Po Paris upon request of the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission during the academic year 2015-2016. In the context of the reflections on the future of Cohesion Policy, it is necessary to furnish new tools and approaches to contribute to the debate. A comparison with the US institutional model can provide a new point of view and sets of arguments to assess the effects of EU Cohesion Policy. Indeed, Cohesion Policy has no clear equivalent in the US, thus impeding the comparative literature on this issue. This study aims at comparing the EU and the US Economic, Social and Territorial Development Investments (ESTI) during the 2007-2013 period. ESTI can be defined as expenditures aimed at improving the stock of capital to achieve long term territorial, economic and social objectives, notably growth and cohesion. Their content corresponds to the investments funded by EU Cohesion Policy and the transfers with equivalent goals in the US. In the context of this study, only investments transferred from a higher level of government to a lower one are considered. In particular, higher levels are the European Union and the US Federal Government, and the lower ones refer to the EU Member States/NUTS 2 regions and the US State and Local governments. As a consequence, it restricts the study to Cohesion Policy Funds (ERDF, CF, ESF) and relevant US federal grants to State and Local governments. Concerning the research questions of the study, this comparative conclude on whether institutional differences between the EU models produce opposed territorial effects. These research explored at the EU Member states, NUTS 2 and US States levels, availability of data.
analysis allows to and the US ESTI questions will be depending on the
The analysis will study the sectoral and geographical distribution of ESTI allocations, but it will also try to reveal the underlying logics of the two models. In order to do so, the relationships between ESTI allocations and population, level of development and density will be tested. Moreover, specific issues will be explored for the US model because of its political and budgetary particularities. In order to proceed with the comparison and to answer the research questions, a database of the ESTI was elaborated. Using as sources the EU data about Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 and the yearly US data of the US Department of the Treasury. The classification of expenditures considered as ESTI has been carried out according to a typology, as a tool for a common framework. It was conceived to be applied both to the EU priorities, the specific objectives of Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 and to the US programmes, the descriptions of the US federal grants. It features 10 categories of level1, which deal with different intervention domains. The typology is based on EU Cohesion Policy priorities. Expenditures that could not be considered as investments (e.g. benefits to individuals, operational costs, expenditures for technical assistance) have not been taken into account. Among the US programmes, expenditures that could be seen as investments, but would not be funded by EU Cohesion Policy, have also been excluded. In case an expenditure contained different purposes that could be included in two or more different categories, it was decided to classify it according to the most relevant purpose. If an expenditure was at least partially involved a domain that is excluded from the field of study, it was not taken into consideration. The goal of the database is to present all the relevant expenditures (ESTI), sorted out by period, place and typology categories. The available data from the original databases represents a constraint for the possibilities of the study database: the design of the ESTI database is conceived accordingly. XII
Methodological choices for the database imply that the considered ESTI are allocations during the 2007-2013 period and not actual expenditures. US ESTI are allocated independently of the GDP per capita of the targeted territories, unlike EU ESTI because Cohesion Policy mostly targets the less developed areas. Regarding the geographical scope of the study, Croatia and US freely associated States are excluded because of their particularities. Another critical geographical assumption is to assign cross-border EU programmes to their administrative region in the EU. These methodological choices lead to a series of limits, that are explicitly stated in the study. These limits deal with two perspectives: some biases emerge concerning the issue of the comparability of the two entities, some other limits are related to the adopted technical choices. However, they do not undermine the coherence of this study. These limits have to be considered as keys to understand the conclusions and they should help to appreciate the comparison in a larger perspective. Notably, the impact of the US Stimulus Package during that period should be recalled, as it is likely to strongly influence the results. Concerning the procedure of the creation of the database, once the quality and the validity of the original databases checked, the original EU priorities and US programmes were recoded using the elaborated typology. Numerous checks to control the quality of data were conducted. The selected expenditures were then aggregated by place and typology category. Finally, the selected expenditures were unified into a single database, which features the three considered levels: EU Member States, NUTS 2 regions, US States. Then, the robustness of the ESTI database was checked, before conducting the analysis and answering the research questions. Tables summarising the main characteristics of the ESTI database are exposed in the appendix. To begin the analysis, the weight of ESTI within each entity is assessed for the 20072013 period. The size of the ESTI budgets is the reflection of institutional differences between the EU and the US. Indeed, ESTI allocations represent 38% of the EU Community budget, while they account for not even 3% of the US Federal budget. However, it must not be forgotten that the US Federal budget is 15 times larger than the EU Community one. In terms of share of GDP dedicated to ESTI, the situation is similar in the EU (0.4%) and the US (0.6%). However, this situation is likely to be produced by the important US Stimulus Package in 2009-2010, that influenced the ESTI allocations. Interesting results emerge from the sectoral analysis of ESTI allocations. The striking difference between the EU and US distributions concerns the ESTI allocated to “Transport” (16% of ESTI in the EU, 65% in the US). Accordingly, the weight of transport, notably of roads, is massive for the US ESTI. Regarding the similarities between the two models, ESTI dedicated to “Territorial development” represent 10% of the US ESTI and 6% in the EU. It may go against the common belief that the US does not invest on this kind of expenditures. Through cartography, the geographical distribution of ESTI is presented in order to understand at a first glance the territorial dimensions of these allocations in the EU and in the US. It appears that Southern and Eastern Member States and regions are favoured by ESTI allocations in the EU. In the US, ESTI allocations seem to be concentrated on the most populous areas. The analysis of ESTI as share of local GDP gives a picture of the importance of ESTI allocations to finance investments in the territories. In the US, the observation of the distribution of ESTI as share of local GDP gives a radically different picture in comparison to the previous analysis: the US States where the ESTI allocations as share of GDP are the highest are not the ones which receive, in absolute terms, the most important amounts of ESTI, but instead isolated States in the North-West as well as Alaska. For the EU, Eastern and Central Europe regions feature the highest levels of ESTI allocations as share of GDP, notably Hungary. The analysis of ESTI per capita generally yields the same spatial XIII
results. However, these results should be nuanced by the specificities of the period, with a major crisis impacting the conclusions. The research questions were also partially answered thanks to the developed database. However, further analysis would be required to draw general conclusions, especially for non-crisis periods. The EU model tends to allocate more ESTI per capita for the less developed regions, as intended by EU Cohesion Policy. On the contrary, in the US, it seems that ESTI allocations per capita favour the more developed regions. Moreover, EU ESTI allocations seem to be concentrated in territories representing a small fraction of the EU GDP. On the contrary, the US model attributes ESTI almost homogeneously, though it may be an artefact of the Stimulus Package. Population is also proven to be a major driver of ESTI allocations in both models. However, no significant relationship was found between density and ESTI allocations in the EU or the US, even if it may not be a good proxy for the rural/urban divide, because of the scales of the comparison. Particularities of the US model do not seem to make its ESTI vulnerable to political pressures. However, the flexibility of yearly federal grants allows greater adaptation to macroeconomic shocks. Future studies may try to take a more holistic approach, comparing the entire EU investment policies to the US federal model. This approach would allow reduced methodological limits and greater conclusive power.
XIV
“The world has changed but the federal budget has not”1: this was a compelling observation on the United States federal effort for regional development in 2006. In the same period, the European Union set a new strategy for Cohesion Policy for 2007-2013. On the occasion of the midterm evaluation of the 2014-2020 programming period of Cohesion Policy, it is necessary to provide new tools and approaches to contribute to the debate on EU Cohesion Policy. From the EU perspective, it is interesting to establish an international comparison about the way of dealing with territorial development and inequalities. The US presents a different institutional model since it is a Federal State. However, the US model can be considered as a useful term of comparison since the two entities feature significantly important similarities, such as the level of economic development, demographics and common public finance rationales. Cohesion Policy, with its institutional framework, represents a key policy for economic, social and territorial development investments at the EU level. On the contrary, the US has no similar overarching policy, but still similar expenditures. Therefore, this comparison between these two entities is a relevant tool to understand the territorial effects of two distinct institutional models.
I. STUDY BACKGROUND OF THE EU/US COMPARISON
This first section will present the general and scientific context of the study, as well as the challenges of the EU/US comparison and the objectives assigned to this report.
1. INTELLECTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.1 Subject of the study
This study is a comparison of the EU and the US Economic, Social and Territorial Development Investments during the 2007-2013 period. Economic, Social and Territorial Investments can be defined as expenditures aimed at improving the stock of capital to achieve long term territorial, economic and social objectives, notably growth and cohesion. In the context of this study, only investments transferred from a higher level of government to a lower one are considered. The higher level refers to the European Union and the US Federal State and the lower one to EU Member States/NUTS 2 regions and the US State and Local governments. The content of the considered investments corresponds to those funded by EU Cohesion Policy and the transfers with equivalent goals in the US. Therefore, it is connected to the concept of regional development, that implies transfers between levels of government. For clarity reasons, expenditures matching these criteria (period, involved government levels and content) are labelled Economic Social and Territorial Investments (ESTI) in this study. Obviously, it should be noted that the ESTI do not represent all the investments dedicated to economic, social and territorial investments in the EU and the US. Indeed, ESTI only encapsulate expenditures funded by the ERDF, CF and ESF in the EU and by relevant federal grants to State and Local governments in the US.
1
Drabenstott, ‘Rethinking Federal Policy for Regional Economic Development’.
1
In these two entities, intergovernmental investments transfers can be justified by economic and political rationales2: promoting economic efficiency and social inclusion, increasing the legitimacy of the highest level of government, influencing local investments priorities, benefiting from local knowledge and fostering development, notably in lagging regions. They are used, to different extent, by both the EU and the US. This common public finance background can be translated into different investment policies, with particular territorial effects. This issue is particularly critical in the context of the preparation of the next programming period of EU Cohesion Policy.
1.2 Context of the study
In the context of the 2016 Multiannual Financial Framework and the post-2020 strategy, it is necessary to furnish new tools and approaches to contribute to the debate on EU Cohesion Policy strategy. A comparison with another institutional model can provide a new point of view and sets of arguments to assess the particular effects of EU Cohesion Policy. EU Cohesion Policy is seen as an original model of investment policy. The allocation and the distribution of funds between Member States gathered in this sui generis Community are explicitly justified by an argument of economic efficiency and cohesion. These two rationales are presented as dependent and interrelated. The EU has been concerned with the reduction of regional disparities ever since its inception 3. The preamble of the 1957 Treaty of Rome mentions the need “to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing among the various regions and the backwardness of the less-favoured regions”. Cohesion Policy is a leading policy responsible for the Economic, Social and Territorial Development of the EU. In the Europe 2020 context, Cohesion Policy contributes to promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Cohesion Policy is entering into a new cycle, facing different challenges than in the 20072013 period. Thus, studying the 2007-2013 programming period with consolidated data will provide insights for the post-2020 debate. A comparative approach between the EU and the US gives new keys to reflect on the particularities of each model.
1.3 Previous EU/US comparisons
There are few examples of economic comparison between the EU and the US because of their institutional differences. Comparing a sui generis community with a federation is the main obstacle. Domenico Tortola’s work 4 on the EU-US comparative literature reveals the lack of consistent scholarly production before 1996. However, it also reveals a link between post-Maastricht endeavour and the increase of comparative studies. As the EU becomes more integrated, comparisons with the US become more meaningful.
2
3 4
Boadway and Shah, Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers; Barca, ‘An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations’; EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13; CBO, ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty. Tortola, ‘The Limits of Normalization’.
2
Even if the two entities present structural differences, it does not preclude a comparison of their budgetary allocations. The OECD also carried out a comparison study on regional development policies, even if its difficulty was recognised. The OECD compared international models of investments and budgets in the 2010 report “Regional development policies in OECD countries”5, and more recently in their “Regional Outlook 2014”6. These works highlight the complexity of an international budgetary comparison due to the lack of a shared definitions of policies, notably of regional policy. As a matter of fact, no country reports a precise budget for the regional policy, but despite this obstacle, this report manages to construct an overall estimate budget allowing a relevant comparison framework. For example, the OECD study built a strong framework to compare the Block Grant of Korea, the Community Renovation Grant of Japan, and the Community Development Block Grant of the United States. As well as the scope of this study about the comparison between EU and US, their work aimed at finding equivalent intergovernmental transfers in widely different entities. Consequently, structural differences do not mean that comparison is not relevant. However, a deep knowledge of the models is required to compare ESTI between the EU and the US. Thus, in order to provide a solid background for a comparison method, the following section presents the differences and the similarities between the EU and the US as far as their characteristics relevant to ESTI are concerned.
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWO ENTITIES
2.1 Structural differences
The EU and the US present major structural differences, notably at the economic and institutional levels. In the economic field, the GDP at market prices (2007-2013 average) of the EU attains EUR 12,971,864 million7, very close to the US where it reaches EUR 11,149,780 million8. The GDP PPP per capita of the US is EUR 36,089 9, higher than in the EU where it reaches EUR 24,66010. This situation is mainly caused by the East-West divide in the EU. Moreover, the average yearly nominal GDP growth registered for the 2007-2013 period attains 0.69%11 for the EU and 2%12 for the US. From the institutional point of view, the US is a Federal State, while the EU can be considered as a sui generis Community. The repartition of competencies that these two different institutional structures imply constitutes the main challenge for the comparison. It leads to a striking contrast between the scopes of EU Community and US Federal budgets. Indeed, the EU Community budget represents 2% of the total public expenditures and the US Federal budget represents 63.9% of the total public expenditures13.
OECD, Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries. OECD Regional Outlook 2014. 7 Eurostat, ‘GDP and Main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income)’. 8 US Department of Commerce, ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’; USFOREX, ‘Yearly Average Rates’. 9 World Bank, ‘GDP per Capita, PPP (Current International US$)’; USFOREX, ‘Yearly Average Rates’. 10 World Bank, ‘GDP per Capita, PPP (Current International US$)’; USFOREX, ‘Yearly Average Rates’. 11 Eurostat, ‘GDP and Main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income)’. 12 US Department of Commerce, ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’. 13 Barbier-Gauchard, ‘European Public Expenditure: Community Level and National Level’. 5 6
3
In the EU, the Maastricht Treaty (1992) formally introduced the “subsidiarity principle”, ensuring the Member States budgetary autonomy. Community intervention is described has an exception and should be preferred only if “the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community”14. Amélie Barbier Gauchard’s work studies the aggregated expenditures of the Community and National level to distinguish three types of budgetary competency : “Highly Communitarian budgetary competency” (Agriculture, Fishing, Rural development), “Shared competency” at various degrees (R&D, Innovation, Foreign relations) and “Exclusive national competency” which refers to competencies, which are funded by less than 1% by the Community level (Energy, Transport, Justice, Education and Training, Health). In the US model, the Constitution attributes extended competencies to the federal level15: Customs Union, Monetary Policy, Intellectual Property
Policy, Internal Improvements, Disposal of Public Lands, Subsidies (mainly to shipping), Foreign Policy, Immigration Policy. Competencies that are not explicitly listed can be shared between the State and Local governments and the Federal one. In order to understand the scope and the importance of the ESTI allocations in the EU and US systems, it is necessary to place them in context of the overall budgets of the two entities during the studied period. During the 2007-2013 period, the EU Community budget and the US Federal budget differ in terms of scope and goals. In the EU system, the multiannual framework sets the budget for the 2007-2013 period. Expenditures are equivalent to 1.12% of the GNI of the Member States, i.e. EUR 975.8 billion16. Cohesion Policy, which accounts for more than a third of the total EU Community budget, is a leading expense item. The conservation and the management of natural resources through Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other policies (rural development, environment, fishing) also represent about a third of the total EU Community budget. In the US system, the overall budget of the Federal State is decided on a yearly basis by the Congress. Between 2007 and 2013, federal expenditures range between USD 2.7 and 3.5 trillion every year17. The US Department of the Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups18: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory spending makes up nearly 60% of the overall Federal budget and includes fields such as Social Security, Unemployment and Labor, Medicare and Health, Food and Agriculture, Veteran’s benefit and Transportation. Discretionary spending is dominated by the military programs, with more than 50% of the total discretionary spending. Other discretionary expenditures include Education, Government, Medicare and Health, Veterans’ Benefit, Housing and Community, International Affairs, Energy and Environment, Science, Transportation and Food and Agriculture. Among this overall budget, investment represents roughly 15% of federal spending and 3% of the US GDP. Those shares remained stable during the past twenty years, though investment by the Federal State raised to 4% of the GDP after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which particularly increased investments on Transportation programmes 19. The context of the study is therefore influenced by the stimulus package, that heavily focused on infrastructures.
14
15 16 17 18 19
Official Journal of the European Communities, Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version), Treaty of Maastricht. Legal Information Institute, ‘Federalism’. European Commission, ‘Cadre Financier 2007-2013 de l’UE En Chiffres - Budget’. Executive Office Of The President, Budget of the United States Government. National Priorities Project, ‘Federal Spending’. CBO, ‘Federal Investment’.
4
Thus, in the two systems, ESTI allocations are not the only instrument of the highest level of government to conduct investments in the different territories. Among them, the example of rural development of the EU can be highlighted 20. In the US, the Federal State often conducts investments directly, without transferring amounts to other entities21. These alternative mechanisms, not covered by the ESTI and this study, should be explored in other studies. Indeed, they may have different sectoral and geographical logics than the ESTI and thus could alter the redistributive nature of both budgets for territories. These structural differences lead to two models of ESTI allocations for the EU Community level and the US Federal State.
2.2 Approaches of ESTI allocations
2.2.1 ESTI legal frameworks
The EU and the US models present two different approaches of ESTI, through a specific toolbox to organize investments from a higher level of government to a lower one. On the one hand, in the EU, ESTI are financed by an institutionalised regional policy and they are regulated by treaties and agreements. Indeed, EU Cohesion Policy is derived from several legal texts: EU Treaties22 and regulations23 regarding Structural Funds, the General Regulation No 1083/2006, which concerns the objectives, the programming and the management and control requirements. Objectives are explicitly detailed in the Funds-specific regulations laying down investment priorities: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) No 1080/2006, European Social Fund (ESF) No 1081/2006, Cohesion Fund (CF) No 1084/2006. Each objective makes a clear reference to the targeted territory. This institutionalisation of this investment policy gives a strong strategic dimension to transfers from the Community level to Member States. A economic development budget is conceived for septennial periods: for 2007-2013 it amounted to €347.4 billion, as defined by the EU law, which represents about ⅓ of the EU budget (35-36%)24. On the other hand, the US does not present such an explicit policy to rule ESTI. It primarily stems from the absence of an institutionalised regional policy. Aside the political priorities set by the President and the Congress25, there is no overarching law or strategy document for this issue. However, attempts were made to analyse a supposed “US regional policy”, that could cover parts of ESTI allocations. As pointed by the OECD “Regional Outlook 2014”, the US regional policy mandate is to support economically distressed areas through regional strategy development and public investments for regional competitiveness26. However, from a global perspective, as the OECD attests it, the US system distinguishes itself by the lack of unified budget for
European Commission, ‘Cadre Financier 2007-2013 de l’UE En Chiffres - Budget’. CBO, ‘Federal Investment’. 22 EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. 23 DG Regio, ‘Structural Funds Regulations 2007-2013’. 24 Tatulescu, ‘The Cohesion Policy at EU Level’. 25 Obama, ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2012; Obama, ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2011; Obama, ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2010; Obama, ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2009; Bush, ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2008; Bush, ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2007; Bush, ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2006. 26 OECD Regional Outlook 2014. 20 21
5
regional and community economic development27. Drabenstott’s study on “Rethinking federal policy for regional economic development”28 confirms that there is no “strategic policy” on regional development, but only programmes, which are not motivated by a common and overarching policy. He argues that, in this context, investments are homogenous and not territorially targeted. Therefore, regional development and ESTI allocations are diluted among the 20 Federal budget functions29, which contribute to these objectives through grants attribution. However, the US makes reference to “regional development” through one of the 20 Federal budget functions: “Community and Regional Development”30. It aims at improving community economic conditions, promoting rural development, assisting federal preparations and response to disasters such as floods or hurricanes. Another example of regional policy target is the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) which focuses on a specific region. This is a Federal-State partnership with the population of Appalachia to foster economic development and improve quality of life in their region. It can be considered as a form of territorial development policy, because it explicitly targets a lagging-behind region. However, it represents only a fraction of expenditures that can be considered as ESTI. ESTI in the US must therefore be extracted from federal transfers to State and Local governments. As a consequence, the legal framework for ESTI in the US consist mainly of the general federal grants legislation31.
2.2.2 Territorialisation of investments
The respective investment policies of the EU and the US have frequently been archetypally represented as opposed regarding their objectives. The features of one model have sometimes been used as an argument to criticize the other. EU Cohesion Policy defends the positive impact of its investments on cohesion and economic efficiency, being the main argument the fact that its policy explicitly targets the less developed regions, in order to encourage the economic convergence among all the Member States. Indeed, under the Convergence objective for 2007-2013, the ERDF and ESF funds focus regions whose GDP per head is lower than 75% of the EU average32. It also targets the outermost regions. The EU considers that its investment policy has to be adapted to each territory, according to its needs and assets. The Barca Report 33 assumes that this is the condition for growth and Cohesion Policy efficiency. This approach of investment is not presented in the same way in the US because transfers are not intended to be based on the economic and social characteristics of the places. Grants result from the federal orientations and they are not generally explicitly adapted to specific territorial characteristics34, which can be seen as a “bottom-up” investment policy.
27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34
OECD, Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries. Drabenstott, ‘Rethinking Federal Policy for Regional Economic Development’. Executive Office Of The President, Budget of the United States Government. Ibid. CBO, ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’; OMB, ‘Learn Grants’. EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. Barca, ‘An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations’. OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’.
6
2.3 Mechanisms of ESTI allocations
As a consequence of these two different approaches of investments and conception of regional policy, mechanisms regarding ESTI allocations differ widely between the EU and the US. ESTI are conducted within EU Cohesion Policy, which is bounded by detailed procedures35. The first step is the elaboration of the “Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion Policy” by the European Commission, in close contact with the EU Member States. Then, Member States must prepare a National Strategic Reference Framework, that sets the objectives and Operational Programmes. The Commission evaluates the NSRF and the OP. ESTI allocations and management are implemented by a Management Authority, that depends on the Member State. In the EU the main instruments are the three Structural Funds: ERDF, ESF, CF. ESTI are guided by three different objectives under EU Cohesion Policy: Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment and European Territorial Cooperation. Cohesion Policy funds explicitly favour the less developed regions (in terms of GDP PPP per capita), using an instrument known as the Berlin formula36. In the US, ESTI are performed by federal grants to State and Local governments. Indeed, it is the tool for intergovernmental transfers from the federal government 37. Grants are under the responsibility of the Congress, the Executive Office of the President and the Federal Agencies. The Congress creates the legal framework and assigns the yearly budget dedicated to the Federal Agencies managing grants. The Executive Office of the President provides guidelines for implementation to Federal Agencies. The Federal Agencies release Funding Opportunities, select and attribute funds. They also monitor, control and audit the beneficiaries. The US legislation allows several types of grants, providing tools for different objectives of the Federal government. This leads to the first major distinction for the legal framework of the US ESTI: spending can be mandatory or discretionary. Mandatory spending represents the majority of the US federal spending, and it mainly deals with social benefits and health care. On the contrary, discretionary spending is set on a yearly basis by the Congress of the US. Different types of federal grants are provided. Each type of grants is linked to a specific set of rules 38. Block grants enable a loose federal control on local spending. Conditions are very general and do not require non-federal additional funding. Formula grants are attributed by a formula given by the law that can take into account several indicators, such as population and crime rate. Finally, project grants are attributed to projects which are directly selected by the Federal government through a call for bids. Therefore, they allow a high federal control. Instruments are ruled by different principles in the two entities. In the US, the existence of conditionalities for some grants depends on their type 39, while EU principles and conditionalities are mandatory (complementarity, coherence, coordination, conformity, additionality)40. For instance, in the US, additionality is not mandatory for grants attribution. Moreover, contrary to the EU, in the US there are automatic aids (nonconditional grants), mainly for social and health expenditures but also for infrastructures41. One of the main distinctions between EU and US ESTI mechanisms is that in the EU
35 36 37 38 39 40 41
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. Osterloh, ‘The Fiscal Consequences of EU Cohesion Policy after 2013’. OMB, ‘Learn Grants’; CBO, ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’. CBO, ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’. Ibid. EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. OMB, ‘Learn Grants’.
7
model, receivers can only be Member States, which afterwards redistribute funds to lower levels of governments42. On the contrary, in the US, grants are available to several types of beneficiaries43: Government Organizations (notably State and Local Governments), Education Organizations, NGOs, Public Housing Organizations, SMEs, For Profit Organizations, Individuals and even Foreign Applicants. However, each grant opportunity has a set of conditions that can restrict the range of beneficiaries. The great majority of grants, about 80%, are attributed to State or Local Governments 44 and can be qualified as ESTI if their content is relevant.
2.4 Similarities and common issues
In spite of legal, economic and historical differences, the EU and the US both conduct expenditures that can be described as ESTI at the Community/Federal level. This investment policy is assumed to allow the development of territories, i.e. the improvement of economic efficiency and quality of life in specific places. Structural differences do not prevent the comparison. Indeed, the EU and the US appear to be similar on many other features and these similarities can be considered more important than their differences. In the EU as in the US, the main goal of investments from the Community/Federal level to lower levels of government is an efficient allocation aiming at increasing the territories’ productivity45. It cannot be seen as an economic redistribution. Overall, the main assumption of this study is that both models face common issues: regional inequalities46. Indeed, looking at regional disparities, GDP per capita PPP in the 2007-2013 period is about 5.8 times greater in the most developed EU Member State (Luxembourg) than in the least developed (Bulgaria)47. It would be 3 times greater without Luxembourg. GDP per capita PPP is about 5.2 times greater in the most developed US territory (DC) than in the least developed US State (Mississippi) 48. It would be 2.1 without DC. Thus, in the EU as in the US, the global cohesion is prevented by inequalities of development between States, heterogeneous growth rates, and lagging-behind territories. Despite structural differences in their Community/Federal transfers, both models take into account these issues. This study seeks to understand the US and EU strategy to tackle the question of cohesion and how their respective policies impact territories. The absence of institutionalised ESTI policy in the US does not necessarily mean that there is no political answer to regional disparities.
42 43 44
45 46 47 48
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. CBO, ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’. GAO, ‘Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of Federal Funding Levels and Selected Challenges’. CBO, ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’; EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. OECD, ‘Regional Accounts : Regional GDP per Capita (PPP)’; Eurostat, ‘GDP per Capita in PPS’. Eurostat, ‘GDP per Capita in PPS’. OECD, ‘Regional Accounts : Regional GDP per Capita (PPP)’.
8
3. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
3.1 Study goal
Starting from the fact that the EU and the US models feature different mechanisms for ESTI allocations, this study aims at comparing their respective effects on territories. Do structural and institutional differences lead to diverging spatial effects? By studying the territorial distribution of ESTI, this work will highlight particularities of both models and reveal their underlying logic. This study tries to go beyond their contrasting structures and mechanisms in order to make actual differences and similarities emerge. It opens a reflection on the objectives which are pursued in both models regarding ESTI allocations. This implies considering that the effects of a policy can be different from the stated objectives. In this perspective, it is possible to question the basic assumptions which are attributed to both models and particularly to the US. Notably, the basic hypothesis which present the US model as blind to regional inequalities should be questioned. The comparison of ESTI allocations can confront the official rationales to the reality and conclude on whether the EU and the US ESTI allocations decisions differ significantly.
3.2 Means
To pursue these objectives, research questions and hypotheses must be developed. Then, a specific methodology will be derived to test these hypotheses.
4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The comparative analysis allows the assessment of the sectoral and spatial dimensions of the EU ESTI undertaken by Cohesion Policy and of the US ESTI performed via the federal grants. To reach this goal, several research questions are required. They will be tested at the EU Member states, NUTS 2 and US States levels, depending on the availability of data. In the end, it will be possible to determine the actual differences produced by the EU and the US models.
ESTI sectoral and spatial distribution
The first dimension to test is whether the two models produce different choices about the ESTI allocation regarding sectors. Moreover, the goal is also to provide an overall description of the spatial distribution of these ESTI. This approach relies heavily on cartography.
9
Relationship between ESTI allocations and population
In the EU, population is an element in the formula according to which ESTI are allocated. In the US grants literature, population also seems to be a major factor of allocation, especially for formula grants. Thus, the role of population in determining the ESTI allocations is to be studied.
Relationship between ESTI allocations and the level of development
A key element to compare the policies is to study whether funding is related to the level of economic development of territories. This perspective will be used to conclude on whether the allocated ESTI have a focus on the less developed regions. The analysis will be primarily based on GDP per capita expressed in purchasing power parity terms, allowing to take into account the differences of purchasing power between States and regions.
Relationship between ESTI and the rural/urban divide
The ESTI allocations choices will be explored regarding their potential focus on urban or rural territories. To do so, density of the territories will be used as a proxy.
Specificities of the US model
The US federal grants are attributed yearly by the Congress. As a consequence, ESTI may be vulnerable to political alignment differences. This aspect will be tested for the US, yet due to the structure and the procedures of EU Cohesion Policy, it will not be possible to conduct the same analysis at the EU level. The study will also question the resilience capacity of the American model in case of a negative shock, that is to say whether ESTI allocations are impacted by economic shocks. The monetary mass and the nature of investments will be tested. To do so, the potential effects of the economic crisis of 2008 on the American ESTI will be observed, as the US features yearly data. It will be compared to the consequences of the multiannual stable EU Cohesion Policy. In order to answer these research questions, the methodology features the elaboration of an original typology and ESTI database.
10
II. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
In order to answer the research questions, data regarding ESTI needed to be collected and processed. Indeed, no previous study on this subject was conducted in the past. As a consequence, it was necessary to develop a typology to separate ESTI from other expenditures. Then, available EU and US data could be compiled into a single database, that would allow an in-depth analysis. Therefore, this part includes the explanation of the elaboration of the typology and of the construction of the ESTI database. Firstly, the created typology will be exposed. In particular, the steps of its realisation, but also its content will be presented. Moreover, the application of the elaborated typology to the EU priorities and the US programmes is provided. Secondly, the methodological approach adopted to create the ESTI database is described in details. In particular, the data sources, the main features and assumptions of the ESTI database and the procedure of its production will be explained. Then, the limits induced by the methodology will be exposed in order to contextualise the findings of the study. Robustness checks carried out to test the validity of the ESTI database are also detailed in the appendix. These tests have been carried out from three perspectives: the aim was to prove the consistency from the internal, spatial and sectoral points of view.
1. TYPOLOGY ELABORATION
1.1 Typology design
The design of the elaborated typology has no precedent, as it had been elaborated to meet the needs of this specific comparative study. Since the EU is the point of reference, the typology has been derived from the EU priorities and, secondly, it has been modified to comply with the US programmes. The list of the EU 86 priorities has been extracted from the “EU Categorisation of Fund Assistance” (Commission Regulation No 1828/2006, 8/12/2008) 49. Every priority corresponds to a specific objective pursued by the different Cohesion Policy funds (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund). US programmes have been extracted from a database of US federal expenditures. A description is assigned to every US programme, allowing classification in the typology. This database is provided by the US Department of the Treasury50. Thus, this typology has been conceived to be applied both to the EU priorities and US programmes, as a tool for a common framework to classify expenditures considered as ESTI. The typology features 10 categories of level-1, coded from 1 to 10, which deal with different intervention domains. Excluded expenditures are coded by 0. To each level-1 category, some level-2 and level-3 sub-categories are related, the aim being to keep an acceptable level of detail.
49 50
Official Journal of the European Union, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006. US Department of the Treasury, ‘Federal Grants Databases’.
11
Table 1. ESTI typology. Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
1 Applied R&D and Innovation
11 R&D activities
110 R&D activities
12 R&D infrastructures
120 R&D infrastructures
13 Promotion of innovation in enterprises
130 Promotion of innovation in enterprises
14 Other R&D/innovation
140 Other R&D/innovation
21 Rail transport
210 Rail transport
22 Road transport
220 Road transport
23 Maritime transport and waterways
230 Maritime transport and waterways
24 Air transport
240 Air transport
25 Other transport/mixed
250 Other transport/mixed
3 ICT
31 ICT infrastructures
310 ICT infrastructures
4 Social Infrastructures
41 Education infrastructures
410 Education infrastructures
42 Health infrastructures
420 Health infrastructures
43 Housing infrastructures
430 Housing infrastructures
44 Other social infrastructures
440 Other social infrastructures
51 Education and training
510 Education and training
52 Support to employment access
520 Support to employment access
6 Enterprises Support
61 Aids to enterprises
610 Aids to enterprises
7 Natural Resources and Energy
71 Electricity (unspecified: generation, distribution, storage)
710 Electricity (unspecified: generation, distribution, storage)
72 Fossil energy
721 Gas
2 Transport
5 Human Capital
722 Petroleum 723 Mixed 73 Renewables
731 Wind 732 Solar 733 Biomass 12
734 Other 735 Mixed
8 Environment
74 Other sources of energy
740 Other sources of energy
75 Energy efficiency/conservation
750 Energy efficiency/conservation
81 Environmental quality and pollution control
811 Air 812 Water 813 Land 814 Waste 815 Integrated/mixed approach
9 Touristic and Cultural development
10 Territorial Development
82 Climate change action
820 Climate change action
83 Biodiversity/nature protection
830 Biodiversity/nature protection
84 Environmental risk prevention
840 Environmental risk prevention
91 Touristic development of the territory
910 Touristic development of the territory
92 Cultural development of the territory
920 Cultural development of the territory
101 Territorial regeneration
1010 Territorial regeneration
102 Aids to lagging territories
1020 Aids to lagging territories
Sources: CFDA, DG Empl, DG Regio, US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation Note: Level-3 with no additional precision is the same as level-2, e.g. 110 corresponds to 11.
The reasons for the exclusion of certain expenditures will be presented. Afterwards, some fields, which presented ambiguities, will be listed and the concerning choices justified. Finally, the detailed description of each level-1 category of the typology and of its content will be provided.
13
1.2 Excluded fields
Some expenditures have been excluded according to the following assertions. As the EU is the point of reference, the exclusion choices have been oriented according to the Cohesion Policy expenditures. It implies that domains related to fields covered by the typology, but not conducted by EU Cohesion Policy, will not be included in the study. Expenditures that cannot be considered as investments (e.g. benefits to individuals, wages, operational costs, expenditures for technical assistance) have not been taken into account.
1.3 Ambiguous fields
The selection of the US programmes has raised some ambiguities concerning the domains of rural development, forestry and fishery. As a matter of fact, in the EU these objectives are traditionally financed by Common Agricultural Policy (notably, through the corresponding EAFRD) and by Common Fisheries Policy. However, some US programmes targeting rural development are included in the study. The distinction is made according to the type of objective pursued and to the fund which finance it 51. Investments with objectives overlapping between the EAFRD and the ERDF/ESF are included. Objectives that could be part of the study, but that are only funded by EAFRD are automatically excluded because Cohesion Policy is the base of the selection decisions. For the domains of forestry and fishery, only the US programmes explicitly targeting objectives such as environmental and biodiversity protection have been included.
2. DETAILS FOR TYPOLOGY CATEGORIES
In order to have precise comprehension of the fields covered in the study, a description of each category of the typology is necessary. Categories are described according to their order in the typology.
2.1 Applied R&D and Innovation
In this category, only priorities and programmes that deal with applied research and development are included. For applied research, it means research that is tested and that pursues the utilisation of knowledge to bring innovation and economic development. Therefore, basic research, which aims at the comprehension of phenomena, is excluded.
51
‘Programme de Développement Rural Hexagonal’.
14
The domains which are not covered by the study are not included in the R&D category, e.g. Military R&D, Agriculture R&D, Fishery R&D and Forestry R&D. However, a clarification has to be made about Health R&D. The research in the field of health is included, when it is explicitly applied and it prompts innovative technologies and related businesses. This level-1 category features specific level-2 sub-categories about “R&D activities”, “R&D infrastructures” and “Promotion of innovation in enterprises” 52. The “other R&D/innovation” level-2 category includes the following fields: technology transfers and improvements in cooperation networks.
2.2 Transport
The “Transport” level-1 category includes a variety of transport investments, such as infrastructures and rolling stocks. The categorisation is sectoral, representing all the different types of transport53. The “Transport” level-1 category excludes measures which are explicitly aimed at transportation safety and safety promotion. The “Road transport” level-2 sub-category encapsulates road infrastructures (including bridges and tunnels). The “Rail transport” level-2 sub-category includes railways and subways construction, track, signalling systems, stations and other related infrastructures and rolling stock. The “Air transport” level-2 sub-category includes modernisation infrastructures and modernisation of air traffic control systems.
of
airport
The “Maritime transport and Waterways” level-2 sub-category includes port infrastructures, but also Sea and Coastal passenger and freight water and Inland passenger water transport. The “Other transport” level-2 sub-category includes multimodal transport, urban transport or cycle tracks, but also programmes related to transport efficiency. “Other transport” also allows to classify mixed transport expenditures, e.g. those financing multiple types of transportation. It should be considered during the interpretation of data.
2.3 Information and Communication Technologies
The level-1 category for ICT only encapsulates ICT infrastructures, as it is the only level2 sub-category included. This choice was operated on the basis of the consideration that ICT are a key priority for the EU, but the same does not appear so clearly for the US
52
53
European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Innovation and RTD Investments’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Rail’; European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Road’; European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Other Transport’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’.
15
programmes54. Other ICT-related expenditures are included in other level-1 categories, such as Human Capital and Enterprises Support.
2.4 Social infrastructures
The “Social infrastructures” level-1 category includes assets that accommodate social services, for instance medical facilities, schools, state or council housing. In particular, four level-2 sub-categories have been conceived: Education infrastructures, Health infrastructures, Housing infrastructures and Other social infrastructures 55. Concerning the “Education infrastructures” level-2 sub-category, it includes expenditures for the construction and renovation of education buildings, for the education-related equipment provision and for the investment for training centres. The “Health infrastructures” level-2 sub-category encapsulates the investments in building and restructuring hospitals and primary health centres, the development of multiple function infrastructure and the modernisation of equipment. The “Housing infrastructures” level-2 sub-category gathers measures related to social housing, or equivalent expenditures in the US. Any housing infrastructure which is not considered as social housing is excluded from the study, as well as housing subsidies or any kind of housing expenditures that can be considered as social benefits. The “Other social infrastructures” level-2 sub-category concerns investments related to the construction or renovation of buildings, such as community centres, migrant centres or community sport facilities.
2.5 Human capital
This notion covers the stock of knowledge, skills and abilities possessed by individuals in order to produce economic output. It was decided to classify investments within two level-2 sub-categories: “Education and training” and “Support to employment access” 56. The “Education and training” level-2 sub-category includes expenditures related to the improvement of quality and networks of higher education institutions, training programmes, university and professional training, assistance to the development of human potential in R&D (scholarships to postgraduate studies). Moreover, it contains measures to increase participation in education and training throughout the life-cycle, including actions to promote access to high quality vocational and tertiary education and training, measures to develop employability through education and training, support services to citizens, such as e-learning or e-inclusion. It excludes investments for preschool, primary and secondary education institutions, since EU Cohesion Policy does not fund these domains.
54
55
56
European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Information and Communication Technologies’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Social Inclusion and Social Infrastructure’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Human Capital’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’.
16
The “Support to employment access” level-2 sub-category encapsulates investments for training and services to foster the employees’ adaptability to change, measures to reduce discrimination and gender-based segregation in accessing the labour market.
2.6 Enterprises support
Only one level-2 sub-category corresponds to the level-1 category “Enterprises support”, namely “Aids to enterprises”. This arrangement was necessary to allow a single level-2 sub-category which is general enough to include the heterogeneous EU and US investments in this field57. As a matter of fact, many US programmes are related to the support to small and disadvantaged businesses, ethnic minorities’ and veterans’ enterprises. In the EU, priorities aiming at helping disadvantaged/discriminated groups generally have a human capital rather than a purely entrepreneurial dimension. Therefore, this category includes investments that aim at providing SMEs and large businesses with support services and applications, e.g. through improved use of ICT. It also involves measures to enhance the establishment of businesses owned by disadvantaged individuals.
2.7 Natural Resources and Energy
For the “Natural Resources and Energy” level-1 category, the choice was to elaborate a sectoral classification of expenditures, i.e. by energy source58. However, the “Electricity” level-2 sub-category was specifically conceived for expenditures encapsulating distribution, generation and storage of electricity without a specification of the precise source of energy involved. Concerning the other sub-categories, they gather the different investments in fossil sources and renewable sources, being more detailed at level-3. The “Other sources of energy” level-2 sub-category gathers measures related to coal and nuclear energy.
2.8 Environment
The “Environment” level-1 category is divided into four sub-categories. The priorities were similar in the EU and the US59. Regarding the “Environmental Quality and Pollution Control” level-2 sub-category, it includes expenditures with a sectoral distribution: every level-3 category corresponds
DG Regio, ‘Annex II: Categorisation of Funds Assistance for 2007-2013’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. 58 European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Energy’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. 59 European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Environment’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. 57
17
to investments in a different domain (“Air”, “Water”, “Land”, “Waste”), for instance sewage treatment stations for “Water”. The “Integrated/mixed approach” level-3 subcategory includes all the expenditures which combine a series of integrated actions in order to pursue the environmental quality of more than one of the previous elements at the same time. The “Climate change action” level-2 sub-category involves expenditures aimed at tackling and mitigating climate change. The “Biodiversity/nature protection” level-2 sub-category concerns the protection of natural areas, lakes, maritime areas and of the fauna. The “Environmental risk prevention” level-2 sub-category refers to funds allocated to risk prevention aimed at environmental goals. In particular, it refers to natural or industrial hazards that can endanger individuals and the environment. The definition of “prevention” is understood as any measure or infrastructure aiming at reducing the likelihood or consequences of a hazard. It can refer to construction work, prevention activities and renovation of dangerous infrastructures. Sanitary risks prevention such as epidemics are not included in this sub-category because they are considered as health issues, therefore not belonging to the field of the study.
2.9 Touristic and Cultural Development
The “Touristic and Cultural Development” level-1 category corresponds to two different level-2 sub-categories. This category is mainly based on the EU priorities, as it is almost an absent objective for the US60. The “Touristic development of the territory” level-2 sub-category includes physical investments for the promotion and development of the tourism sector, e.g. information centres or congress centres. It also aims at territorial marketing activities, such as promotional activities, networking, conferences, trade fairs. Expenditures that support private initiatives related to tourism are also included. It also includes the expenditures which pursue the valorisation of natural assets. The “Cultural development of the territory” level-2 sub-category encapsulates measures to improve cultural services and infrastructures. In particular, it deals with investments in the construction, extension or recovery of cultural infrastructures, such as museums, libraries, archives, theatres, concert halls.
2.10 Territorial Development
The “Territorial development” level-1 category includes two level-2 sub-categories61. The “Territorial regeneration” level-2 sub-category concerns territorial renovation. In particular, it encapsulates investments aimed at pursuing integrated renovation of
DG Regio, ‘Annex II: Categorisation of Funds Assistance for 2007-2013’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. 61 European Commission, ‘Cohesion Policy: Strategic Report 2013. Factsheet: Urban and Territorial Development’; OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. 60
18
neighbourhoods, urban renewals of city centres or urban areas, park revitalisation and regeneration of former industrial sites. The “Aids to lagging territories” level-2 sub-category targets specific aids to territories facing negative conditions. It includes integrated investments in deprived territories in order to pursue economic regeneration and growth through the deployment of combined measures in different fields, such as business support, construction and renovation of infrastructures, investments in cultural issues or integrated urban development plans.
3. TYPOLOGY APPLICATION
Once the typology was finished, it was possible to classify EU priorities and US programmes, in order to achieve a list of ESTI in both entities.
3.1 Classification of EU priorities and US programmes
See the Appendix for the typology applied to EU priorities and US programmes. From the list of the 86 EU priorities, some of them were excluded, since non relevant for the field of study. It is notably the case for expenditures in technical assistance. The extraction from the US database62 has given a long list of US programmes which had to be selected according to the comparison requirements. The selection of the pertinent US programmes has been carried out thanks to the consultation of the “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance”. It is a website which gathers the programmes’ detailed description (objectives, uses and use restrictions, eligibility requirements) 63. This selection of the US programmes has been carried out on the basis of certain choices, already mentioned in the previous paragraphs. In case a US programme contained different purposes that could be included in two or more different categories, it was decided to classify it according to the most relevant purpose. When a US programme at least partially involved a domain that is excluded from the field of study, it was not taken into account. At the end of the selection, 30% of the total number of initially extracted US programmes were relevant and considered as ESTI. Regarding the rest, every EU priority and US programme has been classified to the pertinent category of level-1 and sub-categories of level-2 and -3. In order to do so, the corresponding codes of the typology were associated to every priority or programme.
62 63
US Department of the Treasury, ‘Federal Grants Databases’. OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’.
19
3.2 Explicitly targeted territories
The selected US programmes have been classified in the database according to another variable, called “Explicitly targeted territories”. This criterion has been integrated in order to evaluate what part of the considered total expenditures are investments with a precise territorial target by policy design. This characteristic is automatic for EU priorities because all Cohesion Policy funds are territorially targeted per definition, as they are all encapsulated in territorialised Operational Programmes. It must be noted that the notion of “explicitly targeted territory” is distinct from the geolocalisation information available for an expenditure. Indeed, an expenditure can be traced geographically even if it does not explicitly target a territory by design. In order to determine if a US programme was to be considered explicitly territorially targeted, its description in the “Catalogue of Domestic Federal Assistance” was taken into account. If the description precisely indicated the name of the targeted territory, at any scale, the programme was included in this category. In particular, it related to programmes addressed to natural parks with a specifically enounced name, to precisely named places (e.g. Alaska city of Juneau), to territories affected by enounced natural disasters (e.g. Katrina) and to specifically enounced public institutions (e.g. University of Washington, Gallaudet Institute). However, programmes which referred to a “type” of territory (e.g. rural territory/Indian lands…) were not considered as explicitly territorially targeted because too imprecise. Moreover, programmes targeting a minority were not included in this category, since they addressed individuals rather than territories per se (e.g. Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities). Few US programmes explicitly target territories, however geolocalisation information for US ESTI is widely available because of the high quality of US data. With the typology done and applied to EU and US expenditures, the creation of a database for ESTI is possible.
4. ESTI DATABASE DEVELOPMENT
In order to test the research questions of the study, the construction of an ad hoc database was required. Indeed, no database encapsulating the required expenditures was available prior to this analysis. The created database features all the expenditures matching the study criteria, both in the EU and the US, i.e. investments which would be covered by EU Cohesion Policy whose amounts are transferred from the EU/US Federal State to lower levels of government during the 2007-2013 period (ESTI). The elaborated typology and its application to the EU and US expenditures allow the realisation of a comprehensive database. The developed methodology is exposed in details in order to ensure reproducibility of the study results.
20
4.1 Data sources
One of the first steps to realise the ESTI database for the study was to spot the original EU and US databases that could provide the relevant information. The extent and the quality of the available data was then to be assessed in order to ensure the validity of the created database. More information regarding the source databases is summarised in the following table.
Table 2. Presentation of data sources.
Data sources
EU
US
The data sources are provided by the DGs involved in EU Cohesion Policy (DG Regio and DG Empl)64.
The data source is the US Department of the Treasury, on USAspending.gov65. The download centre of the website allowed the extraction of all federal grants to State and Local governments (as prime recipients), for all funding Agencies. Fiscal years from 2006 to 2013 were downloaded, in order to compile the allocation dates ranging from 01/01/2007 to 31/12/2013.
For the ERDF and the CF, the data source is the “Database of the cumulative allocations to selected projects and expenditure at NUTS2”. For the ESF, the data source is provided by the DG Empl but only at the Member States level. Type of data
The data is provided in allocated amounts. It is expressed in millions of euros, as current prices. Yearly transactions are not available, as the database is only cumulative (2007-2013 total allocations).
The data is provided in federal obligations amounts. It is expressed in US dollars, as current prices. Yearly transactions are available, as each individual transfer from the Federal government is recorded in the database.
The data is sorted by the 86 EU priorities.
The data is sorted by US programmes, codified in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA). The data also includes decommissions of funds, but in relatively small proportions (6% of the value of relevant allocations during the 2007-2013 period)66.
64
65 66
DG Regio, ‘Database of the Cumulative Allocations to Selected Projects and Expenditure at NUTS2’; DG Empl, ‘Database of ESF Allocations 2007-2013’. US Department of the Treasury, ‘Federal Grants Databases’. Ibid.
21
Data quality
Every transaction in the source database is geolocalised (at the NUTS 2 or Member State level). Data quality was checked by national experts and the European Commission, notably by using comparisons between their respective sources67.
Some transactions are not geolocalised, but they represent less than 1% of allocated funds during the 2007-2013 period. According to the US Federal government, 97.7% of transactions recorded during the 2009-2014 period are complete and 94.97% are accurate. The methodology for these statistics is the comparison of recorded amounts in the database and contracts amounts possessed by the Federal government. Primary source of error is thought to be user input68.
Sources: DG Empl, DG Regio, US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
Thanks to these databases that feature an acceptable quality level, it is possible to design the ESTI database for this study.
4.2 Design and assumptions
In order to challenge the research questions of the study, the database must include several elements. The goal of the database is to present all the relevant expenditures (ESTI), sorted out by period, place, and typology categories. Other important information to be included is the fact that expenditures can explicitly target a specific territory, the recipient type and the funding source. Obviously, the available data from the original databases represents a constraint for the possibilities of the study database. So the design of the database is conceived accordingly. More precisely, the ESTI database is designed to include the variables exposed in the following table.
67
68
European Commission, ‘Geography of Expenditure. Final Report Work Package 13. Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2007-2013, Focusing on the European Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)’. US Department of the Treasury, ‘Federal Government Procurement Data Quality Summary. Fiscal Year 2014. For Agency Data in the Federal Procurement Data System’.
22
Table 3. List of variables in the ESTI database. Variable
Description
ent
This variable specifies the entity where the expenditures occur (EU or US).
ter_1
This variable specifies the highest available level of government where the expenditures occur. It corresponds to the Member States for the EU and the US States for the US.
ter_2
This variable specifies the lower available place where the expenditures occur. It is only relevant for the EU (NUTS 2 regions, 2006 definition).
time
This variable indicates the time period of the expenditures. It corresponds to allocation dates during the 2007-2013 period. For the US, yearly data is available, while for the EU the data is only available for the entire period.
exp_tar
This variable indicates whether the territory where the selected expenditures occur is explicitly targeted by the policy. By definition, it is always the case for EU Cohesion Policy, as Operational Programmes always focus on a territory. For the US, an expenditure is considered explicitly targeted if the federal grant describes a specific location.
lvl_1
This variable refers to the typology of expenditures. The level-1 is the most aggregated level. Each category is represented by a code from 1 to 10.
lvl_2
This variable refers to the typology of expenditures. A level-2 category is a subpart of a level-1 category. The first number of the code is the parent level-1 category. A specific digit is then added to form the level-2 code.
lvl_3
This variable refers to the typology of expenditures. The level-3 is the most detailed scale of the typology. Each level-3 category is represented by a level-2 code to which a specific single digit number is added. Some categories do not have any detailed level-3 category, so a “0” is juxtaposed after the level-2 code.
fund_x
This variable indicates if the selected expenditure is at least partially funded by "x". "x" is declined for each possible funding source. The possible values are “Yes” if fund “x” is involved or “No” otherwise.
fund_all
This variable specifies the list of all funding sources financing the considered expenditures. It aggregates the relevant information of all previous "fund_x". It provides no information on the relative share of each funding source.
typ_x
This variable indicates if the relevant allocation from the EU/US Federal State is given to a specific type of government. "x" is declined to adapt to the different contexts.
typ_all
This variable provides the full list of government types that receive parts of the relevant allocation from the higher level of government.
cml_am
This variable represents the cumulative allocation of funds granted by the EU/US Federal government for this territory and typology category during the 2007-2013 period. It is expressed in millions of the local currency. It is used to compute shares and ratios.
23
yrl_am
This variable represents the yearly allocation of funds granted by the EU/US Federal government for this territory and typology category during the 2007-2013 period. It is an average of the cumulative allocation, except in the US States yearly tab, where it refers to the actual yearly allocation. It is expressed in millions of the local currency. It is used to compute shares and ratios.
cml_am_c o
It corresponds to the cml_am variable, converted to millions of euros. It is only relevant for the US. Its aim is to provide a rough estimate and not to be a precise sum. It is not used to compute the following shares.
yrl_am_co
It corresponds to the yrl_am variable, converted to millions of euros. It is only relevant for the US. Its aim is to provide a rough estimate and not to be a precise sum. It is not used to compute the following shares.
sh_gdp
This variable shows in percentage the average yearly allocation for a transaction (yrl_am), compared to the average yearly GDP of the EU27/US.
sh_yte
It represents the share of the average yearly allocation (yrl_am) compared to the total yearly expenditures considered in this study.
sh_locgdp
It represents the share of the average yearly allocation (yrl_am) compared to the average GDP of the territory (NUTS 2, Member State or US State) that benefits from the allocation, during the 2007-2013 period.
Sources: DG Regio, DG Empl, US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation.
Several methodological choices must be made to ensure the creation of the database:
Period and type of amounts
Firstly, the database features the allocated expenditures. The EU databases provide also the actual expenditures. However, this information is not available for the US. As a consequence, a way to ensure comparability is to focus on allocation dates during the 2007-2013 period. For the US, it implies to select only transactions with obligation dates ranging from 01/01/2007 to 31/12/2013. Moreover, the focus on allocations allows to consider only the policy mechanisms and not the capacities of lower levels of government to actually consume the granted resources.
Territorial extension
Secondly, the territorial framework of the database must be exposed. For the EU, it was decided to exclude Croatia for the study for two main reasons: because of its recent accession to the Member State status and because of the corollary 24
low rate of EU Cohesion funds absorption69. Other NUTS 2, including the outermost regions, and Member States are considered in the database. A critical assumption for the geolocalisation of expenditures was to assign crossborder programmes to their administrative region. For the US, the 50 US States, the District of Columbia and the main US overseas territories are included. However, associated States, such as Palau, are not selected because of their specific relationship with the Federal government.
Currency
Considering the allocated amounts, they are standardised in millions of the local currencies. Then, shares, notably of GDP, can be computed in order to ensure easier comparisons without facing conversion issues.
4.3 Procedure
The procedure for the realisation of the ESTI database is declined to adapt to EU or US particularities. However, the underlying principles are the same. Once the quality and the validity of the original databases checked, the original EU priorities and US programmes are recoded using the elaborated typology. As a consequence, they are presented with the same classification system. The selected expenditures are then aggregated by place and typology category. Finally, the selected expenditures are unified into a single database.
4.3.1 EU data
Two levels are available for the EU: NUTS 2 regions (without the ESF) and Member States (with the ESF).
4.3.1.1 EU NUTS 2
For the EU, the initial database is available at the NUTS 2 level for the ERDF and the CF. This level allows to consider regions for their characteristics beyond political borders, as NUTS regions are statistical units. ESF allocations are not available at the NUTS 2 level. Given the methodology of realisation of the source database, no missing value is detected. Also, there is no apparent aberrant value, with the largest transfer representing less than 0.01% of EU27 GDP.
69
Katsarova, ‘The (Low) Absorption of EU Structural Funds’; DG Regio, ‘Cohesion Policy Data - Total Percentage of Available Funds Paid Out by the Commission 2007-2013’.
25
First, a column for each variable is created. Then, the expenditures are coded by category level using the typology. It allows the expenditures to be sorted out by typology category. There is no expenditure which is not covered by the typology. There are 40 categories in the typology: thus, 40 corresponding lines are created for each NUTS 2. Then, conditional sums are computed in order to assign all expenditures corresponding to a NUTS 2 – level-3 category pair. Once this classification done, Croatia (HR) and the excluded expenditures (category code 0) are dropped out. The total allocated amount (without Croatia and 0s) is EUR 295,957 million. The excluded expenditures are extracted in a specific file. They represent 2% of the expenditures matching formal criteria (place, date, Cohesion Policy mechanisms) but belonging to the 0 category. Then, it is straightforward to compute the yearly average, i.e. the cumulative allocation divided by seven. Using array formulas, the funding source can be detected (ERDF, CF, ERDF+CF), for all NUTS 2 – level-3 category pairs. Other information is given by definition of Cohesion Policy (the recipient is always a Member State and each territory is explicitly targeted by its corresponding Operational Programme).
4.3.1.2 EU Member States
Once the information is compiled at the EU NUTS 2 level, it becomes possible to aggregate it at the Member State level. In this case, the addition of the ESF, which is only geolocalised at the Member State level, is possible. The ESF database is also completely geolocalised and with no apparent aberrant amounts. The largest transaction represents 0.03% of EU27 GDP. The expenditures are coded by category level using the elaborated typology. There is no expenditure which is not covered by the typology. The previous NUTS 2 ERDF and CF source database is then fused with the ESF database. A line is created for each pair Member State – level-3 category. As a consequence, it is possible to compute a conditional sum for each line, including both the ERDF/CF and the ESF. Once this classification done, Croatia (HR) and the excluded expenditures (which belong to the category code 0) are dropped out. The total allocated amount (without Croatia and 0s) is EUR 369,384 million. The excluded expenditures are extracted in a specific file. They represent 3% of the expenditures matching formal criteria (place, date, Cohesion Policy mechanisms). Then, it is straightforward to compute the yearly average, i.e. the cumulative allocation divided by 7. Using array formulas, the funding source can be detected (ERDF, CF, ERDF+CF, ESF), for all Member State – level-3 category pairs. Other information is given by definition of Cohesion Policy (the recipient is always a Member State and each territory is explicitly targeted by its corresponding Operational Programme). After these steps, the EU data is ready to be included in a unified database.
26
4.3.2 US data
The US data provides detailed information on individual transactions from the Federal government to lower levels of government. It should be noted that the US expenditures are extracted independently of the GDP per capita of the beneficiary territory. Thus, results should be interpreted with extreme caution. It is justified by the fact that there is no policy mechanism connecting ESTI allocations to GDP per capita in the US. Data is extracted by fiscal year. For convenience and consistency reasons, the first step is to regroup the data by actual obligation date, which corresponds to an allocation date (decision by the relevant Federal Agency). Thus, seven new files are created, one for each year. The data is processed for each year, using the same method. Obligation dates are checked to ensure that no expenditure outside the time period is selected. All the considered obligations dates are in the 2007-2013 range. The expenditures are coded by category level using the elaborated typology. The amounts, which are considered for the study, are the obligated federal amounts. Errors in places are checked, i.e. the state_recipient_code with null or meaningless values. Errors in recipient type are also checked, i.e. recipient_type with null or meaningless values. The spotted errors are reported in the following table.
Table 4. Data errors (expenditures missing place and/or recipient) in the US federal grants database. Year
Place error
Recipient error
2007
2,363 transactions, mostly outside the US (representing USD 3,051,912,655, that is to say 0.7% of selected 2007 grants)
127 transactions (all classified as “other” in the recipient category type and representing USD 58,045,675, that is to say 0.01% of selected 2007 grants)
2008
2,686 transactions, mostly outside the US (representing USD 3,937,255,601, that is to say 0.9% of selected grants)
109 transactions (all classified as “other” in the recipient category type and representing USD 130,860,604, that is to say 0.03% of selected grants)
2009
7,332 transactions, mostly outside the US (representing USD 4,590,876,732, that is to say 0.7% of selected grants)
99 transactions (all classified as “other” in the recipient category type and representing USD 13,179,807, that is to say 0.002% of selected grants)
2010
8,868 transactions, mostly outside the US (representing USD 4,735,602,745, that is to say 0.7% of selected grants)
No recipient type error for 2010.
27
2011
6,497 transactions, mostly outside the US (representing USD 5,257,948,061, that is to say 0.9% of selected grants)
No recipient type error for 2011.
2012
6,475 transactions, mostly outside the US (representing USD 5,142,454,155, that is to say 1% of selected grants)
No recipient type error for 2012.
2013
6,975 transactions, mostly outside the US (representing USD 5,292,410,925, that is to say 0.9% of selected grants)
No recipient type error for 2013.
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
The previous errors are of limited scope, therefore it is possible to drop them without major consequence. Relevant places (US States, DC and territories) and recipient types (State government, County government, City or township government and Special district government) are kept, while the others are dropped. In doing so, the only remaining expenditures are matching formal criteria (amounts transferred from the Federal level to State and local governments located in the selected places during the 2007-2013 period). Then, the remaining transactions are checked to ensure that they all feature a typology code. In case of missing typology code (meaning that the relevant expenditures lack a CFDA description), there is a typology error. The spotted errors are included in the following table.
28
Table 5. Data errors (expenditures not classified in the typology) in the US federal grants database. Year
Typology error
2007
9 transactions without a typology code. They only refer to rural development and they represent USD -1,716,449 (only decommissions, 0.001% of the selected expenditures)
2008
6 transactions without a typology code. They only refer to rural development and they represent USD -919,836 (only decommissions, 0.0003% of the selected expenditures)
2009
52 transactions without a typology code. They mainly refer to rural development/agriculture issues and they represent USD 34,694,128 (0.005% of the selected expenditures)
2010
70 transactions without a typology code. They mainly refer to rural development/agriculture/housing issues and they represent USD 101,642,150 (0.02% of the selected expenditures)
2011
70 transactions without a typology code. They mainly refer to rural development/agriculture/administrative/early education issues and they represent USD 464,237,144 (0.1% of the selected expenditures)
2012
106 transactions without a typology code. They mainly refer to rural development/agriculture/early education issues and they represent USD 212,751,369 (0.05% of the selected expenditures)
2013
973 transactions without a typology code. They mainly refer to rural development/agriculture/health issues and they represent USD 19,176,461,216 (4% of the selected expenditures)
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
So overall, expenditures which are not covered by the typology represent limited amounts, even if it is possible to note a rising tendency across the years. However, they are mostly focused on the excluded expenditures, notably health or agriculture. Therefore, these typology errors can be safely excluded. Then, the share of decommissions or cancellation (negative amounts) compared to the allocations (positive amounts) must be computed. If this share is relatively small, the negative amounts can be excluded without major consequence. As a matter of fact, these decommissions or cancellations are adjustments of allocations decided during the previous periods, so they are not considered a key element of the study. The share of negative amounts compared to positive amounts is presented in the following table.
29
Table 6. Decommissions of funds as share of allocations of funds in the US database. Year
Negative amounts (decommissions, adjustments) as share of positive amounts (allocations)
2007
1%
2008
6%
2009
5%
2010
6%
2011
8%
2012
9%
2013
7%
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
To sum up, negative amounts represent a relatively small share of positive ones, so they can be excluded. The rising trend can be explained by the intensive allocations that occurred to deal with the 2008 crisis. Thus, at this point, the data for each year includes the selected places and recipients, and it includes only the positive federal obligated amounts that are coded according to the typology. The next step is to extract the excluded expenditures (0 codes). They are regrouped in a specific file, which is also available (Excluded expenditures.xlsx). For the US, the excluded expenditures represent a very large share of the expenditures matching formal criteria (place, date, recipient, mechanisms). It can be explained by the weight of healthcare and other social expenditures. The share of excluded expenditures is summarised in the following table.
30
Table 7. Share of excluded expenditures in all federal grants matching formal criteria. Year
Share of excluded expenditures in all federal grants matching formal criteria
2007
60%
2008
81%
2009
78%
2010
79%
2011
83%
2012
81%
2013
81%
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
Overall, 79% of the potential expenditures are excluded because they are not matching content criteria. It is mainly social and healthcare expenditures. Once this process done, the data is aggregated to create the yearly and cumulative databases.
4.3.2.1 Yearly US database
The yearly files are fused into a single one, which, consequently, features all the considered transactions. Checks are conducted to spot potential errors. Internal consistency (date, place, recipient, typology codes) is conserved. The considered amounts are compared to the US GDP to spot discrepancies. The share fluctuates between 0% and 0.015% of the GDP. The unique transaction identification number provided by the US database is checked to ensure that some transactions are not shown multiple times. The test revealed that it is not the case. Thus, the database can be realised. There are 40 categories in the typology and 7 years in the period, so 40 x 7 = 280 corresponding lines are created for each US territory. Then, conditional sums are computed in order to assign all expenditures corresponding to a US territory – level-3 category – year combination. These conditional sums are divided by 1.000.000 to show amounts in millions of dollars. A special column is created to convert roughly these amounts in millions of euros. The used exchange rates are presented in the following table.
31
Table 8. Average EUR/USD exchange rates during the 2007-2013 period. Year
Yearly average value of one dollar in euros
2007
0.730785
2008
0.683075
2009
0.719039
2010
0.754908
2011
0.718836
2012
0.778296
2013
0.753045
Sources: USFOREX, Authors’ calculation
Using array formulas, it is possible to detect the funding source, the recipient type and the explicit target of territories. For the funding sources, 31 agencies are detected (maj_agency_cat). But some funding sources are different just because of spelling differences, e.g. “EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF” and “Department of Education”. So these identical funding sources must be fused. Moreover, no name of agency is provided for the “397,791667” code, but it corresponds to the Delta Regional Authority, as shown by the agency description variable. The total number of funding sources (Federal Agencies) is finally 23.
4.3.2.2 Unified 2007-2013 US database
Using the yearly database, it is possible to realise a cumulative database on the 20072013 period for the US. The method is exactly the same. Differences include the existence of a cumulative amount column, which features the total allocated amounts during the 2007-2013 period. Therefore, the yearly amount column represents an average in this case.
4.3.3 Finalised ESTI database
Finally, all the realised databases are fused into a single ESTI database. The presentation is unified to ensure consistency. Moreover, some columns are created to present shares of GDP and of budget, in order to ensure comparability between the different entities. 32
The GDP of the EU27 is provided by Eurostat70. Table 9. Average EU27 GDP during the 2007-2013 period. Year
GDP (EUR million)
2007
EUR 12,870,706 million
2008
EUR 12,946,850 million
2009
EUR 12,209,706 million
2010
EUR 12,748,536 million
2011
EUR 13,134,782 million
2012
EUR 13,387,823 million
2013
EUR 13,504,649 million
2007-2013 average
EUR 12,971,864 million
Source: Eurostat, Authors’ calculation
The GDP of the US is provided by the BEA71. Table 10. Average US GDP during the 2007-2013 period. Year
GDP (USD million)
2007
USD 14,477,600 million
2008
USD 14,718,600 million
2009
USD 14,418,700 million
2010
USD 14,964,400 million
2011
USD 15,517,900 million
2012
USD 16,155,300 million
2013
USD 16,663,200 million
2007-2013 average
USD 15,273,671 million
Source: BEA, Authors’ calculation
70 71
Eurostat, ‘GDP and Main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income)’. US Department of Commerce, ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’.
33
The total budget of the study is the sum of all ESTI. It allows the study of repartition of ESTI within each entity. For the EU27, it is different between the NUTS2 and the Member States, because of the data availability of the ESF.
Table 11. ESTI budget in the EU during the 2007-2013 period. ESTI budget (NUTS 2) – excluding the ESF
ESTI budget (EU Member States) – including the ESF
EUR 295,957 million (cumulative)
EUR 369,384 million (cumulative)
EUR 42,280 million (yearly average)
EUR 52,769 million (yearly average)
Sources: DG Regio, DG Empl, Authors’ calculation
For the US, the total ESTI budget is available by year.
Table 12. ESTI budget in the US during the 2007-2013 period. Year
ESTI budget (US States)
2007
USD 73,162 million
2008
USD 74,014 million
2009
USD 139,236 million
2010
USD 121,084 million
2011
USD 88,792 million
2012
USD 88,896 million
2013
USD 93,320 million
2007-2013
USD 678,505 million (cumulative) USD 96,929 million (yearly average)
Source: BEA, Authors’ calculation
34
The GDP of NUTS 2, Member States and US States are also used to compute a specific ratio72. Despite all the precautions taken in order to establish the database, some methodological limits remain. They will be exposed in the next section.
5. LIMITS OF THE STUDY
The aim of the methodology, through all the dispositions presented before, is to reduce the potential biases. However, some limits should be considered and taken into account even though they do not contravene the coherence of the results. Limits can be of two kinds. Firstly, they are linked to the differences between the EU and the US. Then, they are related to the technical choices made for this study.
5.1 Limits of the comparability
5.1.1 ESTI definition
The comparability of the two entities is the main constraint of the study. Each choice and methodological selection is the result of a will to take into account this constraint. Indeed, the comparison between these two different entities inevitably contains some limits, which mainly concern the equivalency and the comparability of the two models. The study aims at comparing the ESTI in the EU and in the US. The issue is to find the equivalent nature of these investments in the two models. However, because of their institutional differences, some choices remain open to debate. ESTI for the EU correspond by definition to the investments funded by Cohesion Policy in 2007-2013. In the US, there is no overarching structure supporting ESTI, nor institutionalised regional policy73. De facto, ESTI are diluted among the federal grants. It inevitably leads to a selection of US programmes corresponding to priorities funded by Cohesion Policy. However, the main limit which can be highlighted for this study is that some US ESTI could have been conducted by other EU policies than EU Cohesion policy. It is related to the fact that EU Cohesion Policy mainly targets the less developed regions74, while the US does not have this mechanism, thus making it impossible to unselect US investments that would have been conducted outside Cohesion Policy in the EU. Even if it concerns a small share of the programmes, this has to be taken into consideration. Indeed, it could change the scope of the budget of the two models and refine the conclusions of the study. It must also be noted that EU Cohesion Policy dedicates 16% of its budget during the 2007-2013 period to the more developed regions through the regional competitiveness and employment objective75. This limit is mainly linked to an overall reflection on the definition of ESTI. The scope of this research focuses on the investments made by Cohesion Policy, whereas others EU
72 73 74 75
US Department of Commerce, ‘Regional Data. GDP & Personal Income’. OECD, Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries. EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. Ibid.
35
policies also tackle Economic, Social, and Territorial development and affect territories in these fields. For instance, Common Agricultural Policy, representing EUR 58 billion 76, is not integrated in the study. Some investments of the CAP targeting the Economic, Social and Environmental development in the countryside and mainly its programmes for rural development could have been considered. Moreover, the exclusion of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), representing EUR 4.3 billion 77 in the EU budget during the 2007-2013 period, is also questionable. Thus, future studies may take a more holistic approach and consider other EU policies to perfectly match the US model. Thus, the limits linked to ESTI definition primarily stem from the fact that there is no overarching and institutionalised regional policy in the US.
5.1.2 Level of development threshold
EU Cohesion policy allocations take into account the differences of GDP PPP per capita between territories by favouring the less developed regions78. However, this variable has not been considered for the extraction of the expenditures targeting US States because such mechanism does not exist in the US model. Thus, US ESTI have been selected independently of the GDP PPP per capita of US territories. This element has to be considered because it creates a bias for the comparison of the two entities. Indeed, the US ESTI are not the pure equivalent of a regional policy, because these investments also target very developed regions.
5.2 Limits related to technical choices
The elaborated methodology has been built to limit as much as possible the different biases which could occur. However, some technical choices of the methodology have to be highlighted in order to reveal the hypothetical distortions that they could create.
5.2.1 Specificity of the temporal framework
Firstly, the period of the study is likely to impact its conclusions. Indeed, these presented conclusions are based on the 2007-2013 period. However, this period is impacted by important particularities. Indeed, US ESTI allocations for 2007-2013 have been used by the US Federal State to tackle the recession of 2008. For that reason, ESTI in 2009 doubled because of the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), impulsed by the Federal government79. This large stimulus package has increased the share of investments dedicated to Economic, Social and Territorial Development and can be seen as a distortion for the EU/US budgetary comparison. Moreover, rationales and
76 77
78 79
European Commission, ‘EU Agriculture Spending Focused on Results’. European Commission, ‘Fonds Européen Pour La Pêche (FEP) (2007-2013) - Pêche - Commission Européenne’. Osterloh, ‘The Fiscal Consequences of EU Cohesion Policy after 2013’. CBO, ‘Federal Investment’.
36
territorialisation of the investments impulsed under the Stimulus Package might differ from the previous ESTI and from other investments 80. Especially, territorial targeting of US ESTI might be altered by the stimulus package. Infrastructures are also likely to be overrepresented due to the stimulus package. Thus, appreciations of the results presented by the study need to take into account the effect of this stimulus package as a particular element of the given period that could represent a bias for the comparison.
5.2.2 Allocated expenditures
The adopted methodological choices imply the selection of allocated expenditures and not of the actual expenditures. Indeed, actual expenditures are not available for the US programmes. Thus, to ensure comparability, the programmes selection focuses on transactions ranging from 01/01/2007 to 31/12/2013. However, this choice does not encapsulate the capacity of lower levels of government to actually consume the granted resources. In the EU, allocated expenditures are usually a good proxy for actual expenditures, as absorption rates tend to be high 81. However, it can be problematic for areas with lower absorption rates, such as Greece. Absorption rates are also not directly available for US States. Future studies may attempt to develop a methodology to estimate them.
5.2.3 Comparison scale
Furthermore, the appreciation of the conclusions advanced by the study has to take into account the different scale effects which could occur. The level of precision of the territories targeted by ESTI in the US is not fully optimal. The lack of precise data of acceptable quality has impeded the study to consider US territories below the US States level. This can lead to a distortion of geographical effects for the US. A study at the Counties scale would have been more representative of the reality of the geographical distribution, mainly because of the large disparities coexisting within each State. For instance, California concentrates the richest metropolitan areas but also some of the least developed82. Thus, the results should be interpreted considering the territorial limits induced and it should pave the way for conducting more small-scale studies. Thus, the limits presented in this section do not contravene the coherence of this study. They have to be considered as keys to understand the conclusions and they should help to appreciate the comparison in a larger perspective. This first comparative study paves the way for additional in-depth analysis in the future. Robustness checks confirming the consistency of the ESTI database are exposed in the appendix. Using the developed database, the comparative analysis can be conducted.
80
81
82
Feyrer and Sacerdote, ‘Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’. DG Regio, ‘Cohesion Policy Data - Total Percentage of Available Funds Paid Out by the Commission 20072013’. US Department of Commerce, ‘ECONOMIC GROWTH WIDESPREAD ACROSS METROPOLITAN AREAS IN 2014’.
37
III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EU/US ESTI
The ESTI database is a key tool to conduct the comparative analysis of ESTI allocations between the EU and the US. This analysis will be performed by studying the scope of the ESTI budget, its sectoral and geographical distribution and finally by answering the research questions.
1. PRESENTATION OF THE ESTI DATABASE
The developed database of the Economic Social and Territorial Investments (ESTI) of the EU and the US during the 2007-2013 period is the main outcome of the study. It constitutes a useful tool for the comparison between EU and US ESTI allocations, thanks to its various features and the quality of its data. The goal of the database is to present all the relevant expenditures (ESTI), sorted out by period, place, and typology categories. For clarity reasons and to ease the use of the ESTI database, a dictionary for the variables is included, as well as a tab presenting the elaborated typology. The database features three territorial scales: it presents two tabs for the EU, respectively relative to EU NUTS 2 regions, which contains data compiled at the NUTS 2 level not including ESF funds, and to EU Member States, which features data compiled at the Member States scale and includes ESF funds. For the US, the database also provides two tabs. One is dedicated to the average ESTI allocations during the 20072013 period, while the other provides the actual yearly allocations. For each territorial scale, this database provides information about the concerned entity (EU or US), the affected EU/US State or NUTS 2 region, the considered time frame, the explicit territorial target - if present -, the classification of allocations according to the typology, the funding source, the recipient type and the allocated amounts in millions of the local currency (EUR or USD). Moreover, the ESTI database ensures an easier comparability between the allocated amounts in the EU and in the US through computed shares of ESTI in the EU/US GDP. In particular, the “sh_gdp” variable shows in percentage the average yearly allocated amounts compared to the average yearly GDP of the EU27 and the US. The “sh_locgdp” variable represents the share of average yearly allocated amounts compared to the average yearly GDP of the considered territory (NUTS 2 region, EU Member State, US State) that benefits from the allocation during the 2007-2013 period. Another useful variable, included in the database, is “sh_yte”, which represents the share of the average yearly allocations compared to the total yearly ESTI budget of the EU/US. These computed shares allow to avoid conversion issues whilst the comparison and provide the analysis with different potential perspectives. In the following sections, the main facts about the average yearly ESTI allocations derived from the database will be presented. Summarised tables can be found in the appendix.
38
1.1 EU database (NUTS 2 regions and Member States)
In table 7 of the Appendix, average yearly amounts of ESTI allocations are presented according to the corresponding NUTS 2 region and level-1 category of the elaborated typology. From the observation of this table, it is possible to describe the main features of the distribution of ESTI allocations. Firstly, the NUTS 2 regions which received the largest average yearly ESTI allocations during the 2007-2013 period are located in Spain, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Lithuania, Hungary and Greece. The same information is confirmed in table 8 of the Appendix relative to EU Member States, where the top receivers appear to be, in decreasing order, Poland, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Greece, Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Romania and France. The discrepancies among the classification of the top receivers can be explained by the absence of data relative to the ESF at the NUTS 2 region scale and by the fact that calculations refer to single NUTS 2 regions in one case and whole Member States in the other case. This spatial distribution is explained by the design of EU Cohesion Policy during the 2007-2013 period: the most affected regions and Member States by ESTI allocations are the ones who responded to the “Convergence” objective, which gathered the majority of the financial resources 83. The average yearly ESTI allocation for NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period reaches EUR 156 million, with a high standard deviation of EUR 234 million. It confirms the high concentration of resources produced by EU Cohesion Policy. If the third-quartile is computed, it appears that the at least 75% of the considered NUTS 2 regions receive less than EUR 223 million. The maximum average yearly ESTI allocation is EUR 1,464 million (Andalusia). This corresponds to Cohesion Policy design, which leads to a focus on Eastern and Southern Europe. These observations are confirmed by the data presented per EU Member States: each Member State receives an average yearly ESTI allocation of EUR 1,954 million, with a standard deviation of EUR 2,336 million. If a closer look on the level-1 categories is taken, it is possible to observe the amounts of ESTI allocations per category and per NUTS 2 region or Member State. For example, among EU Member States, the top receivers by level-1 category are: Poland for “Applied R&D and Innovation”, “Transport”, “Support to Enterprises”, “Natural Resources and Energy”, “Territorial Development”; Italy for “ICT”; Portugal for “Social Infrastructures”; Germany for “Human Capital”; Spain for “Environment” and Greece for “Touristic and Cultural Development”. The level-1 categories which present the highest variability of allocated amounts among EU Member States are “Natural Resources and Energy” (with a standard deviation of EUR 557 million), “Human Capital” (with a standard deviation of EUR 498 million), “Transport” (with a standard deviation of EUR 363 million) and “Applied R&D and Innovation” (with a standard deviation of EUR 363 million). The other level-1 categories present a relatively more homogeneous distribution of ESTI among EU Member States, with standard deviations ranging from EUR 104 million for “ICT” to EUR 198 million for “Environment”.
83
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. 39
1.2 US database (US States)
In table 9 of the Appendix, average yearly amounts of ESTI allocations are presented according to the corresponding US State and level-1 category of the elaborated typology. From the observation of this table, it is possible to describe the main features of the distribution of ESTI allocations among US States. The top four beneficiary US States of total ESTI allocations are, by decreasing order, California, Texas, New York and Florida. Because of the lack of data, it is impossible to provide information at a more detailed level for the US. The average yearly ESTI allocation of US States is USD 1,701 million during the 20072013 period, with a standard deviation of USD 1,739 million. 75% of US States receive an average yearly ESTI allocation that accounted for less than USD 2,113 million during the 2007-2013 period. The largest average yearly ESTI allocation during the 2007-2013 period reaches USD 9,210 million (California). However, it must be recalled that the population differ widely among US States, thus partially explaining these differences. If a closer look is taken at level-1 categories, top receivers appear to be the following: California for “Applied R&D and Innovation”, “Transport”, “Human Capital”, “Natural Resources and Energy”, “Environment”; Colorado for “ICT”; New York for “Social Infrastructures”; Ohio for “Enterprises Support”; Nevada for “Touristic and Cultural Development” and Louisiana for “Territorial Development”. Looking at the single level-1 categories for the US, “Enterprises Support” presents a standard deviation of USD 1 million, “ICT” of USD 7 million, “Touristic and Cultural Development” of USD 10 million. These categories therefore imply a very small variations of allocations between territories. However, it should be noted that the amounts are very small for them, partially explaining this situation. On the contrary, a remarkable exception is “Transport”, with a high standard deviation of USD 1,155 million. It probably stems from population differences. It is also interesting to note that “Territorial Development” presents a standard deviation of USD 295 million, the second highest after “Transport”. This may suggest that the ESTI belonging to this level-1 category are more likely to impact specific territories in difficulty. This hypothesis will be refined in the analysis. Furthermore, as it possible to see in table 10 of the Appendix, the developed database provides information about the yearly ESTI allocated amounts for the US. The original data, provided by the US Department of the Treasury, is expressed on a yearly basis. Once included in the ESTI database, this may constitute a useful information to analyse the variability in the allocations of ESTI year by year. In particular, in the section related to the research questions (section III. 5.), the analysis about the influence of political variables and of macroeconomic shocks on ESTI allocations is conducted through this tool. Additionally, elements extracted from the ESTI database will be exposed during the analysis.
40
2. SCOPE OF THE BUDGET
To begin the analysis, the weight of ESTI within each entity is observed for the 20072013 period, in order to understand the importance of these investments allocations. In particular, the share of ESTI in the EU and US Federal budget, in the EU and US total public expenditures and in the EU and US GDP are presented. Future studies may also attempt to assess the weight of ESTI in the comparable expenditures of all levels of governments, including those below the EU Community/US Federal level. Indeed, the roles of lower levels of government is likely to be a major reason for the differences between the systems. Moreover, the rationales of investment allocations may differ depending on the level of government. For instance, evidence suggests that development expenditures performed by EU Member States are less driven by economic development considerations than those performed by EU Cohesion Policy84. However, this task would require a detailed budgetary analysis of all the governments involved. It should be noted that the scope of the EU ESTI budget may have been underestimated in this study. Indeed, some EU expenditures that could be considered as ESTI are not included, because they are not funded by EU Cohesion Policy but by other policy mechanisms. It is notably the case for rural development (EUR 96 billion through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development during the 2007-2013 period85) and R&D and innovation expenditures (EUR 8 billion through the Framework Programme Seven during the 2007-2013 period86). However, EU Cohesion Policy is the leading source of ESTI at the EU level, with more than one third of the Community budget, thus conserving the relevance of the study conclusions.
84 85 86
Breska and European Commission, Investing in Europe’s Future. European Commission, ‘Chapter 4. Overview of the EU Rural Development Policy 2007-2013’, 4. European Commission, ‘19 January 2016 – the Commission Adopts Ex-Post Evaluation of FP7’.
41
2.1
Share of ESTI in the Community/Federal budget
Graph 1. Share of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in the Community/Federal expenditures (highest level of government) during the 2007-2013 period.
This graph represents the share of ESTI in the EU Community budget and in the US Federal budget. The EU Community budget refers to the overall budget of the European Union, encapsulating every policy and fund. The US Federal budget refers to all the expenditures conducted by the US Federal State. So the expenditures of the US State and Local governments are excluded. Thus, this illustration aims at revealing the weight of ESTI among all the prerogatives of the two entities.
As it is possible to see on the graph 1, during the 2007-2013 period, the ESTI represented 38% of the EU Community budget. As a matter of fact, Cohesion Policy is only exceeded in terms of EU budgetary allocations by the Common Agricultural Policy 87. Besides, the ESTI accounted for almost 3% of the US Federal budget. However, even if these proportions appear to be extremely diverging one from the other, the differences in scope of the Community and Federal budgetary allocations should be taken into account. As a matter of fact, during the period 2007-2013, the US disposed of a total Federal budget of EUR 17,114,712 million88, while the EU budget for the same period amounted to EUR 975,777 million89, i.e. the US Federal budget was about 18 times larger than the EU Community budget. This divergence may be explained through the institutional differences between the two entities. On one side, the US is a Federal State, with a vast range of exclusive competences and 20 budgetary functions through which the Federal level allocates different sorts of grants. Thus, the US Federal budget represents 22% of the US GDP 90. On the other side, the EU is a sui generis entity that
87 88 89 90
European Commission, ‘CAP Expenditure in the Total EU Expenditure’. CBO, ‘Historical Budget Data’; USFOREX, ‘Yearly Average Rates’. European Commission, ‘EU Financial Framework 2007-2013 in Figures - Budget’. CBO, ‘Historical Budget Data’.
42
disposes of a limited number of exclusive competences. Consequently, the available Community budget is limited and it represents 1.07% of the EU GDP 91.
2.2
Share of ESTI in the EU/US total public expenditures
Graph 2. Share of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in the EU/US total public expenditures (central + national + local) during the 2007-2013 period.
This graph represents the Share of ESTI in the EU and US total public expenditures. In both entities it represents the aggregate of the expenditures of all levels of government. The total public expenditures in the EU results from the sum of the public spending of the EU and all the Member States and their subdivisions92, while for the US it deals with the sum of the public spending of the Federal government and the State and Local governments93. Thus, its purpose is to express the institutional differences of the two models according to the share of intergovernmental transfers into Member States and Local governments budget. As it is possible to see on the graph 2 during the 2007-2013 period, the US allocated on average each year 1.8% of its total public expenditures for ESTI, while the EU allocated 0.8% of its total public expenditures. Concerning the NUTS 2 level, it is necessary to note that ESF allocations have not been taken into account because of data availability problems. This is possibly an explanation
91 92 93
European Commission, ‘EU Financial Framework 2007-2013 in Figures - Budget’. Eurostat, ‘Government Revenue, Expenditure and Main Aggregates’. USgovernmentspending, ‘Government Spending Details in $ Million’.
43
for the fact that ESTI allocations only represent 0.7% of total EU public expenditures at the EU NUTS 2 level. The underlying reason behind the differences between the shares of ESTI in the total public expenditures in the EU and in the US may stand, once more, on the institutional nature of the two entities.
2.3
Share of ESTI in the EU/US GDP
Graph 3. Share of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in the EU/US GDP during the 2007-2013 period.
As it is possible to see on the graph 3, the US allocated 0.6% of its GDP on average each year during the 2007-2013 period to finance ESTI. As far as the EU is concerned, the allocation for ESTI amounted to 0.4% of its GDP. If the ESF is not taken into account, the EU allocated 0.3% of its GDP on ESTI during the period 2007-2013. It should be considered that the average GDP of the two entities, during 2007-2013, did not differ consistently. Indeed, the EU had a GDP of EUR 12,971,864 million 94, and the GDP of the US was EUR 11,224,978 million95. Therefore, it can be concluded that the EU and US allocations for ESTI are comparable, in terms of overall effort (share of GDP dedicated to these expenditures). Moreover, as mentioned above, the role of EU for the allocation of ESTI is underestimated since ESTI in the US sometimes concern expenditures partially outside Cohesion Policy.
94 95
Eurostat, ‘GDP and Main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income)’. US Department of Commerce, ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’; USFOREX, ‘Yearly Average Rates’.
44
Thus, the scope of the budgets allocated to ESTI in the EU and the US is representative of their institutional differences. However, they remain of comparable dimensions. The US ARRA is likely influencing this result. Then, the composition of these budgets are to be explored.
3. ANALYSIS OF ESTI SECTORAL DISTRIBUTION
3.1 General description
The data collected in the ESTI database allows to understand the distribution of investments by category of expenditures. The distribution of EU and US expenditures may give useful information on the strategic choices made for Economic, Social and Territorial development.
Graph 4. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments by level-1 categories in EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
The EU distribution appears to be well balanced between every level-1 category. As graph 4 suggests, each category is represented and there is no overrepresentation nor percentage inferior to 4%. It can be explained by the methodological choices adopted for the elaboration of the typology. Indeed, the EU is the point of reference for the comparison and the typology has been constructed according to the EU 86 priorities for
45
2007-201396. Thus, it fits better with the typology. The distribution of ESTI in the EU is divided into some plateaus with several categories accounting for similar shares of ESTI. The ranking distribution presents “Human Capital” in first position (23% of the total ESTI budget). “Transport”, “Natural Resources and Energy” appear in second position (both of them representing 16% of the total ESTI budget), and “Applied R&D and Innovation” in the third one (13% of the total ESTI budget). The main plateau is situated at 6%, showing that “Social infrastructures”, “Environment”, “Touristic and Cultural development” and “Territorial development” represent about the same share of the ESTI budget. “ICT” and “Enterprises support” appear in last position, representing both 4% of the ESTI budget.
Graph 5. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments by level-1 categories in EU NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
The distribution of expenditures for EU NUTS 2 regions appears to be very similar. Differences of distribution between EU Member States and NUTS 2 regions are likely due to the lack of ESF data to constitute the NUTS 2 ESTI database. Thus, the distribution of ESTI for EU NUTS 2 regions only take into account funds from the ERDF and the CF, which explains that “Human Capital” only represents 13% of the budget compared to 23% at the Member States level. Except this difference, the distribution is similar for the different scales of the EU.
96
DG Regio, ‘Annex II: Categorisation of Funds Assistance for 2007-2013’.
46
Graph 6. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments by level-1 categories in US States during the 20072013 period.
In the US model, as graph 6 suggests, the breakdown of ESTI allocations does not appear as balanced as in the EU. Indeed, ESTI are not equitably split between level-1 categories, mainly because 65% of the them are dedicated to “Transport” expenditures. The overrepresentation of this category and its coexistence with low percentages were expected because of the typology methodological choices. Categories created in the typology do not fit with any pre-existent nor institutionalised US categories of expenditures. Consequently, many categories have really low values and account for less than 1% of allocations, such as “Touristic and cultural development”, “Enterprises support”, and “ICT”. The analysis of EU and US ESTI distribution will be conducted by studying the major differences and the points of convergence between both models. The categories are studied by level of importance, going from the most striking differences and similarities to the least noticeable ones. Beyond these major findings, the elaborated ESTI database represents a useful tool to pursue other sectoral analyses.
47
3.2 Major sectoral findings
The sectoral analysis of ESTI allocations is a powerful tool to compare the EU and the US models. Using this method, wide differences are exposed, such as in the “Transport” sector. Moreover, some surprising elements are also found, such as the similar share of ESTI dedicated to “Territorial development” by both models.
3.2.1 Transport
The striking difference between the EU and US distributions concerns the ESTI allocated to “Transport”. In the EU, even if this category is the second main category of allocation of ESTI, it only represents 16% of the ESTI budget compared to 65% in the US. Indeed, “Transport” was not the primary EU Cohesion Policy priority for the 2007-2013 period. Moreover, investments in transportation in the EU are mostly performed by the national governments or their subdivisions97 and not by the EU. Especially, given the focus of EU Cohesion Policy on the less developed regions, the weight of EU ESTI for “Transport” in the most developed EU Member States is minimal. Thus, these factors are a potential explanation for the wide difference between the EU and the US for the share of “Transport” among the ESTI allocations. It means that investments for Economic, Social and Territorial Development seem to focus mainly on transport infrastructures in the US. This is not surprising according to its geography and size but also to its historical strategy of investments. Indeed, transport has always represented an important target of US investments at the Federal level98, from the Erie Canal in 1807 to the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 and the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s and 1960s. This huge percentage might also be explained by the Stimulus package conducted by the US in 2009. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is an economic package of USD 787 billion (USD 275 billion in federal contracts, grants and loans) put in place to end the 2008 recession. It aimed at boosting the economic growth and saving between 900,000 to 2.3 million jobs99. Half of the budget dedicated to infrastructure investments (Total: USD 105.3 billion) was concentrated on Transport (USD 48.1 billion)100, through Transportation Income Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Grants. These investments were attributed for restoration, repair, construction and infrastructure development. USD 27.5 billion were used for highway and bridge construction projects, USD 8 billion for intercity passenger rail projects. These important investments in transport infrastructure accentuated the US traditional trend to invest in transport. Moreover, the difference between EU and US investments in “Transport” is not only a question of volume but also of nature. Indeed, when both models are compared through the level-2 categories within “Transport”, it should be noted that sectoral distributions diverge.
Eurostat, ‘General Government Expenditure by Function (COFOG)’. White House, ‘An Economic Analysis of Transportation Infrastructure Investment’. 99 Amadeo, ‘Did Obama’s Stimulus Plan Work?’ 100 US Department of Transportation, ‘The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)’. 97 98
48
Graph 7. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Transport” by level-2 categories in EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
The EU ESTI chiefly seem to be focused on “Other transport/mixed” with 34% of “Transport” ESTI. “Rail transport” represents 29% of the EU ESTI for “Transport”, while “Road transport” represents 15% and “Air Transport” 13%. The category “Other transport/mixed” is mainly constituted by integrated programs. Indeed, focusing investments on multi-sectoral transport infrastructures in one of the main EU orientations for this period. This integrated approach of transport infrastructures is notably illustrated through the Trans-European Networks objectives. Trans-European Networks objectives aims at upgrading infrastructure and cross border transport operations throughout the EU. Its programmes also target the improvement of connections between different modes of transport, and Intelligent Transport Systems. Thus, “Transport” investments are mixed and balanced, resulting from the orientations of EU Cohesion Policy101, notably Trans-European Networks.
101
European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Rail’; European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Road’; European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Other Transport’.
49
Graph 8. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Transport” by level-2 categories in US States during the 2007-2013 period.
On the contrary, 75% of the US ESTI for “Transport” are dedicated to “Road transport”. Only 25% of the US ESTI allocations are therefore split between the remaining level-2 categories. In particular, the sub-category “Maritime transport and waterways” represents such a small share that it is not visible on the graph. This situation might be explained by the weight of the federal funding of the highway system 102.
102
OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’.
50
3.2.2 Territorial development
Allocations for “Territorial development” represent 10% of the US ESTI, which is a higher percentage than in the EU whose allocations in this category only reach 6%. However, these shares remain of comparable extent, which may contradict the common belief that the US doest not invest in lagging-behind areas.
Graph 9. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Territorial Development” by level-2 categories in EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
As graph 9 suggests, EU ESTI allocations dedicated to “Territorial development” are concentrated on “Territorial regeneration”, at more than 90%. It is mainly because of the restrictive definition used for “Aids to lagging territories” in the typology for the EU, compared to the US.
51
Graph 10. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Territorial Development” by level-2 categories in US States during the 2007-2013 period.
In the US, the Federal State appears to use grants intensively to help lagging-behind regions. Indeed, looking at the distribution of ESTI for “Territorial development” by level-2 categories, 27% of the investments focus on ”Aids to lagging territories”, whereas it represents only 9% of EU “Territorial development” ESTI allocations. Federal grants for “Aids to lagging territories” in the US concern traditionally less developed US regions (Delta Area, Appalachia), but also Alaska Native territories, Insular regions and Indian territory. However, these ESTI also occur in very developed States. Future studies should refine the territorial level of details for the US - below the State level to study this question further.
52
3.2.3 Human Capital
“Human Capital” appears to be the third main expense item of the US ESTI. Nevertheless, it only represents 9% of its total ESTI spending. In the EU, its share reaches 23%, which makes “Human Capital” the first category of ESTI. This is probably linked to the objectives of Cohesion Policy for 2007-2013, targeting in priority “Human Capital”103. It is the priority of the Convergence objective in order to foster the economic catch-up of regions whose GDP per capita is below 75% of the EU average. The ESF is one of the main sources of “Human Capital” ESTI in the EU.
Graph 11. Share of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Human Capital” by level-2 categories in the EU/US GDP during the 2007-2013 period.
However, even if they diverge in amounts, the distribution of ESTI allocations in the “Human Capital” category presents a comparable trend in the EU and in the US, with comparable dedicated share of GDP. Both models seem to allocate funds of “Human Capital” mainly for “Support to employment access”. This sub-category combines 69% of the EU ESTI on “Human Capital” and 80% in the US.
103
European Commission, ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Human Capital’.
53
3.2.4 R&D and Innovation
“Applied R&D and Innovation” is obviously linked to Human Capital. It is the third main category of ESTI for the EU, representing 13% of the overall ESTI. This situation might have been favoured by the Lisbon Strategy. “Applied R&D and Innovation” was identified as the principal means to make the EU «the most competitive and dynamic knowledgebased economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" by 2010104. Innovation became the main priority under the Regional Competitivity and Employment objective, in order to foster region attractiveness and dynamism. This focus on “Applied R&D and Innovation” may result from the conclusion that the EU was lagging-behind its competitors in this field. Indeed, in 2011 R&D spending only represented 2% of the EU GDP which was far below the US rate105.
Graph 12. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “R&D and Innovation” by level-2 categories in EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
In the EU, the composition of “Applied R&D and Innovation” ESTI by level-2 subcategories seems to be balanced. Indeed, 52% of these ESTI concern “Promotion of Innovation in enterprises”, 25% for “R&D Infrastructures” and 14% for “R&D activities”.
104 105
Council of the European Union, ‘Presidency Conclusions. LIsbon European Council.’ European Commission, ‘EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. Targeting Investments on Key Growth Priorities.’
54
Graph 13. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “R&D and Innovation” by level-2 categories in US States during the 2007-2013 period.
“Applied R&D and Innovation” expenditures are high in the US even if they represent only 1% of the ESTI, thus the apparent gap with the EU looks massive. For the purpose of the study, only grants to State and Local government have been included whereas most of the R&D federal funding go to universities and enterprises106 or is conducted directly by the Federal State107. Moreover, the study only focuses on investments, which means that federal grants for basic research have been excluded. This results in a low significance of this category for the US. As shown by the graph 13, 96% of US “Applied R&D and Innovation” ESTI are dedicated to “R&D activities”, contrasted with only 14% in the EU.
106 107
US Department of the Treasury, ‘Federal Grants Databases’. CBO, ‘Federal Investment’.
55
3.2.5 Environment
The EU and the US ESTI allocations appear to be comparable for the “Environment” category. They respectively represent 6% of the EU ESTI budget and 8% of the US one. This category of spending is ranked in both entities at the 4th position. However, this percentage for the EU is not representative of all the investments targeting environmental matters. Indeed, other EU policies than Cohesion Policy are impacting this field.
Graph 14. Share of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Environmental Quality and Pollution Control” by level-3 sub-categories in the EU/US GDP during the 2007-2013 period.
Interestingly, “Environment” ESTI are of comparable scope in terms of share of GDP in the two models, as demonstrated by graph 14. Beyond a similar overall percentage of ESTI allocated, the distribution of spending by level-2 categories for “Environment” also appears to be comparable in both entities. In the EU as in the US, “Environment” ESTI mainly target “Environmental quality and pollution control”. The second expense item in both models is “Biodiversity protection”, which represents 7% of the EU “Environment” ESTI and 15% in the US. In the US, natural parks and protection of specified areas are key elements of “Biodiversity protection”.
56
Graph 15. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Environmental Quality and Pollution Control” by level-3 categories in EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
Graph 16. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Environmental Quality and Pollution Control” by level-3 categories in US States during the 2007-2013 period.
According to the results by level-3 sub-categories, 70% of the EU ESTI dedicated to “Environmental Quality and Pollution Control” are injected into the “Integrated/mixed approach” category. It corresponds to the overall EU Cohesion Policy strategy of integrated approach. On the contrary, in the US, the “Water” category attains 68% of the “Environmental Quality and Pollution Control” ESTI. This field thus appears to be very sectoral for the US.
57
3.2.6 Social infrastructures
“Social infrastructures” may represent a comparable share of ESTI in both entities. It represents 6% of the EU ESTI and 5% of the US ESTI. Thus, it takes relatively the same weight in both models. “Social infrastructures” do not appear in the EU or US top 3 priorities. This category might be particularly vulnerable to institutional differences, for instance for education infrastructures. As a consequence, the sub-categories are not financed in the same proportions by the two models. It should also be noted that the US ARRA was heavily focused on social infrastructures 108, thus restricting the generalisation of these observations.
Graph 17. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Social Infrastructures” by level-2 categories in EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
As graph 17 suggests, EU ESTI allocations for “Social infrastructures” mainly fund “Education infrastructures” (51%) with “Housing Infrastructures” only reaching 2%.
108
US Department of the Treasury, ‘Federal Grants Databases’.
58
Graph 18. Distribution of average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Social Infrastructures” by level-2 categories in US States during the 2007-2013 period.
As graph 18 suggests, in the US, 83% of the “Social infrastructures” ESTI allocations target “Housing Infrastructures” while “Health infrastructures” only represent 10% of the budget.
3.2.7 ICT Infrastructures and Enterprises support
In both models, “ICT” and in “Enterprises support” are the last items of ESTI allocations. In the EU, they both represent 4% of the ESTI budget which is the lowest percentage. ICT is one of the objective targeted for the 2007-2013 period and paves the way for more investments in this field for the following seven-year period. In the US, the dedicated budget for these categories is below 1%. The “ICT” category is probably that small because it exclusively refers to ICT Infrastructures. It is not a main priority of the federal grants in the US. Other types of ICT investments such as ICT Innovation have been integrated to other categories of expenditures such as “Applied R&D and Innovation”. Moreover, “ICT” and “Enterprises support” are funded via other channels than the US federal grants. Most of the funding for “Enterprises support” ESTI in the US goes to deindustrialised regions such as Ohio in the Rust Belt, thus proving the category consistency in spite of its limited scope.
59
4. ANALYSIS OF ESTI GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
In this section, the geographical distribution of ESTI is presented in order to understand at a first glance the territorial dimensions of these allocations in the EU and in the US. Firstly, some geographical background about the two entities is to be provided. The geographical analysis will then be conducted. In particular, the distribution of ESTI as allocated amounts is observed to grasp the budgetary effort dedicated to ESTI in the two entities. Then, the distribution of ESTI as share of local GDP (NUTS 2 regions, EU Member States or US States) is a tool to understand the importance of ESTI to finance investments in the territories. Finally, the distribution of ESTI per capita is studied, allowing to spot the regions favoured by the allocations.
4.1 Geographical background
In order to analyse the geographical distribution of ESTI allocations in the two models, it is necessary to get background information about basic elements characterising the impacted territories. Accordingly, this section will present the geographical distribution of population, density, GDP and GDP PPP per capita among EU and US territories.
4.1.1 Population
Population is unevenly distributed in both entities, as shown on the following maps109.
109
Eurostat, ‘Population on 1 January’; United States Census Bureau, ‘State Intercensal Estimates (20002010)’; United States Census Bureau, ‘Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015’.
60
Map 1. Average population of the EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
61
Map 2. Average population of the EU NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
62
Map 3. Average population of the US States during the 2007-2013 period.
In the EU, population is high in Western Member States such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Indeed, population in these countries is above 49,000,000 inhabitants. There are also important concentrations of population in the main urban areas of the EU, notably in capital cities such as Paris or Milan. The New Member States tend to have lower populations, with the notable exception of Poland, whose population attains 38,000,000 inhabitants. In the US, population is mainly concentrated around three separated poles: California, Texas and New York. California is the most populous State with 37,000,000 inhabitants. Secondary poles are present in the Deep South, with Florida, and in the Rust Belt. However, the Midwest and States of the Rocky Mountains feature very low population levels. These patterns favour the places with the highest nominal GDP in both entities. Indeed, population and nominal GDP are highly correlated with correlation coefficients of 0.96 for the EU Member States and 0.99 for the US States. Because of these differences in population distribution, densities are also varying dramatically between territories in the EU and the US.
63
4.1.2 Density
Densities in the EU and the US are summarised with the following maps 110.
110
Eurostat, ‘Density of Population’; Eurostat, ‘Density of Population (NUTS 2 Regions)’; United States Census Bureau, ‘State Intercensal Estimates (2000-2010)’; United States Census Bureau, ‘Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015’; Geography, ‘State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates’.
64
Map 4. Average population density of the EU Member States during the 20072013 period.
65
Map 5. Average population density of the EU NUTS 2 regions during the 20072013 period.
66
Map 6. Average population density of the US States during the 2007-2013 period.
In the EU, high densities are typically found close to the European Megalopolis, i.e. the axis from Northern Italy to Southern England. Densities in this area often exceed 150 people per km². Capital regions are also featuring high densities in all Member States. In the US, it is primarily in the New England region, primarily because of the small land areas of this State combined with important population centers. However, the most populous States such as Texas are not always those with high densities. Moreover, density tends to be lower in the US than in the EU, with rare US States above 150 people per km². Density will be used as a proxy for a rural/urban divide. However, it should be noted that the scale of the EU Member States or the US States is not fully relevant concerning that divide. Further studies could focus on smaller territorial scales to improve the results.
67
4.1.3 Production and level of development
Levels of development vary tremendously in the two entities. It is the case for the distribution of GDP but also of GDP PPP per capita111. The GDP allows to understand the financing capacity of territories, while the GDP PPP per capita is a proxy of level of development and economic well-being because it allows to compare the ability of people to buy a basket of goods and services112.
111
112
Eurostat, ‘Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at Current Market Prices by NUTS 2 Regions’; US Department of Commerce, ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’; Eurostat, ‘GDP and Main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income)’; Eurostat, ‘GDP per Capita in PPS’; OECD, ‘Regional Accounts : Regional GDP per Capita (PPP)’. OECD, ‘Purchasing Power Parities - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - OECD’.
68
Map 7. Average GDP of the EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
69
Map 8. Average GDP PPP per capita of the EU Member States during the 20072013 period.
70
Map 9. Average GDP of the EU NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
71
Map 10. Average GDP PPP per capita of the EU NUTS 2 regions during the 20072013 period.
72
Map 11. Average GDP of the US States during the 2007-2013 period.
Map 12. Average GDP PPP per capita of the US States during the 2007-2013 period.
73
The GDP and GDP PPP per capita follow similar pattern in the EU. Indeed, North/South and West/East divides can be easily observed. At the Member States level, Western Europe achieves the highest levels of GDP, notably Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Regarding GDP PPP per capita, Germanic and Nordic countries reach the highest levels. Eastern and Central Europe tend to have the lowest GDP and GDP PPP per capita. However, exceptions emerge when considering the NUTS 2 regions level. Indeed, capital regions in the New Member States achieve similar level of development than Western Europe, for instance the Warsaw area. In the US, the situation is quite different. The GDP is mostly concentrated on three poles: California, Texas and New York. It is matching the population centers. Secondary centers can be found in the Deep South and the Rust Belt. For the GDP PPP per capita, the situation is more homogenous. Indeed, even States with low GDP appear to achieve relatively high GDP PPP per capita. Exceptions are notably States of the Deep South, such as Mississippi. However, these findings at the US States level hide disparities within each territory and therefore further studies on this point are required. Having all these elements in mind, it is possible to analyse the geographical distribution of ESTI in the two models.
4.2 Distribution of ESTI as allocated amounts
The distribution of ESTI as allocated amounts allows the observation of monetary flows for the ESTI in the two systems. However, it should be noted that the amounts are presented in different currencies (EUR million and USD million). It is therefore possible to know which territories receive the largest and smallest ESTI allocations.
74
Map 13. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in the EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
75
Map 14. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in the EU NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
76
The EU Member States which receive the most important amounts of ESTI allocations appear to be the less developed ones, as it appears on map 13. This can be explained by the structure of Cohesion Policy during the 2007-2013 period: it devoted the majority of the available funds to the “Convergence” objective, which targeted the lagging-behind regions113. Accordingly, on map 14, the NUTS 2 regions which receive the most important amounts of ESTI allocations appear to be the less developed ones, especially in Eastern and Southern Europe. For instance, Andalusia and the Warsaw region receive on average each year more than EUR 1,322 million in ESTI allocations during the period. However, it appears that the distribution at the NUTS 2 level is more heterogeneous in comparison to the repartition by EU Member State. This can be easily explained by the higher level of precision of the distribution at the NUTS 2 level. Moreover, it must be taken into account that, at the NUTS 2 level, the data concerning the ESF is not available. Thus, it is possible to advance the hypothesis that this may play a role in explaining the differences of ESTI distribution between the map 13 and the map 14.
Map 15. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in the US States during the 2007-2013 period.
As it is possible to note on map 15, the US States which appear to be the most affected by the ESTI allocations are California, Texas, New York and Florida. Notably, California benefits from an average yearly allocation of ESTI of USD 9,210 million during the period. Thus, the US system tends to favour the States with the largest GDP, since their GDP represent respectively 13.3%, 8.6%, 7.9% and 5% of the total US GDP (average yearly during the 2007-2013 period)114. However, this statement should be
113 114
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. US Department of Commerce, ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’.
77
nuanced by two considerations. First, this observation does not necessarily imply a correlation between the US States GDP level and the volume of the ESTI allocations. Moreover, these States are also the first four most populated during the 2007-2013 period115, making it a probable factor for this situation. Besides that, if the two entities are compared, it appears at a first glance that in the EU the less developed Member States and NUTS 2 regions are the most affected by the ESTI. On the contrary in the US, the most populous and developed States in terms of GDP seem to be the most targeted by these allocations. Nevertheless, this first approach should be completed by a look at the geographical distribution of ESTI as share of local GDP and per capita.
4.3 Distribution of ESTI as share of local GDP
These maps present the distribution of ESTI allocations as share of the GDP of impacted territories116. Observing the distribution of ESTI allocations as share of local GDP can be useful to understand the importance of ESTI allocations to finance investments in the territory.
115
116
United States Census Bureau, ‘Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015’; United States Census Bureau, ‘State Intercensal Estimates (2000-2010)’. Eurostat, ‘GDP and Main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income)’; Eurostat, ‘Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at Current Market Prices by NUTS 2 Regions’; US Department of Commerce, ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’.
78
Map 16. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments as share of the EU Member States GDP during the 2007-2013 period.
79
Not surprisingly, a concentration of high levels of ESTI allocations as share of GDP appears on the Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, whereas maps representing the distribution of ESTI as allocated amounts suggested not only an East/West divide but also a North/South one (see maps 13 and 14). Indeed, Spain and Italy appeared to be considerably affected by ESTI allocations on map 13, but because of their relatively high GDP (compared to Eastern and Central European Member States), Spain and Italy’s ESTI allocations only represent a share ranging between 0.10% and 0.54% of their GDP. Thus, even if they emerged as top receivers in absolute terms (see maps 13 and 14), their level of ESTI allocations as share of GDP brings them closer to Western European countries. Countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands or Sweden show a low rate of ESTI allocations as share of GDP, ranging between 0.02% and 0.09% of their GDP. In Central and Eastern Member States, ESTI allocations represent a significant share of their local GDP. The highest rate is located in Hungary where ESTI allocations reach 4.31% of the country’s GDP as a consequence of the combination of a relatively low GDP and an important amount of ESTI allocations. Latvia and Lithuania also appear to receive significant amounts of ESTI as a share of GDP as seen in map 16 whereas they receive low amounts in absolute terms, as seen on map 13.
80
Map 17. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments as share of the EU NUTS 2 regions GDP during the 2007-2013 period.
81
Map 17 relative to the EU NUTS 2 level shows a distribution of ESTI allocations as share of local GDP which is consistent with the previous map 16. NUTS 2 regions in Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania still appear to be the regions where ESTI allocations are the most important to finance investments. In particular, the biggest beneficiary of ESTI among the NUTS 2 regions seems to be the Southern Great Plain (HU33), where ESTI allocations account for 8.1% of its GDP.
Map 18. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments as share of the US States GDP during the 2007-2013 period.
It is noticeable that the minimum rate of ESTI as share of local GDP in the US is higher than in the EU, which may reveal that there are no States receiving funds which represent less than 0.45% of their GDP. Besides, the maximum value differs largely between the two entities. The maximum rate of ESTI as share of local GDP in the EU reaches 4.31% at the Member States level and 8.1% at the NUTS 2 level, whereas it only rises to 2.16% in the US. This may suggest a greater uniformity of ESTI distribution in the US. However, the impact of ARRA should be considered when interpretating these figures. Moreover, the observation of the distribution of ESTI as share of local GDP gives a radically different picture in the US in comparison to the previous analysis. As a matter of fact, Texas, California, New York and Florida were presented as the main ESTI receivers in absolute terms. However, map 18 shows that even if these states receive significant ESTI allocations, the amounts only account for a small fraction of their GDP. The share of ESTI compared to the GDP in these States ranges between 0.45% and 0.60%. Thus, this suggests that in the US, the main receivers have a low allocation of ESTI in relation to GDP. 82
Alaska appears to be the State with the highest ESTI allocation intensity, as these allocations represent 2.16% of its GDP. Most of the US States presenting a high ESTI intensity are clustered in the North-West of the country (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming). They also tend to have low population and GDP. Future studies may attempt to analyse EU and US ESTI as share of local ESTI budgets. However, this approach would require a massive data collection and the classification of the investments allocations at all the government levels. The next section completes the geographical analysis by focusing on the distribution of ESTI per capita in order to reveal regions whose inhabitants are the most favoured by ESTI allocations.
4.4 Distribution of ESTI per capita
This section presents the allocations of ESTI per capita117 at the EU Member States level on map 19, at the NUTS 2 regions level on map 20 and at the US States level on map 21. It allows to spot the regions whose inhabitants are the most favoured by the two systems.
117
Eurostat, ‘Population on 1 January’; United States Census Bureau, ‘Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015’; United States Census Bureau, ‘State Intercensal Estimates (2000-2010)’.
83
Map 19. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita in the EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
84
Concerning the EU, as it is possible to note on map 19, the Member States which receive the largest ESTI allocations per capita (more than EUR 150 per capita) during the 20072013 period are, in decreasing order, Hungary, Greece, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Portugal, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia and Poland. On the contrary, Member States with the lowest ESTI allocations per capita, below EUR 25 per capita, appear to be in decreasing order: the United Kingdom, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark. It is consistent with the official Cohesion Policy priorities and the Berlin Formula118.
118
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13; Osterloh, ‘The Fiscal Consequences of EU Cohesion Policy after 2013’.
85
Map 20. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita in the EU NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
86
Accordingly, map 20 relative to the NUTS 2 regions shows a consistent distribution. However, some NUTS 2 regions belonging to Greece and Slovenia do not appear on the map, since the corresponding data was not available during the period. The NUTS 2 regions that receive the highest ESTI allocations per capita in the 2007-2013 period are located in Portugal, Hungary, the Baltic States, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and in the south of Italy. The highest ESTI allocation per capita is found in Portugal (PT20) at EUR 710 per capita. Once more, this distribution is not surprising: it reflects the explicit targets of EU Cohesion Policy during the 2007-2013 period and notably the less developed regions falling under the “Convergence” objective 119.
Map 21. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita in the US States during the 2007-2013 period.
The US States which appear to receive the most important ESTI allocations relatively to their population are Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota and Louisiana. More than USD 500 per capita is attributed to these territories. They are also among the least populated US States: respectively, their population account for 0.12%, 0.32%, 0.19%, 0.23% and 1.5% of the total US population during the 2007-2013 period120. The reasons why these States are benefiting of large ESTI allocations per capita with this intensity can be of different natures. Alaska’s huge area, distance from the other States, unfavourable climate and lack of infrastructures in vast areas may explain the
119 120
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. United States Census Bureau, ‘Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015’; United States Census Bureau, ‘State Intercensal Estimates (2000-2010)’.
87
existence of greater federal funding. Moreover, Alaska hosts important communities of Natives and several national parks and protected areas 121, which are factors conditioning some grants. Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota’s geography is characterised by mountainous and vast agricultural areas. It implies the existence of communities living in remote areas, which can contribute to explain their need of ESTI allocations concerning territorial development and urban revitalization, construction of infrastructures and attempts to make the local economies more diversified and dynamic. These assertions seem to be validated by calculations made using the developed database which show that the average yearly ESTI allocations per capita for the “Territorial Development” category during the 2007-2013 period are quite important, especially in the States of North and South Dakota (respectively the second and the fifth US States for “Territorial Development” ESTI allocations per capita). Moreover, these five States appear to be among the ones which receive the most important amount of ESTI allocations per capita for the “Environment category”. On this issue, Wyoming is the first receiver, followed by Alaska and North Dakota, Montana (respectively 2nd, 3rd, 4th position) and South Dakota (7th position), which could be explained by the several natural parks and protected areas hosted in this geographical area. This focus on remote US States affected by special natural constraints could be compared to EU assistance to outermost and sparsely populated areas. Regarding Louisiana, the considerable amount of ESTI allocation per capita that this State received during the 2007-2013 period can be explained by the fact that this State was deeply affected in 2005 by the hurricane Katrina, whose destructive effects have demanded intense public investments in the following years. Once more, these results are to be taken with caution, given the particular context of the study (ARRA). Having these first elements, it is possible to conduct tests in order to draw conclusions on the research questions.
5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS FINDINGS
The ESTI database allows the exploration of the developed research questions. More specifically, it is a tool to assess the underlying logics of spatial distribution of ESTI in the EU and the US. Methods such as correlations and linear regressions will be used because of their relevancy to explore the relationship between the variables of interest. Reverse correlation issues do not represent a major problem given the nature of the tested variables. Indeed, the moderate levels of ESTI allocations are relatively unlikely to influence variables such as population or GDP in the short run. The mechanisms of EU Cohesion Policy are known, as they are expressed by official texts and by the Berlin formula122. Population and level of development are the primary drivers of ESTI allocations in the EU. However, the actual link between these indicators and US ESTI is not known, even if it is common for federal grants to use population as a determinant of allocated amounts123.
121 122
123
Knapp, ‘An Introduction to the Economy of Alaska’. EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13; Osterloh, ‘The Fiscal Consequences of EU Cohesion Policy after 2013’. OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’.
88
5.1 Population
Within the geographical analysis, population emerged as one of the probable factors of ESTI allocations. It is notably the case for the US, with the most populous States clustering at high ESTI allocation levels. Thus, the hypothesis of a link between population and ESTI allocations must be formally explored.
Graph 19. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments and the population of EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
89
Graph 20. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments and the population of EU NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
In the EU, the correlation between ESTI allocations and population is strong and positive. Indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.5 for Member States and 0.33 for EU NUTS 2 regions. Simple regressions yield high R², 25% for Member States and 11% for NUTS 2 regions. Moreover, the simple models coefficients are significant at 1%. So, population alone seems to be an important additional criterion to explain the distribution of ESTI allocations in the EU. It is indeed a criterion used in the design of EU Cohesion Policy, explaining this correlation.
90
Graph 21. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments and the population of US States during the 2007-2013 period.
This variable appears to be even more important in the US where ESTI allocations and population of the US States are linked by a quasi-linear relationship. The correlation coefficient is strongly positive at 0.97. The simple regression model explains 94% of the observations, meaning that population is likely to be a main driver for ESTI allocations in the US. The coefficient of this simple model is significant at 1%. To sum up, population seems to be a relevant factor to explain the distribution of ESTI allocations both in the EU and the US. However, it appears to be much more important in the US as it tends to explain almost the entire distribution of ESTI allocations alone. It should be noted that population is an almost obvious factor for determining investments allocations. Thus, other potential variables should be explored, notably the level of development of impacted territories.
5.2 Production and Level of development
The hypothesis regarding the possible relationship between the level of development of territories and the allocation of ESTI is central to the study. As a matter of fact, an important rationale for the transfers is to aid the development of lagging-behind regions124. It is also conceived by design in EU Cohesion Policy: in this case, the attribution of funds depends on a GDP per capita threshold 125. However, it is a priori highly uncertain that in the US the level of development of territories is an important factor to determine the allocations of ESTI.
124
125
Boadway and Shah, Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers; Barca, ‘An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations’; EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13; CBO, ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’. EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13.
91
GDP PPP per capita can be used as a proxy for the level of development. Indeed, purchasing power parities allow to compare the effective standards of living between places using a common basket of goods and services and taking into account local variations in prices126. Thus, it may represent a better tool to compare the level of development than GDP without adjustments. Firstly, to get an overview of the situation, attributions of ESTI can be represented using concentration curves. These curves plot the cumulative percentage of the ESTI allocations against the cumulative percentage of the EU27/US GDP represented by the impacted territories. The territories are ranked from the lowest to the highest GDP PPP per capita, thus allowing to test the redistributive nature of the ESTI as the least developed territories are on the left of the x-axis. Thus, these curves show whether ESTI allocations are focused on specific territories.
Graph 22. Concentration curve for average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments ranked by GDP PPP per capita at the EU Member States level during the 2007-2013 period.
126
OECD, ‘Purchasing Power Parities - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - OECD’.
92
Graph 23. Concentration curve for average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments ranked by GDP PPP per capita at the NUTS 2 regions level during the 2007-2013 period.
In the EU, the concentration curves show that ESTI allocations are highly concentrated in territories representing a low percentage of the total EU27 GDP. Moreover, the favoured territories are also the ones with the lowest levels of development. Indeed, territories representing 20% of the EU27 GDP receive 80% of ESTI allocations. These targeted places feature a GDP PPP per capita under 90% of the EU27 average. Symmetrically, places representing 80% of the EU27 GDP only obtain 20% of ESTI allocations. They are characterised by a relatively high level of development, with a GDP PPP per capita above 90% of the EU27 average. These patterns are found both at the Member States and the NUTS 2 regions scale. Thus, these concentration curves seem to confirm the focus on lagging-behind territories that is of paramount importance for EU Cohesion Policy.
93
Graph 24. Concentration curve for average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments ranked by GDP PPP per capita at the US States level during the 2007-2013 period.
The US ESTI repartition logic appears to differ widely from the EU. As a matter of fact, cumulative ESTI allocations follow a quasi-linear relationship with the cumulative share of the US GDP. This suggests that the US mechanisms do not imply a concentration of ESTI allocations on specific territories. Accordingly, the least developed regions representing 20% of the US GDP benefit from about 25% of ESTI allocations. This curve suggests that ESTI allocations in the US are not taking into account the level of development as a determinant factor. Using these curves, it seems that the EU concentrates its ESTI allocations on territories which represent a small fraction of its GDP, while the US has a more homogenous approach. Moreover, the favoured territories are the least developed in the EU while it does not seem to be a relevant factor for the US. It also echoes the fact that the US faces smaller inter regional inequalities. However, this situation is observed when comparing all ESTI. A focus on “Territorial development” (category 10) could be an interesting way to complement this overall approach. Indeed, “Territorial development” often targets areas which are facing severe difficulties and therefore require unequal allocations.
94
Graph 25. Concentration curve for average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Territorial development” ranked by GDP PPP per capita at the EU Member States level during the 2007-2013 period.
Graph 26. Concentration curve for average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Territorial development” ranked by GDP PPP per capita at the NUTS 2 regions level during the 2007-2013 period.
95
For the EU, ESTI allocations regarding “Territorial development” appear to be even more concentrated than overall ESTI allocations. Indeed, slightly more than 80% of ESTI allocations dedicated to this category are targeting territories representing 20% of EU27 GDP. Moreover, these territories are also the least developed in terms of GDP PPP per capita. Again, these results may be representative of the objectives pursued by Cohesion Policy127.
Graph 27. Concentration curve for average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments dedicated to “Territorial development” ranked by GDP PPP per capita at the US States level during the 2007-2013 period.
In the US, ESTI allocations dedicated to “Territorial development” appear to be quite homogeneously distributed among US States. Indeed, 30% of ESTI allocations for “Territorial development” are granted for the least developed territories representing 40% of US GDP. However, Louisiana produces an important jump in the curve. During the 2007-2013 period, important investments were conducted in Louisiana after the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Thus, this extreme event might be a probable cause for the concentration of resources in this State, as it benefited from classical territorial development programmes at a higher magnitude but also from specific long-run postdisaster investments (excluding emergency aids). However, Louisiana is an average State in terms of GDP PPP per capita. As a consequence, evidence seems to suggest
127
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13.
96
that level of development is not an important determinant of US ESTI allocations, even for those investments dedicated to “Territorial development”. It contrasts with the EU ESTI system. In order to complete these first findings, correlations between ESTI allocations per capita and the level of development, as determined by GDP PPP per capita, shall be observed. Looking at ESTI allocations per capita allows to take into consideration the important population differences between regions and to reveal the most favoured places by the two systems.
Graph 28. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita and the GDP PPP per capita of EU Member States during the 2007-2013 period.
97
Graph 29. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita and the GDP PPP per capita of NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
In the EU, ESTI allocations per capita are highly negatively correlated with the level of development of regions and Member States, as expressed by GDP PPP per capita. Indeed, as stated previously, this is a central element of the Cohesion Policy design128. The more developed regions and Member States receive less ESTI allocations per capita: the correlation coefficient is -0.64 for Member States and -0.53 for NUTS 2 regions. This simple regression model is relatively predictive, with R² ranging between 41% for Member States and 28% for NUTS 2 regions. Coefficients of the simple regression models are significant at 5%.
128
Osterloh, ‘The Fiscal Consequences of EU Cohesion Policy after 2013’.
98
Graph 30. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita and the GDP PPP per capita of US States during the 2007-2013 period.
The situation is completely different for the US. As a matter of fact, ESTI allocations per capita seem to be positively correlated with the GDP PPP per capita of US States, with a correlation coefficient of 0.67. It suggests a focus of US ESTI on the more developed regions. Thus, this yields results contrary to the EU model. Moreover, the simple regression model reaches a high R² at 45%. However, this situation may be produced by the fact that DC features extreme values and can be considered an outlier. This correlation should therefore be run again by dropping DC.
Graph 31. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita and the GDP PPP per capita of US States (DC dropped) during the 2007-2013 period.
99
Without DC, a positive correlation between GDP PPP per capita of US States and ESTI allocations per capita can still be noticed, with a reduced correlation coefficient of 0.45. The predictive power of the simple regression is also dropping dramatically, with a R² of 20%. However, the relationship between variables remains significant. As a conclusion, evidence suggests that in the EU ESTI allocations are primarily performed in the less developed regions. On the contrary, the US model is thought to favour the more developed regions. However, it should be reminded that the EU is conducting expenditures similar to ESTI outside the Cohesion Policy. Therefore, the strength of the negative relationship between ESTI allocations per capita and level of development for the EU might be overestimated. Also, the 2007-2013 period in the US was marked by the response to the crisis, that might have altered ESTI allocations with low territorial targeting. Moreover, further studies should refine the analysis to draw general conclusions on the two models. Notably, considering lower territorial scales in the US would be necessary before achieving perfect certainty on the model specificities regarding level of development.
5.3 Rural/urban divide
Whether the ESTI effort of the two entities favour certain types of territories is also an important field of interest, be it by design or by result of unintended effects. A core divide between territories is the urban/rural classification. In this section, density is used as a proxy for territory type, with low densities assumed to be representative of rural regions and high densities of urban regions. Of course, this approach only provides a broad overview of the situation and should be further refined with additional indicators129. Moreover, this test is mostly significant for the EU NUTS 2 regions as the level of details for EU Member States and US States does not necessarily mean that density is a good proxy for a rural/urban classification. Future studies may attempt to apply this test on smaller geographical regions, such as the US counties. Studying ESTI per capita allows to capture the actual effect of density by taking into account the population differences.
129
Pizzoli, ‘How to Best Classify Rural and Urban’.
100
Graph 32. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita and the density of EU Member States during the 2007 – 2013 period.
Graph 33. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita and the density of EU NUTS 2 regions during the 2007-2013 period.
101
For the EU, there appears to be no significant relationship between density and ESTI allocations per capita. Indeed, the predictive power of the simple regressions is very low, with R² of 0.005% for Member States and 0.36% for NUTS 2 regions. Moreover, the regression coefficients are not significant. A weak negative correlation can still be observed. However, the relationship may be biased primarily because of countries with small territories, i.e. Malta as a significant outlier, or because of densely populated urban agglomerations located in the most developed Member States, i.e. London. Nothing significant can therefore be stated about the relationship between density and ESTI allocations per capita in the EU. These findings tend to confirm that EU Cohesion Policy does not favour rural or urban territories.
Graph 34. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments per capita and the density of US States during the 2007-2013 period.
For the US, density seems to be positively correlated to ESTI allocations per capita. The simple regression leads to a high R² of 26%. The regression coefficient is significant at 5%. However, DC is a very clear outlier in this situation. This can be explained by the very small territory of this region. By dropping it, a different relationship can be observed.
102
Graph 35. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments and the density of US States (DC dropped) during the 2007-2013 period.
In this case, the correlation between density and ESTI allocations per capita becomes negative. Moreover, the predictive power of the model is low with a R² of 8.6% without DC. The regression coefficient is significant at 5%. Interpretation is thus difficult, as relationships between density and ESTI allocations per capita are contradictory in the US depending on whether DC is included or not. As a consequence, further analysis is required to conclude on the link between density and ESTI allocations per capita in this model. Furthermore, density is probably not a complete proxy for the rural/urban divide at the US States level, so additional criteria and smaller territorial scales should be added as well. In a nutshell, the urban/rural divide - as accounted by density - does not seem to correlate with ESTI allocations per capita in the EU. The situation is unclear in the US and might require further analysis. Adding control variables could be a way to refine the analysis in future studies.
5.4 US specificities
In the EU, allocations of ESTI are planned by negotiations between the Member States and the European Commission, through a seven-year process130. This procedure shields allocations from political changes and macroeconomic shocks. These political and shortterm factors could have an impact on the US ESTI, and shall therefore be studied. Indeed, in the US, the process for ESTI allocations is conducted mainly by the Congress131, that decides yearly budgetary allocations for federal grants. Therefore, an
130 131
EU Regional Policy, Cohesion Policy 2007-13. OMB, ‘Learn Grants’.
103
analysis of the influence of political variables on US ESTI allocations might be relevant to fully understand the specificities of this system compared to the EU. In order to test the relevance of the political factors on US ESTI allocations, a composite political index is to be computed. The political leaning of US States is summarised by an index ranging from -1 (fully Democrat) to +1 (fully Republican). This index is determined by averaging political scores of State governors and legislatures during the 2007-2013 period132. A Democrat political majority is given a score of -1, it is +1 for a Republican majority. A similar index is also computed for the political leaning of the Congress between 2007 and 2013133. During that period, the Congress was mainly Democrat, with a score of -0.5. Then a political alignment index is computed, showing the correspondence between US States political leaning and the Congress political leaning. Positive values mean higher political convergence between US States and US Congress. For instance, Texas was a Republican leaning State during the period, contrary to the Congress. Therefore, it has a very negative value as political alignment index. This political alignment index is then compared to US ESTI allocations during the 20072013 period. A positive relationship could imply an influence of political factors on ESTI allocations.
Graph 36. Correlation between average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments and the political alignment of US States with the Congress during the 2007-2013 period.
Political alignment between the Congress and the US States seems to be uncorrelated to ESTI allocations, similarly with the 7-year and technical process of the EU. Indeed, no pattern is shown by the graph. A possible explanation is the weight of formula grants in the ESTI allocations - notably in “Transport” - that are influenced by technical factors
132 133
Bump, ‘The History of Every Governor’s Seat in Every State, in 1 Chart’; NCSL, ‘State Partisan Composition’. Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, ‘Composition of Congress by Party 1855–2017’.
104
and not by political considerations134. considering ESTI allocations per capita.
The situation appears to be similar when
However, political variables could play a role on ESTI allocations in the US, but by regional proximity rather than by political party. Indeed, politicians of the same regions may favour their geographical area. Thus, further studies could focus on that particular hypothesis. Seniority of congressmen could also be a factor to take into account135 The 2007-2013 period is also impacted by the crisis. By definition, EU Cohesion Policy cannot react immediately as it must follow a fixed framework for the period. On the contrary, the US budget can adapt to macroeconomic shocks. The reactivity of US ESTI allocations to this shock is thus to be assessed.
Graph 37. Yearly composition of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in the US as share of the US GDP.
The first observation is that the scope of the US ESTI can adapt yearly to face severe economic hardship. Indeed, the budget dedicated to ESTI doubles during the 2009-2010 period compared to normal years. Thus, ESTI in the US may be one of the instruments involved in a macroeconomic stabiliser function. However, it should be underlined that the weight of ESTI is very modest as a macroeconomic stabiliser instrument, as ESTI allocations represent less than 1% of the US GDP even in the peak year of the period. Regarding the ESTI content, it appears that the US model implies the possibility to change dramatically the composition of ESTI in response to shocks. As a matter of fact, the composition of ESTI by category is very stable during the 2007-2013 period, except for 2009-2010. In 2009 especially, the share of ESTI dedicated to energy was 5.8 times greater than the average during the period. For social infrastructures, it is 3.7 times greater. It follows the priorities of the ARRA 136. The US model thus allows adaptation to
134 135
136
OMB, ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. Feyrer and Sacerdote, ‘Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’. Ibid.
105
shocks, but at the price of greater uncertainty. Moreover, the impact of the stimulus package may alter the territorial target of ESTI allocations during the period. To sum up, further studies are required to fully assess the specificities of the US ESTI model, particularly during standard non-crisis periods.
106
CONCLUSION This report allows a comparative overview of the allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments (ESTI) in the EU and the US during the 2007-2013 period. The main output of this study is the ESTI database, which was conceived after the elaboration of a specific typology to classify the considered EU and US ESTI allocations. Thanks to the applied methodological choices, the ESTI database constitutes a powerful tool to provide elements regarding the research questions of this report. Moreover, the ESTI database is also exploitable by further studies. The goal of this study was to test various hypotheses at the EU NUTS 2 regions, EU Member States and US States level. The first tested dimension was whether the two models produce different situations regarding sectoral and spatial ESTI allocations. The second tested dimension dealt with the role of population in determining ESTI allocations. Thirdly, the link between the level of development of territories and ESTI allocations was studied. Furthermore, the ESTI allocations have been explored regarding their potential focus on urban or rural territories. The last considered aspect was related to some specificities of the US model, notably in terms of political and macroeconomic factors. All in all, through these different perspectives, the ESTI database allowed to advance some conclusions on whether institutional differences between the EU and the US ESTI models produce opposed territorial effects. However, some limits have to be taken into account even though they do not undermine the coherence of the results. These limits are of two kinds: some of them are linked to the institutional differences between the EU and the US, while others are related to the technical choices adopted for this study. Acknowledging this fact, it was possible to proceed with the analysis in order to answer the research questions. The observations allowed to draw the following conclusions. Firstly, it appeared that the scope of the ESTI budgets is the reflection of institutional differences between the EU and the US. Indeed, ESTI allocations represent 38% of the EU budget, while they account for not even 3% of the US budget. However, it must not be forgotten that the US Federal budget is 15 times larger than the EU Community one. In terms of share of GDP dedicated to ESTI, the situation is similar in the EU (0.4%) and the US (0.6%). Interesting results emerged from the sectoral analysis of ESTI allocations. The striking difference between the EU and US distributions concerns the ESTI allocated to “Transport” (16% of ESTI in the EU, 65% in the US). Accordingly, the weight of transport, notably of roads, is massive for the US ESTI. Regarding the similarities between the two models, ESTI dedicated to “Territorial development” represent 10% of the US ESTI and 6% in the EU. It may go against the common belief that the US does not invest on this kind of expenditures. Through cartography and correlations, the geographical distribution of ESTI was presented in order to understand at a first glance the territorial dimensions of these allocations in the EU and in the US. It appeared that in the EU, the less developed territories in terms of GDP PPP per capita are favoured by ESTI allocations, whereas it seems reversed in the US. The analysis of ESTI as share of local GDP gave a picture of the importance of ESTI allocations to finance investments in the territories. In the US, the States with the highest levels of ESTI as share of GDP are isolated States in the North-West as well as Alaska. For the EU, Eastern and Central Europe regions feature the highest levels of ESTI as share of GDP, notably Hungary. The analysis of ESTI per capita generally yielded the same spatial results. As a result of other tests, it appeared that in the EU, ESTI allocations seem to be concentrated in territories representing a small fraction of the EU GDP. 107
On the contrary, the US model seems to attribute ESTI almost homogeneously, though it may be an artefact of the Stimulus Package. Population was also proven to be a major driver of ESTI allocations in both models. However, no significant relationship was found between density and ESTI allocations in the EU or the US, even if it may not be a good proxy for the rural/urban divide, because of the scales of the comparison. Furthermore, particularities of the US model did not seem to make its ESTI vulnerable to political pressures. However, it appeared that the flexibility of yearly federal grants allows greater adaptation to macroeconomic shocks. This study paves the way for more research thanks to the elaborated database. Future studies may try to take a more holistic approach, comparing the entire EU investment policies to the US federal model. Other levels of government are also to be considered. This approach would allow reduced methodological limits and even greater conclusive power.
108
REFERENCES Amadeo, Kimberly. ‘Did Obama’s Stimulus Plan Work?’ About.com Money, 2016. http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama_Stimulu s.htm. Barbier-Gauchard, Amélie. ‘European Public Expenditure: Community Level and National Level’. Brussels: European Union, 2014. http://www.barbiergauchard.com/resources/14_European+Parliament_CDG27Jan.pdf. Barca, Fabrizio. ‘An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations’. EERI Research Paper Series. Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels, 2008. https://ideas.repec.org/p/eei/rpaper/eeri_rp_2008_06.html. Boadway, Robin W., and Anwar Shah, eds. Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers: Principles and Practice. Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series. Washington, D.C: World Bank, 2007. Bourdin, Sébastien. ‘Les Défis de La Future Politique Régionale Européenne 2014-2020 : On Prend Les Mêmes et on Recommence ?’ Geoconfluences, 2014. http://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/informations-scientifiques/dossiersregionaux/territoires-europeens-regions-etats-union/corpus-documentaire/lesdefis-de-la-future-politique-regionale-europeenne-2014-2020-on-prend-lesmemes-et-on-recommence-1. Breska, Eric von, and European Commission, eds. Investing in Europe’s Future: Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010. Bump, Philip. ‘The History of Every Governor’s Seat in Every State, in 1 Chart’. Washington Post, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/thefix/wp/2015/02/28/the-history-of-every-governors-seat-in-every-state-in-1chart/. Bush, George W. ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2006. ———. ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2007. ———. ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2008. CBO. ‘Federal Grants to State and Local Governments’, 2013. ———. ‘Federal Investment’. CBO, 2013. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-20132014/reports/44974-FederalInvestment.pdf. ———. ‘Historical Budget Data’, 2014. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113thcongress-2013-2014/reports/45010/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf. Council of the European Union. ‘Presidency Conclusions. LIsbon European Council.’, 2000. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/0 0100-r1.en0.htm. DG Empl. ‘Database of ESF Allocations 2007-2013’, n.d. DG Regio. ‘Annex II: Categorisation of Funds Assistance for 2007-2013’, n.d. http://www.esfondi.lv/upload/04-kohezijas_politikas_nakotne/op/0_dp_200610-04_kategorijas.pdf#page=3&zoom=auto,-107,79. ———. ‘Cohesion Policy Data - Total Percentage of Available Funds Paid Out by the Commission 2007-2013’, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/. ———. ‘Database of the Cumulative Allocations to Selected Projects and Expenditure at NUTS2’, n.d. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/datafor-research/. ———. ‘Structural Funds Regulations 2007-2013’, n.d. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/legislation/regulations/200 7-2013/. Drabenstott, Mark. ‘Rethinking Federal Policy for Regional Economic Development’. Economic Review, no. Q I (2006): 115–42. EU Regional Policy. Cohesion Policy 2007-13: Commentaries and Official Texts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007. 109
European Commission. ‘19 January 2016 – the Commission Adopts Ex-Post Evaluation of FP7’, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm. ———. ‘2007-2013 Total Allocation by Member State’. European Structural and Investment Funds Data, n.d. https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/dataset/20072013-Total-allocation-by-Member-State/39re-e5qi. ———. ‘Cadre Financier 2007-2013 de l’UE En Chiffres - Budget’, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/fin_fwk0713/fwk0713_fr.cfm#revision. ———. ‘CAP Expenditure in the Total EU Expenditure’. 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/graphs/graph1_en.pdf. ———. ‘Chapter 4. Overview of the EU Rural Development Policy 2007-2013’, 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/rural-development/2011/ch4_en.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Policy: Strategic Report 2013. Factsheet: Urban and Territorial Development’. Brussels: European Commission, 2013. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Energy’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet4_energy.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Environment’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet5_environment.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Human Capital’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet12_human_capital.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Information and Communication Technologies’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet2_ict_infrastructure_services.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Innovation and RTD Investments’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet1_inno_rd.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Other Transport’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet9_other_transport.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Rail’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet7_rail.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Road’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet8_road.pdf. ———. ‘Cohesion Report: Strategic Report 2013, Factsheet: Social Inclusion and Social Infrastructure’, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/how/policy/doc/strategic_report/2 013/factsheet11_social_inclusion_infra.pdf. ———. ‘EU Agriculture Spending Focused on Results’, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/pdf/cap-spending-092015_en.pdf. ———. ‘EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. Targeting Investments on Key Growth Priorities.’, 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/fiche_inn ovation_en.pdf. ———. ‘EU Financial Framework 2007-2013 in Figures - Budget’, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/fin_fwk0713/fwk0713_en.cfm#cf07_13. ———. ‘Fonds Européen Pour La Pêche (FEP) (2007-2013) - Pêche - Commission Européenne’, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/eff/index_fr.htm. ———. ‘Geography of Expenditure. Final Report Work Package 13. Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2007-2013, Focusing on the European Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF)’, 2015. 110
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost20 13/wp13_final_report_en.pdf. Eurostat. ‘Density of Population’, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/download.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language =fr&pcode=tps00003. ———. ‘Density of Population (NUTS 2 Regions)’, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/tgs00024. ———. ‘GDP and Main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income)’, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/national-accounts/data/database. ———. ‘GDP per Capita in PPS’, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pc ode=tec00114&plugin=1. ———. ‘General Government Expenditure by Function (COFOG)’, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=gov_10a_exp&language=en&mode =view. ———. ‘Government Revenue, Expenditure and Main Aggregates’, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/gov_a_main. ———. ‘Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at Current Market Prices by NUTS 2 Regions’, 2016. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do. ———. ‘Population on 1 January’, 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tp s00001&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=1. Executive Office Of The President. Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Only, Fiscal Year 2014. [S.l.]: U S Govt Printing Office, 2013. Feyrer, James, and Bruce Sacerdote. ‘Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’. Working Paper. NBER, 2011. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16759.pdf. GAO. ‘Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of Federal Funding Levels and Selected Challenges’. GAO, 2012. http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648792.pdf. Geography, US Census Bureau. ‘State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates’, 2010. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/statearea.html#n4. Katsarova, Ivana. ‘The (Low) Absorption of EU Structural Funds’, 2013. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/eplibrary/The-low-absorption-of-EU-StructuralFunds.pdf. Knapp, Gunnar. ‘An Introduction to the Economy of Alaska’. 2012. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/presentations/2012_02Introduction_to_Economy_of_Alaska.pdf. Legal Information Institute. ‘Federalism’. Cornell University, n.d. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federalism. National Priorities Project. ‘Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go’. National Priorities Project, 2016. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budgetbasics/federal-budget-101/spending/. NCSL. ‘State Partisan Composition’, 2016. http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-statelegislatures/partisan-composition.aspx. Obama, Barack. ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2009. ———. ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2010. ———. ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2011. ———. ‘The Budget Message of the President’, 2012. OECD. ‘Purchasing Power Parities - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - OECD’. Accessed 5 June 2016. http://www.oecd.org/std/pricesppp/purchasingpowerparities-frequentlyaskedquestionsfaqs.htm. ———. ‘Regional Accounts : Regional GDP per Capita (PPP)’, 2014. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REGACC_TL2. ———. , ed. Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD, 2010.
111
OECD
Regional Outlook 2014. OECD Publishing, 2014. http://www.oecdilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/oecd-regional-outlook2014_9789264201415-en. Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. ‘Composition of Congress by Party 1855–2017’. Infoplease, 2016. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html. Official Journal of the European Communities. Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version), Treaty of Maastricht, 1992. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39218.html. Official Journal of the European Union. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006, 2006. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1828&from=FR. OMB. ‘Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance’. CFDA, 2015. https://www.cfda.gov/. ———. ‘Learn Grants’. Grants.gov, 2015. http://www.grants.gov/. Osterloh, Steffen. ‘The Fiscal Consequences of EU Cohesion Policy after 2013’. Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), 2013. http://www.ief.es/documentos/recursos/publicaciones/revistas/presu_gasto_pu blico/57_04.pdf. Pizzoli, Edoardo. ‘How to Best Classify Rural and Urban’, 2007. ‘Programme de Développement Rural Hexagonal’. Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche, de la Ruralité et de l’Aménagement du Territoire, n.d. https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0a hUKEwixjPHrxYHLAhVInBoKHWXRB74QFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fagricult ure.gouv.fr%2Ftelecharger%2F44696%3Ftoken%3D93d98250d0b76f7d8d4d5ff 9f79dfc81&usg=AFQjCNEeWHPYS_TC6Mn_PxdwHgU5hheAqg&cad=rja. Tatulescu, Alina. ‘The Cohesion Policy at EU Level’. Academy of Economic Studies of Bucharest, 2013. http://www.revistadestatistica.ro/Articole/2013/RRS_08_2013_a3_en.pdf. The Quality of Public Expenditures in the EU. Brussels: Europ. Comm., DirectorateGeneral for Economic and Financial Affairs, 2012. Tortola, Pier Domenico. ‘The Limits of Normalization: Taking Stock of the EU-US Comparative Literature’. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 52, no. 6 (1 November 2014): 1342–57. doi:10.1111/jcms.12143. Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, EEC Treaty, 1957. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Axy0023. United States Census Bureau. ‘Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015’, 2015. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2015/index.html. ———. ‘State Intercensal Estimates (2000-2010)’, 2015. https://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/state/state2010.html. US Department of Commerce, B. E. A. ‘ECONOMIC GROWTH WIDESPREAD ACROSS METROPOLITAN AREAS IN 2014’, 2015. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_metro/gdp_metro_newsreleas e.htm. ———. ‘Regional Data. GDP & Personal Income’, 2016. http://www.bea.gov/itable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1#reqid=70&step=4&i suri=1&7003=200&7001=1200&7002=1&7090=70. ———. ‘Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product’, 2016. http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isu ri=1&903=5. US Department of the Treasury. ‘Federal Government Procurement Data Quality Summary. Fiscal Year 2014. For Agency Data in the Federal Procurement Data System’, 2015. https://www.usaspending.gov/about/PublishingImages/Pages/TheData/Federal %20Government%20Procurement%20Data%20Quality%20Summary%202009 %20-%202014.pdf. ———. ‘Federal Grants Databases’, 2015. https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/Default.aspx. 112
US Department of Transportation. ‘The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)’. 2009. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/arrapresentationfinal05012009.pp t. USFOREX. ‘Yearly Average Rates’. USFOREX, n.d. http://www.usforex.com/forextools/historical-rate-tools/yearly-average-rates. USgovernmentspending. ‘Government Spending Details in $ Million’, 2016. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2009USmn_07mc2n_ 206080#usgs302. ———. ‘US Federal State and Local Public Spending by COFOG Classification, 20072013’, 2016. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2009USmn_07mc2n_ 206080#usgs302. White House. ‘An Economic Analysis of Transportation Infrastructure Investment’, 2014. World Bank. ‘GDP per Capita, PPP (Current International US$)’, 2016. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD.
113
APPENDIX 1. TYPOLOGY APPLICATION Appendix – Table 1. Typology applied to EU Priorities.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
1 - Applied R&D and Innovation
11 - R&D activities
110 - R&D activities
12 - R&D infrastructures
120 - R&D infrastructures
13 - Promotion of innovation in enterprises 14 - Other R&D/innovation
130 - Promotion of innovation in enterprises 140 - Other R&D/innovation
2 - Transport
21 - Rail transport
210 - Rail transport
22 - Road transport
220 - Road transport
23 - Maritime transport and waterways 24 - Air transport
230 - Maritime transport and waterways 240 - Air transport
25 - Other transport/mixed
250 - Other transport/mixed
3 - ICT
31 - ICT infrastructures
310 - ICT infrastructures
4 - Social Infrastructures
41 - Education infrastructures
410 - Education infrastructures
42 - Health infrastructures
420 - Health infrastructures
43 - Housing infrastructures
430 - Housing infrastructures
44 - Other social infrastructures 51 - Education and training
440 - Other social infrastructures 510 - Education and training
52 - Support to employment access 61 - Aids to enterprises
520 - Support to employment access 610 - Aids to enterprises
71 - Electricity (unspecified: generation, distribution, storage)
710 - Electricity (unspecified: generation, distribution, storage) 721 - Gas
5 - Human Capital 6 - Enterprises Support 7 - Natural Resources and Energy
72 - Fossil energy
722 - Petroleum 723 - Mixed 73 - Renewables
731 - Wind 732 - Solar 733 - Biomass 734 - Other 735 - Mixed
8Environment
74 - Other sources of energy
740 - Other sources of energy
75 - Energy efficiency/conservation 81 - Environmental quality and pollution control
750 - Energy efficiency/conservation 811 - Air 812 - Water 813 - Land 814 - Waste 815 - Integrated/mixed approach 114
9 - Touristic and Cultural development 10 - Territorial Development
82 - Climate change action
820 - Climate change action
83 - Biodiversity/nature protection 84 - Environmental risk prevention 91 - Touristic development of the territory 92 - Cultural development of the territory 101 - Territorial regeneration
830 - Biodiversity/nature protection 840 - Environmental risk prevention 910 - Touristic development of the territory 920 - Cultural development of the territory 1010 - Territorial regeneration
101 - Aids to lagging territories
1020 - Aids to lagging territories
Sources: DG Empl, DG Regio, European Commission, Authors’ calculation
Appendix – Table 2. Typology applied to US Programmes.
Programme Title
Level 1
NATIONAL CENTER FOR PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING PROGRAM National Center for Preservation Technology and Training Stewardship Science Grant Program
0
Brookwood-Sago Grant
0
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
0
North American Wetlands Conservation Fund Technical Assistance and Training Grants
0
Laboratory Training, Evaluation, and Quality Assurance Programs Statewide Data Systems
0
Statewide Data Systems, Recovery Act
0
Alaska Native Serving and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions Education Grants Appalachian Local Development District Assistance KLAMATH BASIN WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000 *FEDERALLY ASSISTED LOW-INCOME HOUSING DRUG ELIMINATION (1997U) *SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD GRANTS (1997U) 108-7 ARBUCKLE SIMPSON/UNCOMPAHGRE 16.751 & 16.738 National Initiatives
0
16.754 - Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program 16.816 - John R. Justice
0
1994 Institutions Research Program
0
7(j) Technical Assistance
0
Level 2
Level 3
Explicitely targeted territory
0 0
0
0
0
YES
0
YES
0 0 0 0
0
115
93.518 - Affordable Care Act - Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Abandoned Infants
0
Academic Exchange Programs Educational Advising and Student Services Academic Exchange Programs - English Language Programs Academic Exchange Programs - Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program Academic Exchange Programs Humphrey Fellowship Program Academic Exchange Programs - Scholars
0
Academic Exchange Programs - Special Academic Exchange Programs Academic Exchange Programs - Teachers
0
Academic Exchange Programs Undergraduate Programs ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS
0
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Activity Adolescent Family Life Research Grants
0
Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects Adoption Assistance
0
Adoption Incentive Payments
0
Adoption Opportunities
0
Adult Viral Hepatitis Prevention and Control Advanced Nursing Education Grant Program Advanced Nursing Education Traineeships Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 Aeronautics
0
Aeronautics
0
Affordable Care Act - Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Affordable Care Act - National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program-Network Implementation Affordable Care Act - Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Payments Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) ¿ Consumer Assistance Program Grants Affordable Care Act (ACA) ¿ Family to Family Health Information Centers Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) Advanced Nursing Education Expansion Initiative Affordable Care Act (ACA) Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 116
Affordable Care Act (ACA) Expansion of Physician Assistant Training Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) Grants to States for Health Insurance Premium Review Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Profession Opportunity Grants Affordable Care Act (ACA) Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Research Programs Affordable Care Act (ACA) Nursing and Home Health Aides Training Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) Nursing Assistant and Home Health Aide Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) Personal and Home Care Aide State Training Program (PHCAST) Affordable Care Act (ACA) Personal Responsibility Education Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) Primary Care Residency Expansion Program Affordable Care Act ¿ Aging and Disability Resource Center Affordable Care Act ¿ National Health Service Corps Affordable Care Act Implementation Support for State Demonstrations to Integrate Care for Medicare-Medicaid Enrollees Affordable Care Act Program for Early Detection of Certain Medical Conditions Related to Environmental Health Hazards Affordable Care Act State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) and Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) Options Counseling for MedicareMedicaid Individuals in States with Approved Financial Alignment Models Affordable Care Act Streamlined surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia: Reducing burden and demonstrating preventability Affordable Care Act Streamlined surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia: Reducing burden and demonstrating preventability; and Prevention and Public Health Fund African Elephant Conservation Fund
0
Aging Congregate Nutrition Services for States Aging Home-Delivered Nutrition Services for States Aging Nutrition Services for Native Americans
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0 117
Aging Research
0
Agricultural and Rural Economic Research Agricultural and Rural Economic Research, Cooperative Agreements and Collaborations Agricultural Management Assistance
0
Agricultural Market and Economic Research Agricultural Research_Basic and Applied Research Agricultural Statistics Reports
0
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) AIDS Education and Training Centers
0
Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants I Alcohol Open Container Requirements
0
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians Alcohol Research Programs
0
Allergy, Immunology and Transplantation Research Alternate Non-Emergency Service Providers or Networks Alternative Housing Pilot Program
0
Alternatives Analysis
0
Alzheimer's Disease Demonstration Grants to States American Overseas Research Centers
0
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act Program Animal Health and Disease Research
0
Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve
0
Appalachian Research, Technical Assistance, and Demonstration Projects Aquaculture Grants Program (AGP)
0
ARCHEOLOGY
0
ARRA - Immunization
0
ARRA - Nursing Workforce Diversity
0
ARRA - Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections ARRA - Prevention and Wellness Leveraging National Organizations ARRA - Prevention and Wellness ¿ Communities Putting Prevention to Work Funding Opportunities Announcement (FOA)
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
118
ARRA - Prevention and Wellness-State, Territories and Pacific Islands ARRA - Public Health Traineeship Program ARRA - Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students ARRA - State Loan Repayment Program
0
ARRA - State Primary Care Offices
0
ARRA ¿ Strengthening Communities Fund ARRA ¿ Child Care and Development Block Grant ARRA ¿ Emergency Contingency Fund for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Program ARRA ¿ Licensure Portability Grant Program ARRA ¿ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Supplemental Grants ARRA Grants for Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry Training and Enhancement ARRA Prevention Research Centers Comparative Effectiveness Research Program Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Arts Exchanges on International Issues
0
Arts in Education
0
Asian Elephant Conservation Fund
0
Assets for Independence Demonstration Program Assistance for Torture Victims
0
Assistance Programs for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control Assistance to Firefighters Grant
0
Assistance to Firefighters Grant (ARRA)
0
Assisted Living Conversion for Eligible Multifamily Housing Projects Assistive Technology
0
Assistive Technology_State Grants for Protection and Advocacy Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Basic Scientific Research - Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Basic Center Grant
0
Basic Scientific Research
0
Basic Scientific Research - Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Basic, Applied, and Advanced Research in Science and Engineering Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 119
Biological Sciences
0
Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities - Prevention and Surveillance Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Blood Diseases and Resources Research
0
Boating Safety Financial Assistance
0
Border Enforcement Grants
0
Border Interoperability Demonstration Project Breastfeeding Promotion and Support ¿ Improving Maternity Care Practices project financed solely by Public Prevention and Health Funds BROWNFIELD PILOTS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS Brownfields Training, Research, and Technical Assistance Grants and Cooperative Agreements Building Capacity to Implement EPA National Guidelines for School Environmental Health Programs BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
0
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) Grant Programs (including Energ Byrd Honors Scholarships
0
Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program Byrne Discretionary Program
0
Cancer Biology Research
0
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research
0
Cancer Control
0
Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research Cancer Treatment Research
0
Capital Case Litigation
0
Cardiovascular Diseases Research
0
Cataract Research
0
CELL BIOLOGY AND BIOPHYSICS RESEARCH CENTER FOR MEDICAL REHABILITATION RESEARCH Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research_Coastal Ocean Program Centers for Academic Excellence
0
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ¿Affordable Care Act (ACA) ¿ Communities Putting Prevention to Work
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
120
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance Centers for Genomics and Public Health
0
Centers for Homeland Security
0
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Research, Demonstrations and Evaluations Chafee Education and Training Vouchers Program (ETV) Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Program Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention (CEPP) Technical Assistance Grants Program Chesapeake Bay Studies
0
Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants
0
Child and Adult Care Food Program
0
Child Care Access Means Parents in School Child Care and Development Block Grant
0
Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Child Nutrition Discretionary Grants Limited Availability Child Safety and Child Booster Seats Incentive Grants Child Support Enforcement
0
Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects Child Support Enforcement Research
0
Child Welfare Research Training or Demonstration Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Projects_State and Local Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance of Blood Lead Levels in Children Children and Youth Exposed
0
Children Exposed to Violence
0
Children Exposed to Violence
0
Children's Health Insurance Program
0
Children's Education Children's Education
0
Hospitals Graduate Medical Payment Hospitals Graduate Medical Payment Program
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
121
Children's Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities Children's Justice Grants to States
0
Chiropractic Demonstration Project Grants Chronic Diseases: Research, Control, and Prevention Citizen Corps
0
Citizenship Education and Training
0
Civic Education - We the People and the Cooperative Education Exchange Program Civil Rights Training and Advisory Services Coal Miners Respiratory Impairment Treatment Clinics and Services Coastal Program
0
Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards Cochran Fellowship ProgramInternational Training-Foreign Participant COLLECTION OF GENETIC SAMPLES FROM WILD BLACK FOOTED FERRETS College Access Challenge Grant Program
0
Columbia River Fisheries Development Program COMBATING EXPLOITIVE CHILD LABOR THROUGH EDUCATION IN UGANDA Commercial Driver's License Program Improvement Grant Commodity Partnerships for Risk Management Education Commodity Partnerships for Small Agricultural Risk Management Education Sessions Commodity Supplemental Food Program
0
Common Bean Productivity Research for Global Food Security Competitive Program Community Capacity Development Office
0
Community Compass Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Community Development Block Grants/Technical Assistance Program Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Advance Planning and Economic Diversification Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Compatible Use and Joint Land Use Studies Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Reductions in Defense Industry Employment Community Economic Adjustment Diversification Planning
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
122
Community Economic Adjustment Planning Assistance for Joint Land Use Studies Community Programs to Improve Minority Health Grant Program Community Prosecution and Project Safe Neighborhoods Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants Community-Based Violence Prevention Program Compassion Capital Fund
0
Competitive Abstinence Education (CAE)
0
Complex Humanitarian Emergency and War-Related Injury Public Health Activities Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances (SED) Comprehensive Geriatric Education Program(CGEP) Comprehensive Residential Drug Prevention and Treatment Projects for Subst CONFERENCES
0
CONGRESSIONAL
0
Congressional Grants
0
Congressionally Directed Assistance
0
Congressionally Recommended Awards
0
Congressionally Recommended Awards
0
Congressionally-Identified Projects
0
CONSERVATION
0
CONSERVATION CORPS
0
Consolidated Health Centers (Community Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the Homeless, and Public Housing Primary Care) Consolidated Health Centers (Community Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the Homeless, Public Housing Primary Care, and School Based Health Centers) Consolidated Pesticide Enforcement Cooperative Agreements Consolidated Tribal Government Program
0
Consultation Agreements
0
Consumer Data and Information Program Contributions to International Organizations for Overseas Assistance Convicted Offender and/or Arrestee DNA Backlog Reduction Program
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 123
COOPERATING TECHNICAL PARTNERS
0
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR PURPOSE OF UTILIZING STATE PRISONERS Cooperative Agreements for Addiction Treatment Training Centers Cooperative Agreements for State Treatment Outcomes and Performance Pilot Studies Enhancement Cooperative Agreements for State-Based Diabetes Control Programs and Evaluation of Surveillance Systems Cooperative Agreements to Improve the Health Status of Minority Populations Cooperative Agreements to Support Comprehensive School Health Programs to Prevent the Spread of HIV and Other Important Health Problems Cooperative Agreements to Support State-Based Safe Motherhood and Infant Health Initiative Programs Cooperative Agreements with States for Intrastate Meat and Poultry Inspection Cooperative Development Program (CDP) COOPERATIVE ECOSYSTEM SYSTEM STUDIES UNIT AWARDS Cooperative Extension Service
0
Cooperative Fishery Statistics
0
Cooperative Inspection Agreements with States and Tribes COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND TRAINING Cooperative Research Units Program
0
Cooperative Research Units Training Program Cooperative Science and Education Program Coordinated Services and Access to Research for Women, Infants, Children, and Youth Correctional Grant Program for Indian Tribes Counter Narcotics
0
COUNTERNARCOTICS
0
COUNTERNARCOTICS
0
Court Appointed Special Advocates
0
Court Appointed Special Advocates
0
CPD's Transformation Intitiative Technicial Assistance Crime Victim Assistance
0
Crime Victim Assistance/Discretionary Grants Crime Victim Compensation
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 124
Criminal and Juvenile Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program Criminal Justice Research and Development_Graduate Research Fellowships CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
0
Crisis Counseling
0
Crop Insurance Education in Targeted States Cross Agency Support
0
CSBG DISCRETIONARY AWARDSCOMMUNITY FOOD AND NUTRITION Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program
0
CULTURAL RESOURCES
0
Cultural, Technical and Educational Centers Culturally and Linguistically Specific Services Program Cybersecurity Education and Training Assistance Program (CETAP) DC School Choice Incentive Program
0
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research Delta Health Care Services Grant Program Demonstration Grants to States for Community Scholarships Demonstration Projects for Indian Health
0
Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 2003 Department of Defense HIV/AIDS Prevention Program Department of Defense Impact Aid (Supplement, CWSD, BRAC) Development and Coordination of Rural Health Services Developmental Disabilities Basic Support and Advocacy Grants Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases Extramural Research Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research Disabilities Prevention
0
Disadvantaged Health Professions Faculty Loan Repayment (FLRP) and Minority Faculty Fellowship Program (MFFP) Disaster Housing Assistance Grant
0
DISASTER HOUSING PROGRAM
0
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act¿Emergency Food Assistance Program (Administrative Costs) DISPATCH SERVICES
0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 125
DOD, NDEP, DOTC-STEM Education Outreach Implementation Driver's License Security Grant Program
0
Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training Drug Abuse Scientist Development Awards, Research Scientist Development Aw Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
0
Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
0
Drug-Free Communities Support Program Grants Drug-Free Workplace Program
0
EASE 2.0
0
East Asia and Pacific Grants Program
0
East Asia and Pacific Grants Program
0
ECA Individual Grants
0
Economic Development_Technical Assistance Economic High-Tech and Cyber Crime Prevention Economic Statecraft
0
Education
0
Education
0
Education and Prevention Grants to Reduce Sexual Abuse of Runaway, Homeless and Street Youth Education Quality Award Ambassadorship Education, Training, and Enhanced Services to End Violence Against and Abuse of Women with Disabilities Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs Appropriation Overseas Grants Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs Appropriation Overseas Grants Educational Exchange, American Studies Institute Educational Exchange_CongressBundestag Youth Exchange EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE-NIS SECONDARY SCHOOL INITIATIVE Educational Partnership Program
0
EDUCATIONS
0
Edward Byrne Memorial Competitive Grant Program Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grants Program
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
126
Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections ELLENDER FELLOWSHIPS OLDER AMERICAN/RECENT IMMIGRANTS Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program (ARRA) Emergency Food Assistance Program (Administrative Costs) Emergency Homeowners¿ Loan Program Emergency Management Performance Grant Program Emergency Management Performance Grants Emergency Management Performance Grants Emergency Medical Services for Children
0
Emergency Shelter Grants Program
0
Emergency Solutions Grant Program
0
Emergency System for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals Empowering Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities through Chronic Disease Self-Management Education Programs ¿ financed by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds (PPHF-2012) Empowering Older Adults and Adults with Disabilities through Chronic Disease Self-Management Education Programs ¿ financed by Prevention and Public Health Funds (PPHF) Energy Cooperatives to Support the National Coal Resources Data System (NCRDS) Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program Engaging Men and Youth in Preventing Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Engineering Grants
0
Enhance Safety of Children Affected by Substance Abuse Enhance the Safety of Children Affected by Parental Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety Program Enhanced Training and Services to End Violence and Abuse of Women Later in Life
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
127
Environmental and Scientific Partnerships and Programs Environmental Finance Center Grants
0
Environmental Health
0
Environmental Information Exchange Network Grant Program and Related Assistance Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program Environmental Justice Small Grant Program ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TRAINING AND FELLOWSHIP ASSISTANCE Environmental Policy and Innovation Grants Environmental Policy and State Sustainability Grants ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION_CONSOLIDATED RESEARCH GRANTS Environmental Public Health and Emergency Response Epidemiologic Research Studies of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection in Selected Population Groups Epidemiology and Other Health Studies Financial Assistance Program Epidemiology Cooperative Agreements
0
EUR/ACE Humanitarian Assistance Program EUR/ACE National Endowment for Democracy Small Grants EUR-Other
0
Exchange_English Language Specialist/Speaker Program Exploration
0
Exploration
0
Exploration, Recovery Act
0
Extramural Research Programs in the Neurosciences and Neurological Disorders Fair Housing Assistance Program_State and Local Fair Housing Initiatives Program
0
Family and Community Violence Prevention Program Family Connection Grants
0
Family Planning_Personnel Training
0
Family Planning_Service Delivery Improvement Research Grants Family Planning_Services
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 128
Family Support Payments to States_Assistance Payments Family Violence Prevention and Services/Battered Women's Shelters_Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions Family Violence Prevention and Services/Battered Women's Shelters_Grants to States and Indian Tribes Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women's Shelters_Discretionary Grants Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Domestic Violence Shelters and Supportive Services/Grants to States and Native American Tribes and Tribal Organizations Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program Farm Business Management and Benchmarking Competitive Grants Program Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants
0
Farm to School Grant Program
0
Farmers' Market Promotion Program
0
Federal Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Federal Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration National Training Center Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management
0
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management State and Tribal Coordination FEDERAL TRANSIT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Financial Education and Counseling Pilot Program FIRE
0
FIRE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE GRANT
0
FIRE STUDIES & HAZARD REDUCTION
0
FISHERIES
0
Fisheries Development and Utilization Research and Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program Fisheries Disaster Relief
0
Flood Plain Management Services
0
FNS Food Safety Grants
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
129
FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION AWARD Food Aid Nutrition Enhancement Program Food and Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate Fellowship Grants Food and Drug Administration_Research
0
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Programs (FANRP) Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Food for Education
0
Food for Peace Development Assistance Program Food for Peace Development Assistance Program (DAP) Food for Peace Emergency Program (EP)
0
Food for Progress
0
Food Safety and Security Monitoring Project Foreign Assistance to American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) Foreign Assistance to American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) Forest Legacy Program
0
Forest Products Lab: Technology Marketing Unit (TMU) Forest Stewardship Program
0
Forestry Research
0
Forests and Woodlands Resource Management Foster Care_Title IV-E
0
Foster Grandparent Program
0
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
0
FVAP Policy Clearinghouse
0
Gang Resistance Education and Training
0
Gap Analysis Program
0
General Department of State Assistance
0
GENERIC CLINICAL RESEARCH CENTERS
0
GENETICS RESEARCH
0
Geodetic Surveys and Services (Geodesy and Applications of the National Geodetic Reference System) Geologic Sequestration Site Characterization Geologic Sequestration Training and Research Grant Program Geosciences
0
Geriatric Academic Career Awards
0
Geriatric Training for Physicians, Dentists and Behavioral/Mental Health Professionals
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
130
Global AIDS
0
Global Counterterrorism Programs
0
Global Development Alliance
0
Global Development Alliance
0
Global Threat Reduction
0
Graduate Psychology Education Program and Patient Navigator and Chronic Disease Prevention Program Grants for Agricultural Research, Special Research Grants Grants for Agricultural Research_Competitive Research Grants Grants for Education, Prevention, and Early Detection of Radiogenic Cancers and Diseases Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grants for Faculty Development in Family Medicine Grants for Primary Care Training and Enhancement Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities Grants for Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program Grants to Increase Organ Donations
0
Grants to Provide Outpatient Early Intervention Services with Respect to HIV Disease Grants to Reduce Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking on Campus Grants to State Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Coalitions Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs Grants to States for Loan Repayment Program Grants to States for Operation of Offices of Rural Health Grants to States for Operation of Qualified High-Risk Pools Grants to States to Support Oral Health Workforce Activities Great Apes Conservation Fund
0
Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Fellowships For Undergraduate Environmental Study Growth Management Planning Assistance
0
Guardianship Assistance
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
131
Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Hawaii Sustainable Fisheries Development (Aquaculture Program) Hazardous Materials Assistance Program
0
Head Start
0
Headquarters and Regional Underground Storage Tanks Program Health Care Tax Credit (HCTC) National Emergency Grants (NEGs) Health Careers Opportunity Program
0
Health Disparities in Minority Health
0
Health Education Training Centers Continuing Educational Support for Health Professionals Serving in Underserved Communities Health Improvement for Re-entering Exoffenders Initiative (HIRE) HIV/AIDS Health Professions Recruitment Program for Indians Health Program for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers: PPHF 2012 Affordable Care Act Projects Health Promotion/Disease Prevention Program for American Indians and Alaska Natives Health Systems Strengthening and HIV/AIDS Prevention, Care and Treatment under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Healthy Communities Access Program
0
Healthy Communities Grant Program
0
Healthy Homes Demonstration Grants
0
Healthy Homes Demonstration Grants (Recovery Act Funded) Healthy Homes Production Grant Program Healthy Homes Technical Studies Grants
0
Healthy Homes Technical Studies Grants (Recovery Act Funded) Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants Healthy Start Initiative
0
Healthy Urban Food Enterprise Development Center (HUFED) Helium Resource Management
0
Help America Vote Act Requirements Payments Help America Vote College Program
0
Help America Vote Mock Election Program HERITAGE PRESERVATION INC.
0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 132
Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants HISTORY AND INTERPRETATION
0
HIV Care Formula Grants
0
HIV Demonstration, Research, Public and Professional Education Projects HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants
0
HIV Prevention Activities_Health Department Based HIV Prevention Activities_NonGovernmental Organization Based HIV Prevention Programs for Women
0
HIV/AIDS PREVENTION PROGRAM
0
Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency Homeland Security Biowatch Program
0
Homeland Security Grant Program
0
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
0
Homeland Security Information Technology Research, Testing, Evaluation and Demonstration Program Homeland Security Outreach, Education, and Technical Assistance Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program Homeland Security Research Testing, Evaluation, and Demonstration of Technologies Related to Nuclear Detection Homeland Security Research, Development, Testing, Evaluation, and Demonstration of Technologies Related to Nuclear Threat Detection Homeland Security, Research, Testing, Evaluation, and Demonstration of Technologies Homeland Security_Agricultural
0
Homeland Security-related Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (HS STEM) Career Development Program Homeless Management Information Systems Technical Assistance Homelessness Prevention and Rapid ReHousing Program (Recovery Act Funded) Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) and Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Aligned Cooperative Agreements Housing Application Packaging Grants
0
Housing Counseling Assistance Program
0
Housing Counseling Training Program
0
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
133
HPS-SPS Contracts
0
Human Genome Research
0
Human Health Studies_Applied Research and Development Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immunodeficiency Virus Syndrome (AIDS) Surveillance IIP Individual Grants
0
Immunization Cooperative Agreements
0
Immunization Grants
0
Immunization Research, Demonstration, Public Information and Education_Training and Clinical Skills Improvement Projects Impact Aid_Facilities Maintenance
0
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
0
Improving the Capability of Indian Tribal Governments to Regulate Environmental Quality Improving the Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse and the Regional and Local Children's Advocacy Centers IMR and NCCIM Programs
0
Incentive Grant Program to Increase Motorcyclist Safety Independent Living State Grants, Recovery Act Independent Living_State Grants
0
Indian Community Fire Protection
0
Indian Country Alcohol and Drug Prevention Indian Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP) Indian Health Service_Health Management Development Program Indian Housing Block Grants
0
Indian School Equalization Program
0
Indian Social Services_Welfare Assistance INDIVIDUAL FAMILY AND GRANTS
0
Infant Adoption Awareness Training
0
Information Analysis Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) and Critical Infrastructure Monitoring and Protection INFORMATION ON MANAGEMENT DATA SHARING Information Security Grant Program
0
Initiative to Educate State and Territorial Officials about Maintaining and Strengthening Public Health in a Changing Environment
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
134
Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs Injury Prevention Program for American Indians and Alaskan Natives_Cooperative Agreements Innovations in Applied Public Health Research Institute for International Public Policy
0
Institutional Capacity Building (ICB)
0
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Interagency Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants Intercity Bus Security Grants
0
Intergenerational Approaches to HIV/AIDS Prevention Education with Women across The Lifespan Pilot Program Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986
0
International Labor Programs
0
International Programs to Combat Human Trafficking International Programs to Support Democracy, Human Rights and Labor International Research and Research Training International Research and Studies
0
International Science and Education Grants International Science and Engineering (OISE) Internships, Training and Workshops for the Office of Air and Radiation INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNCATIONS Interoperable Emergency Communications Invasive and Noxious Plant Management
0
Investing in People in The Middle East and North Africa Investing in People in the Middle East and North Africa Iraq Assistance Programs
0
Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission Grants John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Program Judicial Training on Child Maltreatment for Court Personnel Juvenile Justice Programs Juvenile Accountability Block Grants
0
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States
0
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
135
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States Juvenile Justice Reform and Reinvestment Demonstration Program Juvenile Mentoring Program
0
Juvenile Mentoring Program
0
Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research Labor Force Statistics
0
LABORATORY ANIMAL SCIENCES AND PRIMATE RESEARCH LAND ACQUISITION
0
Land Buy-Back Program For Tribal Nations Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Agreement Program Lead Educational Outreach and Baseline Assessment of Tribal Children's Exposure and Risks Associated With Lead Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Grant Program Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Grant Program Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration Grant Program (Recovery Act Funded) Lead Technical Studies Grants
0
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control in Privately-Owned Housing Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control in Privately-Owned Housing (Recovery Act Funded) Lifespan Respite Care Program
0
Litigation Support for Indian Rights
0
Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance
0
Low Income Taxpayer Clinics
0
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
0
Lung Diseases Research
0
Manufactured Home Dispute Resolution
0
Map Modernization Management Support
0
Marine Corps Systems Command Federal Assistance Program Marine Fisheries Initiative
0
Marine Mammal Data Program
0
Market News
0
Market Protection and Promotion
0
Maternal and Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant to the States Mathematical and Physical Sciences
0
Mathematical Sciences Grants Program
0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
136
MCC Foreign Assistance for Overseas Programs MCC Foreign Assistance for Overseas Programs Medicaid Transformation Grants
0
Medical Assistance Program
0
Medical Library Assistance
0
Medical Programs
0
Medical Reserve Corps Small Grant Program Mental and Behavioral Health Education and Training Grants Mental Health Disaster Assistance and Emergency Mental Health Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training Mental Health Research Career/Scientist Development Awards Mental Health Research Grants
0
Mentoring Children of Prisoners
0
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research Middle East Partnership Initiative
0
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
0
Military Construction, National Guard
0
Military Medical Research and Development Military Medical Research and Development Mine Health and Safety Grants
0
Minerals Resources External Research Program Minimum Penalties for Repeat Offenders for Driving While Intoxicated Minority Health and Health Disparities Research MISCELLANEOUS FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ACTIONS Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Assistance Program Missing Children's Assistance
0
Modification of Trauma Care Component of State EMS Plan Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration Multifamily Housing Service Coordinators
0
Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center National Agricultural Library
0
National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
137
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences National Center for Health Workforce Analysis National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) National Center on Sleep Disorders Research National Community Centers of Excellence in Women's Health National Community-Based Lead Outreach and Training Grant Program National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) National Cyber Security Awareness
0
National Explosives Detection Canine Team Program National Family Caregiver Support, Title VI, Part C, Grants To Indian Tribes And Native Hawaiians National Farmworker Jobs Program
0
National Fire Plan - Rural Fire Assistance
0
National Fire Plan-Wildland Urban Interface Community Fire Assistance National Food Service Management Institute Administration and Staffing Grant National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program National Geospatial Program: Building The National Map National Guard ChalleNGe Program
0
National Guard ChalleNGe Program
0
National Guard Military Construction
0
National Guard Military Operations & Maintenance National Guard Military Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Projects National Health Promotion
0
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Discretionary Safety Grants National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project Grants National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research National Institutes of Health Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program National Institutes of Health Pediatric Research Loan Repayment Program
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
138
National Land Remote Sensing_Education Outreach and Research National Motor Carrier Safety
0
National Organizations of State and Local Officials National Outreach and Communication Program National Prison Rape Statistics Program
0
National Project Management of the Healthcare Communities Knowledge Gateway National Research Service Award in Primary Care Medicine National Research Service Awards_Health Services Research Training National School Lunch Program
0
National Spatial Data Infrastructure Cooperative Agreements Program National Special Security Event
0
National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System National Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) Response System National Wetlands Inventory
0
Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems
0
Native Hawaiian Health Systems
0
NATL INST FOR JUV JUST & DEL PREV
0
NICS Act Record Improvement Program
0
NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances_Basic Research and Education NO CFDA NUMBER HAS BEEN ASSIGNED
0
Non-Governmental Organization Strengthening (NGO) Nonprofit Capacity Building
0
Non-Profit Security Program
0
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund
0
Not Elsewhere Classified
0
Nurse Anesthetist Traineeships
0
Nurse Education, Practice and Retention Grants Nurse Education, Practice Quality and Retention Grants Nurse Faculty Loan Program (NFLP)
0
Nursing Research
0
Nursing Workforce Diversity
0
Nutrition Services Incentive Program
0
Occupational Safety and Health Program
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
139
Occupational Safety and Health_State Program Occupational Safety and Health_Susan Harwood Training Grants Ocean Exploration
0
Ocean Freight Reimbursement Program (OFR) Office of Global Women's Issues
0
Office of Global Women's Issues
0
Office of Scientific and Technical Information OLYMPIC SCHOLARSHIPS
0
One-Time International Exchange Grant Program OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GRANT
0
Operation Lead Elimination Action Program Oral Diseases and Disorders Research
0
Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative Organic Certification Cost Share Programs OSHA Data Initiative
0
Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Overseas Processing Entities (OPEs) for U.S. Refugee Resettlement Overseas Programs - Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Overseas Programs - Faculty Research Abroad Overseas Programs - Group Projects Abroad Overseas Refugee Assistance Program for Near East and South Asia Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Africa Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for East Asia Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Europe Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Strategic Global Priorities Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Western Hemisphere Overseas Schools Program
0
OVW Technical Assistance Initiative
0
OVW Technical Assistance Initiative
0
Pacific Fisheries Data Program
0
Part E - Developing, Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs Partnership Agreements to Develop NonInsurance Risk Management Tools for Producers (Farmers)
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
140
Patient Navigator and Chronic Disease Prevention Program Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program Payments to 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Tuskegee University Payments to Agricultural Experiment Stations Under the Hatch Act Performance and Registration Information Systems Management Pilot Demonstration or Earmark Projects
0
Plant and Animal Disease, Pest Control, and Animal Care Plant Materials for Conservation
0
Poison Center Support and Enhancement Grant Program Polar Programs
0
Policy Research and Evaluation Grants
0
Population Research
0
Port Security Grant Program
0
Port Security Grant Program (ARRA)
0
Port Security Grant Program (ARRA)
0
PORTABLE ASSISTANCE
0
Postal Model for Medical Countermeasures Delivery and Distribution Postconviction DNA Testing Program
0
Postconviction Testing of DNA Evidence to Exonerate the Innocent PPHF 2013 - Cooperative Agreement to Support Navigators in Federallyfacilitated and State Partnership Exchanges PPHF - Community Transfromation Grants and National Dissemination and Support for Community Transformation Grants - financed solely by Preventinon and Public Health Funds PPHF 2012 - Prevention and Public Health Fund (Affordable Care Act) Capacity Building Assistance to Strengthen Public Health Immunization Infrastructure and Performance financed in part by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds PPHF 2012 National Public Health Improvement Initiative PPHF 2012: Community Transformation Grants -Small Communities Program financed solely by 2012 Public Prevention and Health Funds PPHF 2012: Community Transfromation Grants and National Dissemination and
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 141
Support for Community Transformation Grants - financed solely by 2012 Preventinon and Public Health Funds PPHF 2012: Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Program financed solely by 2012 Public Prevention and Health Funds PPHF 2012-Applied Leadership for Community Health Improvement PPHF: Health Care Surveillance/Health Statistics ¿ Surveillance Program Announcement: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Financed in Part by Prevention and Public Health Fund PPHF-2012 Cooperative Agreements for Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Electronic Health Record (EHR) Integration and Interoperability Expansion PPHF-2012 Geriatric Education Centers
0
0 0
0
0
PPHF2012: Chronic disease Inovation Grants - financed soley by 2012 Public Prevention Health Funds PPHF2013: State Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Programs financed in part by 2013 PPHF Pregnancy Assistance Fund Program
0
PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (TITLE II (ELIHPA), TITLE III, TITLE IV Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance - Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households Prevention and Public Health Fund (Affordable Care Act): Enhanced Surveillance for New Vaccine Preventable Disease Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) Public Health Traineeships Prevention of Disease, Disability, and Death through Immunization and Control of Respiratory and Related Diseases Prevention Public Health Fund 2012: Viral Hepatitis Education Prevention Public Health Fund 2012: Viral Hepatitis Prevention Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant Preventive Health Services_Sexually Transmitted Diseases Control Grants Preventive Health Services_Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, Demonstrations, and Public Information and Education Grants Preventive Medicine and Public Health Residency Training Program, Integrative Medicine Program, and National
0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
142
Coordinating Center for Integrative Medicine Preventive Medicine Residency Program
0
Priority Grant Competition
0
Prisoner Reentry Initiative Demonstration (Offender Reentry) Private Enforcement Initiatives
0
Professional and Cultural Exchange Programs - Citizen Exchanges Professional and Cultural Exchange Programs - International Visitor Leadership Program Professional and Cultural Exchange Programs - Special Professional and Cultural Programs Program for Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union Program of Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Project Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Tuberculosis Control Programs Project Safe Neighborhoods
0
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) Promoting Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant Program Promoting Safe and Stable Families
0
Promotion of the Arts_Grants to Organizations and Individuals Promotion of the Humanities_Division of Preservation and Access Promotion of the Humanities_Fellowships and Stipends Promotion of the Humanities_Professional Development Promotion of the Humanities_Research
0
Promotion of the Humanities_We the People Protecting Inmates and Safeguarding Communities Discretionary Grant Program Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Public and Indian Housing
0
Public and Indian Housing Transformation Initiative (TI) Technical Assistance (TA) PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSINGCOMPREHENSIVE GRANT PROGRAM PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSINGCOMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
143
Public Awareness Campaigns on Embryo Adoption Public Diplomacy Programs
0
Public Diplomacy Programs
0
Public Diplomacy Programs for Afghanistan and Pakistan Public Diplomacy Programs for Afghanistan and Pakistan Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund Public Health Conference Support
0
Public Health Emergency Preparedness
0
Public Health Traineeships
0
Public Health Training Centers Grant Program Public Health Training Centers Program
0
Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program
0
Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants Quentin N. Burdick Program for Rural Interdisciplinary Training Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health: Obesity and Hypertension Demonstration Projects financed solely by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds Radiological/Nuclear Detection Pilot Evaluations Program Rapid Expansion of Antiretroviral Therapy Programs for HIV-Infected Persons in Selected Countries in Africa and the Caribbean Under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Real Estate Programs_Indian Lands
0
Recovery Act - Eward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program/ Grants to States and Territories Recovery Act - State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program: Combating Criminal Narcotics Activity Stemming from the Southern Border of the United States Competitive Grant Program Recovery Act - State Victim Assistance Formula Grant Program Recovery Act - Violence Against Women Discretionary Grants For Indian Tribal Governments Recovery Act Transitional Housing
0
RECREATION
0
Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Discretionary Grants Refugee and Entrant Assistance_State Administered Programs
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
144
Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Targeted Assistance Grants Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Voluntary Agency Programs Refugee and Entrant Assistance_Wilson/Fish Program Regional Agricultural IPM Grants
0
Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP) Research Projects Regional Fishery Management Councils
0
Regional Information Sharing Systems
0
Regulation of Surface Coal Mining and Surface Effects of Underground Coal Mining Rehabilitation Long-Term Training
0
Rehabilitation Services Demonstration and Training Programs Rehabilitation Services_Client Assistance Program Rehabilitation Services_Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind Rehabilitation Short-Term Training
0
Rehabilitation Training_Continuing Education Rehabilitation Training_General Training
0
Rehabilitation Training_State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service Training Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research in Special Education
0
Research on Chemical and Biological Defense Research on Healthcare Costs, Quality and Outcomes Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders Research, Prevention, and Education Programs on Lyme Disease in the United States Research, Treatment and Education Programs on Lyme Disease in the United States RESIDENT OPPORTUNITY AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES HOMEOWNERSHIP AND FAMILY Resident Opportunity and Supportive Services - Service Coordinators Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Retired and Senior Volunteer Program
0
RFA AND WUI
0
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund
0
Ruminant Feed Ban Support Project
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
145
Rural Access to Emergency Devices Grant Rural Cooperative Development Grants
0
Rural Development, Forestry, and Communities Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking Assistance Program Rural Health Care Services Outreach, Rural Health Network Development and Small Health Care Provider Quality Improvement Program Rural Housing Preservation Grants
0
Rural PACE (Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly) Provider Grant Program Rural Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance Ryan White HIV/AIDS Dental Reimbursement and Community Based Dental Partnership Grants Ryan White HIV/AIDS Dental Reimbursements Community Based Dental Partnership Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities_National Programs Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities_State Grants Safety Belt Performance Grants
0
Safety Data Improvement Program
0
SAFETY/SECURITY
0
Scholarships for Health Professions Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds School Leadership
0
Science
0
Science, Recovery Act
0
Scientific Leadership Awards
0
Second Chance Act Prisoner Reentry Initiative Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Securing Critical Underground Infrastructure Pilot Program Securing the Cities
0
Securing the Cities Program
0
Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program Senior Companion Program
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 146
Senior Demonstration Program
0
Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program
0
Services for Trafficking Victims
0
Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth Services to Victims of a Severe Form of Trafficking Sexual Assault Services Formula Program Sexual Assault Services Program
0
Shelter Plus Care
0
Sickle Cell Treatment Demonstration Program Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Social Security - Work Incentives Planning and Assistance Program Social Security State Grants for Work Incentives Assistance to Disabled Beneficiaries Social Security_Research and Demonstration Social Services Block Grant
0
Social Services Research and Demonstration Soft Target Program for Overseas Schools Soil Survey
0
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program Southern Nevada Public Land Management Special Assistance
0
Special Data Collections and Statistical Studies Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) Diabetes Prevention and Healthy Heart Initiative Special Diabetes Program for Indians_Diabetes Prevention and Treatment Projects Special Education -- Olympic Education Programs Special Education_Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Special Education-Grants for Infants and Families Special Oceanic and Atmospheric Projects Special Programs for the Aging_Title III, Part C_Nutrition Services Special Programs for the Aging_Title IV_and Title II_Discretionary Projects
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
147
Special Programs for the Aging_Title VI, Part A, Grants to Indian Tribes_Part B, Grants to Native Hawaiians Special Programs for the Aging_Title VII, Chapter 2_Long Term Care Ombudsman Services for Older Individuals Special Programs for the Aging_Title VII, Chapter 3_Programs for Prevention of Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Special Projects
0
Special Projects of National Significance
0
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Specially Selected Health Projects
0
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
0
Specialty Crop Research Initiative
0
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) State Administrative Expenses for Child Nutrition State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training
0
State and Local Homeland Security Exercise Support State and Local Homeland Security National Training Program State and Territorial and Technical Assistance Capacity Development Minority HIV/AIDS Demonstration Program State Bulk Fuel Revolving Fund Grants
0
State Commissions
0
State Court Improvement Program
0
State Damage Prevention Program Grants State Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions State Environmental Justice Cooperative Agreement Program State Fire Training Systems Grants
0
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Education State Grants, Recovery Act State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Government Services, Recovery Act State Grants for Protection and Advocacy Services State Health Access Program
0
State Health Planning and Development Agencies State Heating Oil and Propane Program
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 148
STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT
0
STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) State Justice Statistics Program for Statistical Analysis Centers State Mediation Grants
0
State Memorandum of Agreement Program for the Reimbursement of Technical Services State Planning and Establishment Grants for the Affordable Care Act (ACA)¿s Exchanges State Rural Hospital Flexibility Program
0
State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers (Title XVIII) Medicare State Survey Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers (Title XIX) Medicaid State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement Grants State Vital Statistics Improvement Program Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program Strengthening Minority-Serving Institutions Strengthening Public Health Services at the Outreach Offices of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission Strengthening the Masters-Level Public Health Training Program in the Repu STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION AWARDS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services_Projects of Regional and National Significance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services-Access to Recovery Summer Food Service Program for Children Superfund Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) for Community Groups at National Priority List (NPL) Sites Supervised Visitation, Safe Havens for Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Outreach/Participation Program Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Process and Technology Improvement Grants Support for Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program SUPPORT FOR ADAM WALSH ACT IMPLEMENTATION GRANT PROGRAM
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149
Supporting Permanent Placements of Foster Care Children Through Electronic Records Exchange Surplus Property Utilization
0
SURVEYS - STUDIES - INVESTIGATIONS - SPECL Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of Research and Development Surveys, Studies, Investigations and Special Purpose Grants within the Office of the Administrator Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Demonstrations, and Training Grants Section 1442 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Demonstrations, and Training Grants and Cooperative Agreements - Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training and Special Purpose Activities Relating to Environmental Justice Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training Demonstrations and Educational Outreach Related to Environmental Information and the Release of Toxic Chemicals Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Training, Demonstrations, and Special Purpose Grants for Regional Geographic Initiatives Surveys, Studies, Research, Investigations, Demonstrations, and Special Purpose Activities Relating to the Clean Air Act Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Systems Interoperability_Health and Human Services TANF Program Integrity Innovation Grants Task Force for Business & Stability Operations Tax Counseling for the Elderly
0
Tax Credit Assistance Program (Recovery Act Funded) Taxpayer Service
0
Teacher Incentive Fund
0
Teacher Incentive Fund, Recovery Act
0
Team Nutrition Grants
0
Technical Assistance and Provision for Foreign Hospitals and Health Organizations Technical Assistance Grants
0
Technical Assistance to Cooperatives
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 150
Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Program
0
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
0
Temporary Labor Certification for Foreign Workers The Affordable Care Act (ACA): Capacity Building Assistance to Strengthen Public Health Infrastructure and Performance The Affordable Care Act ¿ Medicaid Adult Quality Grants The Affordable Care Act Medicaid Incentives for Prevention of Chronic Disease Demonstration Project The Affordable Care Act: Building Epidemiology, Laboratory, and Health Information Systems Capacity in the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Disease (ELC) and Emerging Infections Program (EIP) Cooperative Agreements The Affordable Care Act: Building Epidemiology, Laboratory, and Health Information Systems Capacity in the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Disease (ELC) and Emerging Infections Program (EIP) Cooperative Agreements;PPHF The Affordable Care Act: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Prevention and Public Health Fund Activities The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act) authorizes Coordinated Chronic Disease prevention and Health Promotion Program Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship Program THURGOOD MARSHALL PROGRAM
0
Title V_Delinquency Prevention Program
0
Trade Adjustment Assistance
0
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Training Coordination Program (TAAF) Training and Technical Assistance
0
Training Interpreters for Individuals who are Deaf and Individuals who are DeafBlind Transformation Initiative Research Grants: Demonstration and Related Small Grants Transition to Teaching
0
Transitional Housing Assistance for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Stalking, or Sexual Assault Transitional Living for Homeless Youth
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 151
Transnatioal Crime
0
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
0
Trans-NIH Recovery Act Loan Repayment Support Trans-NIH Recovery Act Research Support Trans-NIH Research Support
0
Trans-NSF Recovery Act Reasearch Support Transportation Services
0
Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Traumatic Brain Injury State Demonstration Grant Program Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance Grants, Training and Technical Assistance Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants
0
Tribal Colleges Endowment Program
0
Tribal Court Assistance Program
0
Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Grant Program Tribal Governments Program
0
Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Tribal Self-Governance Program: Planning and Negotiation Cooperative Agreement Tribal Youth Program
0
Tribal Youth Program
0
Truck Security Program
0
TSCA Title IV State Lead Grants Certification of Lead-Based Paint Professionals Tuberculosis Demonstration, Research, Public and Professional Education U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation U.S. Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation U.S. Geological Survey_ Research and Data Collection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scholarship and Fellowship Program U.S. Refugee Admissions Program
0
U.S. Repatriation
0
Unaccompanied Alien Children Program
0
Unallied Industry Projects
0
Unallied Management Projects
0
Unallied Science Program
0
Undersea Research
0
Unemployment Insurance
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
152
Universal Newborn Hearing Screening
0
University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service Unknown
0
Urban Indian Health Services
0
US FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ACTIONS DEPARTMENT USAID Development Partnerships for University Cooperation and Development USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas VA Assistance to United States Paralympic Integrated Adaptive Sports Program VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Value-Added Producer Grants
0
Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants VETERANS EDUCATION OUTREACH PROGRAM Veterans State Adult Day Health Care
0
Veterans State Nursing Home Care
0
Victims of Child Abuse
0
Violence Against Women Act Court Training and Improvement Grants Violence Against Women Discretionary Grants for Indian Tribal Governments Violence Against Women Formula Grants
0
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE TECH. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Vision Research
0
Voluntary Public School Choice
0
Volunteer Generation Fund
0
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program Volunteers in Service to America
0
Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities_Grants to States Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities-Grants for Protection and Advocacy Systems Water Security Training and Technical Assistance and Water Security Initiative Contamination Warning System Pilots Weapons Removal and Abatement
0
Weather and Air Quality Research
0
Welfare Reform Research, Evaluations and National Studies
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
153
Wetland Program Grants - State/Tribal Environmental Outcome Wetland Demonstration Program Wholesale Farmers and Alternative Market Development WIA Evaluation
0
WIA Pilots, Demonstrations, and Research Projects WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) WIC Grants To States (WGS)
0
Wildland Fire Research and Studies Program Wildlife Services
0
Wildlife Without Borders ¿ Amphibians in Decline Wildlife Without Borders ¿ Critically Endangered Animal Conservation Fund Wildlife Without Borders- Latin America and the Caribbean Wildlife Without Borders-Africa Program
0
Wildlife Without Borders-Mexico
0
Wood Education and Resource Center (WERC) Wood Utilization Assistance
0
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker National Reserve Demonstration Grants Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker National Reserve Technical Assistance and Training Workforce Investment Act (WIA) National Emergency Grants Youth Gang Prevention
0
Integrated Programs
0
1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants
0
ACA Nationwide Program for National and State Background Checks for Direct Patient Access Employees of Long Term Care Facilities and Providers ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS FOR FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION AmeriCorps VISTA Training & Logistics Support APPLIED TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND TESTING Area Health Education Centers Infrastructure Development Awards Area Health Education Centers Point of Service Maintenance and Enhancement Awards ARRA - Centers of Excellence
0
ARRA - Community Services Block Grant
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
154
ARRA - Early Head Start
0
ARRA - Emergency Medical Services for Children ARRA - Head Start
0
Ballast Water Treatment Technologies
0
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Biodefense Medical Countermeasure Development Biomedical Research and Research Training Bio-Preparedness Collaboratory
0
Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research
0
Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP)
0
Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP)
0
Cancer Research Manpower
0
Capacity Building Among American Indian Tribes Capacity Building Assistance to Strengthen Public Health Immunization Infrastructure and Performance ¿ financed in part by the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF-2012) Capacity Building for Sustainable Communities Capacity Building for Traditionally Underserved Populations Capacity Building Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Activities in Indian Country and Other Tribal Areas Centers for Research and Demonstration for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Centers of Excellence
0
Charter Schools
0
Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves Community Assistance Program State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) Community Assistance Program State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) Community Development Financial Institutions Program COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORKSTUDY PROGRAM Community Food Projects
0
Community Services Block Grant
0
Cooperative Agreements to States/Territories for the Coordination and Development of Primary Care Offices Cooperative Forestry Research
0
Direct Housing_Natural Disaster Loans and Grants
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
155
Disaster Assistance Projects
0
Discovery and Applied Research for Technological Innovations to Improve Human Health Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program Indian Education Facilities, Operations, and Maintenance Indian Self-Determination Act Contracts, Grants and Cooperative Agreements International Forestry Programs
0
Management Initiatives
0
Marine Minerals Activities
0
Marine Minerals Activities - Hurricane Sandy Marine Sanctuary Program
0
Marine Turtle Conservation Fund
0
NATIONAL ENERGY INFORMATION CENTER Program Development and Innovation Grants Promotion of the Arts_Partnership Agreements Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Area Activities State Indoor Radon Grants
0
STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP COLLABORATIVE R&D STRATEGIC PLANNING
0
Superfund State and Indian Tribe Core Program Cooperative Agreements Surveillance of Hazardous Substance Emergency Events TECH ASSIST FOR LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVTS Metropolitan Transportation Planning
0
Hurricane Education Recovery
0
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants
0
MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS
0
Anti-Gang Initiative
0
Growth Mangement Planning Assistance
0
Statewide Automated Victim Information Notification (SAVIN) Program Environmental Quality Incentives Program Alaska Subsistence Management
0
Dutch John Federal Property and Disposition Assistance Act Comprehensive Approaches to Sex Offender Management Discretionary Grant (CASOM) ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTS FOR FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATI
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
156
WILDLIFE STUDIES
0
NO NAME AVAILABLE
0
Regional Environmental Priority Projects
0
LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS (LECA) Indicates awards funded from multiple programs Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women's Shelters_Grants to States and Indian Tribes Child Health and Human Development Extramural Research Specialty Crop Block Grant Program Farm Bill Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants For Battered Women's Shelters_Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions Demonstration to Maintain Independence and Employment Geriatric Education Centers
0
*HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (1992B) State Capacity Building
0
Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training Bioterrorism Training and Curriculum Development Program Community Economic Adjustment Planning Assistance for Reductions in Defense Industry Employment SMALL RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT OF 1956, 43 U.S.C. 422-423G Technical and Non-Financial Assistance to Health Centers Special Education - Grants for Infants and Families, Recovery Act Recovery Act - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program / Grants To Units Of Local Government Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who are Blind, Recovery Act Parental Information and Resource Centers Special Education Grants to States, Recovery Act Recovery Act - State Victim Compensation Formula Grant Program Recovery Act ¿ Assistance to Rural Law Enforcement to Combat Crime and Drugs Competitive Grant Program Recovery Act - Edward Byrne Memorial Competitive Grant Program 2010 Olympics First Responder Training
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157
FAIR HOUSING INITIATIVES PROGRAM (FHIP) PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE Homeless Education Disaster Assistance Program Medicare Enrollment Assistance Program
0
Health Manpower Initiative Awards
0
ARRA - Survey and Certification Ambulatory Surgical Center HealthcareAssociated Infection (ASC-HAI) Prevention Initiative Corrections_Research and Evaluation and Policy Formulation ARRA ¿ Dental Public Health Residency Training Grants Incentive Grant Program to Prohibit Racial Profiling Demonstration Grants to States with Respect to Alzheimer's Disease ARRA - Nurse Faculty Loan Program
0
Emergency Food Assistance Program (Food Commodities) State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program Recovery Act ¿ Comparative Effectiveness Research - AHRQ State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Race-to-the-Top Incentive Grants, Recovery Act Veterans State Domiciliary Care
0
Affordable Care Act (ACA) State Health Care Workforce Development Grants Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) NurseManaged Health Clinics Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control in Privately-Owned Housing John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act Science
0
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Research Grants Advanced Education Nursing Traineeships Healthy Homes Demonstration Grants
0
Shelter Plus Care
0
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households - Other Needs 16.812 - Second Chance Act
0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
158
OFFICE OF MINORITY ECONOMIC IMPACT, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT & DIVERSITY Affordable Care Act (ACA) Tribal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program ACA - State Innovation Models: Funding for Model Design and Model Testing Assistance ACA Support for Demonstration Ombudsman Programs Serving Beneficiaries of State Demonstrations to Integrate Care for Medicare-Medicaid Affordable Care Act (ACA) Personal Responsibility Education Program Chafee Education and Training Vouchers Program (ETV) Chafee Foster Care Independence Program Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants
0
Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Compensation and Working Conditions
0
Cooperative Agreements to Promote Adolescent Health through School-Based HIV/STD Prevention and School-Based Surveillance Developmental Disabilities Basic Support and Advocacy Grants Fair Housing Organization Initiatives
0
Fire Management Assistance Grant
0
Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs Head Start
0
HHS Programs for Disaster Relief Appropriations Act - Non Construction INDEPENDENT LIVING - STATE GRANTS
0
Indian Law Enforcement
0
National Family Caregiver Support, Title III, Part E National Family Caregiver Support, Title III, Part E National Priority Safety Programs
0
PPHF 2012: Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Opportunities for States, Tribes and Territories solely financed by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds Promoting Safe and Stable Families
0
Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance REHABILITATION SERVICES INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES FOR OLDER INDIVIDUAL Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 159
Special Programs for the Aging_Title III, Part B_Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers Special Programs for the Aging_Title III, Part D_Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Services Special Programs for the Aging-Title III, Part B-Grants for Supportive Ser Special Programs for the Aging-Title III, Part C-Nutrition Services Special Programs for the Aging-Title III, Part D-Disease Prevention and He Special Programs for the Aging-Title VII, Chapter 2-Long Term Care Ombudsm Special Programs for the Aging-Title VII, Chapter 3-Programs for Preventio STATE GRANTS FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY State Medicaid Fraud Control Units
0
State Medicaid Fraud Control Units
0
State Partnership Grant Program to Improve Minority Health State Public Health Approaches for Ensuring Quitline Capacity ¿ Funded in part by Prevention and Public Health Funds (PPHF) State Survey and Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers (Tit State Survey Certification of Health Care Providers and Suppliers (Title X Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program Voting Access for Individuals with Disabilities Grants for Protection and DNA Backlog Reduction Program
0
Health Care Innovation Awards (HCIA)
0
Training in General, Pediatric, and Public Health Dentistry Cross Agency Support
0
ENERGY POLICY, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Child Nutrition Direct Certification Performance Awards Healthy Homes Technical Studies Grants
0
TBA
0
Planning Assistance to States
0
Rural Access to Emergency Devices Grant and Public Access to Defibrillation Demonstration Grant National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention State and Local Implementation Grant Program Legal Assistance for Victims
0
Violence Against Women Formula Grants
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 160
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Regulatory Research Disaster Relief Appropriations Act for Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) Family Violence Prevention and Services/Battered Women's Shelters_Discretionary Grants Research of the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) NOAA Mission-Related Education Awards
0
CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION
0
Interoperable Communications and Training Project Juvenile Accountability Block Grants
0
Fuel Tax Evasion-Intergovernmental Enforcement Effort Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners Climate and Atmospheric Research
0
Computer and Information Science and Engineering General Research and Technology Activity Nuclear Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Office of Cyberinfrastructure
0
Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Office of Science Financial Assistance Program Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economic (RIDGE) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Space Operations
0
Space Operations
0
State Planning and Research
0
Transformation Initiative Research Grants: Sustainable Community Research Grant Program UNIVERSITY-LABORATORY COOPERATIVE PROGRAM Rural Health Research Centers
0
Predictive Science Academic Alliance Program Social Innovation Fund
0
Health Information Technology Regional Extension Centers Program Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program Telehealth Programs
0
National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Grant
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0 0
161
ARRA - Communities Putting Prevention to Work: Chronic Disease SelfManagement Program Small Rural Hospital Improvement Grant Program Supportive Housing Program
0
Alternatives to Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities for Children Home Investment Partnerships Program
0
Centers for Independent Living
0
VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program Bilingual/Bicultural Service Demonstration Grants Community Outreach and Assistance Partnership Program Education and Human Resources
0
Education and Outreach Initiatives
0
Higher Education - Institution Challenge Grants Program Higher Education - Multicultural Scholars Grant Program Higher Education Challenge Grants
0
Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program International Education Training and Research Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INST ASST PROGRAM National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) Program National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies Program and Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program Promotion of the Humanities_Office of Digital Humanities Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Educational Program: Science, Mathematics And Research for Transformation (SMART) Secondary and Two-Year Postsecondary Agriculture Education Challenge Grants U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Minority Serving Institutions Program (MSIP) Teacher Quality Partnerships, Recovery Act RACE TO THE TOP
0
Promoting Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
162
Education and Enforcement of the Antidiscrimination Provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act Education Jobs Fund
0
Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief Appropriations Act Supplemental National Emergency Grants (NEGs) REHABILITATION SERVICES PROJECT
0
Rehabilitation Services_Service Projects
0
Senior Environmental Employment Program State Senior Environmental Employment Program Rural Business Enterprise Grants
0
Rural Business Enterprise Grants - ARRA
0
Small Socially- Disadvantaged Producer Grants Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program (WOTC) Air Pollution Control Program Support
0
Water Resources on Indian Lands
0
NATURAL RESOURCES
0
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks Historic Preservation Fund Grants-In-Aid
0
Conservation Assessment Program
0
NLG/Professional Services
0
ARRA - State Grants to Promote Health Information Technology Disaster Relief Appropriations Act Susan Harwood Training Grants Special Education_Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Promote the Survival and Continuing Vitality of Native American Languages Mississippi National River and Recreation Area State and Local Assistance Cancer Centers Support Grants
0
Consolidated Knowledge Development and Application (KD&A) Program COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO USE STATE PRISONERS ON PUBLIC LANDS Federal Resource Protection
0
Forensic DNA Backlog Reduction Program GRANTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENTS OF FAMILY MEDICINE Health Administration Traineeships Program Improving, Enhancing, and Evaluating Outcomes of Comprehensive Heart Health Care Programs for High-Risk Women
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
YES
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
163
INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION ACT
0
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASST-UNDEFINED
0
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCTIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP) National Guard Special Military Operations and Projects both ARNG and ANG Payments for Essential Air Services
0
Tribal Self-Governance Program: IHS Compacts/Funding Agreements Uniformed Services University Medical Research Projects WEED CONTROL
0
ENVIRONMENTAL CAREERS ORGANIZATION Healthy Schools, Healthy Communities
0
Section 416(b)
0
HAZARDS/HAZMAT
0
Alcohol Research Center Grants
0
CIVIC EDUCATION
0
ASSISTANCE TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITH ACTIVITIES RELATING TO ENVIRON RESEARCH IN PUBLIC LANDS
0
Cooperative Agreements for State-Based Comprehensive Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Programs Podiatric Residency Training in Primary Care Ambassadors for Change Program
0
DEFENSE CONVERSION GRANTS
0
Physician Assistant Training in Primary Care National Historic Landmark
0
HURRICAN KATRINA FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS Targeting Obesity in Young Women to Prevent the Development of Type II Dia State Health Fraud Task Force Grants
0
MIGRANT HEALTH CENTERS GRANTS
0
GRANTS TO US/ICOMOS, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES SURVEYS, STUDIES, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND SPECIAL P ARMS CONTROL AND NONPROLIF. POLICY ANALY HANSEN'S DISEASE NATIONAL AMBULATORY CARE PROGRAM PART E-STATE CHALLENGE ACTIVITIES
0
0 0
0 0
YES
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
164
National Institute of Justice W.E.B. DuBois Fellowship Program Intramural Research Training Award
0
Refugee Assistance_Naturalization and Citizenship Activities Academic Exchange Programs Graduate Students Crime Victims' Rights Act
0
Grants for Graduate Training in Family Medicine Marine Instrumentation Special Projects - DISCONTINUED HEALTH & SAFETY PROGRAMS FOR CONST WORK & MODEL CONST SAF & HEALTH Grants for Training in Emergency Medical Services LAW ENFORCEMENT ASST-TRAINING
0
Cooperative Agreements for Drug Abuse Treatment Improvement Projects in Ta FIRE ECOLOGY EDUCATION PROJECT
0
UMTA - HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAM
0
Benjamin Gilman International Scholarship BIOMETRY AND RISK ESTIMATIONHEALTH RISKS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES Health Programs for Refugees
0
Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act Program of Research on the Economic of Invasive Species Management (PREISM) RELOCATION OF POWER LINES, GAS LINES, ROADS, UTILITIES AND BRIDGES American Council of Young Political Leaders RFA PPE AND EQUIPMENT
0
Recovery Act - Internet Crimes against Children Task Force Program (ICAC) Assistance Payments - Research
0
Recovery Act - VOCA Crime Victim Assistance Discretionary Grant Program Model-Based Human Reliability Analysis
0
ARRA - Health Careers Opportunity Program RESOURCES AND MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES HOMEOWNERSHIP AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE EVERYWHERE (HOPE 2) Educational Exchange_Scholar-inResidence (U.S. Institutions of Higher Education Host Lecturing Faculty From Abroad)
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0
165
Marketing Agreements and Orders
0
Office of Administration Special Programs - DISCONTINUED Seed Grants to States for Qualified HighRisk Pools Cellular and Molecular Basis of Disease Research Capacity Building for Traditionally Underserved Populations, Recovery Act. Reduction and Prevention of Children's Exposure to Violence Strengthening Public Health Infrastructure for Improved Health Outcomes Emergency Capital Repair Grants for Multifamily Housing Projects Designated for Occupancy ARRA - Preventive Medicine Residency Program LAW ENFORCEMENT R & D
0
Foreign Public Health Construction
0
Affordable Care Act (ACA) Prevention Center for Healthy Weight Demonstration Grants for Residential Treatment for Women and Their Childre PPHF 2012: Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Program - financed in part by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds (PPHF-2012) Export Control and Related Border Security Building Capacity of the Public Health System to Improve Population Health through National, Non-Profit Organizations- financed in part by 2013 Prevention and Public Health Funds (PPHF-2013) Transformation Initiative Research Grants: Natural Experiments EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT Supporting Teens through Education and Protection Act of 2005 (STEP Act) Affordable Care Act - Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Projec Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA)
0
The Affordable Care Act: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance Affordable Care Act - Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers: A Public Health Systems Approach
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
166
State Public Health Approaches for Ensuring Quitline Capacity ¿ Funded in part by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds (PPHF-2012) Affordable Care Act (ACA) Public Health Training Centers Program AEECA PD Programs
0
PPHF-2012: Health Care Surveillance/Health Statistics ¿ Surveillance Program Announcement: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Financed in Part by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Funds (PPHF-2012) Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary Grants Elder Abuse Prevention Interventions Program Tenant Resource Network Program
0
Capacity Building for Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA) Part 1774 ¿ Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural Communities and Households Program (SEARCH) Affordable Care Act Initiative to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalizations among Nursing Facility Residents Breastfeeding Promotion and Support ¿ Improving Maternity Care Practices project financed solely by 2012 Public Prevention and Health Funds Construction & Environmental Compliance & Remediation Navy Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance National Nuclear Forensics Expertise Development Program Mortgage Insurance_Combination and Manufactured Home Lot Loans Annual Grant Competition
0
Strengthening Emergency Care Delivery in the United States Healthcare System through Health Information and Promotion Fair Housing Initiatives Program Enforcement Testing Technical Assistance Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) Grant Programs (including Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas) Antiterrorism Assistance ¿ Domestic Training Programs Construction & Environmental Compliance & Remediation
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 167
Global Peace Operations Initiative
0
Affordable Care Act: Coordinating Center for Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice PPHF 2012: Early Childcare and Education Obesity Prevention Program Obesity Prevention in Young Children financed solely by 2012 Public Prevention and Health Funds Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children; Nutrition Education Innovations Asthma Interventions in Public and Assisted Multifamily Housing Tribal Self-Governance
0
Continuum of Care Program
0
Cooperative Research and Training Programs ¿ Resources of the National Park System Services to Indian Children, Elderly and Families Agriculture on Indian Lands
0
National Public Health Improvement Initiative Indian Self-Determination Contract Support Tribal Courts
0
Consolidated And Technical Assistance Grant Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic and Sexual Violence and Engage Men and Boys as Allies Indian Child and Family Education
0
Aid To Tribal Governments
0
Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns
0
Risk Management Education Partnerships
0
Indian Rights Protection
0
Collaboration with the World Health Organization and its regional offices for global health security and the International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) Environmental Management_Indian Programs Indian Education_Higher Education Grant Program Rural Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Grants The Secretary's Office of the Global Partnership Initiative (S/GPI) Grant Programs Corrections and Correctional Alternatives Program Technical Preservation Services
0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 168
CyberTipline
0
Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation Administrative Cost Grants for Indian Schools Scientific Research - Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Indian Child Welfare Act_Title II Grants
0
Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields Sodium Reduction in Communities
0
Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health National Register of Historic Places
0
Training Resource and Data Exchange
0
Assistance to Tribally Controlled Community Colleges and Universities Bureau of Indian Affairs Facilities_Operations and Maintenance Trans-National Crime
0
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Centers: PPHF - Affordable Care Act Projects Indian Housing Assistance
0
Los Alamos National Laboratory - Fire Protection Higher Education ¿ Graduate Fellowships Grant Program Matching Grants for Health Professions Scholarships to Indian Tribes Strengthening the Nation's Public Health System through a National Voluntary Accreditation Program for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Health Departments COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES PROGRAM PPHF National Public Health Improvement Initiative Global Engagement
0
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Fire Service Hazardous Materials Preparedness and Response Graduate Research Opportunities for Minority Students (Minorities and Retirement Security Program) IIP - American Spaces
0
PPHF Capacity Building Assistance to Strengthen Public Health Immunization Infrastructure and Performance financed in part by Prevention and Public Health Funds Virginia Operational Integration Cyber Center of Excellence
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 169
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Supportive Housing for the Elderly
0
Home Investment Partnerships Program
0
Rural Housing and Economic Development UNIVERSITIES REBUILDING AMERICA PROGRAM-COMMUNITY DESIGN Mathematics and Science Partnerships
0
Consolidated Grant to the Outlying Areas
0
YES
Consolidated Grants to the Outlying Areas, Recovery Act Reading First State Grants
0
YES
Ready-To-Learn Television
0
Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education State Grants for Innovative Programs
0
Alaska Native Educational Programs
0
Early Reading First
0
Advanced Placement Program (Advanced Placement Test Fee; Advanced Placement Incentive Program Grants) BILINGUAL EDUCATION TRAINING GRANTS Comprehensive Centers
0
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Education for Homeless Children and Youth Education for Homeless Children and Youth, Recovery Act English Language Acquisition Grants
0
English Language Acquisition State Grants Even Start_Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations Even Start_Migrant Education
0
Even Start_State Educational Agencies
0
Foreign Language Assistance
0
Fund for the Improvement of Education
0
High School Graduation Initiative
0
Indian Education -- Special Programs for Indian Children Indian Education_Assistance to Schools
0
Indian Education_Grants to Local Educational Agencies INSULAR AREA CONSOLIDATED GRANTS
0
Learn and Serve America Innovative Community-Based Service-Learning Programs Learn and Serve America_Higher Education
0
0
0
YES
0
0
0
0 0
YES
0 0 0
0 0
0
0
YES
0
170
Learn and Serve America_School and Community Based Programs Magnet Schools Assistance
0
Migrant Education_Coordination Program
0
Migrant Education_State Grant Program
0
NATIONAL WRITING PROJECT CORP
0
Native Hawaiian Education
0
Race to the Top ¿ Early Learning Challenge Rural Education
0
School Improvement Grants
0
School Improvement Grants, Recovery Act Special Education - Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities Special Education - State Personnel Development Special Education_Grants to States
0
Special Education_Parent Information Centers Special Education_Preschool Grants
0
Striving Readers
0
Territories and Freely Associated States Education Grant Program Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers Women's Educational Equity Program
0
Early Childhood Educator Professional Development EVEN START - FAMILY LITERACY IN WOMEN'S PRISONS PROGRAM Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, Recovery Act Special Education - Preschool Grants, Recovery Act Early Learning Fund
0
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund, Recovery Act Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund
0
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Race to the Top - District Grants
0
Special Education_Educational Technology Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Special Education_Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities Ready to Teach
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 YES
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0
171
Competitive Grants: Promoting K-12 Student Achievement at MilitaryConnected Schools Race to the Top ¿ Early Learning Challenge Race to the Top ¿ Early Learning Challenge State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) Rail and Transit Security Grant Program
0
Rail and Transit Security Grant Program (ARRA) Railroad Safety
0
Grants-in-Aid for Railroad Safety_State Participation State and Community Highway Safety
0
Biomedical Technology
1
11
110
National Center for Research Resources
1
11
110
Alaska Coastal Marine Institute
1
11
110
Marine Gas Hydrate Research Activities
1
11
110
Volcano Hazards Program Research and Monitoring SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
1
11
110
1
11
110
Air Transportation Centers of Excellence
1
11
110
Advanced Research and Projects Agency ¿ Energy Financial Assistance Program Air Emissons and Energy Initiative
1
11
110
1
11
110
Applied Meteorological Research
1
11
110
Applied Science Program Cooperative Agreements Related to Coal Mining and Reclamation ASPR Science Preparedness and Reponse Grants Assessment and Watershed Protection Program Grants Assistance to State Water Resources Research Institutes Aviation Research Grants
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
Basic and Applied Scientific Research
1
11
110
Basic and Applied Scientific Research
1
11
110
Basic Applied and Advanced Research in Science and Engineering Biomass Research and Development Initiative Competitive Grants Program (BRDI) Conservation Research and Development
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
Environmental Sciences, Applications, Data, and Education Fossil Energy Research and Development
1
11
110
1
11
110
Hydrologic Research
1
11
110
Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards
1
11
110
0 0 0 0
0
0
YES
172
Meteorologic and Hydrologic Modernization Development National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Cooperative Institutes New ERA Rural Technology Competitive Grants Program Office of Research and Development Consolidated Research/Training/Fellowships PHMSA Pipeline Safety Research and Development ¿Other Transaction Agreements¿ Pipeline Safety Research Competitive Academic Agreement Program (CAAP) Public Transportation Research
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
Railroad Research and Development
1
11
110
Regional Applied Research Efforts (RARE) Renewable Energy Research and Development RESEARCH
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
Research and Evaluation Program
1
11
110
Research and Technical Assistance
1
11
110
Research and Technology Development
1
11
110
Research and Technology Development
1
11
110
Research Grants
1
11
110
Research Grants (Generic)
1
11
110
Research, Development, Monitoring, Public Education, Training, Demonstrations, and Studies RESEARCH/ISSUES
1
11
110
1
11
110
Science and Technology Projects Related to Coal Mining and Reclamation Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Research Program Sea Grant Support
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) and Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) Program Transportation Planning, Research and Education University Coal Research
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
RESEARCH GRANTS FOR THE SPACE PROGRAM Water Desalination Research and Development Program Alternative or Innovative Treatment Technology Research, Demonstration, Training, and Hazardous Substance Research Grants Biobased Transportation Research
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy
1
11
110
YES
173
Urban Waters Small Grants
1
11
110
Adaptive Science
1
11
110
Minerals Management Service (MMS) Environmental Studies Program (ESP) Highway R&D Program
1
11
110
1
11
110
Highway Research and Development Program Highway Research and Development Program P3 Award: National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Motor Carrier Research and Technology Programs Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Research, Development and Analysis Louisiana State University (LSU) Coastal Marine Institute (CMI) Office of Environmental Waste Processing Environmental Remediation and Waste Processing and Disposal Financial Assistance for National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Greater Research Opportunities (GRO) Research Program URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION GRANTS FOR UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND TRAINING Centers for International Business Education SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH ARRA - Strategic Health IT Advanced Research Projects (SHARP) ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ANA Volcano Hazards Program Research and Monitoring. Basic Applied and Advanced Reserch in Science and Engineering Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Environmental Studies Program (ESP) Environmental Management R&D and Validation Testing on High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) Filters RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY GRANTS Research Infrastructure Programs
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
11
110
1
12
120
Cancer Construction
1
12
120
ARRA - Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Pediatric Research Network Program
1
12
120
YES
174
Construction Support
1
12
120
Laboratory Equipment Donation Program
1
12
120
Laboratory Leadership, Workforce Training and Management Development, Improving Public Health Laboratory Infrastructure National Center for Research Resources, Recovery Act Construction Support National Institute of Standards and Technology Construction Grant Program PPHF 2012 ¿ Public Health Laboratory Infrastructure ¿ financed solely by 2012 Prevention and Public Health Fund UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INSTRUEMENTATION ARRA - Community Health Applied Research Network PPHF ¿ Public Health Laboratory Infrastructure ¿ financed solely by Prevention and Public Health Fund Research Facilities Improvement (AIDS Infrastructure Projects) Collaborative Research and Development
1
12
120
1
12
120
1
12
120
1
12
120
1
12
120
1
12
120
1
12
120
1
12
120
1
13
130
Technology Innovation Program (TIP)
1
13
130
Advanced Technology Program
1
13
130
Federal and State Technology Partnership Program Small Business Innovation Research
1
13
130
1
13
130
Inventions and Innovations
1
13
130
Doctoral Dissertation Research Grants
1
14
140
University Transportation Centers
1
14
140
University Transportation Centers Program Granting of Patent Licenses
1
14
140
1
14
140
Office of International and Integrative Activities TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES
1
14
140
1
14
140
Capital Assistance to States - Intercity Passenger Rail Service Fiscal Year 2013 Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement (PRIIA) Projects for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Rail Line Relocation and Improvement
2
21
210
2
21
210
2
21
210
2
21
210
2
21
210
Railroad Development
2
21
210
RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT-GUA
2
21
210
YES
175
Maglev Project Selection Program SAFETEA-LU High Speed Ground Transportation_Next Generation High Speed Rail Program High-Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service ¿ Capital Assistance Grants Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program
2
21
210
2
21
210
2
21
210
2
22
220
Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Clean Fuels
2
22
220
2
22
220
Clean School Bus USA
2
22
220
Highway Planning and Construction
2
22
220
Road Maintenance_Indian Roads
2
22
220
Highway Planning and Construct
2
22
220
Surface Transportation _ Discretionary Grants for Capital Investment Surface Transportation _ Discretionary Grants for Capital Investment. HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION-CONTROL OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING AND JUNKYARDS America¿s Marine Highway Grants
2
22
220
2
22
220
2
22
220
2
23
230
Development of Ports and Intermodal Tran Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act
2
23
230
2
23
230
Airport Improvement Program
2
24
240
Payments for Small Community Air Service Development TSA Airport Checked Baggage Inspection System Program ¿ (ARRA) Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Capital Assistance Program for Reducing Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Federal Transit_Capital Investment Grants Federal Transit_Formula Grants
2
24
240
2
24
240
2
25
250
2
25
250
2
25
250
2
25
250
2
25
250
2
25
250
Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas Formula Grants for Rural Areas
2
25
250
2
25
250
Indian Schools_Student Transportation
2
25
250
Job Access And Reverse Commute Program Job Access_Reverse Commute
2
25
250
2
25
250
National Infrastructure Investments
2
25
250
New Freedom Program
2
25
250
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
2
25
250
YES 176
Recovery Act of 2009: Capital Improvement and Maintenance State of Good Repair Grants Program
2
25
250
2
25
250
Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in the Parks
2
25
250
Capital Assist for Elderly and Disabled
2
25
250
Commercial Drivers License Information System (CDLIS) Modernization Grant ARRA ¿Health Information Technology and Public Health Broadband Initiatives Program
3
31
310
3
31
310
3
31
310
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) Community Connect Grant Program
3
31
310
3
31
310
Public Telecommunications Facilities Planning and Construction Public Television Station Digital Transition Grant Program TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Low-Power Television and Translator Digital-to-Analog Conversion Low-Power Television and Translator Upgrade Program ARRA - Health Information Technology Beacon Communities Disaster Donations Management Program Star Schools
3
31
310
3
31
310
3
31
310
3
31
310
3
31
310
3
31
310
3
31
310
3
31
310
4
41
410
Impact Aid
4
41
410
Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Impact Aid School Construction, Recovery Act Replacement and Repair of Indian Schools Schools and Roads - Grants to Counties
4
41
410
4
41
410
4
41
410
4
41
410
Schools and Roads - Grants to States
4
41
410
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Education Grant Program University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Support Impact Aid -- School Construction Formula Grants, Recovery Act IMPACT AID
4
41
410
4
41
410
4
41
410
4
41
410
ARRA ¿ Equipment to Enhance Training for Health Professionals Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Educational Technology State Grants
4
41
410
4
41
410
4
41
410
Education Technology State Grants, Recovery Act
4
41
410 177
Medicaid Infrastructure Grants To Support the Competitive Employment of People with Disabilities Affordable Care Act (ACA) Grants for Capital Development in Health Centers Affordable Care Act (ACA) Grants for New and Expanded Services under the Health Center Program Affordable Care Act (ACA) Grants for School-Based Health Center Capital Expenditures ARRA ¿ Grants to Health Center Programs Health Care and Other Facilities
4
42
420
4
42
420
4
42
420
4
42
420
4
42
420
4
42
420
Affordable Care Act (ACA) Infrastructure to Expand Access to Care Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities The Rural Development (RD) MultiFamily Housing Revitalization Demonstration Program (MPR) Weatherization Assistance for LowIncome Persons Assisted Housing Stability and Energy and Green Retrofit Investments Program (Recovery Act Funded) Native American Housing Block Grants (Competitive) Recovery Act Funded Native American Housing Block Grants (Formula) Recovery Act Funded Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants
4
42
420
4
42
420
4
43
430
4
43
430
4
43
430
4
43
430
4
43
430
4
43
430
Public Housing Capital Fund
4
43
430
Public Housing Capital Fund Competitive (Recovery Act Funded) Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (Formula) Recovery Act Funded Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants (Recovery Act Funded) Demolition and Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing State Cemetery Grants
4
43
430
4
43
430
4
43
430
4
43
430
4
44
440
Recovery Act - Correctional Facilities On Tribal Lands Community Facilities Loans and Grants
4
44
440
4
44
440
Emergency Operations Center
4
44
440
Outdoor Recreation_Acquisition, Development and Planning Recreation Resource Management
4
44
440
4
44
440
Recreation Resources Management
4
44
440
Centers for Independent Living, Recovery Act. OUTDOOR RECREATION
4
44
440
4
44
440
Public Housing Neighborhood Networks Grants
4
44
440
178
Improvement and Repair of Indian Detention Facilities ACADEMIC RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT AWARD MINORITY BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH SUPPORT TRIO Staff Training Program
4
44
440
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operator Training Grants Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Invitational Grants for MilitaryConnected Schools Javits Fellowships
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Fellowship Program Special Minority Initiatives
5
51
510
5
51
510
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
5
51
510
5
51
510
YES
5
51
510
YES
Internship Program for Postsecondary Students Grants to States
5
51
510
YES
5
51
510
Business and International Education Projects 21st Century Museum Professionals
5
51
510
5
51
510
Adult Education - Basic Grants to States
5
51
510
Adult Education_National Leadership Activities Career and Technical Education -- Basic Grants to States Career and Technical Education - Grants to Native Americans and Alaska Natives Career and Technical Education -National Programs Community Based Job Training Grants
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Congressionally Identified Awards and Projects Demonstration Projects to Support Postsecondary Faculty, Staff, and Administrations in Educating Students with Disabilities Education Research, Development and Dissemination Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs Higher Education_Institutional Aid
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Incentive Grants - WIA Section 503
5
51
510
International Education_Technological Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access
5
51
510
179
Language Grant Program
5
51
510
Language Resource Centers
5
51
510
Language Training Center
5
51
510
Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program Migrant Education_College Assistance Migrant Program Minority Science and Engineering Improvement National Environmental Education Training Program National Institute for Literacy
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF (NTID) Native American Basic Grants
5
51
510
5
51
510
Program of Competitive Grants for Worker Training and Placement in High Growth and Emerging Industry Sectors Promotion of the Humanities_Challenge Grants Promotion of the Humanities_Teaching and Learning Resources and Curriculum Development Registered Apprenticeship
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) for K-12 & Institutions of Higher Learning- NAVY State Grants to Reimburse Operators of Small Water Systems for Training and Certification Costs Teacher Quality Partnership Grants
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Tech-Prep Education
5
51
510
The Language Flagship Grants to Institutions of Higher Education TRAINING AND FELLOWSHIPS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Transition Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities into Higher Education Tribal Colleges and Universities Program
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions TRIO_Educational Opportunity Centers
5
51
510
5
51
510
TRIO_McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement TRIO_Student Support Services
5
51
510
5
51
510
TRIO_Talent Search
5
51
510
TRIO_Upward Bound
5
51
510
Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Programs Wastewater Operator Training Grant Program
5
51
510
5
51
510
YES
180
Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and YOUTH BUILD
5
51
510
5
51
510
Youth Conservation Program
5
51
510
YOUTH PROGRAMS
5
51
510
Youthbuild
5
51
510
Highway Training and Education
5
51
510
MINORITY ACCESS TO RESEARCH CAREERS Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities ARRA - Health Information Technology Professionals in Health Care SPARKS
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Workforce Innovation Fund
5
51
510
HOWARD UNIVERSITY
5
51
510
STUDENT TRAINING
5
51
510
Baccalaureate Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Critical Foreign Languages and Master's Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Critical Foreign Languages MINORITY UNDERGRADUATE TRAINING FOR ENERGY RELATED CAREERS National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellowship Program Librarians for the 21st Century
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
ROTC Language and Culture Training Grants Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) Grants Indian Adult Education
5
51
510
5
51
510
5
51
510
Migrant Education_High School Equivalency Program H-1B High Growth Job Training Grants
5
52
520
5
52
520
Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Individuals Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education AmeriCorps
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
Conservation Activities by Youth Service Organizations Disability Employment Policy Development Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Cooperative Agreements
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
YES
181
Green Jobs Innovation Fund Grants
5
52
520
H-1B Job Training Grants
5
52
520
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project
5
52
520
Indian Employment Assistance
5
52
520
Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals Local Veterans' Employment Representative Program Microloan Program
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
Native American Employment and Training Projects with Industry
5
52
520
5
52
520
Rehabilitation Services_American Indians with Disabilities Rehabilitation Services_Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States Rehabilitation Services-Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States, Recovery Act Reintegration of Ex-Offenders
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
Senior Community Service Employment Program Supported Employment Services for Individuals with the Most Significant Disabilities Title I State Agency Program for Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Transition Assistance Program
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
Tribal Work Grants
5
52
520
Veterans' Employment Program
5
52
520
WIA Adult Program
5
52
520
WIA Dislocated Workers
5
52
520
WIA Dislocated Worker Formula Grants
5
52
520
WIA Youth Activities
5
52
520
Work Incentive Grants
5
52
520
REHABILITATION SERVICES VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION GRANTS TO STATES SUPPORTED EMPLOYMENT SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER INITRATIVE
5
52
520
5
52
520
5
52
520
Youth Engagement, Education, and Employment Programs Assistance to small and disadvantaged businesses Bonding Assistance Program
5
52
520
6
61
610
6
61
610
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises_Short Term Lending Program ITA Special Projects
6
61
610
6
61
610
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
6
61
610
YES
182
MBDA Business Center
6
61
610
MBDA Business Center - American Indian and Alaska Native Prime Technical Assistance
6
61
610
6
61
610
Procurement Technical Assistance For Business Firms Procurement Technical Assistance For Business Firms Rural Business Opportunity Grants
6
61
610
6
61
610
6
61
610
Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program Service Corps of Retired Executives
6
61
610
6
61
610
6
61
610
Small Business Development Centers
6
61
610
Small Business Teaming Pilot Program
6
61
610
Small Disadvantaged Businesses
6
61
610
State Trade and Export Promotion Pilot Grant Program Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms
6
61
610
6
61
610
Veterans Business Development
6
61
610
Women's Business Ownership Assistance
6
61
610
SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER Assistance to Small Shipyards
6
61
610
6
61
610
Minority Business Enterprise Centers
6
61
610
Minority Business Resource Development
6
61
610
Native American Business Enterprise Centers Market Development Cooperator Program Minority Business Opportunity Center (MBOC) 8(a) Business Development Program
6
61
610
6
61
610
6
61
610
6
61
610
Entrepreneurial Development Disaster Assistance (Disaster Relief Appropriations Act) Native American Business Development Institute Denali Commission Grants and Loans
6
61
610
6
61
610
7
71
710
Assistance to High Energy Cost Rural Communities PRIORITIES & ALLOCATIONS FOR ENERGY PROG Minerals and Mining on Indian Lands
7
71
710
7
71
710
7
71
710
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
7
72
722
OIL RECOVERY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM Pipeline Safety Program Base Grants
7
72
722
7
72
723
PHMSA Pipeline Safety Program One Call Grant Pipeline Safety Program State Base Grant
7
72
723
7
72
723
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
183
SOLAR ENERGY PTRNSHP SUP & BARRIER ELIMN Regional Biomass Energy Programs
7
73
732
7
73
733
Biodiesel
7
73
733
BIOENERGY PROGRAM FOR ADVANCED BIOFUELS Sun Grant Program
7
73
733
7
73
733
Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels Repowering Assistance
7
73
733
7
73
733
Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program State Energy Program
7
73
735
7
73
735
State Energy Program Special Projects
7
73
735
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research Financial Assistance Program INNOVATIVE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION
7
74
740
7
74
740
7
75
750
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Information Dissemination, Outreach, Training and Technical Analysis/Assistance Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technology Deployment, Demonstration and Commercialization Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program (EEARP) Multifamily Energy Innovation Fund
7
75
750
7
75
750
7
75
750
7
75
750
7
75
750
National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy, Environment, and Economics Rural Energy for America Program
7
75
750
7
75
750
ENERGY CONSERVATION FOR INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS Ozone Transport Commission
7
75
750
8
81
811
State Clean Diesel Grant Program
8
81
811
Training, Investigations, and Special Purpose Activities of FederallyRecognized Indian Tribes Consistent With the Clean Air Act (CAA), Tribal Sovereignty and the Protection and Management of Air Quality National Clean Diesel Emissions Reduction Program Not-for-Profit AMD Reclamation
8
81
811
8
81
811
8
81
812
Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC)
8
81
812
YES
The San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Gulf of Mexico Program
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
YES
184
Klamath Basin _ Environmental Quality Incentives Program Garrison Diversion Unit
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
California Water Security and Environmental Enhancement Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program CALIFORNIA BAY DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT, P.L. 104-333 West Coast Estuaries Initiative
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
Grant Program to Establish a Fund for Financing Water and Wastewater Projects Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds Capitalization Grants for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Clean Vessel Act
8
81
812
8
81
812
8
81
812
8
81
812
Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Ground and Surface Water Conservation_ Environmental Quality Incentives Program Household Water Well System Grant Program Indian Tribal Water Resources Development, Management, and Protection Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project
8
81
812
8
81
812
8
81
812
8
81
812
8
81
812
8
81
812
8
81
812
Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants
8
81
812
Perkins County Rural Water System
8
81
812
YES
Potomac Highlands Implementation Grants Providing Water to At-Risk Natural Desert Terminal Lakes Puget Sound Protection and Restoration: Tribal Implementation Assistance Program Puget Sound Watershed Management Assistance Regional Wetland Program Development Grants Southeastern U.S. Regional Targeted Watershed Initiative State Public Water System Supervision
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
State Underground Water Source Protection Targeted Watersheds Grants
8
81
812
8
81
812
Water Conservation Field Services Program (WCFSP)
8
81
812
YES
YES
185
Water Pollution Control State, Interstate, and Tribal Program Support Water Protection Grants to the States
8
81
812
8
81
812
Water Quality Cooperative Agreements
8
81
812
Water Quality Management Planning
8
81
812
WaterSMART (Sustaining and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow) Water Reclamation and Reuse Program
8
81
812
8
81
812
San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project
8
81
812
Clean Vessel Act Program
8
81
812
OSM/VISTA AmeriCorps Program
8
81
812
YES
UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT
8
81
812
YES
Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT
8
81
812
YES
8
81
812
Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements REMEDIAL ACTION AND WASTE TECHNOLOGY DISPOSAL MOUNDS
8
81
813
8
81
813
8
81
814
Nuclear Waste Disposal Siting
8
81
814
Superfund State, Political Subdivision, and Indian Tribe Site-Specific Cooperative Agreements Transport of Transuranic Wastes to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: States and Tribal Concerns, Proposed Solutions Compliance Assistance Support for Services to the Regulated Community and Other Assistance Providers Federal Loan Guarantees for Innovative Energy Technologies Puget Sound Action Agenda Outreach, Education and Stewardship Support Program Puget Sound Action Agenda: Technical Investigations and Implementation Assistance Program Region 3 Environmental Priority Projects
8
81
814
8
81
814
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
YES
8
81
815
YES
8
81
815
YES
Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities - ARRA Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Program Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (DRAA) Hurricane Sandy Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Corrective Action Program Congressionally Mandated Projects
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
Conservation Reserve Program
8
81
815
Conservation Security Program
8
81
815
Conservation Stewardship Program
8
81
815
YES
YES
186
Environmental Protection Consolidated Grants for the Insular Areas - Program Support Environmental Quality and Protection Resource Management International Financial Assistance Projects Sponsored by the Office of International and Tribal Affairs Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Corrective Action Program MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO INDIAN LANDS DUE TO DEPT OF DEFENSE Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Restoration and Implementation Performance Partnership Grants
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
Pollution Prevention Grants Program
8
81
815
Rangeland Resource Management
8
81
815
RANGELAND RESOURCES
8
81
815
Solid Waste Management Assistance Grants Solid Waste Management Grants
8
81
815
8
81
815
Source Reduction Assistance
8
81
815
Southeastern Multi-Media and Geographic Priority Projects Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants (Section 306C) SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
8
81
815
8
81
815
8
81
815
Environmental Monitoring/Cleanup, Cultural and Resource Mgmt., Emergency Response Research, Outreach, Technical Analysis SOIL, WATER, AND AIR RESOURCES
8
81
815
8
81
815
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CONSOLIDATED GRANTS-PROGRAM SUPPORT Carbon Capture and Storage-FutureGen 2.0 Expand and Extend Clean Coal Power Initiative Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Application Climate Showcase Communities Grant Program Cooperative Landscape Conservation
8
81
815
8
82
820
8
82
820
8
82
820
8
82
820
8
82
820
INTERGOVERNMENTAL CLIMATEPROGRAM Multi-Media Capacity Building Grants for States and Tribes National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center Natural Resource Stewardship
8
82
820
8
82
820
8
82
820
8
82
820
Good Neighbor Authority
8
83
830
YES
YES
YES
187
NOAA Programs for Disaster Relief Appropriations Act - Non-construction and Construction San Gabriel Basin Restoration Project
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
Great Lakes Program
8
83
830
YES
Great Lakes Restoration
8
83
830
YES
Highlands Conservation Program
8
83
830
YES
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program (PRP) Lake Tahoe Erosion Control Grant Program Long Island Sound Program
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. Lower Snake River Compensation Plan
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
Upper Colorado River Basin Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Program. Upper Mississippi River System Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) Central Valley Project Improvement (CVPI) Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title XXXIV Chesapeake Bay Program
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Collaborative Forest Restoration
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
Lake Champlain Basin Program
8
83
830
YES
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Region 9 Multi-Media and Geographic Priority Projects Beach Erosion Control Projects
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
Beach Monitoring and Notification Program Implementation Grants Central Valley Project, Trinity River Division, Trinity River Fish and Wildlife Management Coastal Impact Assistance Program
8
83
830
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) Coastal Services Center
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP) Conservation Grants Private Stewardship for Imperiled Species Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830 188
Cooperative Forestry Assistance
8
83
830
Coral Reef Conservation Program
8
83
830
Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements Endangered Species - Candidate Conservation Action Funds ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830
Endangered Species Conservation ¿ Recovery Implementation Funds Endangered Species Conservation-Wolf Livestock Loss Compensation and Prevention Endangered Species on Indian Lands
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830
Environmental Education Grants
8
83
830
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
8
83
830
Fish and Wildlife Coordination and Assistance Programs FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
8
83
830
8
83
830
Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance
8
83
830
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE Fish, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Resource Management Forest Health Protection
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830
Forestry on Indian Lands
8
83
830
Grassland Reserve Program
8
83
830
Habitat Conservation
8
83
830
Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP)
8
83
830
Landowner Incentive Program
8
83
830
Migratory Bird Conservation
8
83
830
Migratory Bird Joint Ventures
8
83
830
Migratory Bird Monitoring, Assessment and Conservation Multistate Conservation Grant Program
8
83
830
8
83
830
National Estuary Program
8
83
830
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
8
83
830
National Forest Foundation
8
83
830
National Park Service Conservation, Protection, Outreach, and Education NATIONAL PRESERVATION CONFERENCE
8
83
830
8
83
830
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
8
83
830
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery_Pacific Salmon Treaty Program Partners for Fish and Wildlife
8
83
830
8
83
830
PROTECTION OF TIMBER
8
83
830
Recovery Act Funds - Habitat Enhancement, Restoration and Improvement. Redwood National Park Cooperative Management with the State of California
8
83
830
8
83
830
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
189
Service Training and Technical Assistance (Generic Training) SPORT FISH RESTORATION
8
83
830
8
83
830
Sport Fish Restoration Program
8
83
830
State Wildlife Grants
8
83
830
Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
8
83
830
Undesirable/Noxious Plant Species
8
83
830
Urban and Community Forestry Program
8
83
830
Wetlands Reserve Program
8
83
830
Wild Horse and Burro Resource Management WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND APPRECIATION Wildlife Conservation and Restoration
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
8
83
830
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT (OTHER THAN SIKES ACT) Wildlife Restoration and Basic Hunter Education Forest Land Enhancement Program
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830
Visitor Facility Enhancements - Refuges and Wildlife Hurricane Sandy Disaster Relief ¿ Coastal Resiliency Grants. National Wetland Program Development Grants and Five-Star Restoration Training Grant WILD HORSE AND BURROS
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830
8
83
830
Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION
8
83
830
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION, P.L. 103-232 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
8
83
830
8
83
830
YES
Yukon River Salmon Research and Management Assistance Environmental Education and Conservation - North Cascades Bioregion Competitive Training Grant
8
83
830
YES
8
83
830
YES
8
84
840
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program CHEMICAL STOCKPILE EMERGENCY PROTECTION PROGRAM Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Program Cooperating Technical Partners
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
Earthquake Consortium
8
84
840
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
8
84
840
Emergency Watershed Protection Program
8
84
840
YES
190
Flood Mitigation Assistance
8
84
840
FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE
8
84
840
Hazard Mitigation Grant
8
84
840
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
8
84
840
Hazardous Materials Training Program
8
84
840
Hazardous Waste Management Grant Program for Tribes Hazardous Waste Management State Program Support Pre-Disaster Mitigation
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION
8
84
840
PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION (PDM) COMPETITIVE GRANTS PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION (PDM) COMPETITIVE GRANTS Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Recovery Act of 2009: Wildland Fire Management Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) Repetitive Flood Claims
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
REPETITIVE FLOOD CLAIMS
8
84
840
Safety of Dams on Indian Lands
8
84
840
SEVERE LOSS REPETITIVE PROGRAM
8
84
840
Severe Repetitive Loss Program
8
84
840
SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROGRAM
8
84
840
Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Toxic Substances Compliance Monitoring Cooperative Agreements Underground Storage Tank Prevention, Detection and Compliance Program Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Watershed Rehabilitation Program
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreement Authority Watershed Surveys and Planning
8
84
840
8
84
840
National Fire Plan - Wildland Urban Interface Community Fire Assistance Automated Flood Warning Systems (AFWS) PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION (PDM)
8
84
840
8
84
840
8
84
840
SECURITY OF DAMS, FACILITIES
8
84
840
National Dam Safety Program
8
84
840
Abandoned Mine Hazard Mitigation
8
84
840
National Trails System Projects
9
91
910
Recreational Trails Program
9
91
910
OPERATE, DEVELOP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE APPALACHIAN TRL RIVERS AND TRAILS
9
91
910
9
91
910
YES
YES
YES
191
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Resource Conservation and Development
9
91
910
9
91
910
Challenge Cost Share
9
91
910
SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network
9
91
910
YES
9
91
910
YES
Boston Harbor Islands Partnership
9
91
910
YES
Cultural Resources Management
9
92
920
Cultural Resource Management
9
92
920
American Battlefield Protection
9
92
920
YES
AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM HISTORIC PRESERVATION (FOR NPSOWNED PROPERTY) HISTORIC SITES FOR PROPERTY NOT NEC ON NPS LAND Civil War Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Historic Preservation Fund Grants to Provide Disaster Relief to Historic Properties Damaged by Hurricane Sandy Preservation of Japanese American Confinement Sites Keweenaw National Historical Park (NHP) and Keweenaw NHP Advisory Commission Partner Enhancement Grants Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Battlefield Acquisition and Protection Boston African-American National Historic Site Cooperative Agreement with the Museum of African American History Conservation Project Support
9
92
920
YES
9
92
920
9
92
920
9
92
920
YES
9
92
920
YES
9
92
920
YES
9
92
920
YES
9
92
920
YES
9
92
920
YES
9
92
920
GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES, ALASKA NATIVES, & NATIVE HAWAIIAN ORGANIZATIONS Museum Assessment Program
9
92
920
9
92
920
Museum Grants for African American History and Culture Museums for America
9
92
920
9
92
920
National Heritage Area Federal Financial Assistance National Historical Publications and Records Grants National Leadership Grants
9
92
920
9
92
920
9
92
920
Native American and Native Hawaiian Library Services Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Native American/Native Hawaiian Museum Services Program Promotion of the Humanities_Federal/State Partnership
9
92
920
9
92
920
9
92
920
9
92
920 192
Promotion of the Humanities_Public Programs Save America's Treasures
9
92
920
9
92
920
Preservation of Historic Structures on the Campuses of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Hurricane Sandy Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Grants (CDBG-DR) Community Services Block Grant_Discretionary Awards Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) DISASTER GRANTS - PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTERS) HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES PRESERVATION INITATIVE *HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES PROGRAM (1991B) Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants COMMUNITY BASE REUSE PLANS
9
92
920
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
YES
10
101
1010
YES
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
Community Development Block Grant ARRA Entitlement Grants (CDBGR)(Recovery Act Funded) Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTER PROGRAM Economic Development Initiative-Special Project, Neighborhood Initiative and Miscellaneous Grants State and Tribal Response Program Grants URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM Community Development Block Grants/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative Neighborhood Stabilization Program (Recovery Act Funded) Capital Magnet Fund
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program Affordable Housing Development in Main Street Rejuvenation Projects Rural Innovation Fund
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
10
101
1010
National Forest_Dependent Rural Communities Investments for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
YES
193
Renewal Community and Empowerment Zone Programs Economic, Social, and Political Development of the Territories Denali Commission Program
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
YES
10
102
1020
YES
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities Appalachian Area Development
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
YES
Appalachian Development Highway System Delta Area Economic Development
10
102
1020
YES
10
102
1020
YES
Bank Enterprise Award Program
10
102
1020
Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose Grants/Insular Areas Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose Grants/Insular Areas ¿ (Recovery Act Funded) Community Development Block Grants/State's program and NonEntitlement Grants in Hawaii Community Development Block Grants/State's program and NonEntitlement Grants in Hawaii ¿ (Recovery Act Funded) Community Economic Adjustment
10
102
1020
YES
10
102
1020
YES
10
102
1020
YES
10
102
1020
YES
10
102
1020
Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Establishment, Expansion, Realignment, or Closure of a Military Installation Economic Adjustment Assistance
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
Economic Development_Support for Planning Organizations Empowerment Zones Program
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
Indian Community Development Block Grant Program Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (Recovery Act Funded) Indian Economic Development
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
Native American Programs
10
102
1020
Summer Intern and Year-Long OSM/VISTA Watershed Support Community Trade Adjustment Assistance
10
102
1020
10
102
1020
Miscellaneous Public Law 93-638 Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements
10
102
1020
YES
Sources: CFDA, US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
194
2. ROBUSTNESS CHECK
Once the ESTI database is finalised, an important step is to confirm its robustness. In order to do so, the internal cohesion of the database is checked. Also, descriptive statistics for spatial and sectoral dimensions are compiled to spot potential errors.
2.1. Internal consistency
Tests are run using the finished database to locate discrepancies within it. The method is based on sums of expenditures by spatial level and typology category. Thus, it is possible to control that allocations at a higher territorial level or a greater level of category is the sum of its subparts. Using this method, the conclusion is that the database features a high level of internal consistency. Indeed, the only minor errors detected by this checking procedure are smaller than the considered expenditures by several orders of magnitude. They can be attributed to rounding up precision.
2.2 Spatial consistency
Another step to ensure that the database is consistent is more qualitative. As a matter of fact, the spatial distribution found in the database must be compared to the original sources. The following table presents synthetic information on spatial consistency for the NUTS 2 level.
195
Appendix – Table 3. Spatial consistency at the EU NUTS 2 regions level. ESTI database
Original EU database
Largest yearly allocation
EUR 1464 million
EUR 1473 million
Smallest yearly allocation
EUR 0.6 million
EUR 0.6 million
Average yearly allocation
EUR 156 million
EUR 159 million
Top 10 regions with largest allocations
ES61
ES61
PL12
PL12
ITF3
ITF3
PT11
PT11
PL22
PL22
LT00
LT00
ITG1
ITG1
HU10
HU10
HU32
HU32
HU33
HU33
Source: DG Regio, Authors’ calculation
According to this data, the database is robust for NUTS 2. The differences between the developed database and the original database probably stem from the exclusion of some EU priorities, such as technical assistance. The spatial distribution, as given by the regions receiving the largest allocation, is identical. Elements such as GDP per capita and population can explain this situation. Moreover, third party studies about spatial distribution of EU Cohesion Policy expenditures confirm the consistency of the developed database137.
137
Bourdin, ‘Les Défis de La Future Politique Régionale Européenne 2014-2020 : On Prend Les Mêmes et on Recommence ?’
196
The following table presents synthetic information on spatial consistency for the EU Member States level.
Appendix – Table 4. Spatial consistency at the EU Member States level. ESTI database
EU database
Largest yearly allocation
EUR 9847 million (PL)
EUR 9598 million (PL)
Smallest yearly allocation
EUR 8 million (LU)
EUR 7 million (LU)
Average yearly allocation
EUR 1954 million
EUR 1769 million
Top 10 Member States with largest allocations
PL
PL
ES
ES
IT
IT
HU
CZ
GR
DE
CZ
HU
DE
PT
PT
GR
RO
RO
FR
FR
Sources: DG Empl, DG Regio, European Commission138, Authors’ calculation
This table proves that the data in the developed database is consistent from the spatial point of view. The differences between the two databases are small and can be explained by two elements. First, some expenditures of EU Cohesion Policy are excluded of the database, notably technical assistance. Also, Territorial Cooperation allocations are linked to their administrative NUTS 2 region in the developed database, while they are presented independently in the EU database. Spatial consistency is more difficult to assess for the US data. Indeed, no comparable study was conducted in the past. Therefore, ESTI amounts in the US are not directly comparable to mainstream categories of expenditures. However, spatial concentration of ESTI can be compared to the spatial concentration of all federal grants in the US
138
European Commission, ‘2007-2013 Total Allocation by Member State’.
197
during the 2007-2013 period, as a proxy for consistency. It allows the establishment of the table 5 of the Appendix.
Appendix – Table 5. Spatial consistency at the US States level.
Top 10 States with largest allocations
ESTI database
US federal database
CA
CA
TX
NY
NY
TX
FL
PA
IL
FL
PA
IL
LA
OH
OH
MI
NJ
NC
GA
MA
grants
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
The ranking is very similar between the original US federal database and the ESTI database. Variations can be explained by the focus on specific grants and the exclusion of health and social expenditures. For instance, Louisiana appears as one of the top recipient State in the ESTI database because of its share of “Territorial Development” expenditures, linked to the situation of this region. Spatial distribution can thus be considered consistent.
2.3 Sectoral consistency
Finally, the robustness check of the database implies the comparison of amounts with sectoral data. In order to do so, ESTI allocations are compared to budgets allocated to relevant categories of the COFOG. This method would make appear aberrant values if present. Data is compiled in the following table.
198
Appendix – Table 6. ESTI allocations by category as shares of comparable COFOG budgets (all government levels) during the 20072013 period. EU
US
ESTI allocations for “Transport” (category 2) as share of COFOG expenditures allocated to “Transportation” by all government levels
3.10%
22.7%
ESTI allocations for “Human Capital” (category 5) as share of COFOG expenditures allocated to “Education” by all government levels
1.81%
0.99%
ESTI allocations for “Natural Resources and Energy” (category 7) as share of COFOG expenditures allocated to “Energy” by all government levels
30.2%
1.83%
Sources: DG Regio, DG Empl, Eurostat 139, US Department of the Treasury, USgovernmentspending140, Authors’ calculation
These shares are consistent with available information. As a matter of fact, transportation and education are fields, which are mainly covered by Member States in the EU. On the contrary, energy expenditures are low in the EU under the COFOG framework141. It explains the high percentage for this category. For the US, shares are low because of its institutional model. Transportation is the exception, notably because of federal allocations to develop the highway system. To sum up, these values do not seem to challenge the credibility of the database. Once the consistency checked, the consolidated database allows the analysis of the ESTI during the 2007-2013 period.
Eurostat, ‘General Government Expenditure by Function (COFOG)’. USgovernmentspending, ‘US Federal State and Local Public Spending by COFOG Classification, 2007-2013’. 141 The Quality of Public Expenditures in the EU. 139 140
199
3. DATABASE PRESENTATION Appendix – Table 7. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in EU NUTS 2 regions by level-1 category in EUR million during the 2007-2013 period. EU NUTS 2 Regions AT11
Applied R&D and Innovation 3.75
Transport
ICT
Social Infrastructures
Human Capital
2.26
1.09
0.08
9.16
AT12
11.45
4.36
0.04
0.22
5.02
AT13
2.80
6.22
0.13
0.76
2.50
AT21
4.93
1.65
0.12
-
5.14
AT22
10.54
2.03
0.14
-
4.52
AT31
8.14
1.58
0.47
0.12
3.14
AT32
0.98
0.79
0.10
0.13
0.84
AT33
1.46
3.22
0.21
0.13
2.02
AT34
0.58
1.40
0.15
0.18
1.01
BE10
0.11
0.93
0.07
0.42
5.28
BE21
1.92
6.04
1.08
0.02
0.71
BE22
3.59
2.59
2.30
0.22
0.80
BE23
1.26
4.29
1.33
0.06
0.33
BE24
1.16
0.73
0.73
-
0.08
BE25
2.83
5.33
2.16
0.16
0.70
BE31
0.90
0.38
0.24
-
-
BE32
15.89
20.20
2.39
0.09
22.72
BE33
10.03
11.04
0.37
0.39
7.98
BE34
1.46
1.00
0.26
0.10
0.73
BE35
2.03
1.01
0.29
-
2.19
BG31
2.38
13.51
2.69
6.41
9.04
BG32
4.52
20.01
2.49
6.07
13.71
BG33
5.08
13.03
2.64
7.06
13.52
BG34
5.76
12.98
2.50
5.77
42.01
BG41
20.07
22.98
3.56
9.82
50.96
BG42
7.37
20.15
2.66
8.74
53.84
CY00
7.57
27.89
0.70
1.00
11.11
CZ01
22.31
35.69
0.94
5.34
66.23
CZ02
108.20
64.14
5.73
24.24
70.08
CZ03
53.16
68.36
2.69
23.70
103.91
CZ04
22.34
72.06
3.06
24.01
30.95
CZ05
66.16
87.28
5.42
22.56
28.88
CZ06
153.46
86.87
9.95
29.84
45.89
CZ07
67.34
64.43
4.99
29.16
55.61
CZ08
58.42
67.81
4.58
33.08
62.10
DE11
6.00
0.32
0.43
-
0.01 200
DE12
3.45
1.21
0.02
0.13
1.89
DE13
3.67
1.76
0.20
0.38
0.83
DE14
3.14
0.28
0.01
0.06
0.09
DE21
0.57
4.93
0.16
0.31
0.78
DE22
1.20
7.47
0.59
0.59
8.44
DE23
3.41
9.36
1.49
0.09
9.69
DE24
5.10
7.37
0.94
0.54
2.15
DE25
4.52
1.23
-
0.11
0.06
DE26
2.74
3.30
-
0.33
1.28
DE27
1.55
2.34
0.47
0.93
0.24
DE30
51.29
34.00
1.51
2.18
24.17
DE41
26.36
20.48
9.93
3.10
19.85
DE42
37.48
14.45
11.27
1.11
23.72
DE50
7.98
5.60
1.71
-
2.51
DE60
2.06
0.83
1.20
-
-
DE71
3.47
1.20
0.71
-
2.39
DE72
3.15
1.12
0.53
-
2.32
DE73
4.43
5.79
0.76
-
3.81
DE80
42.50
10.64
15.29
1.41
42.47
DE91
4.02
3.87
3.17
-
5.12
DE92
5.40
8.22
8.08
-
3.00
DE93
12.85
22.02
3.85
4.98
23.58
DE94
6.85
14.53
6.12
-
8.32
DEA1
14.17
13.70
4.66
0.19
2.28
DEA2
32.14
4.04
8.66
0.32
11.16
DEA3
8.14
8.42
2.19
0.07
2.01
DEA4
3.69
2.13
1.53
-
2.37
DEA5
21.08
15.48
4.23
-
2.99
DEB1
2.60
1.40
0.55
0.09
3.00
DEB2
0.40
0.84
0.46
0.15
3.28
DEB3
4.42
1.74
0.99
0.14
5.60
DEC0
9.21
12.71
0.07
1.67
1.80
DED1
40.98
41.21
6.80
11.82
36.26
DED2
75.23
28.73
4.82
15.71
37.35
DED3
31.58
18.26
4.20
6.93
27.64
DEE0
60.04
44.61
3.32
13.54
98.91
DEF0
19.51
10.18
2.23
1.17
16.24
DEG0
57.58
32.98
1.08
6.75
113.34
DK01
6.02
1.70
1.62
0.19
1.38
DK02
3.25
0.89
0.86
0.23
2.06
DK03
6.71
1.72
0.79
0.68
1.23
DK04
4.38
0.89
1.69
0.14
1.17
DK05
4.84
1.38
1.75
0.06
1.16
EE00
60.18
52.58
17.33
82.31
28.76 201
ES11
125.07
50.42
26.75
7.30
108.09
ES12
24.04
10.88
2.25
7.65
24.56
ES13
7.43
3.98
-
-
0.15
ES21
29.13
9.53
0.88
0.02
2.54
ES22
8.18
2.11
0.48
0.01
0.30
ES23
3.48
0.77
0.08
-
0.35
ES24
16.29
4.59
6.33
0.05
0.58
ES30
56.56
16.45
1.58
-
26.39
ES41
55.65
29.25
14.02
0.25
59.72
ES42
49.62
33.25
9.34
17.51
83.62
ES43
35.93
46.86
3.59
36.77
84.95
ES51
59.01
30.99
7.00
1.66
10.60
ES52
77.80
49.30
31.60
-
127.39
ES53
2.68
0.31
1.22
-
2.90
ES61
322.64
186.66
18.24
82.55
197.53
ES62
34.14
28.18
7.26
13.99
79.40
ES63
0.50
5.62
0.98
0.65
2.32
ES64
0.85
4.16
1.07
0.28
1.59
ES70
18.51
12.10
9.02
17.44
52.20
FI13
19.08
7.18
6.11
0.71
12.42
FI18
7.17
6.51
1.83
0.56
3.22
FI19
9.25
3.30
3.66
1.02
4.58
FI1A
21.37
7.84
5.29
0.18
9.45
FI20
0.02
0.11
0.28
0.01
0.06
FR10
10.17
3.35
0.42
3.19
0.82
FR21
10.28
9.49
2.13
-
1.17
FR22
14.26
9.93
3.03
0.28
2.69
FR23
13.88
8.15
2.94
0.13
1.11
FR24
14.58
7.13
2.11
0.16
-
FR25
10.15
7.36
4.61
0.07
3.21
FR26
6.49
9.93
2.19
0.01
1.66
FR30
31.14
39.33
8.65
0.13
8.82
FR41
15.29
12.28
1.02
4.04
5.19
FR42
4.05
1.91
1.61
0.62
1.88
FR43
8.57
9.10
2.45
0.13
0.72
FR51
18.56
14.29
1.92
-
0.32
FR52
12.01
11.12
7.59
0.44
0.46
FR53
7.47
3.77
2.78
-
1.74
FR61
21.54
17.44
7.48
0.09
1.35
FR62
28.62
12.78
4.49
2.88
2.79
FR63
4.36
4.83
0.87
0.31
4.41
FR71
18.32
18.68
3.00
2.10
4.86
FR72
10.32
9.41
5.22
0.58
1.09
FR81
10.29
12.44
2.94
1.28
4.20 202
FR82
20.80
12.72
3.59
0.28
2.12
FR83
6.88
5.89
6.33
0.25
0.49
FR91
3.36
13.33
1.78
0.88
13.26
FR92
5.32
14.36
2.29
2.38
8.10
FR93
7.02
7.37
1.97
6.26
9.52
FR94
9.01
13.49
2.33
20.70
18.78
GR11
9.21
27.92
31.65
18.65
16.88
GR12
37.42
113.99
30.75
38.97
76.48
GR13
6.03
29.45
5.52
14.34
11.22
GR14
9.01
29.62
17.22
18.83
17.77
GR21
9.90
18.81
22.01
10.83
15.09
GR22
7.62
18.09
20.31
13.33
8.03
GR23
13.28
25.93
27.48
24.99
91.31
GR24
7.05
16.05
6.63
14.11
99.59
GR25
9.26
23.11
38.70
10.99
14.12
GR30
83.54
187.71
51.84
55.35
47.60
GR41
5.33
11.85
6.84
9.12
5.61
GR42
4.62
6.81
7.02
7.80
25.52
GR43
13.34
34.86
36.10
20.03
14.55
HU10
22.40
229.62
30.81
56.87
90.13
HU21
23.30
74.37
17.88
49.29
125.84
HU22
13.35
83.43
11.97
49.80
89.43
HU23
11.55
74.68
11.75
59.21
52.14
HU31
21.37
121.97
18.98
72.86
63.05
HU32
24.91
164.54
18.45
79.48
157.87
HU33
46.53
108.64
17.16
70.13
130.67
IE01
10.18
5.25
3.66
-
3.63
IE02
13.99
2.98
-
-
4.30
ITC1
28.15
17.60
1.02
-
5.96
ITC2
0.75
3.92
0.95
-
0.03
ITC3
8.34
9.54
4.90
0.24
1.46
ITC4
15.32
6.57
4.16
-
0.46
ITD1
0.57
3.32
1.14
0.05
0.45
ITD2
1.03
0.58
0.18
-
-
ITD3
9.98
9.30
8.22
0.10
0.93
ITD4
4.93
5.82
2.96
0.22
0.87
ITD5
14.88
7.50
1.42
0.02
3.03
ITE1
19.19
16.10
12.45
1.55
0.11
ITE2
8.20
6.36
2.98
-
0.09
ITE3
6.33
3.01
2.35
-
0.02
ITE4
10.17
16.31
16.97
-
0.49
ITF1
3.37
7.85
1.08
-
5.58
ITF2
1.98
3.93
0.63
-
1.61
ITF3
211.83
279.36
159.44
75.54
62.56 203
ITF4
160.53
86.53
55.51
62.17
55.47
ITF5
2.86
7.79
4.77
2.46
5.36
ITF6
82.60
155.73
44.56
43.38
40.63
ITG1
136.62
178.39
50.15
71.56
95.01
ITG2
49.03
33.44
10.04
3.37
3.19
LT00
80.05
124.61
58.09
94.48
102.74
LU00
1.89
1.82
0.04
0.23
0.31
LV00
75.78
64.10
48.73
82.78
50.55
MT00
10.42
26.01
1.50
14.62
0.84
NL11
3.57
3.60
4.56
0.01
0.94
NL12
2.21
3.26
0.72
0.05
0.07
NL13
2.06
5.16
0.55
0.01
0.01
NL21
3.64
2.34
1.67
0.25
0.40
NL22
8.80
4.49
2.17
0.20
0.41
NL23
1.55
1.59
0.46
0.46
0.33
NL31
1.58
1.54
0.75
0.06
0.69
NL32
5.99
3.60
1.49
0.15
0.82
NL33
11.02
8.33
1.17
0.18
1.57
NL34
1.08
2.05
0.27
0.11
0.23
NL41
4.69
7.43
1.28
0.05
2.81
NL42
5.02
5.13
1.18
0.19
0.69
PL11
115.31
69.26
14.10
17.32
22.30
PL12
261.54
241.70
72.50
39.89
100.47
PL21
146.33
73.59
28.36
39.53
89.75
PL22
135.31
109.34
37.53
31.98
29.97
PL31
94.90
40.55
25.36
37.69
32.74
PL32
107.20
36.24
17.59
36.20
47.37
PL33
38.93
25.20
14.01
21.55
19.90
PL34
52.88
20.78
16.13
21.36
13.39
PL41
117.37
50.00
22.83
22.92
47.95
PL42
57.75
55.66
8.36
13.45
18.55
PL43
31.35
16.56
5.71
12.05
10.22
PL51
132.78
106.64
16.90
36.34
70.68
PL52
38.50
30.95
6.32
5.77
17.35
PL61
62.01
48.98
7.71
18.68
30.58
PL62
43.55
46.07
17.52
24.02
57.38
PL63
88.67
87.93
15.70
14.11
62.21
PT11
284.81
126.77
27.72
213.44
82.04
PT15
8.76
14.12
1.98
3.18
5.90
PT16
229.61
89.54
18.10
114.66
62.85
PT17
13.59
40.96
23.59
8.53
3.81
PT18
90.82
58.40
13.19
62.63
42.15
PT20
8.75
23.93
5.06
42.35
36.48
PT30
3.23
38.24
3.12
9.30
13.15 204
RO11
12.86
35.00
4.44
21.36
38.34
RO12
10.24
26.72
1.06
13.82
155.82
RO21
12.73
26.43
2.46
19.71
25.79
RO22
2.56
50.22
0.70
28.41
16.31
RO31
4.50
21.99
3.53
24.46
31.93
RO32
78.34
43.33
18.86
16.51
28.98
RO41
7.31
23.33
1.57
20.96
18.05
RO42
9.20
19.20
0.61
17.23
80.63
SE11
1.66
2.52
0.64
0.14
1.30
SE12
4.23
1.06
3.84
0.20
2.24
SE21
1.80
0.84
2.20
0.01
0.99
SE22
4.62
2.58
2.20
0.14
2.32
SE23
5.00
3.36
2.56
0.38
2.34
SE31
8.99
1.81
10.55
0.34
2.35
SE32
8.06
5.76
4.29
0.75
4.52
SE33
18.84
4.76
4.93
0.15
1.95
SI01
40.11
47.26
19.99
11.65
13.42
SI02
47.58
20.82
17.34
8.10
4.91
SK01
63.24
14.09
22.09
2.95
1.22
SK02
29.44
48.12
19.40
55.39
127.11
SK03
46.44
51.17
18.58
58.20
48.65
SK04
32.45
63.93
15.39
62.26
21.71
UKC1
5.34
2.40
2.49
-
9.49
UKC2
2.73
6.49
2.03
-
13.82
UKD1
1.35
2.18
0.05
-
0.68
UKD2
1.98
0.95
0.05
-
1.55
UKD3
7.66
8.73
1.02
-
2.44
UKD4
2.95
5.14
0.97
-
1.67
UKD5
11.72
26.69
4.53
-
29.58
UKE1
0.71
5.34
7.09
-
0.77
UKE2
6.47
0.02
3.08
-
0.27
UKE3
8.57
8.24
12.26
-
19.73
UKE4
2.59
2.41
3.79
-
2.62
UKF1
10.83
1.83
6.00
-
1.62
UKF2
5.25
1.66
1.92
-
1.71
UKF3
3.06
0.64
1.62
-
0.61
UKG1
8.51
0.22
0.13
-
1.20
UKG2
3.97
3.32
0.02
-
2.15
UKG3
15.37
8.41
1.05
-
8.34
UKH1
2.29
1.01
0.58
-
1.64
UKH2
2.17
-
0.55
-
1.48
UKH3
2.27
0.63
0.55
0.06
1.52
UKI1
6.62
1.08
0.01
-
0.81
UKI2
5.82
1.30
0.01
-
0.81 205
UKJ1
0.50
0.08
0.04
-
-
UKJ2
0.63
0.56
0.04
0.04
0.17
UKJ3
0.78
0.69
0.04
-
0.08
UKJ4
0.97
1.44
0.05
0.07
0.63
UKK1
4.78
0.02
0.15
-
2.13
UKK2
2.96
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.30
UKK3
20.34
1.36
10.64
4.50
16.61
UKK4
3.92
0.11
0.16
-
2.04
UKL1
48.07
39.32
24.62
2.61
-
UKL2
3.28
1.66
2.41
-
0.01
UKM2
11.08
3.44
2.17
-
8.86
UKM3
5.80
7.81
2.81
-
5.95
UKM5
0.89
2.27
0.84
-
0.01
UKM6
6.28
4.62
3.47
-
1.26
UKN0
21.61
12.99
20.46
3.22
2.72
Total
6,969.88
6,736.94
2,108.80
3,004.27
5,615.97
Source: DG Regio, Authors’ calculation EU NUTS 2 Regions AT11
Enterprises Support 0.29
Natural Resources and Energy 0.11
Environment
Touristic and Cultural Development
0.06
0.32
AT12
0.22
0.85
0.18
0.90
AT13
0.82
2.06
0.43
1.16
AT21
0.08
0.03
-
0.21
AT22
0.13
0.01
0.00
0.79
AT31
0.19
0.15
0.04
0.81
AT32
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.13
AT33
0.17
0.03
0.09
0.17
AT34
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.23
BE10
-
-
-
0.64
BE21
0.33
0.93
0.11
0.73
BE22
0.26
0.28
-
0.40
BE23
0.12
0.10
0.00
0.45
BE24
0.11
0.02
-
0.10
BE25
0.13
0.11
0.75
0.47
BE31
-
-
-
-
BE32
0.07
5.61
1.31
0.14
BE33
0.15
3.06
0.12
0.25
BE34
0.01
0.94
0.00
0.05
BE35
0.04
0.08
0.27
0.01
BG31
0.23
18.04
0.56
22.80
BG32
0.33
15.21
0.42
22.34 206
BG33
0.28
17.92
0.10
15.89
BG34
0.31
38.73
0.10
31.38
BG41
1.37
122.99
0.14
40.77
BG42
0.51
40.54
0.10
26.81
CY00
2.74
13.70
3.96
0.07
CZ01
39.71
61.68
0.43
9.31
CZ02
5.97
81.02
8.01
31.06
CZ03
12.16
120.82
7.84
29.54
CZ04
5.51
127.11
1.46
19.59
CZ05
13.97
75.80
1.29
33.87
CZ06
17.20
84.81
1.43
48.24
CZ07
18.61
91.98
0.21
36.39
CZ08
12.26
90.86
2.68
26.38
DE11
-
-
-
0.03
DE12
0.11
0.20
0.06
0.13
DE13
0.16
0.36
0.10
0.34
DE14
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.15
DE21
0.58
0.04
0.03
0.01
DE22
0.15
0.46
0.06
0.09
DE23
0.24
2.17
0.01
0.87
DE24
0.23
0.64
0.00
2.10
DE25
0.27
-
-
-
DE26
-
-
-
-
DE27
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.62
DE30
0.02
2.05
-
8.35
DE41
1.24
36.80
10.63
6.48
DE42
0.87
12.98
0.97
2.28
DE50
0.00
-
-
1.39
DE60
-
-
0.15
0.40
DE71
-
-
-
0.82
DE72
-
-
-
0.23
DE73
0.02
1.05
-
0.51
DE80
0.18
86.98
6.29
3.78
DE91
-
1.51
-
1.39
DE92
0.07
0.42
0.32
0.79
DE93
2.35
12.34
3.50
5.67
DE94
0.17
0.58
2.60
1.08
DEA1
0.41
-
0.19
6.46
DEA2
0.66
0.10
0.25
8.20
DEA3
0.35
-
0.01
2.33
DEA4
0.44
-
-
2.06
DEA5
0.40
-
0.03
4.67
DEB1
-
0.05
-
0.02
DEB2
0.09
0.08
0.02
0.10 207
DEB3
0.05
0.12
0.04
0.21
DEC0
0.16
3.50
0.01
3.45
DED1
0.83
45.40
0.73
5.36
DED2
2.21
34.09
1.20
4.72
DED3
0.83
25.20
0.83
2.93
DEE0
0.40
32.24
4.31
19.70
DEF0
0.59
0.58
2.66
0.68
DEG0
4.10
27.15
-
-
DK01
0.49
0.02
0.47
-
DK02
0.25
0.04
0.39
0.05
DK03
0.23
-
-
-
DK04
0.21
-
0.30
-
DK05
0.27
-
0.14
-
EE00
18.25
65.62
14.51
32.30
ES11
29.08
106.07
47.20
16.13
ES12
13.85
15.36
7.62
2.98
ES13
4.37
-
-
2.84
ES21
1.88
0.16
-
4.55
ES22
1.03
-
-
0.48
ES23
1.94
-
-
3.71
ES24
5.58
0.78
-
2.73
ES30
11.05
-
-
2.88
ES41
9.13
5.47
6.47
48.44
ES42
13.38
49.63
1.68
40.25
ES43
9.11
54.71
2.73
32.65
ES51
6.04
12.62
-
24.84
ES52
30.25
0.19
12.26
32.22
ES53
6.10
0.22
1.63
2.38
ES61
111.81
314.35
76.01
111.57
ES62
12.97
10.10
19.18
23.43
ES63
0.36
-
3.14
2.80
ES64
0.39
1.28
3.24
2.04
ES70
14.79
9.08
53.80
5.44
FI13
2.85
2.04
0.50
0.95
FI18
2.39
0.22
0.86
1.36
FI19
0.65
1.45
0.28
0.47
FI1A
2.90
3.18
0.15
0.92
FI20
0.05
-
0.00
0.02
FR10
0.25
-
-
2.74
FR21
0.57
1.46
-
1.05
FR22
1.34
0.31
0.45
4.43
FR23
2.97
0.05
2.16
3.91
FR24
2.54
-
-
1.77
FR25
0.37
-
3.40
1.82 208
FR26
2.43
1.08
2.35
0.92
FR30
4.18
7.92
0.55
10.03
FR41
1.68
4.75
0.05
4.48
FR42
0.66
0.91
0.15
2.21
FR43
0.51
1.49
-
1.42
FR51
1.93
2.87
0.78
1.84
FR52
13.20
0.00
0.95
2.99
FR53
3.03
1.59
3.64
3.15
FR61
2.71
2.49
0.74
4.24
FR62
9.16
1.26
1.34
1.70
FR63
1.14
0.46
0.05
0.79
FR71
1.84
3.11
1.22
3.84
FR72
2.55
0.01
0.14
0.93
FR81
1.70
0.02
4.11
1.25
FR82
2.69
1.88
0.08
3.74
FR83
-
0.62
0.90
3.68
FR91
1.17
0.83
3.99
6.65
FR92
1.59
9.72
1.86
4.44
FR93
0.21
0.08
5.80
4.26
FR94
0.72
28.73
13.67
15.82
GR11
20.24
43.22
11.20
34.46
GR12
22.96
117.94
15.77
44.11
GR13
4.12
44.49
1.49
27.63
GR14
20.78
179.81
5.03
22.11
GR21
12.01
61.67
0.70
15.08
GR22
6.37
5.63
4.07
10.20
GR23
22.70
238.55
21.34
30.48
GR24
4.06
53.60
4.55
42.05
GR25
13.28
121.78
16.86
41.68
GR30
46.86
35.10
9.11
55.16
GR41
1.76
12.73
6.11
8.33
GR42
2.03
5.12
3.99
12.79
GR43
16.32
50.21
8.74
20.39
HU10
12.34
198.36
1.96
36.29
HU21
3.12
77.18
1.60
19.98
HU22
3.58
188.31
2.04
22.18
HU23
2.84
49.01
2.17
34.42
HU31
3.50
62.23
2.94
28.83
HU32
4.29
201.91
3.00
27.35
HU33
4.67
200.14
3.66
63.20
IE01
5.49
9.14
-
4.02
IE02
1.96
-
-
1.03
ITC1
1.13
0.30
0.52
13.42
ITC2
0.24
0.05
0.11
0.63 209
ITC3
0.38
0.46
1.29
1.22
ITC4
2.95
2.84
0.01
3.17
ITD1
0.21
0.11
0.32
0.38
ITD2
0.06
-
0.32
0.89
ITD3
2.09
2.81
0.24
3.94
ITD4
0.39
0.49
0.02
1.80
ITD5
2.32
0.07
0.26
1.65
ITE1
1.87
1.17
0.71
1.42
ITE2
0.05
0.04
0.57
2.24
ITE3
0.06
1.60
0.51
1.85
ITE4
7.09
0.00
2.35
9.03
ITF1
0.13
-
0.26
1.46
ITF2
-
-
-
1.58
ITF3
109.72
25.06
66.49
36.81
ITF4
72.07
60.94
15.11
60.04
ITF5
7.11
9.33
0.07
4.47
ITF6
39.67
90.74
36.62
50.36
ITG1
73.07
80.65
36.22
46.90
ITG2
5.30
7.32
4.95
13.11
LT00
28.53
132.00
22.25
94.38
LU00
0.03
0.12
0.01
0.39
LV00
5.34
102.06
34.65
119.49
MT00
2.45
16.37
12.71
8.80
NL11
0.15
-
0.03
0.25
NL12
0.14
-
0.01
0.46
NL13
-
-
0.02
1.03
NL21
0.10
1.99
0.04
0.15
NL22
0.74
2.18
0.25
0.60
NL23
-
-
0.21
0.01
NL31
-
0.29
-
0.15
NL32
0.15
0.10
-
1.33
NL33
0.40
-
0.14
2.68
NL34
0.17
0.04
0.52
0.87
NL41
0.56
0.26
0.32
0.57
NL42
0.33
0.06
0.04
0.14
PL11
35.40
237.41
7.92
18.80
PL12
137.50
377.77
33.35
14.45
PL21
32.04
138.24
14.45
25.44
PL22
67.81
300.06
12.54
27.06
PL31
21.82
173.80
16.63
16.06
PL32
28.22
262.89
12.52
21.63
PL33
11.32
102.63
1.15
13.88
PL34
13.41
88.99
29.93
19.20
PL41
41.80
168.10
14.45
36.33 210
PL42
11.63
97.50
72.22
32.08
PL43
9.98
89.02
4.24
13.85
PL51
22.31
189.30
34.90
24.81
PL52
16.38
23.31
4.73
7.10
PL61
33.33
130.39
9.87
23.22
PL62
18.10
170.99
17.06
14.62
PL63
46.76
119.25
77.74
30.75
PT11
10.37
61.16
7.40
15.57
PT15
1.19
2.97
0.29
4.81
PT16
12.69
22.95
5.55
28.57
PT17
21.55
18.86
-
1.63
PT18
5.81
9.82
5.08
65.27
PT20
1.12
21.30
21.75
12.66
PT30
0.45
6.31
4.68
3.83
RO11
5.55
63.77
2.61
72.78
RO12
7.14
84.16
5.37
22.66
RO21
6.72
56.52
10.91
28.18
RO22
5.02
101.38
24.56
45.78
RO31
6.11
56.31
9.51
18.86
RO32
169.32
22.86
4.20
3.46
RO41
4.05
58.27
5.97
25.12
RO42
5.02
181.44
4.89
50.76
SE11
0.22
0.01
0.12
0.09
SE12
0.20
1.59
0.09
0.12
SE21
0.07
3.81
0.36
0.14
SE22
1.13
0.64
0.35
0.24
SE23
0.19
0.06
0.53
0.00
SE31
1.48
3.85
0.74
0.42
SE32
0.91
2.78
0.08
0.41
SE33
0.34
3.10
3.39
0.33
SI01
30.05
58.98
2.25
44.07
SI02
12.85
19.85
2.14
19.37
SK01
20.18
80.93
0.05
0.45
SK02
34.35
71.30
2.30
29.81
SK03
24.83
153.68
1.27
23.37
SK04
30.35
103.02
0.64
26.93
UKC1
0.75
-
-
-
UKC2
4.35
-
-
2.51
UKD1
2.78
-
-
0.53
UKD2
2.71
-
-
3.16
UKD3
0.80
-
-
0.93
UKD4
2.71
-
-
-
UKD5
0.99
0.28
-
0.54
UKE1
0.24
-
-
211
UKE2
0.00
-
-
-
UKE3
0.46
-
-
1.24
UKE4
0.00
-
-
-
UKF1
0.00
-
-
-
UKF2
0.00
-
-
-
UKF3
0.00
-
-
-
UKG1
0.09
-
-
0.11
UKG2
0.28
-
-
1.04
UKG3
0.09
2.56
-
0.11
UKH1
0.00
-
-
0.83
UKH2
0.00
-
-
0.82
UKH3
0.00
-
0.15
0.82
UKI1
0.00
-
-
6.25
UKI2
0.00
-
-
1.56
UKJ1
-
-
-
0.12
UKJ2
-
-
0.04
0.33
UKJ3
-
-
0.18
0.18
UKJ4
0.11
0.00
0.37
0.31
UKK1
0.31
-
-
-
UKK2
0.28
0.00
-
-
UKK3
1.68
1.86
4.18
3.01
UKK4
0.40
0.00
-
-
UKL1
20.30
33.38
-
10.36
UKL2
1.75
-
-
0.88
UKM2
0.15
0.75
0.05
0.14
UKM3
0.47
1.49
-
0.68
UKM5
0.46
-
-
-
UKM6
0.72
0.69
0.24
0.55
UKN0
0.32
4.10
-
2.27
Total
2,135.97
8,549.17
1,228.55
3,007.01
Source: DG Regio, Authors’ calculation EU NUTS 2 Regions
Territorial Development
Total
AT11
0.04
17.16
AT12
0.06
23.31
AT13
0.28
17.16
AT21
0.02
12.18
AT22
-
18.16
AT31
0.02
14.67
AT32
0.04
3.12
AT33
0.08
7.56
AT34
0.03
3.68
BE10
-
7.45 212
BE21
0.26
12.14
BE22
0.13
10.57
BE23
0.14
8.07
BE24 BE25 BE31
0.16 -
2.94 12.80 1.51
BE32
0.03
68.48
BE33
0.09
33.48
BE34
0.07
4.63
BE35
0.09
5.99
BG31
14.38
90.05
BG32
13.42
98.53
BG33
8.17
83.68
BG34
23.99
163.52
BG41
25.47
298.14
BG42
14.58
175.29
CY00
15.33
84.07
CZ01
0.90
242.54
CZ02
47.50
445.97
CZ03
22.39
444.57
CZ04
19.88
325.98
CZ05
48.76
383.99
CZ06
63.84
541.53
CZ07
44.99
413.71
CZ08
57.56
415.73
DE11
0.30
7.09
DE12
0.34
7.53
DE13
0.61
8.42
DE14
0.63
4.38
DE21
0.03
7.44
DE22
0.01
19.06
DE23
0.00
27.33
DE24
0.02
19.10
DE25
-
6.20
DE26
-
7.65
DE27
0.03
6.29
DE30
0.74
124.31
DE41
4.18
139.06
DE42
1.55
106.69
DE50
-
19.20
DE60
-
4.64
DE71
-
8.60
DE72
-
7.35
DE73
-
16.37 213
DE80
3.42
212.97
DE91
0.61
19.68
DE92
0.98
27.26
DE93
1.08
92.22
DE94
1.20
41.45
DEA1
-
42.06
DEA2
-
65.55
DEA3
0.04
23.57
DEA4
-
12.21
DEA5
-
48.88
DEB1
0.29
8.00
DEB2
0.18
5.60
DEB3
0.12
13.42
DEC0
0.25
32.82
DED1
0.91
190.28
DED2
0.16
204.23
DED3
0.01
118.40
DEE0
9.35
286.42
DEF0
0.02
53.85
DEG0
26.40
269.38
DK01
-
11.90
DK02
-
8.02
DK03
-
11.38
DK04
-
8.78
DK05
-
9.59
EE00
48.26
420.10
ES11
58.56
574.67
ES12
45.76
154.96
ES13
6.94
25.70
ES21
11.26
59.94
ES22
1.36
13.95
ES23
0.02
10.35
ES24
2.41
39.34
ES30
17.47
132.37
ES41
36.02
264.40
ES42
14.60
312.89
ES43
27.27
334.57
ES51
11.05
163.82
ES52
10.18
371.19
ES53
1.10
18.53
ES61
43.04
1,464.39
ES62
23.10
251.77
ES63
2.85
19.22
ES64
4.29
19.20 214
ES70
0.42
192.78
FI13
1.08
52.91
FI18
0.56
24.68
FI19
0.22
24.89
FI1A
0.11
51.40
FI20
0.01
0.57
FR10
0.05
20.98
FR21
0.26
26.41
FR22
0.26
36.98
FR23
0.29
35.60
FR24
-
28.29
FR25
0.24
31.22
FR26
0.08
27.13
FR30
0.75
111.50
FR41
0.63
49.40
FR42
0.28
14.27
FR43
0.21
24.61
FR51
-
42.51
FR52
0.43
49.19
FR53
0.85
28.01
FR61
0.27
58.36
FR62
0.46
65.47
FR63
0.04
17.26
FR71
0.24
57.22
FR72
0.03
30.29
FR81
1.01
39.25
FR82
0.56
48.45
FR83
0.42
25.47
FR91
9.52
54.78
FR92
2.24
52.30
FR93
2.37
44.86
FR94
16.11
139.37
GR11
14.95
228.38
GR12
43.47
541.87
GR13
13.56
157.86
GR14
22.59
342.77
GR21
18.69
184.80
GR22
6.66
100.28
GR23
27.85
523.91
GR24
24.15
271.84
GR25
16.93
306.72
GR30
54.44
626.69
GR41
6.11
73.78
GR42
8.39
84.09 215
GR43
21.74
236.28
HU10
61.11
739.89
HU21
17.21
409.78
HU22
16.52
480.61
HU23
26.49
324.26
HU31
21.96
417.68
HU32
52.36
734.16
HU33
72.07
716.87
IE01
-
41.38
IE02
0.44
24.70
ITC1
0.23
68.34
ITC2
0.20
6.88
ITC3
0.14
27.97
ITC4 ITD1 ITD2
0.04 -
35.47 6.59 3.07
ITD3
0.03
37.62
ITD4
0.47
17.96
ITD5
0.02
31.17
ITE1
0.78
55.35
ITE2
-
20.53
ITE3
-
15.73
ITE4
-
62.39
ITF1
-
19.73
ITF2
-
9.73
ITF3
55.09
1,081.89
ITF4
14.39
642.77
ITF5
1.18
45.40
ITF6
23.82
608.10
ITG1
10.42
779.00
ITG2
0.09
129.83
LT00
79.98
817.11
LU00
0.16
4.99
LV00
0.18
583.67
MT00
10.34
104.08
NL11
0.01
13.12
NL12
0.04
6.96
NL13
0.00
8.85
NL21
0.02
10.62
NL22
0.01
19.86
NL23
0.00
4.61
NL31
-
5.06
NL32
-
13.64
NL33
0.28
25.76 216
NL34
0.09
5.43
NL41
0.39
18.37
NL42
0.04
12.83
PL11
33.22
571.03
PL12
93.66
1,372.83
PL21
60.49
648.22
PL22
107.13
858.74
PL31
20.54
480.10
PL32
16.63
586.49
PL33
25.56
274.13
PL34
7.35
283.43
PL41
56.46
578.20
PL42
23.72
390.92
PL43
22.14
215.12
PL51
34.76
669.41
PL52
19.83
170.24
PL61
13.13
377.90
PL62
13.95
423.27
PL63
29.43
572.55
PT11
36.45
865.73
PT15
5.60
48.80
PT16
30.75
615.26
PT17
8.28
140.80
PT18
13.06
366.24
PT20
1.77
175.18
PT30
0.22
82.52
RO11
19.55
276.27
RO12
66.20
393.19
RO21
78.69
268.15
RO22
59.39
334.33
RO31
71.73
248.91
RO32
19.35
405.22
RO41
53.86
218.49
RO42
25.58
394.56
SE11
0.02
6.71
SE12
0.11
13.68
SE21
0.24
10.46
SE22
0.15
14.37
SE23
-
14.41
SE31
0.01
30.56
SE32
0.03
27.59
SE33
-
37.79
SI01
32.55
300.34
SI02
27.42
180.39 217
SK01
11.10
216.31
SK02
57.35
474.55
SK03
43.51
469.71
SK04
41.63
398.30
UKC1
-
20.47
UKC2
-
31.93
UKD1
-
7.57
UKD2
-
10.39
UKD3
-
21.58
UKD4
-
13.44
UKD5
-
74.33
UKE1
1.15
15.30
UKE2
-
9.85
UKE3
-
50.50
UKE4
-
11.40
UKF1
-
20.28
UKF2
-
10.54
UKF3
-
5.93
UKG1
-
10.27
UKG2
-
10.80
UKG3
-
35.92
UKH1
0.00
6.36
UKH2
-
5.02
UKH3
-
6.00
UKI1
1.25
16.02
UKI2
0.47
9.97
UKJ1
-
0.74
UKJ2
0.04
1.85
UKJ3
0.07
2.02
UKJ4
0.09
4.05
UKK1 UKK2 UKK3
0.09 -
7.38 3.95 64.18
UKK4
0.04
6.67
UKL1
8.24
186.91
UKL2
1.06
11.06
UKM2
-
26.63
UKM3
-
25.01
UKM5
-
4.47
UKM6
-
17.83
UKN0
-
67.69
Total
2,922.97
42,279.54
Source: DG Regio, Authors’ calculation 218
Appendix – Table 8. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in EU Member States by level-1 category in EUR million during the 2007-2013 period.
EU Member States AT
Applied R&D and Innovation 44.6
Transport
ICT
Social Infrastructures
Human Capital
38.8
2.5
1.6
61.9
BE
41.2
91.3
11.3
1.5
107.2
BG
45.2
130.0
16.5
43.9
259.8
CY
7.6
30.6
0.7
1.0
20.6
CZ
551.4
693.7
37.4
191.9
771.2
DE
624.0
592.5
114.2
74.8
1,560.2
DK
25.2
24.0
6.7
1.3
14.0
EE
60.2
60.8
17.4
82.3
57.4
ES
927.5
613.5
141.7
186.1
1,275.1
FI
56.9
42.6
17.2
2.5
68.0
FR
322.9
523.7
85.9
47.2
476.2
GR
215.6
595.5
302.1
257.3
813.7
HU
163.4
931.2
127.0
437.6
1,068.8
IE
24.2
8.2
3.7
-
34.2
IT
776.6
1,052.5
385.9
260.7
846.9
LT
80.1
156.1
58.1
94.5
185.3
LU
1.9
2.1
0.0
0.2
2.5
LV
75.8
67.8
48.7
82.8
98.1
MT
10.4
29.1
1.5
14.6
12.7
NL
51.2
97.6
16.3
1.7
70.9
PL
1,524.4
1,332.8
326.6
392.8
1,523.0
PT
641.0
450.1
96.3
469.0
1,038.1
RO
137.7
405.8
33.2
162.5
675.8
SE
53.2
47.7
31.2
2.1
25.6
SI
87.7
82.0
37.3
19.7
81.6
SK
173.9
202.5
75.5
178.8
333.6
UK
250.1
357.1
117.8
10.6
399.5
Total
6,973.8
8,659.5
2,112.6
3,019.2
11,882.1
Sources: DG Empl, DG Regio, European Commission, Authors’ calculation
219
EU Member States AT
Enterprises Support
Environment
2.0
Natural Resources and Energy 3.3
29.4
Touristic and Cultural Development 4.7
BE
6.3
11.1
42.8
3.2
BG
12.2
253.4
30.7
160.0
CY
2.7
13.7
8.2
0.1
CZ
125.4
734.1
23.3
234.4
DE
34.4
327.2
122.4
98.4
DK
1.5
0.1
11.9
0.0
EE
19.6
65.6
31.0
32.3
ES
283.1
580.0
854.5
362.4
FI
17.4
6.9
12.2
3.7
FR
74.5
71.6
183.6
94.1
GR
194.5
969.8
298.0
364.5
HU
56.4
977.2
59.8
232.2
IE
7.4
9.1
26.8
5.1
IT
344.1
284.0
348.6
256.4
LT
29.9
132.0
39.5
94.4
LU
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.4
LV
5.3
102.1
64.1
119.5
MT
2.7
16.4
12.9
8.8
NL
5.6
4.9
1.6
8.2
PL
554.2
2,669.7
606.1
339.3
PT
53.6
143.4
132.2
132.4
RO
208.9
624.7
136.1
267.6
SE
4.5
15.8
67.9
1.7
SI
52.7
78.8
21.4
63.4
SK
129.8
408.9
25.4
80.6
UK
62.3
45.1
160.4
39.3
Total
2,291.4
8,549.2
3,351.5
3,007.0
Sources: DG Empl, DG Regio, European Commission, Authors’ calculation
220
EU Member States
Territorial Development
Total
AT
0.6
189.4
BE
1.0
316.7
BG
100.0
1,051.8
CY
15.3
100.5
CZ
305.8
3,668.6
DE
53.5
3,601.5
DK
-
84.7
EE
48.3
474.9
ES
317.7
5,541.6
FI
2.0
229.3
FR
37.6
1,917.3
GR
279.5
4,290.5
HU
267.7
4,321.4
IE
0.4
119.2
IT
106.9
4,662.5
LT
80.0
949.8
LU
0.2
8.5
LV
0.2
664.4
MT
10.3
119.4
NL
0.9
258.9
PL
578.0
9,847.0
PT
96.1
3,252.2
RO
394.3
3,046.7
SE
0.6
250.4
SI
60.0
584.7
SK
153.6
1,762.6
UK
12.5
1,454.7
Total
2,923.0
52,769.2
Sources: DG Empl, DG Regio, European Commission, Authors’ calculation
221
Appendix – Table 9. Average yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in US States by level-1 category in USD million during the 2007-2013 period.
US States
Transport
ICT
Social Infrastructures
Human Capital
Enterprises Support
AK
Applied R&D and Innovation 2.6
810.0
0.8
133.3
39.5
0.1
AL
3.4
1,049.8
0.2
115.9
142.8
0.1
AR
7.5
732.7
14.9
45.0
97.1
1.0
AS
0.2
19.8
-
0.4
5.6
-
AZ
12.9
1,149.2
0.7
51.3
172.0
0.5
CA
68.6
6,523.5
26.3
237.6
1,032.0
0.9
CO
11.0
1,186.6
31.1
71.4
109.1
1.0
CT
1.9
831.2
13.5
64.9
87.9
0.1
DC
0.5
786.6
3.3
35.6
39.5
0.1
DE
0.5
228.6
0.3
13.1
30.3
0.1
FL
34.0
2,888.9
5.6
163.8
482.4
0.2
GA
5.2
2,006.9
2.1
159.3
275.1
0.5
GU
0.1
53.8
0.0
1.8
7.4
0.1
HI
1.2
427.8
0.3
69.6
38.4
0.3
IA
2.2
626.6
2.4
44.0
85.7
0.2
ID
2.2
433.9
0.7
16.8
51.3
0.2
IL
8.3
2,576.6
19.4
255.0
364.3
2.9
IN
2.8
1,475.6
0.0
80.1
191.9
1.9
KS
0.3
538.9
-
53.1
77.3
0.6
KY
16.9
991.2
0.5
90.3
142.5
0.2
LA
5.9
1,089.8
12.8
93.5
131.2
0.3
MA
10.4
1,270.0
7.5
144.1
173.0
0.2
MD
2.9
934.6
16.5
84.9
133.1
0.3
ME
0.8
271.8
0.2
28.0
46.0
0.4
MI
3.7
1,487.7
0.8
155.3
367.1
1.2
MN
5.8
1,001.3
1.1
107.5
135.4
0.9
MO
2.1
1,384.0
0.7
95.6
183.1
0.3
MP
0.1
12.3
-
0.4
1.2
0.1
MS
2.1
670.2
10.2
50.2
130.0
3.0
MT
0.8
566.5
0.5
20.2
40.8
0.5
NC
1.7
1,508.3
3.3
156.5
284.8
0.2
ND
1.5
398.1
-
14.4
28.3
0.2
NE
0.9
404.6
0.5
29.4
46.6
0.7
NH
1.1
246.6
-
18.7
33.7
0.3
NJ
3.3
1,762.7
6.4
150.7
211.3
0.1
NM
2.0
533.9
7.5
25.0
64.3
0.1
NV
1.9
512.4
0.4
30.5
73.5
0.1 222
NY
17.8
3,988.2
7.5
578.0
531.0
3.5
OH
8.9
1,890.9
0.3
211.1
361.3
7.3
OK
7.8
1,073.7
11.1
51.2
98.5
0.5
OR
4.4
817.4
2.2
44.5
113.3
0.3
PA
6.0
2,498.2
5.1
290.9
339.2
1.2
PR
0.5
214.3
-
170.6
179.0
0.3
RI
0.3
289.0
0.1
26.3
41.5
0.2
SC
2.8
1,014.1
2.3
52.5
160.5
0.1
SD
0.3
405.2
0.3
21.1
32.7
0.1
TN
2.6
1,080.2
0.1
124.0
176.2
0.3
TX
16.1
4,428.9
4.4
258.6
661.9
0.3
UM
-
-
-
-
-
-
UT
2.0
676.0
2.9
26.9
77.9
0.3
VA
6.9
1,576.6
1.6
110.7
173.3
1.8
VI
0.2
26.3
0.8
6.0
5.0
0.0
VT
1.9
295.9
4.8
13.8
33.4
0.4
WA
15.6
1,610.8
4.1
85.3
184.5
0.6
WI
3.8
1,057.6
3.7
97.8
152.0
0.2
WV
5.3
634.8
18.4
37.2
76.8
0.4
WY
0.3
333.7
0.2
12.9
22.1
0.0
Total
333.0
63,304.8
260.1
5,126.7
8,975.1
37.7
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
US States
Natural Resources and Energy
Environment
Touristic and Cultural Development
Territorial Development
Total
AK
12.4
134.4
1.6
33.6
1,168.4
AL
27.0
127.4
0.8
132.1
1,599.4
AR
18.0
84.9
0.9
102.1
1,104.0
AS
3.1
12.2
-
32.7
74.0
AZ
41.4
93.9
1.1
69.4
1,592.3
CA
150.1
512.3
4.9
653.7
9,210.1
CO
34.5
103.4
1.6
52.4
1,602.3
CT
12.9
79.6
1.9
49.1
1,143.0
DC
6.9
44.2
0.6
22.7
939.9
DE
10.1
47.4
0.4
13.0
343.8
FL
77.6
246.8
2.6
330.8
4,232.7
GA
40.5
143.8
2.1
140.0
2,775.6
GU
3.0
14.2
-
23.2
103.5
HI
10.7
53.1
0.7
25.2
627.2
IA
16.1
146.7
0.8
405.6
1,330.3
ID
12.2
86.8
1.4
18.7
624.2 223
IL
52.4
239.7
1.6
253.1
3,773.3
IN
36.4
136.1
1.4
186.6
2,112.9
KS
19.1
88.3
0.8
100.7
879.1
KY
22.8
142.4
1.0
120.0
1,527.8
LA
29.5
338.1
0.9
1,668.7
3,370.7
MA
31.6
157.3
1.0
130.1
1,925.4
MD
32.7
114.8
1.4
86.0
1,407.1
ME
19.7
67.8
0.8
33.1
468.5
MI
51.2
228.8
2.8
161.2
2,459.7
MN
27.3
130.8
2.0
91.5
1,503.5
MO
37.3
173.9
2.7
176.0
2,055.8
MP
4.0
8.5
-
24.3
51.0
MS
17.8
132.4
0.9
163.5
1,180.4
MT
8.8
89.2
1.1
23.2
751.5
NC
38.9
159.3
1.9
111.3
2,266.2
ND
9.6
91.6
0.9
95.8
640.3
NE
17.5
64.2
0.8
55.7
620.9
NH
14.5
68.1
0.5
29.3
412.8
NJ
42.9
184.1
3.2
448.1
2,812.8
NM
15.7
96.8
1.1
35.6
782.0
NV
18.6
56.4
74.7
30.4
798.8
NY
89.8
413.7
1.7
1,019.9
6,651.1
OH
49.1
242.5
1.2
217.9
2,990.5
OK
21.0
102.2
1.5
75.9
1,443.2
OR
25.2
114.5
1.5
54.6
1,177.9
PA
61.2
253.4
1.7
261.2
3,718.1
PR
17.8
56.6
0.0
98.4
737.6
RI
10.2
44.8
1.0
26.8
440.1
SC
23.1
86.2
1.1
48.6
1,391.2
SD
9.8
53.8
1.0
38.8
563.0
TN
29.4
116.5
1.5
131.3
1,662.0
TX
119.5
397.0
1.7
1,115.0
7,003.3
UM
-
-
-
-
-
UT
16.0
93.3
1.6
28.8
925.6
VA
39.8
130.6
2.0
99.0
2,142.3
VI
3.1
11.4
-
8.9
61.8
VT
9.4
52.0
0.5
18.0
430.0
WA
35.3
202.0
1.8
95.6
2,235.6
WI
24.3
157.0
1.6
112.0
1,610.0
WV
13.5
128.5
0.8
51.5
967.0
WY
10.9
117.9
1.5
8.5
507.9
Total
1,633.0
7,473.1
146.9
9,639.0
96,929.3
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation 224
Appendix – Table 10. Yearly allocations of Economic, Social and Territorial Investments in US States by level-1 category in USD million during the 2007-2013 period.
US States and Level-1 categories AK
2007
2008
2009
2010
1,097.33
905.30
1,262.84
1,308.50
AK - Applied R&D and Innovation AK - Transport
5.83
2.73
4.34
2.99
750.94
603.68
678.22
971.22
AK - ICT
-
-
-
5.35
AK - Social Infrastructures
118.46
115.91
218.76
125.04
AK - Human Capital
49.40
34.27
56.97
38.43
AK - Enterprises Support
0.05
-
-
-
AK - Natural Resources and Energy AK - Environment
3.28
2.91
73.79
5.21
158.05
131.35
169.17
115.24
AK - Touristic and Cultural Development AK - Territorial Development AL
2.16
2.52
1.34
1.35
9.15
11.93
60.25
43.67
1,269.20
1,274.25
2,223.93
1,648.56
AL - Applied R&D and Innovation AL - Transport
5.54
4.22
9.13
4.60
929.24
916.77
1,132.57
1,212.77
AL - ICT
0.07
0.07
-
1.25
AL - Social Infrastructures
7.92
81.88
362.77
78.99
AL - Human Capital
147.96
128.41
186.51
147.75
AL - Enterprises Support
0.07
-
-
-
AL - Natural Resources and Energy AL - Environment
0.74
0.57
167.36
13.37
117.21
82.23
199.31
88.28
AL - Touristic and Cultural Development AL - Territorial Development AR
0.02
0.18
0.16
0.57
60.43
59.93
166.12
100.98
829.75
798.96
1,640.06
1,413.10
AR - Applied R&D and Innovation AR - Transport
-
5.29
10.63
23.16
633.83
572.48
743.82
914.30
AR - ICT
0.06
0.65
1.07
102.25
AR - Social Infrastructures
5.08
29.38
137.86
42.04
AR - Human Capital
101.24
89.75
143.41
95.86
AR - Enterprises Support
1.25
0.36
0.99
0.86
AR - Natural Resources and Energy AR - Environment
0.61
0.54
119.17
3.78
80.99
60.97
163.55
86.25
AR - Touristic and Cultural Development
0.09
1.00
1.27
1.35
225
AR - Territorial Development AS
6.59
38.53
318.30
143.24
51.67
51.07
99.85
140.62
AS - Applied R&D and Innovation AS - Transport
0.31
0.13
0.13
0.34
5.71
5.26
25.01
44.23
AS - ICT
-
-
-
-
AS - Social Infrastructures
-
-
1.64
0.66
AS - Human Capital
2.20
2.31
11.92
18.89
AS - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
AS - Natural Resources and Energy AS - Environment
0.24
-
19.20
1.36
7.08
5.21
7.25
22.12
AS - Touristic and Cultural Development AS - Territorial Development AZ
-
-
-
-
36.13
38.16
34.71
53.02
1,196.88
1,270.27
2,347.39
2,059.80
AZ - Applied R&D and Innovation AZ - Transport
0.29
0.29
59.37
29.15
889.50
960.38
1,271.71
1,630.58
AZ - ICT
-
-
1.28
3.38
AZ - Social Infrastructures
12.77
39.73
198.33
25.09
AZ - Human Capital
170.39
147.56
241.49
162.86
AZ - Enterprises Support
0.15
0.05
0.05
-
AZ - Natural Resources and Energy AZ - Environment
1.09
0.48
225.50
56.11
119.88
71.50
184.59
90.42
AZ - Touristic and Cultural Development AZ - Territorial Development CA
0.27
0.08
2.45
1.26
2.53
50.20
162.62
60.95
6,942.88
6,937.83
12,981.94
13,254.36
CA - Applied R&D and Innovation CA - Transport
48.06
14.62
273.26
104.32
5,083.49
4,979.31
6,859.55
10,279.79
CA - ICT
-
-
-
184.13
CA - Social Infrastructures
39.29
144.55
859.57
280.46
CA - Human Capital
1,094.37
850.02
1,804.59
983.52
CA - Enterprises Support
0.45
0.47
0.49
1.39
CA - Natural Resources and Energy CA - Environment
4.92
4.11
837.94
182.61
559.48
410.24
1,095.29
490.42
CA - Touristic and Cultural Development CA - Territorial Development CO
0.42
2.75
6.40
4.27
112.39
531.75
1,244.85
743.46
1,424.79
1,096.90
1,996.53
1,978.72
CO - Applied R&D and Innovation
8.22
6.05
12.30
48.58 226
CO - Transport
1,174.25
833.31
1,131.53
1,462.59
CO - ICT
-
-
0.30
116.48
CO - Social Infrastructures
18.26
42.48
272.50
43.41
CO - Human Capital
108.63
84.17
145.66
106.93
CO - Enterprises Support
0.07
-
0.36
1.61
CO - Natural Resources and Energy CO - Environment
1.12
1.45
161.69
73.34
112.73
85.82
164.25
81.27
CO - Touristic and Cultural Development CO - Territorial Development CT
0.09
2.63
1.44
0.97
1.41
41.00
106.49
43.52
866.48
826.07
1,340.26
1,403.71
CT - Applied R&D and Innovation CT - Transport
0.20
2.56
4.39
5.22
669.83
575.11
682.64
1,075.34
CT - ICT
-
-
-
93.86
CT - Social Infrastructures
16.69
47.34
230.28
41.95
CT - Human Capital
82.54
66.71
135.76
74.46
CT - Enterprises Support
0.04
-
0.05
-
CT - Natural Resources and Energy CT - Environment
0.74
0.49
78.81
6.08
94.30
90.62
125.09
56.73
CT - Touristic and Cultural Development CT - Territorial Development DC
-
0.96
1.24
0.72
2.14
42.28
82.00
49.36
428.29
907.69
863.43
912.87
DC - Applied R&D and Innovation DC - Transport
0.84
0.45
1.69
-
322.13
765.53
561.22
780.04
DC - ICT
-
-
-
23.21
DC - Social Infrastructures
4.49
46.77
111.08
24.21
DC - Human Capital
41.19
32.57
61.84
37.15
DC - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
DC - Natural Resources and Energy DC - Environment
0.30
0.21
45.71
0.59
58.50
41.13
50.79
35.66
DC - Touristic and Cultural Development DC - Territorial Development DE
0.15
-
0.55
0.16
0.70
21.02
30.56
11.86
281.44
274.59
501.56
390.01
DE - Applied R&D and Innovation DE - Transport
1.04
-
2.24
-
189.52
194.95
230.67
292.09
DE - ICT
-
-
-
1.90
DE - Social Infrastructures
2.31
8.09
57.31
8.23
DE - Human Capital
32.57
25.09
40.68
29.03 227
DE - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
DE - Natural Resources and Energy DE - Environment
0.32
0.22
67.43
1.08
54.92
38.32
72.64
43.27
DE - Touristic and Cultural Development DE - Territorial Development FL
-
0.73
0.80
-
0.76
7.18
29.79
14.41
3,364.94
3,397.40
7,166.04
4,334.75
FL - Applied R&D and Innovation FL - Transport
68.30
6.14
15.36
126.01
2,534.23
2,492.95
3,908.22
2,976.50
FL - ICT
0.13
-
-
39.02
FL - Social Infrastructures
20.84
116.47
664.01
103.92
FL - Human Capital
432.70
378.92
695.25
458.83
FL - Enterprises Support
0.21
-
-
0.36
FL - Natural Resources and Energy FL - Environment
1.63
1.83
478.31
54.14
279.95
167.19
484.38
200.96
FL - Touristic and Cultural Development FL - Territorial Development GA
0.05
2.85
0.32
1.66
26.90
231.06
920.19
373.34
2,161.74
2,430.91
4,244.04
3,182.50
GA - Applied R&D and Innovation GA - Transport
1.52
5.28
8.93
12.10
1,672.84
1,879.01
2,465.22
2,428.32
GA - ICT
-
0.49
0.11
14.16
GA - Social Infrastructures
23.06
116.07
541.40
114.56
GA - Human Capital
274.27
225.33
414.03
248.50
GA - Enterprises Support
0.25
0.17
-
0.70
GA - Natural Resources and Energy GA - Environment
1.41
1.08
255.25
19.24
174.77
104.28
241.97
168.69
GA - Touristic and Cultural Development GA - Territorial Development GU
0.04
2.49
1.66
1.30
13.58
96.70
315.47
174.92
56.97
100.12
174.06
77.75
GU - Applied R&D and Innovation GU - Transport
0.13
-
0.13
0.12
13.57
50.80
85.13
48.63
GU - ICT
-
-
0.20
-
GU - Social Infrastructures
0.23
1.69
5.81
0.99
GU - Human Capital
9.80
6.76
12.74
5.95
GU - Enterprises Support
0.05
-
-
-
GU - Natural Resources and Energy GU - Environment
0.25
-
9.97
9.83
10.91
8.01
23.93
6.03 228
GU - Touristic and Cultural Development GU - Territorial Development HI
-
-
-
-
22.03
32.86
36.16
6.21
583.44
427.97
830.76
599.48
HI - Applied R&D and Innovation HI - Transport
4.18
0.64
2.02
0.80
432.27
234.40
451.49
458.09
HI - ICT
-
-
-
1.95
HI - Social Infrastructures
40.03
73.42
102.61
54.37
HI - Human Capital
39.94
36.07
52.14
40.46
HI - Enterprises Support
0.05
-
-
-
HI - Natural Resources and Energy HI - Environment
0.38
1.61
69.50
0.35
60.44
45.24
96.95
22.54
HI - Touristic and Cultural Development HI - Territorial Development IA
0.03
0.31
1.45
0.07
6.12
36.29
54.60
20.86
680.24
1,021.07
2,157.56
1,940.53
IA - Applied R&D and Innovation IA - Transport
1.15
0.50
1.96
10.70
479.81
479.81
782.02
678.02
IA - ICT
-
-
0.05
16.81
IA - Social Infrastructures
7.21
13.60
203.88
25.02
IA - Human Capital
89.12
96.10
121.71
79.60
IA - Enterprises Support
0.25
0.20
-
0.08
IA - Natural Resources and Energy IA - Environment
0.64
0.59
95.54
10.30
99.38
72.86
253.66
134.99
IA - Touristic and Cultural Development IA - Territorial Development ID
-
0.75
0.98
0.47
2.69
356.67
697.77
984.55
529.85
492.16
1,004.71
743.19
ID - Applied R&D and Innovation ID - Transport
1.77
0.12
8.38
4.98
363.43
363.69
592.65
566.37
ID - ICT
0.14
-
0.96
3.51
ID - Social Infrastructures
4.41
6.13
67.94
20.41
ID - Human Capital
47.40
42.37
65.97
54.19
ID - Enterprises Support
0.37
0.06
-
-
ID - Natural Resources and Energy ID - Environment
0.45
0.36
81.77
1.05
109.31
61.68
147.09
73.37
ID - Touristic and Cultural Development ID - Territorial Development IL
0.24
1.47
2.16
1.64
2.32
16.30
37.78
17.67
2,759.22
2,394.71
4,943.77
5,780.08 229
IL - Applied R&D and Innovation IL - Transport
0.08
0.40
19.65
32.44
2,056.99
1,488.72
2,202.99
4,361.28
IL - ICT
-
-
-
135.92
IL - Social Infrastructures
26.75
229.00
967.61
230.98
IL - Human Capital
381.74
295.70
609.36
325.51
IL - Enterprises Support
0.16
0.13
0.49
0.40
IL - Natural Resources and Energy IL - Environment
3.01
2.45
265.58
84.13
275.52
168.46
405.10
213.14
IL - Touristic and Cultural Development IL - Territorial Development IN
0.36
0.34
0.91
0.17
14.60
209.51
472.07
396.12
1,508.67
1,631.71
3,198.52
2,941.56
IN - Applied R&D and Innovation IN - Transport
0.40
2.09
3.45
13.51
1,144.44
1,191.77
1,585.01
2,187.54
IN - ICT
0.11
-
-
-
IN - Social Infrastructures
11.39
43.38
344.94
40.48
IN - Human Capital
204.86
171.80
288.20
173.22
IN - Enterprises Support
1.16
0.22
0.92
0.85
IN - Natural Resources and Energy IN - Environment
1.08
0.85
208.86
38.36
138.01
101.45
250.87
132.59
IN - Touristic and Cultural Development IN - Territorial Development KS
0.01
0.35
1.17
2.87
7.22
119.80
515.10
352.13
672.30
710.89
1,589.21
1,043.50
KS - Applied R&D and Innovation KS - Transport
0.22
-
1.80
0.26
460.87
482.00
658.20
720.14
KS - ICT
-
-
-
-
KS - Social Infrastructures
14.45
31.31
201.88
39.55
KS - Human Capital
98.23
71.62
102.37
71.66
KS - Enterprises Support
0.05
0.05
-
2.17
KS - Natural Resources and Energy KS - Environment
0.83
0.47
113.05
9.81
94.76
59.71
169.29
95.18
KS - Touristic and Cultural Development KS - Territorial Development KY
0.02
1.18
-
1.06
2.88
64.54
342.62
103.67
1,204.03
1,137.08
2,348.83
1,564.38
KY - Applied R&D and Innovation KY - Transport
3.70
23.23
37.85
29.33
918.87
749.70
1,127.60
1,121.98
KY - ICT
0.52
-
-
3.24
KY - Social Infrastructures
4.91
57.29
273.05
99.20 230
KY - Human Capital
161.06
119.02
216.67
134.41
KY - Enterprises Support
0.11
0.05
-
0.10
KY - Natural Resources and Energy KY - Environment
1.03
0.54
149.76
3.11
107.11
121.26
169.06
88.10
KY - Touristic and Cultural Development KY - Territorial Development LA
0.01
1.18
0.28
1.19
6.73
64.81
374.55
83.72
1,128.11
3,622.45
5,114.25
5,823.36
LA - Applied R&D and Innovation LA - Transport
0.15
2.10
4.07
31.63
817.60
832.79
1,150.35
1,474.61
LA - ICT
-
-
-
89.39
LA - Social Infrastructures
9.15
97.37
279.84
78.13
LA - Human Capital
184.33
118.82
187.51
124.22
LA - Enterprises Support
0.39
-
-
-
LA - Natural Resources and Energy LA - Environment
2.43
0.62
186.42
10.75
108.46
188.14
379.82
369.48
LA - Touristic and Cultural Development LA - Territorial Development MA
-
1.42
0.65
0.41
5.60
2,381.19
2,925.58
3,644.74
1,572.85
1,468.59
2,865.84
2,288.25
MA - Applied R&D and Innovation MA - Transport
2.03
-
42.63
21.50
1,158.82
1,032.42
1,324.26
1,633.62
MA - ICT
-
-
1.91
50.92
MA - Social Infrastructures
12.10
99.80
517.10
91.77
MA - Human Capital
164.63
139.20
255.48
158.03
MA - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
MA - Natural Resources and Energy MA - Environment
1.45
0.50
184.68
25.64
229.59
84.57
282.85
183.37
MA - Touristic and Cultural Development MA - Territorial Development MD
0.22
0.81
1.23
0.75
4.03
111.29
255.70
122.64
1,256.03
1,074.87
1,933.98
1,735.31
MD - Applied R&D and Innovation MD - Transport
1.15
4.54
6.76
6.58
964.77
755.41
950.34
1,128.54
MD - ICT
-
-
-
115.24
MD - Social Infrastructures
17.44
63.24
300.35
62.16
MD - Human Capital
132.17
115.10
178.15
125.23
MD - Enterprises Support
0.15
-
-
0.37
MD - Natural Resources and Energy MD - Environment
1.10
1.13
162.62
59.56
134.75
77.80
202.49
106.18 231
MD - Touristic and Cultural Development MD - Territorial Development ME
0.15
1.57
1.25
1.29
4.35
56.09
132.02
130.16
338.65
372.33
675.45
666.20
ME - Applied R&D and Innovation ME - Transport
2.82
0.40
1.52
0.05
193.57
227.35
257.39
406.23
ME - ICT
-
-
-
1.36
ME - Social Infrastructures
6.73
17.78
92.18
33.90
ME - Human Capital
51.35
42.27
65.03
48.12
ME - Enterprises Support
0.22
0.17
0.13
1.63
ME - Natural Resources and Energy ME - Environment
0.47
0.82
57.22
76.72
76.96
55.98
129.58
64.83
ME - Touristic and Cultural Development ME - Territorial Development MI
-
0.07
1.61
1.61
6.53
27.49
70.80
31.76
2,065.67
1,966.08
4,200.41
2,428.33
MI - Applied R&D and Innovation MI - Transport
1.11
0.49
9.03
13.64
1,350.47
1,297.47
1,705.49
1,661.14
MI - ICT
-
0.75
0.75
3.75
MI - Social Infrastructures
35.44
72.18
713.65
85.96
MI - Human Capital
401.34
292.67
645.12
331.03
MI - Enterprises Support
2.29
-
-
0.32
MI - Natural Resources and Energy MI - Environment
2.00
2.47
237.54
110.51
265.23
152.83
447.88
153.09
MI - Touristic and Cultural Development MI - Territorial Development MN
0.25
2.97
4.28
2.40
7.54
144.25
436.68
66.49
1,096.32
1,251.05
2,349.25
1,715.49
MN - Applied R&D and Innovation MN - Transport
3.75
23.42
4.36
6.65
795.57
899.85
1,142.56
1,274.03
MN - ICT
-
-
0.04
7.78
MN - Social Infrastructures
14.65
56.44
435.69
70.67
MN - Human Capital
128.44
105.00
211.38
146.50
MN - Enterprises Support
0.05
-
-
1.75
MN - Natural Resources and Energy MN - Environment
1.38
1.09
158.41
15.56
147.76
102.74
225.25
120.61
MN - Touristic and Cultural Development MN - Territorial Development MO
0.22
2.34
2.41
3.72
4.50
60.17
169.14
68.21
1,389.48
1,359.89
3,183.89
2,944.93 232
MO - Applied R&D and Innovation MO - Transport
0.40
0.49
3.87
8.26
1,038.97
928.45
1,506.98
2,379.71
MO - ICT
-
-
-
4.98
MO - Social Infrastructures
9.59
51.00
405.90
63.84
MO - Human Capital
197.30
162.15
292.30
164.76
MO - Enterprises Support
0.09
0.05
-
-
MO - Natural Resources and Energy MO - Environment
1.12
0.84
177.94
73.58
138.02
112.34
307.76
138.61
MO - Touristic and Cultural Development MO - Territorial Development MP
0.01
1.23
2.54
2.62
3.98
103.35
486.60
108.57
43.78
18.05
62.38
44.26
MP - Applied R&D and Innovation MP - Transport
0.13
0.06
0.24
0.27
0.96
-
5.32
14.66
MP - ICT
-
-
-
-
MP - Social Infrastructures
-
-
1.98
0.72
MP - Human Capital
1.95
1.07
2.02
1.57
MP - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
MP - Natural Resources and Energy MP - Environment
0.24
-
17.01
9.82
6.30
0.20
1.54
15.18
MP - Touristic and Cultural Development MP - Territorial Development MS
-
-
-
-
34.21
16.72
34.27
2.04
1,022.63
922.38
1,784.28
1,432.36
MS - Applied R&D and Innovation MS - Transport
0.58
3.36
4.01
3.94
731.09
522.74
740.10
808.92
MS - ICT
-
-
0.51
71.13
MS - Social Infrastructures
8.17
37.05
179.18
43.12
MS - Human Capital
191.07
111.76
195.41
115.24
MS - Enterprises Support
0.10
3.11
2.98
2.98
MS - Natural Resources and Energy MS - Environment
0.70
0.45
113.75
2.38
85.76
104.72
232.40
137.29
MS - Touristic and Cultural Development MS - Territorial Development MT
-
0.03
0.31
1.31
5.16
139.15
315.62
246.04
574.62
568.55
908.06
1,033.93
MT - Applied R&D and Innovation MT - Transport
0.20
-
1.35
3.75
417.36
422.97
555.27
877.49
MT - ICT
-
-
0.12
2.59
MT - Social Infrastructures
4.33
9.70
78.81
12.99 233
MT - Human Capital
41.81
38.32
55.13
39.43
MT - Enterprises Support
0.02
-
0.08
0.05
MT - Natural Resources and Energy MT - Environment
0.66
0.62
57.88
0.87
106.12
81.69
120.21
73.75
MT - Touristic and Cultural Development MT - Territorial Development NC
0.15
1.42
0.10
1.87
3.95
13.84
39.12
21.14
1,626.93
1,741.82
3,396.67
2,525.16
NC - Applied R&D and Innovation NC - Transport
1.91
-
4.00
2.70
1,116.46
1,188.67
1,768.14
1,787.04
NC - ICT
-
-
-
18.86
NC - Social Infrastructures
25.97
122.14
540.03
123.65
NC - Human Capital
282.13
229.96
433.34
276.27
NC - Enterprises Support
0.05
0.05
-
-
NC - Natural Resources and Energy NC - Environment
1.05
1.30
230.00
34.64
192.12
120.56
255.98
178.66
NC - Touristic and Cultural Development NC - Territorial Development ND
0.21
1.03
1.90
0.95
7.03
78.12
163.27
102.40
387.96
346.96
938.57
663.43
ND - Applied R&D and Innovation ND - Transport
3.81
2.77
1.28
2.25
273.08
201.35
417.93
485.77
ND - ICT
-
-
-
-
ND - Social Infrastructures
3.73
8.99
65.73
8.54
ND - Human Capital
28.77
26.71
40.13
24.46
ND - Enterprises Support
0.15
0.05
0.08
0.32
ND - Natural Resources and Energy ND - Environment
0.41
0.02
63.34
1.87
74.96
97.95
232.52
32.60
ND - Touristic and Cultural Development ND - Territorial Development NE
0.24
1.03
1.31
0.81
2.82
8.09
116.24
106.79
444.99
456.61
906.08
745.45
NE - Applied R&D and Innovation NE - Transport
0.15
0.20
0.73
4.59
313.81
290.92
450.00
530.54
NE - ICT
0.16
0.51
0.07
2.48
NE - Social Infrastructures
4.54
14.41
127.67
15.45
NE - Human Capital
48.40
44.73
63.14
48.75
NE - Enterprises Support
1.17
0.35
0.60
0.40
NE - Natural Resources and Energy NE - Environment
0.45
0.67
80.27
29.99
74.60
59.71
102.28
69.49 234
NE - Touristic and Cultural Development NE - Territorial Development NH
0.03
0.99
0.98
0.34
1.70
44.12
80.34
43.43
370.21
324.85
647.06
461.65
NH - Applied R&D and Innovation NH - Transport
1.42
0.33
1.42
-
232.98
209.37
276.71
319.48
NH - ICT
-
-
-
-
NH - Social Infrastructures
4.89
11.92
66.96
14.84
NH - Human Capital
35.35
33.74
46.38
31.14
NH - Enterprises Support
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.03
NH - Natural Resources and Energy NH - Environment
1.05
0.28
69.96
27.14
89.52
49.28
122.63
41.84
NH - Touristic and Cultural Development NH - Territorial Development NJ
0.06
0.01
0.83
0.38
4.90
19.87
62.11
26.79
2,120.53
1,837.78
2,949.39
3,107.70
NJ - Applied R&D and Innovation NJ - Transport
2.47
3.92
4.68
4.71
1,680.50
1,368.60
1,370.70
2,332.70
NJ - ICT
-
-
-
44.74
NJ - Social Infrastructures
11.90
97.62
517.37
130.54
NJ - Human Capital
210.52
166.08
307.52
196.57
NJ - Enterprises Support
-
0.20
-
0.12
NJ - Natural Resources and Energy NJ - Environment
1.32
0.03
235.54
43.21
211.00
89.08
304.88
159.83
NJ - Touristic and Cultural Development NJ - Territorial Development NM
-
0.88
1.24
2.19
2.83
111.36
207.46
193.08
588.74
607.49
1,196.99
879.02
NM - Applied R&D and Innovation NM - Transport
0.72
1.43
1.56
4.57
396.17
404.46
705.90
626.33
NM - ICT
-
-
1.46
50.88
NM - Social Infrastructures
5.10
19.08
94.09
20.30
NM - Human Capital
65.93
56.77
85.36
63.01
NM - Enterprises Support
-
-
0.05
0.32
NM - Natural Resources and Energy NM - Environment
1.97
0.79
86.83
13.26
114.70
94.42
165.96
62.12
NM - Touristic and Cultural Development NM - Territorial Development NV
0.35
0.88
1.03
1.86
3.79
29.66
54.75
36.36
977.54
692.08
1,091.76
895.44 235
NV - Applied R&D and Innovation NV - Transport
3.32
1.48
2.48
1.00
399.13
460.17
580.80
703.91
NV - ICT
-
-
0.03
1.68
NV - Social Infrastructures
6.38
34.22
105.83
25.86
NV - Human Capital
54.30
48.68
106.58
72.58
NV - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
NV - Natural Resources and Energy NV - Environment
0.41
0.05
110.73
11.99
63.94
56.97
81.82
51.85
NV - Touristic and Cultural Development NV - Territorial Development NY
447.98
69.29
1.52
1.42
2.08
21.22
101.96
25.14
5,817.29
4,646.74
7,829.05
6,590.23
NY - Applied R&D and Innovation NY - Transport
31.18
18.52
15.12
45.71
4,683.61
3,135.37
3,319.59
4,549.15
NY - ICT
-
0.05
-
52.69
NY - Social Infrastructures
48.32
455.95
1,758.88
433.11
NY - Human Capital
608.92
476.95
848.81
474.32
NY - Enterprises Support
0.05
-
0.05
0.82
NY - Natural Resources and Energy NY - Environment
4.97
2.17
486.04
114.96
422.00
200.39
783.21
410.75
NY - Touristic and Cultural Development NY - Territorial Development OH
-
0.09
0.26
3.01
18.24
357.26
617.08
505.71
2,535.46
2,231.52
4,867.08
3,304.91
OH - Applied R&D and Innovation OH - Transport
19.06
9.01
11.28
20.74
1,788.61
1,488.92
2,005.06
2,516.41
OH - ICT
-
-
-
2.16
OH - Social Infrastructures
31.17
128.76
962.48
121.96
OH - Human Capital
397.15
305.78
598.16
318.93
OH - Enterprises Support
6.99
1.56
4.55
8.36
OH - Natural Resources and Energy OH - Environment
1.94
2.13
296.86
35.93
285.04
103.86
487.85
98.81
OH - Touristic and Cultural Development OH - Territorial Development OK
-
1.51
1.71
1.79
5.49
189.99
499.11
179.82
1,127.13
1,182.68
1,727.33
2,247.62
OK - Applied R&D and Innovation OK - Transport
0.16
12.28
14.88
12.68
896.15
912.27
967.12
1,765.31
OK - ICT
-
0.65
-
77.02
OK - Social Infrastructures
5.31
28.21
206.56
33.02 236
OK - Human Capital
103.68
88.74
128.96
93.73
OK - Enterprises Support
0.31
-
0.20
-
OK - Natural Resources and Energy OK - Environment
0.77
0.48
116.55
24.13
116.34
93.84
192.82
90.93
OK - Touristic and Cultural Development OK - Territorial Development OR
0.15
1.84
0.20
2.25
4.26
44.37
100.05
148.56
1,039.74
687.26
1,774.52
1,500.10
OR - Applied R&D and Innovation OR - Transport
5.72
3.75
8.10
5.54
793.40
436.20
1,011.24
1,069.82
OR - ICT
-
-
0.19
15.03
OR - Social Infrastructures
7.78
17.24
132.97
39.86
OR - Human Capital
126.52
96.72
177.88
116.59
OR - Enterprises Support
0.20
0.05
0.15
0.45
OR - Natural Resources and Energy OR - Environment
1.06
0.49
116.26
55.13
101.56
87.22
238.92
115.30
OR - Touristic and Cultural Development OR - Territorial Development PA
0.00
0.52
2.05
1.73
3.49
45.06
86.76
80.67
3,274.75
2,930.63
5,274.52
4,500.02
PA - Applied R&D and Innovation PA - Transport
23.94
5.82
5.52
3.25
2,571.07
2,001.85
2,589.43
3,250.58
PA - ICT
-
-
-
35.40
PA - Social Infrastructures
24.04
202.22
1,064.88
214.40
PA - Human Capital
364.22
302.00
501.17
307.70
PA - Enterprises Support
0.15
0.10
-
0.11
PA - Natural Resources and Energy PA - Environment
3.27
1.82
329.05
83.74
282.19
190.19
398.95
305.92
PA - Touristic and Cultural Development PA - Territorial Development PR
0.02
0.02
0.36
1.75
5.85
226.61
385.15
297.16
328.68
506.00
1,370.84
873.28
PR - Applied R&D and Innovation PR - Transport
2.46
0.59
0.13
0.13
25.06
31.93
209.62
377.49
PR - ICT
-
-
-
-
PR - Social Infrastructures
11.93
148.39
423.97
177.63
PR - Human Capital
246.11
164.32
332.10
165.39
PR - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
0.16
PR - Natural Resources and Energy PR - Environment
0.56
0.05
112.36
10.09
42.24
49.13
111.45
19.26 237
PR - Touristic and Cultural Development PR - Territorial Development RI
-
-
-
-
0.32
111.59
181.23
123.14
333.99
324.99
631.32
522.71
RI - Applied R&D and Innovation RI - Transport
-
0.17
1.44
0.67
239.46
228.66
322.87
372.92
RI - ICT
-
-
-
0.37
RI - Social Infrastructures
4.98
20.28
74.17
25.72
RI - Human Capital
37.19
29.35
65.52
39.85
RI - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
0.40
RI - Natural Resources and Energy RI - Environment
0.36
0.26
65.76
2.67
49.42
28.15
72.36
42.23
RI - Touristic and Cultural Development RI - Territorial Development SC
-
-
0.45
0.68
2.58
18.11
28.75
37.19
920.89
1,042.13
2,108.73
1,826.28
SC - Applied R&D and Innovation SC - Transport
6.12
2.68
2.74
2.48
623.96
768.49
1,233.09
1,502.85
SC - ICT
-
0.13
0.08
15.57
SC - Social Infrastructures
5.84
36.39
197.78
35.84
SC - Human Capital
182.92
131.35
248.43
145.30
SC - Enterprises Support
0.06
0.01
-
0.15
SC - Natural Resources and Energy SC - Environment
0.68
1.05
154.73
2.93
97.13
57.54
160.93
92.97
SC - Touristic and Cultural Development SC - Territorial Development SD
0.13
0.01
2.80
-
4.05
44.49
108.14
28.19
367.56
346.97
752.49
702.03
SD - Applied R&D and Innovation SD - Transport
-
0.24
1.06
0.10
259.23
248.26
433.48
515.03
SD - ICT
0.36
0.39
0.28
0.69
SD - Social Infrastructures
3.70
6.43
72.13
10.15
SD - Human Capital
30.90
30.54
44.40
30.03
SD - Enterprises Support
0.02
-
0.05
-
SD - Natural Resources and Energy SD - Environment
0.72
0.24
65.59
0.85
70.07
45.61
83.55
43.51
SD - Touristic and Cultural Development SD - Territorial Development TN
0.30
0.99
1.35
1.01
2.26
14.28
50.61
100.67
1,270.61
1,338.91
2,542.63
1,726.44 238
TN - Applied R&D and Innovation TN - Transport
-
0.47
1.93
14.61
923.89
960.28
1,307.85
1,077.14
TN - ICT
-
-
-
0.56
TN - Social Infrastructures
16.17
80.20
421.58
111.81
TN - Human Capital
201.02
155.41
287.29
178.15
TN - Enterprises Support
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.75
TN - Natural Resources and Energy TN - Environment
0.93
0.88
179.51
20.58
120.02
77.02
166.38
104.85
TN - Touristic and Cultural Development TN - Territorial Development TX
0.10
1.23
3.05
0.10
8.43
63.38
175.01
217.90
4,358.12
5,150.59
11,311.66
10,079.25
TX - Applied R&D and Innovation TX - Transport
2.37
7.51
13.41
48.30
3,320.08
3,462.86
4,507.76
6,425.11
TX - ICT
-
-
-
30.76
TX - Social Infrastructures
35.28
169.63
1,098.87
155.19
TX - Human Capital
712.09
571.90
931.43
555.32
TX - Enterprises Support
0.05
-
-
0.31
TX - Natural Resources and Energy TX - Environment
10.41
4.69
724.66
78.55
260.42
316.44
691.44
492.66
TX - Touristic and Cultural Development TX - Territorial Development UM
0.11
3.55
-
0.02
17.30
614.02
3,344.09
2,293.02
-
-
-
-
UM - Applied R&D and Innovation UM - Transport
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UM - ICT
-
-
-
-
UM - Social Infrastructures
-
-
-
-
UM - Human Capital
-
-
-
-
UM - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
UM - Natural Resources and Energy UM - Environment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UM - Touristic and Cultural Development UM - Territorial Development UT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
794.97
612.30
1,206.07
1,064.99
UT - Applied R&D and Innovation UT - Transport
3.80
0.10
3.92
3.44
614.50
432.01
656.19
812.20
UT - ICT
-
-
0.58
18.22
UT - Social Infrastructures
4.12
9.05
104.00
25.14 239
UT - Human Capital
74.69
72.53
105.00
77.37
UT - Enterprises Support
0.04
-
-
-
UT - Natural Resources and Energy UT - Environment
1.04
0.35
105.59
2.69
93.33
75.88
182.52
99.73
UT - Touristic and Cultural Development UT - Territorial Development VA
0.52
1.59
1.92
1.95
2.93
20.79
46.35
24.24
1,724.07
1,830.49
2,724.75
2,986.00
VA - Applied R&D and Innovation VA - Transport
10.99
4.66
26.73
4.22
1,368.97
1,394.62
1,514.89
2,423.04
VA - ICT
-
0.31
-
10.90
VA - Social Infrastructures
34.57
96.54
355.81
104.33
VA - Human Capital
175.74
158.23
228.27
166.47
VA - Enterprises Support
2.32
1.04
1.48
0.90
VA - Natural Resources and Energy VA - Environment
1.12
0.74
244.51
23.33
124.91
97.89
212.65
138.14
VA - Touristic and Cultural Development VA - Territorial Development VI
-
0.11
2.01
1.78
5.44
76.33
138.40
112.89
46.86
49.94
61.40
68.75
VI - Applied R&D and Innovation VI - Transport
0.13
0.17
1.08
0.12
27.17
16.12
10.97
39.89
VI - ICT
-
-
-
5.56
VI - Social Infrastructures
0.18
7.65
3.62
8.41
VI - Human Capital
4.75
3.63
8.36
4.56
VI - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
VI - Natural Resources and Energy VI - Environment
0.26
0.22
20.29
0.24
8.85
9.29
7.05
4.16
VI - Touristic and Cultural Development VI - Territorial Development VT
-
-
-
-
5.52
12.84
10.03
5.81
309.40
242.26
561.36
587.20
VT - Applied R&D and Innovation VT - Transport
0.94
0.49
3.06
8.60
221.55
156.81
270.75
429.49
VT - ICT
-
-
-
33.39
VT - Social Infrastructures
3.12
7.61
54.16
18.52
VT - Human Capital
28.75
25.83
45.51
33.54
VT - Enterprises Support
0.23
0.11
0.32
0.25
VT - Natural Resources and Energy VT - Environment
0.41
0.68
59.98
2.18
52.77
35.20
89.91
46.22 240
VT - Touristic and Cultural Development VT - Territorial Development WA
-
0.06
0.36
0.70
1.64
15.46
37.32
14.31
1,712.76
1,494.72
2,964.04
2,637.00
WA - Applied R&D and Innovation WA - Transport
27.73
10.88
12.05
45.49
1,235.39
1,004.85
1,692.91
1,941.10
WA - ICT
-
-
0.08
28.45
WA - Social Infrastructures
10.33
92.98
304.56
65.40
WA - Human Capital
199.07
156.14
263.57
176.39
WA - Enterprises Support
0.10
-
-
0.60
WA - Natural Resources and Energy WA - Environment
1.03
1.33
179.23
58.92
231.71
159.86
312.82
211.34
WA - Touristic and Cultural Development WA - Territorial Development WI
0.34
0.02
2.34
5.90
7.07
68.67
196.47
103.43
1,212.60
1,444.55
2,352.83
2,023.80
WI - Applied R&D and Innovation WI - Transport
2.55
0.39
1.89
18.46
828.36
1,037.87
1,066.92
1,475.16
WI - ICT
0.45
-
-
25.69
WI - Social Infrastructures
24.38
61.15
420.93
44.99
WI - Human Capital
159.34
136.11
217.15
160.65
WI - Enterprises Support
0.22
-
0.05
-
WI - Natural Resources and Energy WI - Environment
1.53
2.62
153.09
7.28
188.17
97.77
274.62
106.53
WI - Touristic and Cultural Development WI - Territorial Development WV
0.10
0.13
1.44
0.07
7.49
108.53
216.72
184.94
736.26
794.69
1,310.38
1,269.06
WV - Applied R&D and Innovation WV - Transport
0.44
4.37
6.11
18.19
512.74
558.40
686.17
796.50
WV - ICT
-
-
0.37
128.45
WV - Social Infrastructures
5.44
23.49
140.78
38.28
WV - Human Capital
68.38
58.71
114.49
87.69
WV - Enterprises Support
0.05
-
-
1.29
WV - Natural Resources and Energy WV - Environment
0.53
0.47
88.87
2.03
143.10
110.50
170.05
131.20
WV - Touristic and Cultural Development WV - Territorial Development WY
0.07
1.09
0.66
1.20
5.50
37.66
102.89
64.24
336.20
437.66
745.84
465.87 241
WY - Applied R&D and Innovation WY - Transport
0.17
-
1.26
0.27
241.06
263.17
410.15
391.62
WY - ICT
-
-
-
1.01
WY - Social Infrastructures
6.94
16.00
34.74
12.20
WY - Human Capital
27.42
14.78
24.32
17.56
WY - Enterprises Support
0.03
-
-
-
WY - Natural Resources and Energy WY - Environment
0.60
0.29
73.31
0.59
59.73
138.10
173.38
34.22
WY - Touristic and Cultural Development WY - Territorial Development Total
0.01
0.30
1.47
1.30
0.26
5.02
27.20
7.11
73,162.48
74,013.80
139,236.43
121,083.77
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation US States and Level-1 categories AK
2011
2012
2013
1,207.30
1,227.58
1,169.81
Cumulative 2007-2013 8,178.65
AK - Applied R&D and Innovation AK - Transport
1.20
0.82
0.30
18.22
911.19
814.50
940.50
5,670.24
AK - ICT
-
-
-
5.35
AK - Social Infrastructures
134.49
178.93
41.36
932.95
AK - Human Capital
31.81
33.83
32.10
276.81
AK - Enterprises Support
0.74
-
-
0.79
AK - Natural Resources and Energy AK - Environment
0.60
0.71
0.28
86.78
101.85
163.20
102.08
940.94
AK - Touristic and Cultural Development AK - Territorial Development AL
2.46
0.96
0.27
11.05
22.97
34.64
52.92
235.52
1,618.46
1,626.63
1,534.43
11,195.46
AL - Applied R&D and Innovation AL - Transport
0.03
-
-
23.51
1,063.69
1,045.10
1,048.18
7,348.34
AL - ICT
-
-
-
1.39
AL - Social Infrastructures
105.62
57.98
116.26
811.41
AL - Human Capital
119.63
140.58
128.64
999.47
AL - Enterprises Support
0.14
0.37
-
0.58
AL - Natural Resources and Energy AL - Environment
1.74
2.51
2.40
188.67
98.55
199.23
107.02
891.83
AL - Touristic and Cultural Development AL - Territorial Development
1.86
2.66
0.26
5.71
227.20
178.21
131.67
924.55 242
AR
1,052.09
1,000.47
993.88
7,728.29
AR - Applied R&D and Innovation AR - Transport
9.00
-
4.29
52.37
780.02
751.87
732.85
5,129.18
AR - ICT
-
-
-
104.03
AR - Social Infrastructures
23.99
24.73
52.13
315.21
AR - Human Capital
79.59
87.52
82.19
679.56
AR - Enterprises Support
1.46
0.99
1.04
6.96
AR - Natural Resources and Energy AR - Environment
-
0.91
1.03
126.04
67.57
86.66
48.18
594.17
AR - Touristic and Cultural Development AR - Territorial Development AS
0.36
1.33
0.89
6.29
90.08
46.45
71.29
714.48
51.21
59.08
64.75
518.26
AS - Applied R&D and Innovation AS - Transport
0.34
0.20
0.05
1.50
28.48
14.50
15.70
138.89
AS - ICT
-
-
-
-
AS - Social Infrastructures
0.30
0.13
0.22
2.95
AS - Human Capital
1.49
0.53
1.85
39.19
AS - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
AS - Natural Resources and Energy AS - Environment
0.39
0.14
0.19
21.52
11.77
17.72
14.12
85.27
AS - Touristic and Cultural Development AS - Territorial Development AZ
-
-
-
-
8.43
25.87
32.63
228.95
1,517.33
1,303.90
1,450.66
11,146.24
AZ - Applied R&D and Innovation AZ - Transport
-
0.87
0.14
90.12
1,199.94
986.54
1,105.60
8,044.25
AZ - ICT
-
-
-
4.65
AZ - Social Infrastructures
47.43
16.82
19.19
359.36
AZ - Human Capital
149.57
172.30
160.06
1,204.23
AZ - Enterprises Support
0.66
0.89
1.40
3.19
AZ - Natural Resources and Energy AZ - Environment
1.17
3.42
1.97
289.74
57.18
68.23
65.22
657.02
AZ - Touristic and Cultural Development AZ - Territorial Development CA
1.05
0.59
2.29
7.99
60.33
54.25
94.80
485.68
8,555.09
7,670.03
8,128.37
64,470.49
CA - Applied R&D and Innovation CA - Transport
11.64
9.94
18.67
480.51
6,596.54
5,755.07
6,110.76
45,664.52
CA - ICT
0.04
0.13
-
184.29 243
CA - Social Infrastructures
92.99
103.30
143.18
1,663.34
CA - Human Capital
753.20
944.76
793.62
7,224.09
CA - Enterprises Support
2.77
0.53
0.54
6.63
CA - Natural Resources and Energy CA - Environment
5.39
7.23
8.44
1,050.64
341.79
371.52
317.14
3,585.88
CA - Touristic and Cultural Development CA - Territorial Development CO
8.92
7.47
4.10
34.34
741.80
470.09
731.90
4,576.23
1,371.62
1,811.55
1,535.65
11,215.77
CO - Applied R&D and Innovation CO - Transport
0.72
0.26
1.09
77.22
993.54
1,522.47
1,188.34
8,306.04
CO - ICT
101.04
0.19
-
218.01
CO - Social Infrastructures
59.28
17.89
46.32
500.14
CO - Human Capital
94.14
121.90
102.30
763.72
CO - Enterprises Support
0.67
2.84
1.79
7.35
CO - Natural Resources and Energy CO - Environment
2.50
0.68
0.58
241.35
75.60
105.67
98.52
723.87
CO - Touristic and Cultural Development CO - Territorial Development CT
2.37
1.82
1.63
10.95
41.77
37.84
95.08
367.12
1,181.13
1,167.90
1,215.80
8,001.34
CT - Applied R&D and Innovation CT - Transport
1.08
0.08
0.10
13.64
950.87
929.54
935.06
5,818.39
CT - ICT
-
-
0.88
94.73
CT - Social Infrastructures
40.08
28.87
49.03
454.24
CT - Human Capital
87.18
82.54
86.03
615.23
CT - Enterprises Support
0.55
0.34
-
0.97
CT - Natural Resources and Energy CT - Environment
1.16
1.77
1.37
90.42
46.11
87.82
56.44
557.10
CT - Touristic and Cultural Development CT - Territorial Development DC
0.97
0.83
8.39
13.10
53.12
36.11
78.50
343.52
1,218.27
878.43
1,370.14
6,579.13
DC - Applied R&D and Innovation DC - Transport
-
0.10
0.30
3.38
1,054.94
768.29
1,254.20
5,506.35
DC - ICT
-
-
-
23.21
DC - Social Infrastructures
20.17
14.58
27.87
249.16
DC - Human Capital
36.94
32.62
33.95
276.25
DC - Enterprises Support
-
0.59
-
0.59
DC - Natural Resources and Energy
0.27
0.49
0.54
48.11 244
DC - Environment
54.50
48.07
20.84
309.48
DC - Touristic and Cultural Development DC - Territorial Development DE
1.35
0.94
0.81
3.95
50.11
12.75
31.64
158.64
271.48
358.17
329.29
2,406.54
DE - Applied R&D and Innovation DE - Transport
0.06
-
-
3.34
201.58
250.94
240.74
1,600.48
DE - ICT
-
-
-
1.90
DE - Social Infrastructures
4.64
4.89
6.54
92.00
DE - Human Capital
25.69
29.17
29.77
212.00
DE - Enterprises Support
0.25
0.19
-
0.44
DE - Natural Resources and Energy DE - Environment
0.54
0.61
0.66
70.87
28.45
63.38
30.83
331.80
DE - Touristic and Cultural Development DE - Territorial Development FL
1.29
-
0.00
2.83
8.99
9.00
20.74
90.88
3,916.29
3,621.54
3,827.64
29,628.60
FL - Applied R&D and Innovation FL - Transport
17.53
1.06
3.55
237.94
2,868.06
2,643.63
2,798.44
20,222.03
FL - ICT
-
-
-
39.14
FL - Social Infrastructures
56.74
67.94
116.53
1,146.46
FL - Human Capital
447.11
508.05
455.90
3,376.75
FL - Enterprises Support
0.78
-
-
1.36
FL - Natural Resources and Energy FL - Environment
2.80
1.76
2.88
543.35
221.37
196.48
177.39
1,727.71
FL - Touristic and Cultural Development FL - Territorial Development GA
5.28
3.89
3.97
18.01
296.63
198.73
268.99
2,315.84
2,212.58
2,586.31
2,610.84
19,428.91
GA - Applied R&D and Innovation GA - Transport
5.96
1.76
0.91
36.46
1,673.93
1,999.21
1,929.79
14,048.31
GA - ICT
-
-
-
14.76
GA - Social Infrastructures
91.65
83.82
144.59
1,115.15
GA - Human Capital
218.93
289.32
255.07
1,925.45
GA - Enterprises Support
1.34
0.83
-
3.29
GA - Natural Resources and Energy GA - Environment
1.88
2.40
2.45
283.71
95.73
108.24
113.23
1,006.91
GA - Touristic and Cultural Development GA - Territorial Development
2.47
1.81
5.23
15.00
120.71
98.92
159.57
979.87 245
GU
84.11
123.41
108.21
724.63
GU - Applied R&D and Innovation GU - Transport
0.05
0.06
0.25
0.73
49.23
71.09
57.83
376.28
GU - ICT
-
-
-
0.20
GU - Social Infrastructures
0.31
0.10
3.51
12.63
GU - Human Capital
5.69
7.00
3.83
51.77
GU - Enterprises Support
0.14
0.23
-
0.41
GU - Natural Resources and Energy GU - Environment
0.41
0.15
0.19
20.79
21.19
17.25
12.29
99.61
GU - Touristic and Cultural Development GU - Territorial Development HI
-
-
-
-
7.10
27.54
30.31
162.21
449.54
812.99
686.43
4,390.61
HI - Applied R&D and Innovation HI - Transport
0.45
0.48
0.18
8.74
274.09
622.35
521.86
2,994.54
HI - ICT
-
-
-
1.95
HI - Social Infrastructures
55.59
86.74
74.14
486.91
HI - Human Capital
33.67
33.04
33.30
268.62
HI - Enterprises Support
0.62
1.29
0.44
2.39
HI - Natural Resources and Energy HI - Environment
2.17
0.56
0.27
74.82
64.21
42.03
40.03
371.44
HI - Touristic and Cultural Development HI - Territorial Development IA
0.99
1.01
1.24
5.10
17.74
25.49
14.98
176.10
1,290.92
1,280.84
941.16
9,312.33
IA - Applied R&D and Innovation IA - Transport
0.03
1.17
-
15.50
635.43
716.63
614.71
4,386.42
IA - ICT
0.12
-
-
16.98
IA - Social Infrastructures
13.66
5.08
39.46
307.90
IA - Human Capital
67.55
74.95
70.93
599.96
IA - Enterprises Support
0.47
0.21
0.44
1.65
IA - Natural Resources and Energy IA - Environment
1.27
1.67
2.46
112.46
182.29
177.22
106.19
1,026.59
IA - Touristic and Cultural Development IA - Territorial Development ID
1.79
0.97
0.99
5.94
388.32
302.95
105.99
2,838.93
473.18
588.55
537.67
4,369.31
ID - Applied R&D and Innovation ID - Transport
0.06
0.02
0.05
15.37
337.76
433.38
379.93
3,037.21
ID - ICT
-
-
-
4.61 246
ID - Social Infrastructures
5.64
6.57
6.58
117.68
ID - Human Capital
47.05
52.50
49.85
359.34
ID - Enterprises Support
0.30
0.59
0.24
1.56
ID - Natural Resources and Energy ID - Environment
1.13
0.43
0.50
85.69
58.27
81.26
76.29
607.28
ID - Touristic and Cultural Development ID - Territorial Development IL
2.22
1.60
0.23
9.56
20.74
12.19
24.00
131.00
3,816.75
3,182.67
3,536.15
26,413.34
IL - Applied R&D and Innovation IL - Transport
0.28
3.20
2.36
58.42
2,872.41
2,363.20
2,690.65
18,036.22
IL - ICT
-
-
-
135.92
IL - Social Infrastructures
162.69
57.41
110.62
1,785.05
IL - Human Capital
304.54
337.80
295.43
2,550.08
IL - Enterprises Support
8.43
6.92
3.61
20.14
IL - Natural Resources and Energy IL - Environment
5.44
4.52
1.54
366.67
193.30
223.98
198.57
1,678.07
IL - Touristic and Cultural Development IL - Territorial Development IN
3.12
5.34
0.61
10.86
266.56
180.31
232.76
1,771.92
1,743.46
1,791.48
1,975.09
14,790.49
IN - Applied R&D and Innovation IN - Transport
0.15
0.11
0.02
19.73
1,336.99
1,373.75
1,509.61
10,329.11
IN - ICT
-
-
-
0.11
IN - Social Infrastructures
36.25
30.29
54.16
560.90
IN - Human Capital
155.50
182.33
167.10
1,343.01
IN - Enterprises Support
4.35
2.48
3.66
13.64
IN - Natural Resources and Energy IN - Environment
2.06
1.74
2.07
255.03
96.10
125.20
108.39
952.60
IN - Touristic and Cultural Development IN - Territorial Development KS
2.11
1.66
1.80
9.96
109.97
73.92
128.27
1,306.40
667.73
753.73
716.21
6,153.57
KS - Applied R&D and Innovation KS - Transport
-
0.02
-
2.30
466.52
490.71
494.17
3,772.60
KS - ICT
-
-
-
-
KS - Social Infrastructures
26.49
27.08
31.14
371.90
KS - Human Capital
62.45
69.27
65.28
540.89
KS - Enterprises Support
1.49
0.20
-
3.97
KS - Natural Resources and Energy
4.52
3.00
1.88
133.57 247
KS - Environment
52.74
75.33
70.75
617.76
KS - Touristic and Cultural Development KS - Territorial Development KY
1.22
1.91
0.21
5.60
52.29
86.21
52.77
704.99
1,535.85
1,469.60
1,434.67
10,694.44
KY - Applied R&D and Innovation KY - Transport
23.57
0.57
0.36
118.62
1,009.59
1,049.63
961.02
6,938.39
KY - ICT
-
-
-
3.76
KY - Social Infrastructures
72.48
37.10
87.75
631.77
KY - Human Capital
120.54
142.30
103.21
997.22
KY - Enterprises Support
0.52
0.46
-
1.24
KY - Natural Resources and Energy KY - Environment
2.19
1.77
1.03
159.42
180.73
175.70
154.50
996.46
KY - Touristic and Cultural Development KY - Territorial Development LA
1.87
1.69
1.04
7.26
124.35
60.39
125.76
840.30
2,718.88
2,930.10
2,257.40
23,594.55
LA - Applied R&D and Innovation LA - Transport
2.59
0.46
0.32
41.32
1,164.09
1,147.88
1,041.05
7,628.38
LA - ICT
-
-
-
89.39
LA - Social Infrastructures
52.95
54.70
82.56
654.70
LA - Human Capital
88.30
121.84
93.48
918.50
LA - Enterprises Support
0.85
1.20
-
2.44
LA - Natural Resources and Energy LA - Environment
1.94
1.95
2.04
206.16
403.99
600.14
316.74
2,366.78
LA - Touristic and Cultural Development LA - Territorial Development MA
0.80
1.33
1.70
6.30
1,003.37
1,000.60
719.50
11,680.57
1,603.36
1,976.43
1,702.24
13,477.56
MA - Applied R&D and Innovation MA - Transport
2.75
2.54
1.27
72.73
1,084.77
1,517.22
1,139.16
8,890.27
MA - ICT
-
-
-
52.82
MA - Social Infrastructures
112.62
68.81
106.52
1,008.72
MA - Human Capital
161.87
162.63
169.03
1,210.87
MA - Enterprises Support
0.61
0.76
0.09
1.47
MA - Natural Resources and Energy MA - Environment
4.35
3.02
1.76
221.40
107.35
109.14
104.58
1,101.45
MA - Touristic and Cultural Development MA - Territorial Development
1.60
0.96
1.55
7.13
127.43
111.33
178.28
910.70 248
MD
1,240.89
1,213.50
1,394.97
9,849.56
MD - Applied R&D and Innovation MD - Transport
1.05
0.05
0.01
20.13
894.10
831.61
1,017.34
6,542.11
MD - ICT
-
-
-
115.24
MD - Social Infrastructures
52.34
42.28
56.29
594.10
MD - Human Capital
119.55
136.30
125.41
931.92
MD - Enterprises Support
1.07
-
0.30
1.89
MD - Natural Resources and Energy MD - Environment
1.85
1.61
1.21
229.08
91.33
102.37
88.33
803.27
MD - Touristic and Cultural Development MD - Territorial Development ME
1.41
1.11
3.08
9.86
78.19
98.16
102.98
601.95
409.59
375.93
441.34
3,279.49
ME - Applied R&D and Innovation ME - Transport
-
-
0.73
5.50
281.14
247.12
289.77
1,902.56
ME - ICT
-
-
-
1.36
ME - Social Infrastructures
14.86
11.41
18.93
195.80
ME - Human Capital
34.65
39.86
40.62
321.91
ME - Enterprises Support
0.24
0.12
0.11
2.60
ME - Natural Resources and Energy ME - Environment
0.92
0.78
0.65
137.57
43.33
54.05
49.71
474.43
ME - Touristic and Cultural Development ME - Territorial Development MI
2.01
0.64
-
5.94
32.46
21.94
40.83
231.82
2,128.67
2,166.80
2,262.09
17,218.06
MI - Applied R&D and Innovation MI - Transport
-
0.14
1.40
25.82
1,433.99
1,450.41
1,514.80
10,413.78
MI - ICT
-
-
-
5.25
MI - Social Infrastructures
60.29
46.07
73.56
1,087.14
MI - Human Capital
210.99
406.57
281.81
2,569.53
MI - Enterprises Support
2.41
2.86
0.57
8.44
MI - Natural Resources and Energy MI - Environment
2.79
1.94
1.01
358.25
235.03
166.73
180.62
1,601.42
MI - Touristic and Cultural Development MI - Territorial Development MN
5.01
4.82
0.05
19.79
178.15
87.27
208.27
1,128.64
1,284.25
1,397.98
1,429.99
10,524.33
MN - Applied R&D and Innovation MN - Transport
2.06
0.04
0.09
40.36
888.73
983.24
1,024.92
7,008.90
MN - ICT
0.04
-
-
7.85 249
MN - Social Infrastructures
73.61
31.43
69.82
752.31
MN - Human Capital
113.24
137.85
105.22
947.63
MN - Enterprises Support
2.23
0.49
1.77
6.30
MN - Natural Resources and Energy MN - Environment
5.63
4.28
4.66
191.01
88.33
131.12
99.66
915.47
MN - Touristic and Cultural Development MN - Territorial Development MO
4.00
1.13
0.45
14.28
106.38
108.42
123.39
640.20
2,001.03
1,774.84
1,736.23
14,390.30
MO - Applied R&D and Innovation MO - Transport
1.06
0.32
0.15
14.55
1,484.44
1,117.93
1,231.86
9,688.33
MO - ICT
-
-
-
4.98
MO - Social Infrastructures
47.56
32.23
59.07
669.19
MO - Human Capital
146.57
167.30
151.27
1,281.64
MO - Enterprises Support
1.03
1.06
0.05
2.28
MO - Natural Resources and Energy MO - Environment
1.55
2.38
3.99
261.41
184.64
160.70
175.44
1,217.52
MO - Touristic and Cultural Development MO - Territorial Development MP
9.06
1.79
1.46
18.71
125.12
291.14
112.93
1,231.69
35.78
105.12
47.58
356.95
MP - Applied R&D and Innovation MP - Transport
0.05
0.09
0.05
0.89
23.01
32.90
8.99
85.84
MP - ICT
-
-
-
-
MP - Social Infrastructures
0.30
0.08
0.04
3.12
MP - Human Capital
0.79
0.46
0.80
8.66
MP - Enterprises Support
1.02
-
-
1.02
MP - Natural Resources and Energy MP - Environment
0.39
0.14
0.18
27.78
10.21
12.93
13.11
59.47
MP - Touristic and Cultural Development MP - Territorial Development MS
-
-
-
-
0.00
58.52
24.41
170.18
1,019.51
1,131.83
949.57
8,262.55
MS - Applied R&D and Innovation MS - Transport
2.32
0.65
-
14.87
540.43
749.05
599.05
4,691.39
MS - ICT
-
-
-
71.65
MS - Social Infrastructures
29.61
20.48
34.00
351.62
MS - Human Capital
98.52
107.12
90.63
909.75
MS - Enterprises Support
3.90
4.26
3.36
20.69
MS - Natural Resources and Energy
1.31
3.34
2.83
124.76 250
MS - Environment
131.06
129.06
106.52
926.82
MS - Touristic and Cultural Development MS - Territorial Development MT
0.86
1.95
2.01
6.46
211.49
115.93
111.17
1,144.56
724.76
653.17
797.28
5,260.36
MT - Applied R&D and Innovation MT - Transport
-
0.12
0.11
5.53
582.01
479.59
630.66
3,965.35
MT - ICT
0.30
0.41
-
3.41
MT - Social Infrastructures
9.52
12.01
14.37
141.73
MT - Human Capital
35.31
39.72
35.63
285.34
MT - Enterprises Support
0.96
1.49
1.06
3.67
MT - Natural Resources and Energy MT - Environment
0.59
0.33
0.47
61.42
61.84
89.61
91.02
624.24
MT - Touristic and Cultural Development MT - Territorial Development NC
1.78
1.52
0.61
7.45
32.45
28.36
23.36
162.21
2,478.80
1,977.01
2,117.15
15,863.54
NC - Applied R&D and Innovation NC - Transport
0.83
0.19
2.48
12.11
1,877.05
1,416.55
1,404.28
10,558.18
NC - ICT
-
4.05
-
22.90
NC - Social Infrastructures
89.51
71.74
122.59
1,095.64
NC - Human Capital
259.93
238.79
273.24
1,993.65
NC - Enterprises Support
0.65
0.95
-
1.70
NC - Natural Resources and Energy NC - Environment
1.91
1.73
1.38
272.00
109.84
102.73
154.95
1,114.85
NC - Touristic and Cultural Development NC - Territorial Development ND
5.76
3.19
0.31
13.35
133.33
137.09
157.92
779.15
587.45
879.36
678.50
4,482.24
ND - Applied R&D and Innovation ND - Transport
0.07
-
0.05
10.24
331.83
566.13
510.90
2,787.00
ND - ICT
-
-
-
-
ND - Social Infrastructures
6.63
1.80
5.39
100.82
ND - Human Capital
25.41
26.98
25.64
198.11
ND - Enterprises Support
0.05
0.10
0.31
1.06
ND - Natural Resources and Energy ND - Environment
0.57
0.33
0.42
66.95
44.08
83.57
75.71
641.40
ND - Touristic and Cultural Development ND - Territorial Development
1.32
1.11
0.26
6.08
177.49
199.33
59.82
670.58 251
NE
603.70
662.29
527.26
4,346.38
NE - Applied R&D and Innovation NE - Transport
-
0.12
0.22
6.02
422.10
444.79
379.74
2,831.91
NE - ICT
-
-
-
3.21
NE - Social Infrastructures
13.14
14.32
16.37
205.89
NE - Human Capital
38.53
41.89
40.68
326.13
NE - Enterprises Support
1.31
1.17
-
4.99
NE - Natural Resources and Energy NE - Environment
5.24
1.79
4.06
122.47
41.15
54.80
47.59
449.62
NE - Touristic and Cultural Development NE - Territorial Development NH
2.12
0.91
0.54
5.90
80.10
102.49
38.06
390.24
329.41
353.40
402.76
2,889.35
NH - Applied R&D and Innovation NH - Transport
-
0.43
4.28
7.89
176.07
237.33
274.15
1,726.08
NH - ICT
-
-
-
-
NH - Social Infrastructures
14.04
6.03
12.57
131.25
NH - Human Capital
28.28
31.18
29.96
236.02
NH - Enterprises Support
0.64
0.60
0.37
1.78
NH - Natural Resources and Energy NH - Environment
1.44
0.79
0.97
101.64
79.08
49.32
44.71
476.39
NH - Touristic and Cultural Development NH - Territorial Development NJ
1.48
0.59
0.03
3.39
28.38
27.14
35.72
204.91
2,310.22
2,416.13
4,947.72
19,689.47
NJ - Applied R&D and Innovation NJ - Transport
7.32
0.04
0.23
23.36
1,684.29
1,595.35
2,306.79
12,338.93
NJ - ICT
-
-
-
44.74
NJ - Social Infrastructures
97.37
81.80
118.20
1,054.81
NJ - Human Capital
187.21
206.57
204.44
1,478.91
NJ - Enterprises Support
-
0.06
0.25
0.64
NJ - Natural Resources and Energy NJ - Environment
15.35
2.63
1.90
299.98
154.14
175.91
194.14
1,288.97
NJ - Touristic and Cultural Development NJ - Territorial Development NM
2.45
1.04
14.92
22.72
162.11
352.73
2,106.84
3,136.41
736.53
712.43
752.81
5,474.01
NM - Applied R&D and Innovation NM - Transport
0.00
-
5.75
14.04
527.68
507.28
569.63
3,737.45
NM - ICT
-
-
-
52.34 252
NM - Social Infrastructures
12.59
9.33
14.72
175.21
NM - Human Capital
55.92
66.05
56.98
450.01
NM - Enterprises Support
0.08
0.26
0.17
0.89
NM - Natural Resources and Energy NM - Environment
3.95
1.97
1.09
109.86
99.47
88.40
52.75
677.83
NM - Touristic and Cultural Development NM - Territorial Development NV
1.60
1.49
0.17
7.40
35.24
37.64
51.54
248.98
571.52
727.34
636.18
5,591.86
NV - Applied R&D and Innovation NV - Transport
3.09
2.01
-
13.37
414.95
559.69
468.01
3,586.67
NV - ICT
0.32
0.43
-
2.47
NV - Social Infrastructures
14.10
14.38
12.54
213.32
NV - Human Capital
72.46
81.88
77.82
514.30
NV - Enterprises Support
0.27
0.63
-
0.90
NV - Natural Resources and Energy NV - Environment
3.49
2.68
0.99
130.35
37.08
43.71
59.54
394.92
NV - Touristic and Cultural Development NV - Territorial Development NY
0.92
1.68
0.25
523.06
24.83
20.24
17.04
212.50
5,867.35
6,799.03
9,008.10
46,557.79
NY - Applied R&D and Innovation NY - Transport
10.34
1.26
2.56
124.70
4,253.08
4,410.37
3,566.44
27,917.60
NY - ICT
-
-
-
52.74
NY - Social Infrastructures
375.55
341.92
632.29
4,046.03
NY - Human Capital
418.88
443.44
445.43
3,716.76
NY - Enterprises Support
9.53
7.23
7.17
24.84
NY - Natural Resources and Energy NY - Environment
9.74
5.54
5.27
628.68
382.74
343.21
353.45
2,895.76
NY - Touristic and Cultural Development NY - Territorial Development OH
1.14
1.46
5.63
11.60
406.36
1,244.60
3,989.83
7,139.09
2,721.54
2,523.67
2,749.41
20,933.58
OH - Applied R&D and Innovation OH - Transport
1.04
0.60
0.88
62.62
1,807.81
1,753.90
1,875.67
13,236.38
OH - ICT
-
-
-
2.16
OH - Social Infrastructures
96.67
39.81
96.65
1,477.50
OH - Human Capital
288.26
330.88
289.70
2,528.88
OH - Enterprises Support
13.42
9.31
6.80
50.99
OH - Natural Resources and Energy
3.40
1.68
1.68
343.62 253
OH - Environment
329.89
206.03
185.68
1,697.16
OH - Touristic and Cultural Development OH - Territorial Development OK
1.44
0.51
1.69
8.65
179.61
180.96
290.64
1,525.62
1,425.25
1,238.09
1,154.56
10,102.65
OK - Applied R&D and Innovation OK - Transport
9.74
2.43
2.36
54.52
1,147.88
957.72
869.61
7,516.06
OK - ICT
-
-
-
77.66
OK - Social Infrastructures
33.52
16.76
34.67
358.05
OK - Human Capital
89.40
94.91
89.96
689.39
OK - Enterprises Support
1.43
0.98
0.62
3.54
OK - Natural Resources and Energy OK - Environment
1.12
1.81
1.94
146.80
64.36
91.13
65.77
715.18
OK - Touristic and Cultural Development OK - Territorial Development OR
1.90
0.07
3.82
10.22
75.90
72.27
85.81
531.23
1,039.74
1,073.02
1,130.81
8,245.19
OR - Applied R&D and Innovation OR - Transport
5.81
1.34
0.31
30.57
787.00
807.92
816.21
5,721.80
OR - ICT
-
0.02
-
15.24
OR - Social Infrastructures
41.01
17.89
55.04
311.80
OR - Human Capital
91.71
89.96
94.03
793.41
OR - Enterprises Support
0.42
0.50
0.05
1.81
OR - Natural Resources and Energy OR - Environment
1.22
1.02
0.96
176.14
59.25
103.54
95.40
801.18
OR - Touristic and Cultural Development OR - Territorial Development PA
2.86
1.73
1.90
10.79
50.44
49.10
66.92
382.43
3,212.16
3,369.56
3,464.97
26,026.61
PA - Applied R&D and Innovation PA - Transport
1.31
0.46
1.89
42.20
2,362.28
2,361.12
2,351.10
17,487.42
PA - ICT
-
-
-
35.40
PA - Social Infrastructures
164.64
124.18
241.62
2,035.98
PA - Human Capital
278.95
320.80
299.88
2,374.72
PA - Enterprises Support
2.39
4.71
0.86
8.32
PA - Natural Resources and Energy PA - Environment
3.75
3.64
3.27
428.54
158.31
207.98
230.01
1,773.56
PA - Touristic and Cultural Development PA - Territorial Development
3.96
4.70
1.41
12.22
236.58
341.96
334.93
1,828.26 254
PR
672.74
640.25
771.28
5,163.07
PR - Applied R&D and Innovation PR - Transport
-
0.06
-
3.37
262.95
250.16
343.19
1,500.41
PR - ICT
-
-
-
-
PR - Social Infrastructures
121.07
106.42
204.82
1,194.22
PR - Human Capital
123.01
136.24
85.71
1,252.88
PR - Enterprises Support
0.65
0.83
0.35
2.00
PR - Natural Resources and Energy PR - Environment
-
1.03
0.71
124.80
55.82
77.92
40.68
396.48
PR - Touristic and Cultural Development PR - Territorial Development RI
0.01
-
-
0.01
109.23
67.59
95.81
688.91
476.67
396.77
394.40
3,080.85
RI - Applied R&D and Innovation RI - Transport
-
0.03
0.10
2.40
338.63
267.01
253.75
2,023.31
RI - ICT
-
-
-
0.37
RI - Social Infrastructures
15.71
16.84
26.25
183.95
RI - Human Capital
36.85
42.16
39.26
290.18
RI - Enterprises Support
-
0.40
0.42
1.22
RI - Natural Resources and Energy RI - Environment
0.69
1.08
0.43
71.25
38.34
48.37
34.94
313.80
RI - Touristic and Cultural Development RI - Territorial Development SC
0.16
1.62
4.21
7.11
46.29
19.26
35.06
187.26
1,179.56
1,266.60
1,394.25
9,738.42
SC - Applied R&D and Innovation SC - Transport
1.09
1.89
2.38
19.37
917.96
1,008.73
1,043.70
7,098.78
SC - ICT
-
-
-
15.78
SC - Social Infrastructures
25.87
21.40
44.19
367.30
SC - Human Capital
130.30
148.19
137.19
1,123.68
SC - Enterprises Support
0.24
0.28
-
0.74
SC - Natural Resources and Energy SC - Environment
1.32
0.48
0.53
161.71
54.93
45.79
93.90
603.18
SC - Touristic and Cultural Development SC - Territorial Development SD
1.75
1.10
1.80
7.59
46.09
38.75
70.57
340.29
610.95
519.26
641.93
3,941.19
SD - Applied R&D and Innovation SD - Transport
0.33
0.08
0.10
1.90
478.74
395.97
505.77
2,836.47
SD - ICT
0.03
-
-
1.75 255
SD - Social Infrastructures
16.13
9.73
29.24
147.50
SD - Human Capital
30.72
31.95
30.47
229.01
SD - Enterprises Support
0.17
0.22
-
0.45
SD - Natural Resources and Energy SD - Environment
0.55
0.20
0.26
68.41
31.96
52.93
49.19
376.81
SD - Touristic and Cultural Development SD - Territorial Development TN
1.29
1.86
0.44
7.24
51.04
26.32
26.46
271.63
1,590.05
1,510.18
1,654.87
11,633.69
TN - Applied R&D and Innovation TN - Transport
1.10
0.11
0.02
18.24
1,029.28
1,064.37
1,198.33
7,561.13
TN - ICT
-
-
-
0.56
TN - Social Infrastructures
65.58
54.52
118.18
868.02
TN - Human Capital
112.94
170.12
128.45
1,233.38
TN - Enterprises Support
0.50
0.60
-
2.01
TN - Natural Resources and Energy TN - Environment
1.50
1.15
1.25
205.79
110.23
146.24
90.43
815.16
TN - Touristic and Cultural Development TN - Territorial Development TX
2.59
1.36
1.90
10.33
266.32
71.72
116.31
919.07
5,995.36
6,368.03
5,759.78
49,022.78
TX - Applied R&D and Innovation TX - Transport
9.55
10.91
20.65
112.69
4,422.74
4,703.15
4,160.27
31,001.97
TX - ICT
0.10
-
-
30.86
TX - Social Infrastructures
89.43
84.99
176.79
1,810.18
TX - Human Capital
562.41
642.81
657.04
4,633.01
TX - Enterprises Support
1.08
0.77
-
2.21
TX - Natural Resources and Energy TX - Environment
4.69
7.32
6.42
836.74
284.66
430.36
302.85
2,778.84
TX - Touristic and Cultural Development TX - Territorial Development UM
3.14
4.19
0.57
11.57
617.56
483.53
435.18
7,804.71
-
-
-
-
UM - Applied R&D and Innovation UM - Transport
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UM - ICT
-
-
-
-
UM - Social Infrastructures
-
-
-
-
UM - Human Capital
-
-
-
-
UM - Enterprises Support
-
-
-
-
UM - Natural Resources and Energy
-
-
-
256
UM - Environment
-
-
-
-
UM - Touristic and Cultural Development UM - Territorial Development UT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,100.98
924.40
775.83
6,479.54
UT - Applied R&D and Innovation UT - Transport
0.89
1.66
0.46
14.27
896.90
737.67
582.17
4,731.66
UT - ICT
0.10
1.36
-
20.26
UT - Social Infrastructures
35.05
3.81
7.27
188.44
UT - Human Capital
67.52
77.01
70.98
545.09
UT - Enterprises Support
0.88
0.68
0.32
1.92
UT - Natural Resources and Energy UT - Environment
0.84
1.05
0.69
112.24
53.96
74.01
73.36
652.79
UT - Touristic and Cultural Development UT - Territorial Development VA
2.40
2.23
0.83
11.45
42.43
24.92
39.75
201.41
1,887.23
1,905.79
1,938.03
14,996.35
VA - Applied R&D and Innovation VA - Transport
0.99
0.51
0.27
48.37
1,467.03
1,380.16
1,487.62
11,036.33
VA - ICT
-
0.04
-
11.25
VA - Social Infrastructures
53.61
60.28
69.66
774.80
VA - Human Capital
157.82
164.77
161.64
1,212.94
VA - Enterprises Support
2.76
1.66
2.21
12.37
VA - Natural Resources and Energy VA - Environment
3.68
2.85
2.49
278.71
104.98
130.86
104.60
914.03
VA - Touristic and Cultural Development VA - Territorial Development VI
1.74
1.84
6.73
14.22
94.63
162.82
102.82
693.33
52.76
76.93
76.14
432.77
VI - Applied R&D and Innovation VI - Transport
-
-
-
1.50
14.33
33.32
42.32
184.12
VI - ICT
-
-
-
5.56
VI - Social Infrastructures
6.53
5.62
10.15
42.16
VI - Human Capital
5.66
4.62
3.57
35.16
VI - Enterprises Support
-
0.32
-
0.32
VI - Natural Resources and Energy VI - Environment
0.44
0.16
0.20
21.80
18.56
15.82
16.10
79.84
VI - Touristic and Cultural Development VI - Territorial Development
-
-
-
-
7.23
17.07
3.80
62.31 257
VT
396.61
495.36
418.06
3,010.24
VT - Applied R&D and Innovation VT - Transport
0.13
0.13
0.13
13.47
311.25
367.98
313.59
2,071.42
VT - ICT
-
-
-
33.39
VT - Social Infrastructures
4.85
2.08
5.93
96.28
VT - Human Capital
34.13
30.31
35.49
233.56
VT - Enterprises Support
0.86
0.71
0.62
3.09
VT - Natural Resources and Energy VT - Environment
2.14
0.20
0.25
65.85
36.66
62.01
40.99
363.75
VT - Touristic and Cultural Development VT - Territorial Development WA
1.56
0.96
0.03
3.68
5.03
30.97
21.02
125.75
2,821.28
2,038.27
1,980.89
15,648.94
WA - Applied R&D and Innovation WA - Transport
10.57
1.02
1.44
109.17
2,350.73
1,551.34
1,499.05
11,275.36
WA - ICT
-
0.30
-
28.83
WA - Social Infrastructures
35.31
33.07
55.61
597.26
WA - Human Capital
163.46
173.34
159.33
1,291.29
WA - Enterprises Support
1.81
1.45
-
3.97
WA - Natural Resources and Energy WA - Environment
1.97
2.39
2.32
247.18
159.98
173.62
164.71
1,414.04
WA - Touristic and Cultural Development WA - Territorial Development WI
2.57
1.18
0.11
12.46
94.87
100.56
98.32
669.39
1,339.11
1,444.92
1,452.11
11,269.91
WI - Applied R&D and Innovation WI - Transport
0.07
1.35
1.60
26.30
924.43
1,013.40
1,056.78
7,402.93
WI - ICT
-
-
-
26.15
WI - Social Infrastructures
62.56
28.23
42.20
684.44
WI - Human Capital
135.47
140.08
115.32
1,064.11
WI - Enterprises Support
0.25
0.73
-
1.26
WI - Natural Resources and Energy WI - Environment
2.59
1.92
1.30
170.34
104.94
188.07
139.04
1,099.13
WI - Touristic and Cultural Development WI - Territorial Development WV
2.81
6.83
0.10
11.48
105.99
64.32
95.77
783.76
866.22
954.62
838.06
6,769.29
WV - Applied R&D and Innovation WV - Transport
2.80
0.51
4.64
37.06
667.74
683.73
538.32
4,443.60
WV - ICT
-
-
-
128.82 258
WV - Social Infrastructures
22.72
10.25
19.14
260.10
WV - Human Capital
72.47
65.06
70.77
537.57
WV - Enterprises Support
0.13
0.82
0.60
2.89
WV - Natural Resources and Energy WV - Environment
0.53
0.83
0.90
94.16
74.68
145.24
124.38
899.16
WV - Touristic and Cultural Development WV - Territorial Development WY
0.65
0.44
1.52
5.61
24.49
47.75
77.79
360.31
518.14
582.58
468.98
3,555.27
WY - Applied R&D and Innovation WY - Transport
0.04
0.11
-
1.85
308.11
351.80
369.85
2,335.75
WY - ICT
0.04
-
-
1.05
WY - Social Infrastructures
10.76
5.74
3.84
90.22
WY - Human Capital
20.77
24.66
25.02
154.54
WY - Enterprises Support
0.04
0.03
-
0.10
WY - Natural Resources and Energy WY - Environment
0.70
0.37
0.47
76.33
166.32
192.30
61.38
825.43
WY - Touristic and Cultural Development WY - Territorial Development Total
4.02
2.43
0.88
10.41
7.34
5.13
7.54
59.60
88,792.46
88,895.84
93,320.35
678,505.12
Source: US Department of the Treasury, Authors’ calculation
259
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS Free publications: • one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). Priced subscriptions:
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
KN-02-16-594-EN-N doi: 10.2776/944989
