IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/erdnra/292605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens’ vs practitioners’ perception on the EU regional approach

Author

Listed:
  • Tudor, Monica Mihaela
  • Florian, Violeta
  • Rosu, Elisabeta Stefania
  • Kruzslicika, Mihaela

Abstract

This paper targets to juxtapose the points of view of citizens, as be-neficiaries of the European programmes – on the one hand, and of practitio-ners – as designers and experts in charge of implementing the Cohesion Policy programmes – on the other. The study was conducted at the level of a sample consisting of 9 NUTS II regions of the European Union, which were selected to be representative for the com-plex and heterogeneous reality of the EU Cohesion Policy. The analysis of data collected from the case study regions demonstrated that, regardless of the status of the regions (competitiveness or convergence regions), there are overlaps as regards points of view of the two categories of regional actors only for a part of regional priorities. At the same time, the study revealed that the citizens’ trust in the effectiveness of the EU in targeting regional issues is higher in the case of those regional needs that are on the agenda of both categories of regional actors and it drops for those regional issues for which perceptive divergences exist between citizens and practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Tudor, Monica Mihaela & Florian, Violeta & Rosu, Elisabeta Stefania & Kruzslicika, Mihaela, 2019. "Citizens’ vs practitioners’ perception on the EU regional approach," Rural Areas and Development, European Rural Development Network (ERDN), vol. 16.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:erdnra:292605
    DOI: 10.30858/RAD/2019/16.0100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/292605/files/01_TUDORR.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30858/RAD/2019/16.0100?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:erdnra:292605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erdnnea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.