Four provocative ideas for a radical rethink of cohesion policy

June 2025

As the EU prepares for cohesion policy post-2027, the debate is intensifying. Geopolitical shifts, climate challenges and growing regional disparities call for bold action. Meanwhile, pressure is growing to simplify cohesion policy and make it more strategic. But should we continue with incremental tweaks to the system, or is it time for a complete rethink?

Perhaps the period of uncertainty until the official proposal for the future of cohesion policy is presented can be used to think outside the box. This blog post deliberately goes beyond political feasibility to explore four radical ideas. Each of these ideas takes cohesion policy to an extreme. These ideas are neither realistic nor necessarily desirable in their extreme form, but they may help to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking. If nothing else, they serve as a reminder that sometimes stepping outside the usual policy frameworks can open the door to new and unexpected solutions.

What if cohesion policy became an annual payment to all citizens?

Instead of funding projects, cohesion policy could be transformed into a direct solidarity dividend for every EU citizen. With a budget of €392 billion (2021-2027), this would mean €125 per person per year - a small sum, but one with greater purchasing power in poorer regions.

This model would remove administrative complexity and ensure that EU funds reach people directly, without the need for complex application processes, programme management or audits. By making cohesion policy tangible for all citizens, such an approach could also strengthen public support for EU solidarity. People across Europe would experience cohesion policy not as an abstract concept, but as a small direct financial benefit in their daily lives.

But while such an approach would be simple and visible, it would divert resources away from strategic investments in infrastructure, innovation and economic transformation. Instead of fostering long-term regional development, the money would likely be absorbed into short-term individual consumption, which might provide an economic ‘mini boost’ but would not address structural economic challenges. Would cohesion policy remain a meaningful regional policy or would it be reduced to a symbolic redistribution of EU funds?

What if cohesion policy focused exclusively on integrated territorial investments?

Instead of funding scattered projects, cohesion policy could channel all its resources into large-scale, place-based strategies through Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) or similar territorial instruments. These multi-sectoral investments would bring together different funding sources and actors to ensure coordinated development across administrative boundaries.

This model would mean that regional programme authorities would no longer manage individual projects, but instead focus on helping applicants to develop comprehensive investment strategies. The European Commission, in turn, would centrally allocate funds on the basis of results-based financing, meaning that funding would be linked to the achievement of pre-defined objectives rather than reimbursement of costs.

Such a model could focus investments on truly transformative initiatives, such as large-scale cross-border energy networks, urban-rural transport systems or climate adaptation projects for entire river basins. But it would also require strong administrative capacity, which some regions may lack. Would this lead to more efficient and effective investments, or would it slow down the process and exclude less developed regions?

What if cohesion policy focused entirely on smart specialisation?

Under this approach, every euro of cohesion policy funding would be directed towards Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) - ensuring that funds are targeted at high-value innovation ecosystems. Instead of spreading funds across infrastructure, social inclusion and broad economic development, all investment would be focused on developing industrial and technological strengths.

Regions would only receive funding if they align their strategies with a clear specialisation - for example, a region with a strong history in car manufacturing could focus on green mobility technologies, while a coastal region could prioritise marine biotechnology. The logic would shift from compensating weaker regions to strengthening the innovation potential of regions and supporting growing global leaders.

Such an approach could help the EU compete in the global innovation race by aligning cohesion policy with the objectives of the European Green Deal, Digital Europe and industrial transformation. However, it would risk marginalising regions with weaker R&D ecosystems and widening rather than closing existing economic gaps. Would this model accelerate European technological leadership, or would it leave struggling regions even further behind?

What if cohesion policy focused entirely on territorial cooperation?

Cohesion policy could be fully dedicated to cross-border, transnational and interregional partnerships, ensuring that all funding supports European cooperation rather than national or regional priorities. Instead of funding projects within individual regions or member states, funding would only be available for initiatives that bring together partners from at least two EU countries.

This model would fundamentally change the governance of cohesion policy - national and regional managing authorities would disappear and Interreg secretariats would act as support centres to help stakeholders develop cooperation-based project proposals. The European Commission would allocate funds directly to successful partnerships, ensuring that investments strengthen European integration, border region development and shared innovation networks.

A key advantage of such a model is that it would ensure that cohesion policy truly functions as a European investment strategy, strengthening European integration and European solutions. It could be a powerful tool to break down administrative and economic barriers between regions, funding projects such as cross-border rail networks, shared innovation centres and climate adaptation projects across several countries. But it would also remove direct regional control over funds, making access more difficult for regions without strong international partnerships. Would such a shift create a truly European approach to regional development, or would it disadvantage regions that struggle to operate in cross-border networks?

What can we learn from these radical ideas?

None of these models would be realistic or desirable in their pure form, but they highlight deep-seated tensions in cohesion policy. There are growing calls for simplification, efficiency and impact, but the answers are far from simple. Should cohesion policy put people first by providing direct financial support, or should it prioritise economic transformation through large-scale investment? Should it reward global competitiveness or stick to its core mission of reducing regional disparities? And should it remain a national and regional responsibility, or become a fully European instrument?

The four scenarios explored here show that each possible future involves trade-offs. A cohesion policy based on universal direct payments would be the simplest to administer, but would fail to bring about structural change. This idea also shows how small cohesion policy is when broken down into funding per citizen per year. A model focused exclusively on territorial cooperation would strengthen European integration, but could marginalise regions without strong cross-border links. Exclusive funding for integrated territorial investment could produce more holistic, high-impact projects, but could exclude less developed areas with weaker administrative capacity. And a shift to smart specialisation-only funding could boost Europe's global competitiveness, but also risk reinforcing rather than reducing existing economic disparities.

Perhaps some of the elements explored here - a greater focus on results, stronger cooperation, a more strategic approach to funding innovation, or even a small direct benefit for citizens - could help to rethink cohesion policy from the outside in and shape a more effective and future-proof cohesion policy.

by Kai Böhme