lithuania - european commission€¦ · 21% of the funds, kaunas, Šiauliai and panevėžys. the...

The Vienna Institute for

International Economic Studies ISMERI EUROPA

Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes

2000-2006 financed by the

European Regional Development Fund in

Objective 1 and 2 regions

Work package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis

Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States

LITHUANIA

WP1 - Coordination of evaluation of SF 2000-2006: Task 4 Lithuania

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................3

MAP OF LITHUANIA – OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS ...................................................................4

1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ...............................5

2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY ................................................6

3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS .7

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS ...........................................9

5 FORM OF INTERVENTION IN THE DIFFERENT POLICY AREAS ......................................12

6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................................13

7 GLOBAL EFFECTS .....................................................................................................13

8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION................................................................14

9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE.......................................................................................15

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................16

TABLES ........................................................................................................................18

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND FOI CATEGORIES ...................20

Applica-Ismeri-wiiw 1


PREFACE

This report is intended to summarise the main aspects of regional disparities, the changes in

these which occurred over the 2000-2006 programming period and the principal features of

regional development policy over this period in terms of the objectives, the way that it was

implemented and the contribution of the Structural Funds. It also reviews the evidence on

the effects of policy as regards both the direct results of expenditure in the different policy

areas and the wider impact on development as such.

It is based on three primary sources of information. The statistical data on regional and

national developments over the period so far as possible come from Eurostat in order to

ensure comparability with other studies carried out at EU level as well as with the other

national reports produced as part of the ex post exercise.

The data on the allocation of funding and expenditure come from the INFOVIEW database

maintained by DG REGIO, which itself is based on regular information from the Member

States on the allocation of funding and the payments made.

Information on policy objectives, on the results of expenditure and the wider effects of this

and on the procedures adopted as regards the implementation of policy comes from various

programming documents and national evaluation reports as well as from impact studies

which have been carried out on the actual or intended effects of programmes.

The reports, therefore, are based on existing information – or more precisely, the

information available at the time they were prepared (around mid-2008) – and no new

evaluation has been undertaken for purposes of preparing the report.

The report has been prepared by the Applica-Ismeri Europa- wiiw Consortium, which is

coordinating the work on the ex post evaluation of ERDF expenditure in Objective 1 and 2

regions, working closely with a national expert who was responsible for interpreting the

quantitative data and the other information indicated above.1 Although the contents of the

report have been checked with officials in DG REGIO and with the national authorities,

responsibility for any errors in the factual information presented or its interpretation rests

with the authors and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of DG REGIO or the

national authorities.

1 This report was produced with the assistance of Alf Vangas, BICEPS, Balitc International Centre for Economic Policy

Studies



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Lithuania is a single NUTS 2 region with GDP considerably below 75% of the EU average

which received a significant amount of Objective 1 funding from the time it entered the

Union in 2004. Since the focus of Objective 1 support was on NUTS 2 regions, the internal

regional disparities which have emerged in the country in the post-Soviet period were not

the central focus of Cohesion Policy.

National regional policy in Lithuania is quite recent. The first law relating to regional

development was introduced only in 2000 and was subsequently modified to more or less its

present form in 2002. The formulation of an explicit regional policy was a response to the

pronounced regional disparities which had arisen during the transition period. On the basis

of a number of criteria of economic performance, such as unemployment rates, participation

rates and productive potential, four regions were selected for support – Klaipėda,

Marijampolė, Tauragė and Utena.

At first sight, the allocation of EU funding between regions within the country for the period

2004-2006 seemed to pay little regard to the focus of national policy. The biggest amounts

of support in absolute terms went to the most prosperous regions – Vilnius, which received

21% of the funds, Kaunas, Šiauliai and Panevėžys. The problem regions identified for

national support received only around 27.5% of funding. Adjusted for difference in

population size, however, support was greatest for Utena (EUR 146 per head), Marijampolė

(EUR 140.5) and Alytus (EUR 125). The latter two regions are two of the three poorest

regions in terms of GDP per head, while Utena contains the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant,

which requires decommissioning, and is one of the four nationally supported regions.

Despite Initial fears about the capacity of the country to absorb the resources from the

Structural Funds, spending in relation to the budget allocated is broadly on track and by the

end of 2007 the disbursement rate was very similar to the figures in most of the other new

Member States.

Serious evaluation of the impact of the funds has so far not taken place, but it would be

difficult in any event to disentangle the effects from the many other factors which have

contributed to the recent economic development of the country.



MAP OF LITHUANIA – OBJECTIVE 1 REGIONS



1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC

CONTEXT

Lithuania is a single NUTS 2 region, the whole of which was eligible for Objective 1 funding

from the time the country entered the Union in May 2004. Given the focus of EU cohesion

policy, this means that the whole country was treated as a lagging region in need of support

to strengthen its potential for economic development.

Considerable regional disparities, however, exist within Lithuania both between NUTS 3

regions and within these. According to the Lithuanian Single Programming Document,

regional disparities have widened in the transition period, enlarging the gap between the

richest county (Vilnius district) and the poorest (Taurage district) in terms of GDP per head to

2.6 times at the time the SPD was prepared.

The capital, Vilnius, is a major economic centre in which the headquarters of banks and

various large companies in the manufacturing and service sectors are concentrated.

Historically, Klaipėda (a port city) is a key transport centre, while Kaunas (a former capital

and Lithuania’s second city) and Šiauliai are other centres of industry.

An important point to note is that, unlike in Latvia or Estonia, economic activity – and

population – in Lithuania is not all concentrated in one place but is spread across Vilnius,

Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai and other medium-sized cities2. Border regions, however, have

relatively small numbers of people living in them and have limited economic activity.

During the Soviet period, industry of all kinds was concentrated in the large cities, while

other cities, such as Druskininkai and Birštonas became resorts. Visaginas where the Ignalina

nuclear power plant is located became a major centre of energy production, Radviliškis, a

logistics centre and so on for the other larger towns and cities. These areas of specialisation

have tended to continue in the post-Soviet period.

A feature of developments over the recent past has been the emergence of the Ignalina

nuclear power plant as a major regional issue, since EU accession required decommissioning

of the plant, which is a complex and difficult process with negative effects on both Ignalina

and surrounding areas.

2 Vilnius in 2003/2004 accounted for 35% of national GDP and just over 16% of population. By contrast,

Riga and Tallinn accounted for over 60% of the GDP of Latvia and Estonia, respectively and around 30%

of population.



Regional policy in Lithuania dates back only to 2000 when the first law relating to regional

development was introduced in response to the significant disparities between regions which

had emerged and widened during the transition period. The law, which was subsequently

refined and modified in 2002 and which continues to apply in more or less an unchanged

form, describes the aims of regional policy, the institutional structure and regional policy

instruments.

A number of regions, or counties in Lithuania, formulated development programmes along

the lines of the national regional programme for 2003-2005. The objectives of the latter

include facilitating the creation of a regional development planning system, increasing

regional and local capacity to prepare investment projects for EU funding and to facilitate the

implementation of the INTERREG III Initiative.

The main aims of regional development in Lithuania are, firstly, to support poorly developed

regions with high unemployment levels and relatively low standards of living as compared

with the rest of the country; and, secondly, to support development in regions with high

growth potential (but with low actual growth).

It is evident that the Lithuanian national regional development policy has been only

marginally integrated into EU cohesion policy for the country in the 2004-2006 period, as

reflected in the Single Programming Document, which devotes just 3 out of 380 pages to the

regional dimension of the programme.

Over the period 2000-2006, achieving regional competitiveness by using local resources

productively and exploiting the specific features of individual regions was the main basis of

regional development policy. Important pillars of the policy included attraction of FDI, the

development of infrastructure, increasing the skills and competences of the workforce and

developing business relations at both regional and national levels.

2 NATIONAL MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT AND POLICY

At the macroeconomic level, the Lithuanian economy experienced rapid growth over the

period 2000–2006, GDP increasing by an average of over 7% a year, over three times the rate

in the EU as a whole (Table 2). A number of factors contributed to this performance including

more business confidence and higher expectations both immediately before and after

Lithuania became a member of the EU and the development of the banking system and the

willingness of foreign banks to provide low cost credit on easy terms. However, more

recently, economic growth slowed down to only 3% in 2008, becoming negative towards the

end of the year.



Growth led to falling unemployment, higher wages and, therefore, to increased real income

levels. Despite high growth, inflation over much of the period 2000-2006 was very low,

averaging only just over 1% a year and even turning negative in 2003. From 2004 onwards,

however, it rose to reach nearly 4% in 2006 and continued to rise in 2007 and 2008,

averaging 11% in the latter year.

Growth also led to a falling public sector deficit to under 1% in 2006. The balance of

payments deficit, on the other hand, was large and expanding over most of the period, rising

to over 10% in 2006 and to over 13% in 2007. Up to 2008, however, this did not lead to any

significant downward pressure on the exchange rate or upward pressure on interest rates

and, therefore, over most of the period in which the Structural Funds allocated were spent

did not pose a threat to financial stability.

This is in large part due to the substantial inflow of capital, some of it in the form of direct

investment by multinational companies, which not only added to GDP growth but brought

knowledge, experience, technology and innovation, so strengthening the competitiveness of

the economy.

Regional development over this period, therefore, took place in a context of high growth and

macroeconomic stability, coupled with significant inflows of foreign capital. At the same

time, there was a conscious regional policy at national level, fuelled in part by relatively high

levels of public investment, which increased relative to GDP (to over 4% in 2006 and to

around 5% in 2007 and 2008) at the same time as other elements of government

expenditure declined in relation to GDP.

3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND CONTRIBUTION

OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS

Lithuania has 10 NUTS 3 regions3 and the aim of regional policy at national level has been to

transfer resources to those most in need of support. In practice, the criteria for receiving

support has been an unemployment rate 25% above the national average (5.7% in 2006), a

participation rate below the average, higher than average emigration and lower than average

FDI4. On the basis of these criteria, Klaipėda, Utena, Marijampolė and Tauragė were selected

as regions for support. The first was chosen because of its growth potential and relatively

high administrative capacity, the second at the suggestion of the EU because it contains the

3 Vilnius, Kaunas, Alytus, Panevėžys, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Utena, Telšiai, Marijampolė and Klaipėda.

4 Aleliūnas et al ,The summary of the implementation of country’s long-term development strategy.



Ignalina nuclear power plant and faces the problem of decommissioning, the final two

because of low GDP per head (in Marijampolė, 64% of the national average, in Tauragė, only

51%) and high unemployment rates. It has been suggested, in fact, that Tauragė, a small

region with only 4% of the country’s population, should merge with Klaipėda in order to

increase administrative capacity.

Despite national regional policy and EU cohesion policy being only marginally integrated, in

practice, a disproportionate amount of EU funding went to the regions most in need of

support – in line with national policy. While most of the Structural Funds were allocated to

the Vilnius (21%), Kaunas (16%), Šiauliai (12%) and Panevėžys (10%) districts and the four

problem regions identified for national support received only just over 27% of funding, in

terms of population, they received a larger amount. Indeed, the largest levels of funding per

head were in two of three poorest regions in the country, Utena (EUR 146 per head) and

Alytus (EUR 125 per head), which was substantially higher than in Vilnius (EUR 83 per head).

On the other hand, the lowest income region, Tauragė, received by far the smallest amount

per head (only EUR 47) (Table 3).

The main objectives of regional policy over the period 2004–2006 were: 1) to support

restructuring of the economy and modernisation of the regions; 2) to reduce social and

economic differences between regions; 3) to reduce unemployment rates by supporting the

investment in education and training to improve qualifications of workers5.

The two areas that received the biggest share of support were territorial policy (26%) and

transport and telecommunications (22%) (see Table 4). The substantive content of territorial

policy included the merging of villages and towns, so as to pool resources and facilities,

while improvements in transport which increased the mobility of people had a similar effect.

In transport and telecommunications, investment was aimed at developing better links

between and within regions to as to facilitate cooperate and increase the level of integration.

Around a quarter of funding came from national sources and the rest from EU funds for both

territorial policy and transport and telecommunications. Substantial amounts of funding

were also allocated to business development aimed at reducing unemployment. Funds to

businesses were complemented by ESF funding aimed at increasing the employability of

workers.

The ultimate objective of intervention in each policy area was to contribute to balanced

development of regions, by concentrating most resources on problem sectors in each case6.

5 Bagdzevičienė et al.

6 Vološčiuk et al.



The argument was that if significant differences in development between regions were

eliminated then development in the country as a whole would be more sustainable.

Overall, resources were concentrated in policy areas which were regarded as most critical for

restructuring of the regional economies - territorial policy, transport and

telecommunications and the business environment. These areas received EUR 0.75 billion

out of a total of EUR 1.2 billion.

There had been a fear that because of low administrative capacity, poorly defined financing

priorities and lack of support capacity, Lithuania would be unable to absorb all the available

EU funds. However, the situation proved to be not as bad as feared. As at the end of 2008,

over 98% of the funds allocated had been spent.

The policy area in which the absorption rate was highest is transport and

telecommunications. In other areas such as human resources and technical assistance, in

particular, the spending rates were lower (around 88% of the budget allocated), which might

signify some problems in implementing programmes.

4 EFFECTS OF INTERVENTION IN DIFFERENT POLICY

AREAS

Agriculture and fisheries

Measures under this heading (funded from other sources - from the EAGGF and national

sources – rather than from the ERDF) went into restructuring farms, supporting young

farmers and improving the quality and marketing of products. Funding also went into

promoting rural tourism (in which the number of enterprises increased by a third between

2003 and 2006). Partly as a result of these initiatives, the number of small farms declined

and the number of large farms increased substantially (especially dairy farms). In fisheries,

the main aim was to reduce capacity and to make the fleet more competitive as well as to

develop other activities in the sector.

Enterprise environment

Policy was aimed mainly at developing existing industries and services rather than at

developing new ones, though a part of this, funding went into supporting business start-ups

and encouraging entrepreneurship. Much of the funding went into providing financial

support to SMEs, though a further aim was to strengthen the links between business and the

research community. This, however, had limited success, partly because of the large-scale

emigration of scientists and other highly qualified people which has occurred over the

transition period and especially since accession to the EU.



Human Resources

Measures to develop human resources included a range of projects, in particular, support for

education and vocational training, both at the initial level and for those in employment

needing to acquire new skills, as well as for the unemployed. Measures were also launched

to assist people with disabilities find employment, to reduce youth unemployment and to

promote equal opportunities as well as to develop computer literacy. In addition,

programmes were introduced to help migrants integrate into society.

Transport and telecommunications

A large number of projects were initiated to improve traffic conditions, link up local road

networks with the main transport routes and to renew railway lines. Most of the investment

went into improving existing roads rather than into constructing new ones. One of the

projects involved building a by-pass in Vilnius around the old city, which has reduced traffic

jams, the number of road accidents and pollution. Indeed, there was a general attempt to

take account of environmental considerations by aiming at reducing CO2 emissions.

Environment and energy

Measures in this policy area were aimed at improving the quality of both drinking water and

waste management, rehabilitating polluted and contaminated areas, protecting vulnerable

areas, strengthening the monitoring of the environmental indicators, cleaning up the Baltic

Sea coastline, increasing awareness of the importance of a safe environment and

modernising electricity, natural gas and centralised heating distribution networks. As a

result, both energy losses and pollution have been reduced. For example, CO2 emissions

declined by around 2.5%.

Projects included establishing new waste disposal dumps (for example, in Utena), which

comply with EU Directives and increase recycling possibilities, increasing the quality of

drinking water in Vilnius by reducing iron levels substantially, improving the management of

poisonous waste in Kaunas and modernising electricity power station there. They also

include the decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power plant, which, while not directly

under the auspices of the Structural Funds, is a source of potential social problems and gives

rise to a separate need for economic restructuring.

Territorial policy

Projects under this heading were undertaken with specific consideration of the comparative

advantages of regions, both actual and potential. Much of the funding went into support of

tourism with the aim of attracting foreign visitors. A number of problems which limited the

development of the industry have been addressed, such as the need for more entertainment

and recreational facilities, the lack of information about places (a network of tourist



information centres has been established but still needs to be extended) and the lack of low-

cost accommodation (a number of holiday camps have been built).

In addition, funding went into improving hospitals.



5 FORM OF INTERVENTION IN THE DIFFERENT POLICY

AREAS

Direct support to firms made up over 27% of expenditure and direct grants in one form or

another are important in a number of policy areas. This raises the issue of the possible scale

of deadweight costs as well as the extent to which projects have been accepted that are

privately profitable (because of the EU funding) but would not pass a social cost-benefit test.

Total public expenditure

Policy Categories 7

EUR %

Main forms of intervention

1 Direct support to firms 324.7 27.4

Direct grants to companies and subsidies to encourage export activities.

2 RTDI 54.5 4.6

2.1 Direct support to firms for R&D 19.4 1.6

2.2 Indirect support for innovation 35.1 3.0

Provision of new modern technologies, grants to research institutes and innovative companies.

3 Infrastructure 331.0 27.9 Direct grants.

3.1 Transport infrastructure 212.4 17.9 Direct grants, new technologies.

3.2 Other infrastructure 118.6 10.0 Direct money transfers.

4 Human capital 156.2 13.2 Provisions of money to employment agencies.

5 Local environment 318.4 26.9

Benefits for companies which are environment-friendly, such as subsidies, grants.

TOTAL 1,184.8 100.0 Direct grants for companies are used most often.

Source: Own calculations based on EU data (cut-off date 2007).

7 This is based on the DG Regional Policy ‘Infoview’ database. For the relationship between the forms of

intervention (the ‘instruments’) and the Infoview categories, see the table at the end of the report.



6 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Given the lack of experience in Lithuania of administering programmes of this kind, the

implementation of policy appears to have been reasonably successful. The early stages of

programme development were subject to considerable change, including in the distribution

of financial resources and an expansion in the number of potential applicants8.

The focus of regional development policy over the 2004-2006 period remained essentially

unchanged and no major problems were encountered. The latter was also the case as

regards the coordination of activities between different agencies.

Nevertheless, implementation was not always smooth. Companies were sometimes late in

completing projects, the cost of materials increased – especially in the construction sector –

as did wages, projects faced labour shortages because of emigration, the seasonality of

project activities in some cases caused problems, public procurement procedures were

excessively long as were analyses of costs and managers often lacked experience in carrying

out projects. Such difficulties led in some cases to outlays of funding being less than

anticipated and the finance released was channelled into new projects. In addition, some

project managers over-estimated what they could achieve, which again led to funding being

redistributed to other projects.

The monitoring of programmes has also caused problems. In particular, the interpretation of

measures was in some cases unclear, which made it hard to understand if implementation

had been successful or not. Evaluating the effects and effectiveness of programmes by

various physical output measures (such as the energy saving projects implemented, young

farmers supported or science technology parks opened) was reasonably successful, despite

minor problems of interpreting the measures taken9.

There is no evidence, however, that any serious impact evaluations have been undertaken.

7 GLOBAL EFFECTS

As noted above, although the regions with the largest populations, and in most cases the

highest levels of GDP per head, received most of the funds, support per person in the main

problem regions tended to be greater than elsewhere. Funding from both the EU and the

national government improved the situation in these regions through relatively large

8 Bagdzevičienė, et al.

9 BPD įgyvendinimo ataskaita.



investment in transport, energy, environmental protection and tourism. There was also

significant investment in human capital.

Although the growth potential of weaker regions might have been improved, however, there

is little sign of regional disparities in GDP per head or unemployment being narrowed.

The essential problem of assessing the impact of EU funding on regional development is that

at present data are available only for inputs and not for outputs let alone on the wider

effects. Moreover, any assessment is complicated by the fact that economic development in

Lithuania has been influenced by a great many factors other than the EU funding or regional

policy. To disentangle the effect of these factors requires a coherent model which captures

accurately the many and various influences on economic development so as to define the

counterfactual situation which would have existed without support from cohesion policy.

Such a model does not yet exist in Lithuania (or, indeed, perhaps anywhere).

A study of a more general kind has analysed EU support over the programming period in

relation to regional development10. It found that there were some problems in the poorer

regions in the form of too few applications for projects, which were accordingly in some

cases not implemented. There was also a problem in defining and identifying the poorest

regions on which to concentrate support. For example, although Vilnius is the richest region,

located within it is Didžiasalis (in the southern part) which has very high unemployment and

low income per head.

8 ADDED VALUE OF THE EU CONTRIBUTION

Although it is difficult to estimate the true added-value of EU funding through cohesion

policy for a range of reasons, not least the absence of data on deadweight costs, substitution

effects and ‘crowding out’, it is reasonable to assume that the direct contribution in

Lithuania was significant.

One important indirect effect has been to promote a culture of transparency and

accountability in the country. In particular, project ‘owners’ have to report on their

achievements each half year or each month. Moreover, purchases for projects are subject to

strict public procurement rules. In addition, a computerised control and supervision system

has been created to monitor the programmes, which has led to ensuring the reliability of

payment data and managing the information and data required for control and project

assessment, which could potentially be extended to other areas.

Vološčiuk et al. 10



9 LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

It is hard to identify any major lessons for the future. The experience of the 2004-2006

period, however, contains a myriad of pointers. Clearly the experience provided a direct

input into the design of programmes for the 2007-2013 period. There are indirect lessons

too for potential participants to make better projects and for legislators to better define

regulations.

An important area where improvements could be made is the slow take up of the funds. In

the 2007-2013 period the amount of funds is considerably larger and hence the ‘absorption

risk’ is correspondingly greater.

Another, not unrelated, lesson is to educate people, in the business community and outside,

about the availability of EU funding in order to encourage more applications, including

information on the objectives of cohesion policy as well as the regulations which need to be

complied with.

Other lessons include avoiding ambiguous interpretations of measures, giving more weight

to developing the railway system, developing a life-long learning programme and promoting

the clustering of particular economic activities.



REFERENCES

Aleliūnas, Mykolas, and Stasys Skakauskas, Lietuvos pramonininkų konfederacijos

konsultacinio pobūdžio protokolas Nr. 2, 16 Jan 2007, Vilnius, 15 Apr 2008 <http://www.i-

manager.lt/upload/200710/20070116Nr.2.doc>

Bagdzevičienė, Rita, Krišpinovičius, Sergejus, Rutkauskas, Aleksandras Vytautas, Stauskas,

Vladas, Vengrauskas, Vytautas, Rimas, Justinas, Račkauskas, Arimantas, Čaplikas, Jonas,

Tamkus, Audrius, and Algimantas Venckus, 2002, Regionų ekonomikos plėtotės strategija

BPD įgyvendinimo ataskaita, 2006, Lietuva: Bendrasis programavimo dokumentas 2004 –

2006 metai

Brožaitis, Haroldas, Dumčius, Rimas, and Vitalis Nakrošis, 2002, Vilnius, Galimybių

absorbuoti ES struktūrinių fondų ir sanglaudos fondo paramą tyrimas, Galutinė ataskaita, 15

Apr 2008

<http://www.vpvi.lt/edit/uploads/Galimybiu_isisavinti_ES_parama_tyrimas.pdf>

Everdeen, S, Gorter, J, de Mooij, R and Nahuis, R (2002) “Funds and Games: the Economics of

EU Cohesion Policy” CBP Netherlands Centre for Economic Policy Analysis

Europos Sąjungos Struktūrinė parama, 2008, Lietuva jau įsisavino daugiau kaip 70 proc. ES

struktūrinės paramos, 15 Apr 2008 <http://www.esparama.lt/lt/naujienos/?id=345>

Klaipėdos teritorinės statistikos valdyba, 2008, Bendrasis Vidaus Produktas (BVP) vienam

gyventojui, 15 Apr 2008

<http://klaipedatsv.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/bvpgyv?PHPSESSID=a0e9a59cd7ac1d1fb6e5b911f6

74a27f>

Statistikos Departamentas prie LRV, 2008, Gyventojų skaičius pagal lytį apskrityse,

miestuose ir savivaldybėse, 15 Apr 2008 <http://www.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/view/?id=285>

Statistikos Departamentas prie LRV, 2008, Labour productivity of the national economy, 15

Apr 2008 <http://www.stat.gov.lt/en/pages/view/?id=2455>

Single Programming Document of Lithuania 2004 – 2006, 15 Apr 2008 < http://www.east-

gate.it/public/LT_SPD_04-06.pdf>

Valstybės ilgalaikės raidos strategijos įgyvendinimo 2006 metais ataskaitos santrauka, Sep

2007, Valstybės ilgalaikės raidos strategija, 15 Apr 2008

<http://www.ukmin.lt/lt/strategija/ataskaita/2006-VIRS%20ataskaitos%20santrauka%2008-

02-11.doc>

Viešoji įstaiga Lietuvos verslo paramos agentūra, 2008, LVPA administruojamos Europos

Sąjungos paramos apžvalga, 15 Apr 2008

<http://www.lvpa.lt/lt/content/viewitem/14094/>

Vilniaus miesto savivaldybė, 2008, Vilnius, 15 Apr 2008

<http://www.vilnius.lt/new/zekonomika.php>


http://www.i-manager.lt/upload/200710/20070116Nr.2.doc

http://www.i-manager.lt/upload/200710/20070116Nr.2.doc

http://www.vpvi.lt/edit/uploads/Galimybiu_isisavinti_ES_parama_tyrimas.pdf

http://www.esparama.lt/lt/naujienos/?id=345

http://klaipedatsv.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/bvpgyv?PHPSESSID=a0e9a59cd7ac1d1fb6e5b911f674a27f

http://klaipedatsv.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/bvpgyv?PHPSESSID=a0e9a59cd7ac1d1fb6e5b911f674a27f

http://www.stat.gov.lt/lt/pages/view/?id=285

http://www.stat.gov.lt/en/pages/view/?id=2455

http://www.ukmin.lt/lt/strategija/ataskaita/2006-VIRS%20ataskaitos%20santrauka%2008-02-11.doc

http://www.ukmin.lt/lt/strategija/ataskaita/2006-VIRS%20ataskaitos%20santrauka%2008-02-11.doc

http://www.lvpa.lt/lt/content/viewitem/14094/

http://www.vilnius.lt/new/zekonomika.php


Vološčiuk, Irina, Rimkutė, Jolanta, Driskiuvienė, Asta, and Vitalija Motiekaitienė, 2005,

Regioninė raida: tendencijos ir problemos, ES paramos įgyvendinimas, 15 Apr 2008

<http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:PJIBbyPzXfUJ:www.starkeviciute.lt/uploaded/final%25

20studija.doc+2006+REGIONIN%C4%96+RAIDA:+TENDENCIJOS+IR+PROBLEMOS&hl=lt&ct=c

lnk&cd=2&gl=lt>


http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:PJIBbyPzXfUJ:www.starkeviciute.lt/uploaded/final%2520studija.doc+2006+REGIONIN%C4%96+RAIDA:+TENDENCIJOS+IR+PROBLEMOS&hl=lt&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=lt




TABLES

See Excel file for Tables 1 to 6:

Table 1: Regional disparities and trends

Table 2: Macro-economic developments

Tables 3: Allocation of resources by main policy area

Table 4: Expenditure at 2007 by policy area

Table 5: Allocation of resources by programme

Table 6: Expenditure by programme

Table A – Differences among regions, according to GDP, number of ERDF projects,

population, support

Table B – Gross Value Added per employee changes as compared to 2000 in percentage



Table A – Differences among regions, according to GDP, number of ERDF projects,

population, support

Region

GDP per capita

compared to average,

%

Projects in each region

Population % of country's population

Support for a

region in million LTL

% of all support to one region

Support per person

in each region in

LTL

Alytus 70 24 187769 5.39% 81.2 6.93% 432 Kaunas 96.8 58 701529 20.14% 184.6 15.75% 263 Klaipėda 105.1 37 385768 11.07% 113.8 9.71% 295

Marijampolė 63.6 8 188634 5.41% 91.5 7.81% 485

Panevėžys 83.1 22 299990 8.61% 123 10.49% 410

Šiauliai 75.7 34 370096 10.62% 142.5 12.16% 385 Tauragė 51.4 15 134275 3.85% 21.8 1.86% 162 Telšiai 88.3 20 179885 5.16% 37.6 3.21% 209 Utena 83.9 22 185962 5.34% 94 8.02% 505 Vilnius 144 91 850064 24.40% 242.4 20.68% 285

Geographically not allocated 8 0.00% 39.9 3.40%

In total 100 339 3483972 100.00% 1172.3 100.00% 336

Source: Based on data from LVPA (Lithuania‘s business support agency), Statistikos Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Statistics Department coordinated by the Government of Lithuania Republic), Klaipėdos Teritorinė Statistikos Valdyba (Klaipėda territorial statistics board of administration).

Table B – Gross Value Added per employee changes as compared to 2000 in percentage.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Total 23,4 32,5 39,6 47,7 56,2Agriculture, hunting and forestry 12,5 26,8 44,2 43,1 89,4Fishing 396,2 311,9 145,4 195,5 165,9Mining and quarrying -19,1 -9,0 11,2 -16,2 -32,9Manufacturing 31,3 52,4 58,2 75,0 80,7Electricity, gas and water supply 85,3 86,6 109,1 104,8 115,3Construction 17,0 15,3 12,6 21,2 21,7Wholesale and retail trade 25,9 29,5 39,3 36,1 46,4Hotels and restaurants 11,8 2,7 8,2 -3,4 9,1Transport, storage and communication 22,6 28,9 43,2 50,5 50,2Financial intermediation -1,3 15,6 12,6 20,4 -6,0Real estate, renting and business activities 0,4 4,9 5,6 -8,7 4,6Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 15,5 16,3 15,3 30,3 23,1Education 23,1 22,8 20,0 41,3 32,2Health and social work -4,8 -2,7 1,5 0,6 12,9Other community, social and personal services 8,4 6,2 -3,9 0,8 -0,3

Source: Statistikos Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vriausybės (Statistics Department coordinated by the Government of Lithuania Republic)



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND

FOI CATEGORIES

code Policy instruments FOI Categories 1 Direct support to firms 11 Agriculture 111+114 12 Forestry 121+122 13 Fisheries 142+143+144 14 Large businesses 151+152+153+154+155 15 Small businesses 161+162+163+164+165+166 16 Tourism 171+172+173 17 ICT 322+324 18 Development of rural areas 1307+1309+1314 19 Planning and rehabilitation 351 2 RTDI 21 Direct support to firms for innovation 182 22 Indirect support for innovation 181+183 3 Infrastructure 31 Transport infrastructure 31 32 Other infrastructure 321 Telecommunication 321 321 Energy infrastructure (production, delivery) 33 321 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 34 4 Human capital

41 Developing educational and vocational training (persons, firms)

23+113+128+167+174

42 Workforce flexibility, entrepreneurial activity, innovation, information and communication technologies (persons, firms)

24+184

5 Local environment

51 Indirect support to firms (agriculture, forestry, fisheries)

112+1182+123+124+125+126+127+141+145+147+148

52 Social infrastructure and public health 36 53 Planning and rehabilitation 352+353+354 54 Labour market policy 21 55 Social inclusion and equal opportunity 22+25

56 Development of rural areas 1301+1302+1303+1304+1305+1306+ 1308+1310+1311+1312+1313+1399

57 ICT Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education)

322

58 Miscellaneous 4 Note: Forms of Intervention – FOI. See Regulation 438/2001, Annex IV, Classification 3


lithuania - european commission€¦ · 21% of the funds, kaunas, Šiauliai and panevėžys. the...

Documents