The regional policy of European Union is one of the ways of administrative influence on the development of socio-economic processes in the European countries. Despite of essential regional policy successes of the last years not all Europeans accepted this development as a standard because rates of economic growth have forced EU to concern "encouraging results" critically . Therefore, strengthening attention to directions, mechanisms, economic and institutional forms of realization in regional policy and regional development is the objective tendency in the political sphere and social consciousness.

Questions of regional policy and regional development were deeply investigated by V. Chuzhakov, O. Shnirkov, N. Zuev, but one unresolved question is about some main tendencies in a new model of regional development that demands further consideration. The purpose of the article is substantiation of the European Union regional and economic development model in the context of last stage European integration. Statement materials of the basic research. Significant challenges from the basic competitors of EU in social and economic development in 90-s years were caused by the necessity of a new development strategy and economic transformation of the European Union into more competitive economy in the world. Therefore, the EU policy in the regional development is aimed to assist in economic growth and creation in EU’s regions and cities workplaces. There are some provisions: countries rapproachement at the level of social and economic development (for maintenance of this purpose more than 80 % of the general budget in 307,6 billion euro is allocated); increase of competitiveness and occupation level (16% of budget); formation of the European territorial cooperation (2,5 %).

The most important structural institutes of realization at regional policy are the international funds and programs. Funds finance any investments in infrastructure, education, support small and average business and tourism. Though priorities of the programs in their wide understanding are determined together with the Commission of EU, the choice of measures and practical projects is the exclusive competence of the countries-members and regions. Distinctive feature of EU regional policy 2007-2013 is its binding to Lissabon strategy 2000, because levels of its realization are regions, the countries, EU as a whole. Therefore the control of including the Operating programs into Program of National Reforms (NRP) will be annually carried out. The strategic underlining of results (Strategic follow-up) will include preparation of the annual report about realization of national reforms programs at the state level [2].

As it follows from the decision of European Council (in 2005) approaches to realization of EU regional policy are essentially vary. The main objective of EU to 2007-2013 is convergence regions, has be dominate [3]. Previously there are funds was six. Purposes of regional policy have become more concrete, because enough money resources concentrate only in three funds which carry out basic functions to some extent. Approach to definition of depressed areas is kept only partly. As known, in 2000-2006 regions which were considered to be depressed, have an index of 75% of GNP per capita on average among EU-15 (EU accounts for 100%), during 2007-2013. Such index will be kept and will not be transferred each time with the expansion of European Union. The fund of association, which activity covers already all the society, but not just the countries-outsiders, will use also the indicator of the total national income (GNI) with "critical border " of 90 % from the average EU-15 (instead of EU-27). Thus, activity of the EU structural funds to which the United Fund is necessary to refer is differentiated and precisely identified by the state and NUTS-II levels of application. Ireland fell out from a number of depressed territories, which was provided considerable funds on its development during 15 years. It is possible to consider that during acceptance of new EU development strategy compromise concerning association depressed regions of old and new members was attained. It is also important to consider the purpose of «Regional competitiveness and employment» which actually united two aims of 2000-2006.

Greater part of funds under this direction will become accessible for two basic groups of countries and their regions: which are on the initial stage of beginning of reforms, but they enter in the complement of old participants of EU (Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Great Britain, and also, as an exception, one of the regions of Hungary and Cyprus, which leading territories have comparable indexes); 16 countries with regions which need strengthening of their competitiveness through financing measures of structural employment optimization in it (such indicators as levels of employment and unemployment and number occupied people in the agricultural structure, which is a granted branch in EU have become dominating).

There is also rather important purpose of «European territorial co-operation» which sorted out the main functions of past European initiatives «Interr-III, Urban-II, Leader +». Unlike the previous regulations all EU countries will act as recipients of the planned money resource. Clearly, that extended EU has quite a big problem with distributing facilities between old and new members. However on its basis convergence interests of this Union are more important than «national egoism» of the most developed states. It is aspect doubtless priority has the course aimed at convergence regions for which in three directions 282,855 billion euro or 81,4 % of all money stipulated on structural operation should be allocated during seven years. The second purpose concedes in its priority for which only 15,8 % of all assignments are allocated.

Despite of all discussion positions about that in distribution of EU financial resources it is also necessary to consider the interests of the countries-leaders which do not wish to act constantly as financial donors, but the decision of the Commission, Council and Parliament of EU is accepted in favor of new members. Thus, for example, Poland got almost 1/5 budget of the EU, and Czech Republic - a little more than all Germany. It is interesting to consider a comparison which Spanish economists Faina and Lopez-Rodrigues [4] had made; they selected original «European economic Pentagon», outlined by lines between London, Paris, Milan, Munich and Hamburg; on this territory about 50% of EU GNP is produced, although this area accounts for only 20% of all integration area .

The new EU regional model contains units of transnational cooperation (Transnational cooperation areas), which not only include the same territories of European Union countries but also exposes clear tendency to a new geographical division of Europe. Thus, for example, northern periphery includes Ireland, northern part of United Kingdom, north-eastern of Sweden and northern Finland, district of the Baltic sea - all Sweden, all Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Denmark and north-eastern part of Germany, district of the North sea - South-west of Sweden, Denmark, East part of United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, north-western Germany. Territory of Poland, Slovakia and Hungary, take to Central Europe, and Romania, Bulgaria and again Slovakia and Hungary together with other states - to south-east of Europe. Such coincidences are traced concerning other EU mеgа regions.

Conclusion. Strengthening of financial injections in the economy of depressive regions due to "European economic Pentagon» is the tendency of the represented model of EU regional development. Aspiring to achieve the personal purposes of the EU states-locomotives, the economic block has lowered rates of economic growth too sharply and as a consequence there is occurrence of the modernized regional policy of EU and structuring of the financial assistance to the countries-candidates in the aspect of integration process.

 

 

1. The European figure [Electronic resource], – Mode of access: www.europa.eu/abc/keyfigures.

2. Official site of the European Commission [Electronic resource], – Mode of access: www.europa.eu/abc/regional_policy.

3. Cohesion policy 2007-13. Commentaries and official texts. Guide. January 2007, Brussels.p.10.

4. Faina A. Lopez-Rodrigues J. European Regional Policy and Back WardRegions: Implications Towards EU Enlargement «European Journal of Law and Economic» №8, 2004, р. 5-32.