EU Cohesion Policy is a key instrument for building solidarity across the EU, yet many citizens are unaware of its existence. New research from Johannes Lattmann and David Schweizer shows that occupations are a key factor in shaping people’s awareness of and preferences about the policy.
Many of the citizens that EU regional funding is designed to support remain largely unaware of its existence. In Poland, around 84% of people have heard of the EU’s Cohesion Policy. In Austria or southern Germany, that figure drops to just 20-30%. But this awareness gap is not only geographic. It also runs along occupational lines, cutting through regions in ways that matter for how the EU communicates, designs and governs its largest place-based investment programme.
In a recent study, we investigate how citizens’ occupations shape their awareness of and preferences toward Cohesion Policy. Using harmonised Eurobarometer data covering over 82,000 respondents across 26 EU member states (2015–2019), we find that occupation is a powerful but overlooked factor in explaining who knows about EU funding, what spending they prefer and how they think funding decisions should be made.
The awareness gap between regions
Awareness of Cohesion Policy varies enormously. Figure 1 highlights that Eastern European regions, which tend to receive more funding, display the highest levels of awareness. Yet in Northern and parts of Western Europe, a large majority of citizens have never heard of the policy.
Figure 1:Share of citizens aware of EU Cohesion Policy by region
Note: Based on Eurobarometer data. Own visualisation. For more information, see the authors’ accompanying paper.
These differences matter for both research and policy. Studies that focus on low-awareness countries may systematically underestimate the political effects of Cohesion Policy, while those focusing on high-awareness countries may overestimate them.
Occupation as a driver of awareness
Beyond geography, awareness differs substantially across occupational groups. Drawing on an occupational class scheme developed by Daniel Oesch, we argue that awareness is shaped by two dimensions: a vertical one (skill level and responsibility) and a horizontal one (the logic of one’s work, that is, independent, technical, organisational or interpersonal).
As Figure 2 shows, approximately 50% of professionals, managers, farmers, shop owners and skilled office workers know about EU Cohesion Policy. Among those without employment or in manual labour, awareness falls below 40%.
People in higher-skilled roles with greater decision-making responsibility are more likely to encounter EU-funded projects through their professional networks and are more likely to be directly involved in applying for or managing such funding as many initiatives under the Cohesion Policy are application-based.
Farmers, meanwhile, are a particularly telling case. Their awareness is high, likely not because of skill level alone, but because EU agricultural support is essential to their livelihood.
Figure 2: Predicted probabilities of EU funding awareness by occupation
Note: Based on Eurobarometer data. Own calculation and visualisation. For more information, see the authors’ accompanying paper.
This occupational awareness gap persists even after controlling for education, age, gender and regional differences. It also holds when we account for personal attachment to the EU, suggesting that the gap is not simply a reflection of pro- or anti-EU stances.
Spending preferences
Occupation also shapes what citizens want EU funds to be spent on. We find evidence of egocentric motivation: farmers and shop owners are most supportive of business-related spending, while manufacturing workers, routine service workers and the unemployed show the strongest preferences for training and employment support (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Predicted probabilities of EU funding preferences by occupation
Note: Based on Eurobarometer data. Own calculation and visualisation. For more information, see the authors’ accompanying paper.
However, we also find that support for social spending is remarkably high across all occupational groups. Around 90% view social spending as important, regardless of occupation. This suggests that, alongside material self-interest, there is broad and shared support for EU funding of social projects. A “one-size-fits-all” reading of citizen preferences misses both dynamics: the occupational variation that does exist, and the broad consensus on social investment that cuts across it.
Citizens want decisions made locally
One of our most policy-relevant findings concerns governance. When asked at which level decisions about EU-funded projects should be made, citizens across all occupations express a clear preference for local decision-making. The EU level is consistently the least preferred option, with gaps of around 10 to 15 percentage points compared to local or regional alternatives.
Strikingly, and contrary to our initial expectation, this preference does not vary by occupational group. Even those in higher-skilled occupations prefer decisions to be taken locally instead of favouring supranational governance. This likely reflects a general trust in local institutions and a belief that local actors are better placed to understand regional needs.
This finding speaks directly to current debates about the future of Cohesion Policy governance. As discussions intensify around more centralisation, our results suggest that citizens across the board want more local control over how EU funds are allocated and implemented.
Implications for policymakers and scholars
Our findings carry three takeaways. First, for researchers studying the political effects of EU regional policy, awareness cannot be assumed. It must be measured and accounted for. The wide variation across regions and occupations means that aggregate analyses risk masking the mechanisms through which funding shapes political attitudes.
Second, for policymakers, the occupational awareness gap points to a communication challenge. Lower-skilled workers and the unemployed, that is, groups that Cohesion Policy is partly designed to support, are the least aware of its existence. Tailoring outreach to different occupational contexts including through workplaces, trade unions or sector-specific channels could help close this gap.
Third, the strong and uniform preference for local decision-making should give pause to proposals for greater centralisation of EU funding governance. As we find strong support for citizens preferring local decision-making for EU-funded projects, further centralisation would run counter to these preferences, and it remains unclear how such reforms would affect citizens’ trust and support for EU-funded initiatives.
For more information, see the authors’ recent study in European Union Politics.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, not the position of LSE European Politics or the London School of Economics.
Image credit: BalkansCat provided by Shutterstock.
Discussion about this post