INTEGRATED TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS AND THE ILLUSION OF BALANCED REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN BULGARIA
Keywords:
regional policy; integrated territorial investments; balanced regional development; territorial cohesionAbstract
This review article analyses the strategic vision and the territorial allocation of
Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) as the current key instrument of regional policy in
Bulgaria, in the context of the objectives of balanced development and territorial cohesion at the
NUTS 2 level. Based on spatial and institutional analysis, the study argues that the current ITI
model in Bulgaria fails to overcome regional disparities and, in a number of cases, reproduces and
deepens them.
The methodological approach combines descriptive economic statistics, comparative
regional analysis, ranking methods, and correlation analysis between the territorial distribution of
ITI concepts and key macroeconomic and regional indicators. The analysis reveals structural
weaknesses in the design of the integrated territorial approach, including the absence of a genuinely
place-based logic, weak coordination between sectoral policies, and mismatches between regions’
economic needs and the intensity of project-based funding.
The paper concludes that without substantial institutional and conceptual reforms, ITIs
cannot fulfil their role as an effective instrument for achieving territorial cohesion in Bulgaria.
References
1. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to
meeting European Union challenges and expectations (Independent report). Brussels: European
Commission.
2. Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development
intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1),
134–152.
3. Bachtler, J., & Begg, I. (2018). Cohesion policy after Brexit: The economic, social and
institutional challenges. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(5), 745–763.
4. Boschma R. & Martin R. (2010). The Aims and Scope of Evolutionary Economic
Geography, Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary
Economic Geography, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
5. Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2014). Regional Governance Matters: Quality
of Government within European Union Member States. Regional Studies, 48(1), 68–90. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.770141
6. Crescenzi, R., & Giua, M. (2020). One or many cohesion policies of the European
Union? On the differential economic impacts of Cohesion Policy across member states. Regional
Studies, 54(1), 10–20.
7. Dąbrowski, M. (2014). Towards placebased regional and local development strategies in
Central and Eastern Europe? EU cohesion policy and strategic planning capacity at the
s u b n a t i o n a l l e v e l . L o c a l E c o n o m y, 2 9 ( 4 – 5 ) , 3 7 8 – 3 9 3 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g /
10.1177/0269094214535715
8. European Commission. (2010). Investing in Europe’s future: Fifth report on economic,
social and territorial cohesion. Directorate-General for Regional Policy. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/reports/
cohesion5/5cr_bg.pdf
9. European Commission. (2014). Guidance for Member States on Integrated Territorial
Investment (ITI). Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy. https://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/en/information/publications/guidelines/2014/guidance-fiche-integrated-
territorial-investment-iti
10. European Commission. (2015). Scenarios for Integrated Territorial Investments.
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/
2015/scenarios-for-integrated-territorial-investments
11. Eurostat. (2025). Eurostat regional yearbook 2025 edition. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
12. Ferry, M., Kah, S., & Bachtler, J. (2018). Integrated territorial development: New
instruments – new results? IQ-Net Thematic Paper 42(2). European Policies Research Centre
(EPRC) Delft.
13. Fratesi, U., & Wishlade, F. (2017). The impact of European Cohesion Policy in different
contexts. Regional Studies, 51(6), 817–821.
14. Fratesi, U. (2023). Regional Policy: Theory and Practice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781351107617
15. Fratesi, U. (2025). Two definitions of place-based policies: American and European
approaches to fiscal equalization and regional development. Global Challenges & Regional
Science, 1, 100006. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gcrs.2025.100006
16. Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in
Europe: Evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2),
273–298.
17. Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. OECD (2009). How Regions Grow: Trends and Analysis, OECD Regional Development
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264039469-en
19. OECD (2025). Place-Based Policies for the Future, OECD Regional Development
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e5ff6716-en.
20. Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial Cohesion: An EU concept. European Journal of Spatial
Development, 14(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5141339
21. Medeiros, E. (2017). European Union Cohesion Policy and Spain: a territorial impact
a s s e s s m e n t . R e g i o n a l S t u d i e s, 5 1 ( 8 ) , 1 2 5 9 – 1 2 6 9 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g /
10.1080/00343404.2016.1187719
22. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and under-developed regions. London:
Duckworth.
23. Rauhut, D. & Humer, A. (2020) EU Cohesion Policy and spatial economic growth:
trajectories in economic thought, European Planning Studies, 28:11, 2116-2133,
DOI:10.1080/09654313.2019.1709416
24. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do
about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. https://doi.org/
10.1093/cjres/rsx024
25. Rodríguez-Pose A. (2026). Investment or Losers’ Compensation? The Mis-Selling and
Re-Selling of EU Cohesion Policy. LSE Public Policy Review. 2026; 4(1): 8, pp. 1–12. DOI:
https://doi. org/10.31389/lseppr.140
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 New knowledge Journal of science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
