THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT. Europe in a period of transition

THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 88 conditionality, since the Member States are obliged to present these investment and reforms projects on the basis of the recommendations made each year by the Commission that, while they were already present in the European Semester, were not sufficiently addressed by the Member States. Consequently, for the deployment of and access to the RRF funds the Member States have drawn up their national recovery plans, where they gather the reforms and investments they are seeking to make. The various plans began to be submitted starting late April and the Commission has already positively assessed many of them, assessments that have been ratified for approval by the European Council, giving the go ahead to the first disbursements equivalent to 13% in pre-financing. The Commission considers the plans effectively address the challenges identified in the specific recom- mendations for each country, contain measures that effectively foster the green and digital transitions, and contribute to strengthening the growth potential, job creation, and the economic and social resilience of the Member State. It is a question of ensuring that the process of recov- ery and transformation of the growth model is equitable and prevents inequalities among Europeans, guaran- teeing the support of all sectors of society and contrib- uting to social, economic, and territorial cohesion. The pandemic has revealed the need to secure this inclusive recovery that on a European level means tackling issues that affect equity and cohesion such as the readiness and resilience of the national health and social protection systems, equal access to health care, long-term care, and systems of childcare, or demographic change. The recovery plans, then, should include measures geared towards strengthening the Union’s social and territorial cohesion; bolstering economic and social resil- ience with a view to future crises, as well as the capacity to adapt and growth potential of the Member States; mitigating the social and economic impact of the crisis on the basis of the European Pillar of Social Rights; sup- porting the green transition with the achievement of the climate goals for 2030 and climate neutrality for 2050, and the digital transition. All with a view to contributing to the improvement of upward economic and social co- hesion on a path of sustainable growth and quality job creation that boosts the Union’s strategic autonomy and an economy that generates added value. However, it has been found that opportunities were squandered in the final materialisation of the plans, particularly in the definition of specific investments to address the improvement of social and territorial cohe- sion and convergence and avert an increase in disparities (Darvas and Tagliapietra, 2021), when, as we have indi- cated, the Commission’s guidance offered broad scope for this type of investment.According to the Bruegel think tank, which has a database of precise information on the recovery plans, only a little over 6% of the total resources provided for in the plans as a whole are aimed directly or indirectly, along with other goals, at improving social and territorial cohesion, although some Member States, such as Austria, Luxembourg, or Sweden, do allocate signifi- cant percentages to this priority (Figure 3). While the plans also had to address the goal of se- curing more resilient economies with a view to the fu- ture, generally speaking there is little specification of the action geared to that end and still fewer indicators that enable assessing its achievement, when the improvement of economic, social, and territorial cohesion is one of the key elements to attain that resilience. In fact, the Com- mission’s guidance and the plans of the Member States do not clearly define, not even by way of a reflection, how to achieve that resilience. It is an ambiguous goal, and it is inferred that it will be achieved simply with the recovery and investments and reforms made. With the exception of a few countries, the plans lack clear action in the area of social and territorial cohesion. Italy clearly stands out as one of those exceptions. A priority goal of its plan is to overcome the north/south di- vide and boost territorial cohesion internally (in fact, 40% of the plan is devoted to Italy’s southern regions). As do Spain and Greece, which have included investments and reforms to this end in the education systems, the labour