This is a report prepared for the EC Commission (DG XII) within the framework of a task entrusted to an European University Institute Study Group coordinated by Prof. Stuart Holland. in 1991.

The intention of this Report is to examine the overall picture of the strategies and consequent policies that could favour the achievement of the new objective that the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty have assigned to the European Community: to pursue the strengthening of economic and social cohesion.

Regional policy has always been considered the essential instrument for a policy of strengthening socio-economic cohesion in the Community as a whole. It was always believed, in fact, that the Community could strengthen its level of cohesion by reducing the distances and disparities in the level of social and economic development, both of the countries and of the regions that make it up.

In fact, it cannot be denied that the reduction of the disparities in the development of the various areas and regions of the Community, and of the backwardness of some of these areas in respect to others, represents an important factor for greater socio-economic cohesion. Therefore it is without doubt that regional policy, which aims at reducing disparities and backwardness, is an instrument for greater cohesion.

But after many years of experience at the national scale and at the European Community scale, one has to acknowledge that – also from the spatial point of view - a policy that is aimed only at the reduction of these disparities and backwardness (like the "regional" one), is no longer sufficient for the achievement of greater cohesion and greater integration between different areas.

From a spatial point of view as well something more is needed. What is needed is a unitary conception of the Community territory, and a policy not only aimed at reducing disparity and backwardness, but also at a better utilisation of all the territory resources for better functioning from the point of view of the overall Community. What is needed, therefore, is a real "territorial policy" on a Community scale.

The aim of this study is to provide a contribution of ideas for the design of such a policy; and the first part of the study is dedicated to this.

Right from the start it is important to emphasize that such a territorial policy, founded on a unitary vision of the Community territory i.e. on a vision of this as a "single" territory, can only be conceived on the Community scale and from a Community outlook. This seems more than sufficient for the recognition, in all this, of the application of the "principle of subsidiarity", as it was fixed by the Maastricht Treaty (Art. 3b) on the basis of which "the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore,  by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".

But besides the spatial dimension (seen nevertheless in its new terms as a territorial policy, and not merely as a policy of regional disparities), greater socio-economic cohesion draws also on "non-spatial" sources and foundations, or better "a-spatial" ones. In other words, the fact must be taken into account that greater cohesion may augur or realise itself on other planes as well: for example on the social plane (by means of a policy of greater social integration), or on a sectorial or productive plane (a policy of greater economic or productive integration).

These further a-spatial aspects of a greater socio-economic cohesion have been assigned as the object of this study, in as far as they are "extensions" of the concept of cohesion. In this sense a greater socio-economic cohesion is determined by a set of complex historical factors regarding the structural transformation of contemporary industrial societies (even beyond what is happening in the countries making up the European Community): and here we have considered it worthwhile examining these transformations, even if they have been the object of much well-known and important literature. The impact that these complex historical factors have had, are having, and will have, on the objective of greater Community socio-economic cohesion is the subject of the second part of this study.

This second part therefore tries to provide a contribution of useful ideas for the analysis and delineation of a policy for strengthening social and economic cohesion considered, however, from an a-spatial point of view.

This policy has been called "societal policy" because the current use of the expression "social policy" tends to isolate in the said policy only the "non-economic" aspects of cohesion and therefore would tend to give a somewhat reductive meaning of cohesion (very similar, moreover, to the way in which it has been until now understood and practiced on the Community scale); whilst in this study of cohesion policy both its social aspects and its economic and productive (sectorial) aspects will be examined. Later on we will see better what are the constituent elements of the above mentioned analysis of the complex factors of the transformation of contemporary industrial societies, and the policy implications that emerge from them.

Even if it is less evident, a policy of greater Community cohesion inspired by the a-spatial and societal aspects could not be either conceived or pursued withìn the ambit of each national community taken separately. Albeit brief, a moment of conception and unitary definition on the Community scale is indispensable. And this is more than sufficient - it seems to us - to be in line with the principle of subsidiarity mentioned before.

In conclusion, this study aims at discussing and outlining the features of a policy of greater Community socio-economic cohesion both in its spatial aspects and in its societal aspects. It aims at defining, in other terms, both a Community territorial policy and societal policy.

"Territorial policy", understood as above, is the object of the first part of the Report (Chaps. 1-6). "Societal policy", understood as above, is the object of the second part of the Report (Chaps. 7-10).

1. "Territorial" Policy

In conformity with this, the various chapters of the first part are articulated.

Above all one intends to discuss (in Chapters 1 and 2) the supersedure, for the purposes of a greater cohesion, of the old regional policy aimed only at reducing disparities and backwardness, which were moreover poorly measured. The fundamental characteristics of a new management of Community territory have been discussed and exemplified, founded on new elements such as:

1.the conception of the European territory as a "single" territory;

2.the elaboration of a "common" system of territorial indicators;

3.the elaboration of a "Territorial Framework of Reference" (a sort of "Indicative Master Plan") for all the Community territory.

Secondly, the characteristics of the three main emerging problems have been examined: city, environment, transport. The outlines have been drawn of an urban policy (Chapter 3), of an environmental policy (Chapter 4) and of a transport policy (Chapter 5) on the European scale, bearing in mind the contribution that they should provide toward a policy of greater Community cohesion.

In fact, considering - as said - spatial policy as a policy founded on the concept of Community territory as a "single" territory (in conformity with the creative principles of the EMU, that ratify it as a "single market"), and having gone beyond the concept of greater cohesion simply as the mere reduction of disparities and backwardness, it has been realised that on a Community scale the main problems emerging with a greater impact on cohesion itself are:

- organisation of urban life, as the fundamental factor of social and environmental welfare for the citizens of the Community (80% of whom live in an urban environment), but also as the fundamental factor for the development of economic activities;

- a policy of conservation, good management and utilization of the natural environmental resources, whose level of use has become incompatible with a "sustainable" development of the economy;

- a strategy of communications and transport,. with an efficient network of linked infrastructures on a European scale for the purpose of better integration of the activities and information of European citizens.

These main identified problems do not have in themselves a direct and explicit impact on greater cohesion (except, perhaps, for the last one mentioned). However, they represent the most sensitive area - being the most important - in which the fate of a greater cohesion is decided. Moreover they constitute problems whose solution - considering European territory as a "single" territory - may find easier outlets on the Community scale than on the national or local scale, if assisted by more intergovernmental cooperation (which ranges from the level of exchange of information, to that of the sharing of experience, and to that of the common experimentation of new experiences).

Certain aspects of some problems (as will be seen in the chapters dedicated to each of them) have a "trans-boundary" relevance; and they are therefore par excellence problems whose Community management will favour greater cohesion.

However, the three policies (urban, environmental and transport) have been examined in light of their integrated evaluation, which emerges from the reform of the approach adopted by traditional regional policy. We have called this reform territorial policy, while trying to demonstrate that it is directly involved in a correct approach to the goal of a greater socio-economic cohesion, and that it is moreover the most important factor in strengthening such an economic and social cohesion.

But the analysis of how such policies might be rendered coherent with a common design of territorial policy has inevitably led us to ask ourselves to what degree the modus operandi of public decision-making, at all government levels (from the local to the regional, to the national, and right up to that of the Community), could be susceptible to constituting an efficacious political instrument, in view of the proposed objectives.

This analysis has led us to appreciate the importance of modifying the methods of "evaluation" and management applied to the interventions, with the aim of rendering them more "systematic"; which is also another way of saying more "cohesive" with each other.

In other words, we have examined the importance of improving the "programming" of the interventions. The application of programming and evaluation methods constitutes already, in itself, an important integrating "adhesive" for sectorial policies, above all when these manifest themselves through single direct interventions, be they normative or financial.

The methods - very rapidly evoked and suggested in Chapter 6 - are such that, if applied, they would not only facilitate a correct application of the interventions, in that they would control the quality of the results; but also above all with respect to the overall programming, they would allow a mechanism of evaluation and "choice" ex ante of the programmes and the projects to be promoted, accepted and financed which would constitute a totally new phase for the procedures and the management policies not only of the Community, but also of many of the participating governments.

This examination of the methods of evaluation and programming has opened up the debate on a new "manageability" or "governance" of public action, which constitutes the fulcrum of the second part of the Report.

2. "Societal Policy"
The objectives of greater community cohesion in the a-spatial aspects or, as said, "societal" aspects have been examined in the second part.

We have considered it opportune to introduce this analysis with a synthetic evaluation of the transformations that are taking place in industrial societies, and of their effects on the principal inter-sectorial and infra-sectorial  structural changes in these societies (Chapter 7).

The major obstacles to greater community cohesion have been identified in:

1. the impact that the abovementioned changes have had on the relationship between the public and private sector of economic life;

2. the overburdening that has derived from this for the public sector;

3. the crisis that has resulted for the systems of the Welfare State.

These aspects have been examined in Chapter 8.

The crisis of the Welfare State - arising from the positive evolution of the structural changes mentioned before - is provoking two main responses of which we must be well aware (and which it is necessary to be able to transform into explicit "policies"):

-   the need to give back to non-public and, in some ways, private activity - albeit in completely changed and new circumstances - the burden of absorbing the overload of the public sector that has led to the crisis of the Welfare State;

-   the need to increase the capacity of the collective, in all its manifestations but above all in that of its public institutional or government one, to proceed to conscious and rational decisions that are oriented preventively with regard to the alternative use of societal resources (public, private, collective or individual); in order to prevent useless waste, poor use, imbalance in use, and the various damage that all this produces for an ordered development of civil harmony within and between the people of the Community and the earth.

-   the two answers, and the two required explicit policies that should result, may be summarised in the following way:

A. By means of the development of a sector of economic activity between "public" and "private", that is largely erupting in an autonomous and spontaneous way in the so-called "post-industrial" society with its structural changes and the consequent crisis of the Welfare State.

This is the sector that resembles the public one: for the absence of the motivation of profit; for the fact that it is not aimed at the market (although it is operative, like the public one, in the market); for the purposes, prevalently social and collective, that ensue.

It is also the sector that resembles the private one: for the entrepreneurial spirit that characterises it; for the fact that it is the object of private initiative on the part of the subjects who benefit from it and promote it (even if some public incentive can be considered, as is the case for the private one motivated by profit); for the fact that it is born and is developed with a private financial load and not with public resources.

It is the sector that we will call "associative" or of the "associative" economy (but which has received numerous other denominations: "social economics", "third system or sector", the volunteer sector, the cooperative system, etc.). Chapter 9 of this study is dedicated to the emergence of this sector and to policies aimed at its development.

B. By means of the development of an activity of societal planning of the alternative use of resources, that should increasingly substitute public activity of direct management of the resources on the part of the public sector; and should pervade the whole social system, by means of a system of bargaining of the same at all operational, territorial and sectorial levels.

The activity of societal planning would not replace the "market"; on the contrary it would use it as an efficient revealer of individual preference. It should however make it more transparent, inducing the operators - above all the public ones - to coordinate initiatives and negotiate them in the case of conflict, to their reciprocal advantage and to that of everyone, within the framework of a more overall and above all anticipated vision of events and the effects of actions and decisions. It would be a question of the elaboration of information instruments, linked and finalised for planning, and alternative scenarios which may draw the attention, the negotiation and the concertation of the more important decision-makers in an ordered procedural system.

Chapter 10 is dedicated to the delineation of the problems, methods, policies and procedures of such a system of societal planning for an ordered and efficient management of the economy and European society.

In order to approach such a system, it would be necessary nevertheless to start from the mechanism of evaluation and choice, outlined in Chapter 6, for the implementation of new territorial policies for socio-economic cohesion. It could in fact constitute the foundation of a completely new management phase in the experience of the methods of governing of democratic countries.

In fact, if applied in all the directions taken by the administrative bodies and on a sufficiently diffuse and pervasive scale, that mechanism would require and in some way would represent the systematic introduction, one which is operationally effective, of a "system of economic and social planning".

We are very far from recognising and applying in the Community countries (and everywhere in the world) such a system, despite immature and hurried "historical" attempts developed in many Western countries during the 1960s (not to speak of the "caricature" of such a system which sometimes for opposing motives, sometimes for similar ones, has taken place in the countries of Eastern Europe and in the countries of the Third World, in recent decades).

It has been necessary to reconnect the failed attempts - or rather those that have aborted - from the economic and social planning of the 1960s and in the beginning of the 1970s, to the "crisis" of the so-called Welfare State which has rapidly developed from the 1970s onwards, and which is certainly to be attributed - in the opinion of the Author - precisely to the very absence of economic and social planning.

Despite many current stereotyped ideas (seen in planning as a factor of rigidity), it is precisely through a working system of economic and social programming that it is possible to include within conventional social policy those very elements of "flexibility", of permanent choice of preferences, those factors of continual "trade-off" between the opportunities, which would have allowed the Welfare State not to fall into the state of intollerable financial overloading and of managerial and operational inefficiency which has definitively brought it "to its knees", politically and economically.

There has been much talk, in fact, of a "crisis" in the Welfare State (it has been treated by an enormous literature and only a few among the maitres a penser of politics and economics have not expressed their opinion). However - in the opinion of the Author - little connection has been made in clear and explicit terms between this crisis and the absence or the non-efficiency of a system of economic and social planning.

Economic and social planning is in fact the instrument which allows the political decision-makers to make choices in the presence of financial and administrative or managerial constraints. And this in fact allows them to make "rational" choices (therefore inclusive of the appropriate trade-offs) with a greater social consensus.

Economic and social planning, in fact, can include the "negotiation" - as mentioned - of the choices of the social parties and of the interest groups; because of this, these would come to a better perception of the general quantitative constraints which underly the choices.

Even in the case of the inevitable conflict of contrasting interests, the bargaining of the choices - well organised, procedurally speaking, at the heart of the "economic and social planning system" - would always lead to a greater awareness on the part of the operators, both of the constraints and of the consistency between the aspirations, as well as the more technical and "related" aspects of the interests in conflict. And this would give this same social and contractual conflict - inevitably and obviously from many points of view - a greater capacity for resolution, a decreased destructive capacity, and - as a consequence - more effective and lasting results.

This is why, to better sustain the importance of new forms of economic and social planning for the strengthening of economic and social cohesion, in this Report we have deliberately dwelt at length on the crisis of the Welfare State and the ways available for overcoming it through more "flexible" solutions, made possible by a constant and critical matching of the objectives to the means, but also of the means to the objectives (of priority). See Chapter 8.

In trying to find the ways and forms for a greater "flexibility" of the Welfare State and of greater involvement of private operators in the implementation of the Welfare State - thereby defining this involvement as the passage from Welfare State to "Welfare Society" - in this Report we have also dwelt at length -as said - on the analysis of the important emerging role of "the associative economy", that economy which is "private" (in its ways) and social (in its goals), and therefore not aimed at profit, and which we have called the "associative" economy.

See Chapter 9.

Lastly we have chosen to reassume in a more systematic manner the strategic lines required for the construction of a "Welfare Society" (and therefore no longer only a "Welfare State"): lines already present, even if not always in explicit form, in the topics of Chapters 8 and 9. And this is in order to reiterate that the Europe which today is more cohesive, both economically and socially, is the Europe which, instead of running after homogeneous levels of performance in this or that sector of social protection, will know how to adopt a more flexible process of management and programming of the choices and the decisions, which will - as has already been said - mark a very decisive historical turning-point in the management methods of contemporary democracies (Chapter 10).

3. The Conditions for a Greater Economic and Social Cohesion

A policy for economic and social planning, such as that outlined in the second part of this Report, constitutes the most important strategic factor for a greater economic and social cohesion within the Community.

 In the last analysis, the objective of the Single Act, and now also of the Maastricht Treaty, does nothing more than transfer to the Community level an aspiration which has been for many decades pursued within our single national communities: to diminish the social and regional inequalities, without damaging the overall opportunities of development of the Community itself.

In this Report we have intended to outline what has been considered the correct way for attaining that goal: or before this, the correct way of conceiving that goal.

We have desired to emphasise how profoundly wrong it is to conceive economic and social cohesion as a merely "reparative" objective, motivated by a spirit of "compensation" for some special areas of the Community.

And we have chosen to sustain the conviction that such an economic and social cohesion implies above all a common development of integrated European objectives to be reached, and of these the "territorial" ones are among the most immediate and the "societal" ones among the most "mediated".

And lastly, we have wanted to assert the need to "finalise" the European instruments available to those so-conceived common objectives: no common "policies" without common objectives. And all this is in an integrated and unified process of programming.

This seemed the best way of interpreting and respecting the often stressed "principle of subsidarity": to act at a Community level only and uniquely for European interests which are not otherwise achievable on the scale of individual member countries. 

And we have examined how all this was already predictable from the erroneous way in which the Welfare State was applied without adequate programming in our national communities, some more, some less. Thus, in fact, the way was left open to pure assertion of claims and to permanent dissatisfaction. If the objective of the strengthening of economic and social cohesion does not want to fail in the Community, as has that of the Welfare State, it must be pursued through the introduction of a serious and adequate system of economic and social planning on the European scale.

For this reason the brief overview of the new strategic problems for the strengthening of economic and social cohesion (desired by the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty) was concluded with a brief description of the operational characteristics of this "system" of both economic and social planning on the European scale (Chapter 10): a system which - despite many tentative approaches and many discussions - has never really been experimented with as described here by us, in any of the historical national experiences lived-out, neither in Western countries nor in Eastern Europe; and not even in the "Third World". (However this latter presents also many structural problems, with respect to which a system such as that described here in this Report could not possibly work, and would require many amendments and simplifications).

The brief overview, moreover, concludes with a chapter (Chapter 11) dedicated to a modest consideration of the ways in which the operational structures of the European Community, and in particular the Commission, could favour and develop the adoption in the member countries of actions inspired by the strategies discussed and presented in the current Report. And further still, on the ways in which those same structures of the Commission, for the moment somewhat limited in their operational capacities and competences, could nevertheless adapt themselves to the new strategic criteria, if for no other motive than that of serving as good examples of management to the single participant countries.

CONTENTS

1. "Territorial" Policy

2. "Societal" Policy

3. The Conditions for a Greater Economic and Social Cohesion

Part 1 - Territorial Policy

1. Economic and Social Cohesion:  Old and New Concepts  

1.1. The European Regional Policy: Founded on "Indirect" Expectations

1.2. Some Attempts to Reform the European Regional Policy

1.2.1. Community Intervention in the Framework of the Regional Programmes

1.2.2. The 1988 Operational "Reforms" of Structural Funds

1.3. The Technical Conditions Needed for an Improved Management of the European Regional Development Fund and Other Structural Funds

1.4. "Europe 2000": A New Approach to European Regional Policy

2. From Regional Policy to the New Territorial Policy

2.1. A "Single" Territory

2.2. A Single System of Concepts and Indicators Concerning the Territory

2.3. A "Territorial Framework" to be Used as Reference for European Regional Policy

2.3.1. A Network of "Urban Regions or Territorial Functional Systems" Used as a Reference in Measuring the Cohesion Needs of the "City-Effect"

2.3.2. A Mapping of the Principal Land-Use Aims to be Planned    

2.3.3. A Network of the Principal Transport and Communication Infrastructures of European Interest

2.4.  The Contents of the Territorial Framework to be Used as a Reference

2.5.  From the Regional Policy to a New Territorial Policy

2.6. "Accounting" of Economic and Social Cohesion
2.7. Territorial Policy and Social Policy

3. Socio-Economic Cohesion and Urban Policy

3.1. Urban Areas and Economic Progress

3.2. A New Concept of the City

3.3. The Decline of the Urban Environment

3.3.1. Congestion of Activity and Functional Paralysis

3.3.2. Loss of Urban Landscape

3.3.3. The Loss of Inter-Personal Communication

3.4. What Factors Contribute to the Decline of the Urban Environment?

3.5. The Urban Eco-System

3.5.1. The Decline of the Urban Environment as a "Loading" Imbalance of Urban Functions

3.5.2. Towards a "Program Structure" and a European System of Urban Indicators

3.6. Prospectives for a European Community Urban Environment Policy

4. Socioeconomic Cohesion and Environmental Programming

4.1. A Policy of "Prevention" of Environmental Damage.

4.2. Territorial Planning and Environmental Planning

4.3. The Organisation of Environmental Planning on a European Scale

4.3.1. The "Environmental" Programmes

4.3.2. "Environment-Oriented" Programmes

4.4. Some Principles of Environmental Planning

4.4.1. Urban Well-Being and Environmental Well-Being

4.4.2. Socio-Economic Well-Being and Environmental Well-Being

4.4.3. An Integrated Assessment of Social Well-Being and Development Planning

4.4.4. Distribution Mechanisms for the Costs of Environmental Policy

4.4.5. The Identity of Environmental Planning and Territorial Policy: A Synthesis of Criteria Described

4.5. Environmental Planning and Planning in General

5. Socio-Economic Cohesion and Transport Programming

5.1. The Importance of Transport for a Greater Economic and Social  Cohesion

5.2. The Field of Transport as "Symbolic" of the New Conception of Territorial Policy

5.3. A Common European Transport Policy

5.4. The Criteria of a New Transport Policy on a European Scale

5.4.1. An Essential Network on the European Scale             

5.4.2. The Planning of Metropolitan Traffic

5.4.3. Environmental Compatibility of Transport Systems

6. Programme and Project Evaluation and Management

6.1. The Importance of Technical Instrumentation for Integrated Planning and Programming

6.2. New Rules for the General Management of Programmes and Projects

6.2.1. The Programme Cycle

6.2.2. The Programming "Logical Framework"

6.3. Some Procedural Aspects for the Management of Programmes and Projects

6.3.1. Functions and Actors of Phase 1: Policy Orientation

6.3.2. Functions and Actors of Phase 2: Programming

6.3.3. Functions and Actors of Phase 3: Project-Making

6.3.4. Functions and Actors of Phase 4: Execution and Management of Projects

Part  2 - Societal Policy

7. Structural Changes and Socio-Economic Cohesion

7.1. The Strengthening of Economic and Social Cohesion in a New Programming Approach

7.2. Structural Changes that Have an Influence on the New Policy of Cohesion and Planning

7.3. The Main Features of Inter-Sectorial Change

7.3.1. Changes in the Structure of Consumer Demand 

7.3.2. General Consequences of these Structural Changes

7.3.3. The Increasing Dichotomy between High-Productivity and Low-Productivity Sectors

7.3.4. The Employment and Incomes Feature of the Structural Change

7.3.5. Measuring Well-Being

7.4. The Main Feature of Infra-Sectorial Change

7.4.1. Labour Market Changes

7.4.2. An Approach to a Specific Labour Market Policy

7.4.3. The Rise and Crisis of the Public Services

7.4.4. Factors Retarding New Employment Growth

8. The Overloading of the Public Sector, the Crisis of the Welfare State, and the Consequent Policies

8.1. What Should be Reviewed in the Welfare State?

8.2. How Should a Welfare Society be Organised?

8.3. The Need for Coordination, Selection and Planning

8.3.1. Planning as an Essential Condition for the Passage to a "Welfare Society"

8.3.2. The Fundamental "Operations" of Planning

8.3.3. The Plan as a Decision Framework of Reference and as a Process

8.3.4. The Traditional Planning Operators and their Motivations

8.4. Crisis of the Welfare State as a Motivational Crisis of the Operators

8.5. A New Category of Operator: The "Third Sector" or the "Private-Collective" Sector

8.5.1. The Emerging Operational Forms of the "Third Sector"

8.5.2. The "Third Sector" is not the "Mixed" Economy

8.6. Towards the Institutionalisation of the "Private-Collective" Sector

9. The Associative (or "Social") Economy

9.1. The Relationship between the Operational Sectors

9.2. "Third Sector" and the Welfare Society

9.3. First Directions of the Development of the Third Sector

9.4. The Need for a Better Operational Definition of the "Third Sector"

9.5. For a New Institutional Regulation of Associative Economy

9.6. The Financing of the Associative Sector

9.7. Possible Forms of the Public Financing of the Associative Sector

9.8. New Forms of Private and at the Same Time Collective Financing of the Associative Sector and Its Statistical Recording

9.9. Trade-Union Funds for Investment

9.10. The Role of the Trade-Unions in the Management of the Employment Market and of the New Forms of Production and of Employment

9.11. Promotion of the Associative Sector in the Framework of a Comprehensive Plan of Development

Part 3 – The Conditions for a Greater Economic and Social Cohesion

10. A Summary of the New Strategies for the Welfare Society

10.1. New Tasks for the Public Sector

10.1.1. The Financial Limits of the State

10.1.2. General Alternatives to Public Intervention

10.1.3. New Criteria for Managing Public Intervention

10.2. The Future of Planning

10.2.1. The New "Regulatory" Role of the Public Sector

10.2.2. Central Planning and Direct Intervention

10.2.3. Articulated or Systemic Planning

10.3. Planning-Oriented Bargaining

10.4. Planning Social Accounting

10.5. Planning and the New Unionism

10.6. Planning and the Organized Consumer Movement

Appendix 1- Mesoeconomy Planning Practices and Implications for Socio-Economic Planning

Appendix 2 - New Socio-Economic Accounting Systems

11. The Community Policies to be Implemented for Economic and Social Cohesion

11.1 The Development of "Planning-Oriented" Studies

11.2 The Adoption of the Community "Guidelines"

11.3 Use of Financial Community Instruments

Bibliography