Perceive Project - 3 years of research and 8 conclusions about Europe

Resource context (publisher and authors)

The resource “3 years of research and 8 conclusions about Europe” is a set of findings published by the PERCEIVE Project. It synthesises three years of research on how the EU’s Cohesion Policy and related Structural Funds shape citizens’ awareness of EU action, identification with Europe, and support for the European project. The publisher is the PERCEIVE Project, and the authors are not named in the resource.

Communication and visibility gaps

A central conclusion is that the EU has a “problem with communication”: communication was not designed as a core goal of Cohesion Policy, and this weakens public recognition of concrete benefits. Awareness of European projects relies mainly on traditional channels (around 30% TV and 23% newspapers), while social media plays a much smaller role (about 5.8%). The findings argue that channel choice matters for visibility, but also that visibility alone does not automatically translate into support.

Funding does not automatically create support

PERCEIVE reports that receiving EU funding is not sufficient for citizens to support the EU or identify with Europe. The Calabria (Italy) example illustrates the gap: although more than 60% of respondents are aware of Structural Funds, only about 10% perceive the benefits of EU funds, and 34% consider being part of the EU “a bad thing” (the highest negative response recorded in the survey). The research links this to (1) doubts about whether funds generate tangible local benefits and/or (2) insufficient communication about outcomes.

Low awareness across Europe and the role of language

The research highlights generally low awareness of EU policies affecting regions: on average, only 45% know about Cohesion Policy, and around 50% know about Structural Funds. Awareness of “EU Regional Policy” is higher (about 53%), which PERCEIVE attributes partly to terminology—“cohesion policy” is described as more cryptic than “regional policy”. This points to the importance of plain language when explaining complex programmes that influence social inclusion, affordability, and local development.

🇪🇺 A “two-speed” Europe in recognition 🇵🇱 Citizens in newer member states tend to be more aware of EU investment. Awareness of Cohesion Policy reaches about 63% in Poland and 60% in Estonia, while it drops to around 21% in the UK and 18% in the Netherlands. Structural Funds awareness ranges from roughly 75% in Poland and 69% in Latvia down to about 24% in the Netherlands and 26% in the UK. The report also notes regional extremes (e.g., 84% awareness in Warmińsko-mazurskie, Poland, versus 18% in Essex, UK).

Who feels the benefits (and who does not)

PERCEIVE finds lower EU support and identification among older, less-educated, and rural citizens, while younger, higher-educated, urban residents are more likely to perceive EU benefits. The resource describes a profile of those perceiving benefits: higher shares among people aged 18–29 (28%) and 30–49 (31%), graduates (45% versus 23% among those without high school), and residents of large cities (35% in cities over one million, versus 26% in towns under 10,000). The findings suggest targeted messages and tools for groups described as “losers” of integration.

Institutions, trust, and the value of communication investment

The research concludes that investment can amplify awareness: both the absorption of Structural Funds and dedicated communication budgets correlate with awareness of Cohesion Policy, although effects may weaken over time (“decay effect”). It also links trust in the EU to perceived national institutional quality and corruption: wealthier regions with high institutional quality can be more sceptical toward Brussels, while poorer regions may show higher recognition and trust in EU institutions when they perceive higher internal corruption and lower government quality.