Resource context
This resource summarises key findings from the PERCEIVE Project (“Perception and evaluation of Regional and Cohesion Policies by Europeans and Identification with the values of Europe”), funded under the EU Horizon 2020 programme. It is presented on the PERCEIVE Project website and published by the European Commission. The page does not name individual authors.
Project focus and evidence base
PERCEIVE was a three-year research project examining how EU Cohesion Policy shapes citizens’ awareness of EU action in their regions, identification with Europe, and support for the European project. The publication highlights eight main findings drawn from the project’s survey and research outputs, with comparisons across countries and regions.
Communication of Cohesion Policy
A central finding is that communication about Cohesion Policy has not been effective at promoting support for the EU. Awareness still relies mainly on traditional channels (30% TV and 23% newspapers), while social media accounts for 5.8% of awareness. The resource argues that communication has not been treated as a core policy goal and that messaging should better credit EU funding (so that local actors do not take sole credit) and be tailored to specific groups, including older, unskilled, and rural citizens.
Funding does not automatically create consent
The findings indicate that allocating Structural Funds does not necessarily translate into support for the EU or identification with Europe. Calabria (Italy) is given as an example: although more than 60% of respondents are aware of Structural Funds, only 10% perceive benefits from EU funds, and 34% consider EU membership “a bad thing” (the highest proportion recorded in the PERCEIVE survey). Two explanations are highlighted: funds may not generate visible benefits if spending is ineffective, and communication about concrete results may be insufficient.
Awareness levels across Europe
Across Europe, awareness of EU Cohesion Policy is described as generally low: 45% of citizens are aware of Cohesion Policy, while Structural Funds are known by 50% on average. Awareness of “EU Regional Policy” is higher at 53%, and the resource notes that terminology may matter because “cohesion policy” can be perceived as more cryptic than “regional policy”.
“Two-speed” recognition pattern
PERCEIVE reports higher awareness in newer member states. For Cohesion Policy, awareness reaches 63% in Poland and 60% in Estonia, compared with 21% in the UK and 18% in the Netherlands. Structural Funds awareness ranges from 75% in Poland and 69% in Latvia to 24% in the Netherlands and 26% in the UK. At regional level, awareness ranges from 84% in Warmińsko-mazurskie (Poland) to 18% in Essex (UK).
Demographics, communication investment, and trust
Perception of EU benefits is associated with age, education, and settlement type. The resource describes higher perceived benefits among younger people (28% aged 18–29 and 31% aged 30–49), graduates (45% vs 23% among those without high school), and residents of large cities (35% in cities over one million inhabitants vs 26% in places under 10,000). It also reports that both absorbed funding levels and dedicated communication budgets can increase awareness, but that communication effects may decay over time. Finally, it links trust in the EU to national institutional quality and corruption perceptions: wealthier regions with higher institutional quality show lower identification with the European project, while poorer regions show higher recognition and trust in EU institutions.