The analyses carried out both at the centre (Brussels) and at the destination (member states) (ab)use of the principle that in public expenditure terms “spent money means well-spent money” and consider that absorption capacity equals economic performance (equated quite disputably with disparity reduction). The aggregate Keynesian perspective provides the main argument in favour of this interpretation: EU funds lead to GDP growth (economic growth). This vision overlooks the crucial importance of resource allocation micro-processes, private property and business activity. Therewith, the process of making European funds profitable and, consequently, the EU convergence feasible depends on the extent to which the absorption environment is structurally reformed. The “cohesion paradox,” which can be formulated like “least underdeveloped regions have relatively higher chances to attract European funds, while disparities compared to relatively less developed regions might even intensify”, can be broken only through multi-dimensional reform, immaterial to whether we speak about Romania, or Ireland, or Portugal, or Spain, or Greece.

EU funding, EU regulations, private property, competitiveness, convergence, cohesion.