State aid scoreboard - Spring 2002 update
Date: 2002-05-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, aid policy, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, small and medium-sized enterprises

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 22.5.2002
COM(2002) 242 final

STATE AID SCOREBOARD

spring 2002 update

(presented by the Commission)

State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2002 update

Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9

Structure ................................................................................................................................... 10

Limitations................................................................................................................................ 10

State aid Register – a second transparency tool ....................................................................... 10

Part One: Overview of State aid in the European Union.......................................................... 11

1.1

1.2

1.3

State aid in absolute and relative terms ...................................................................... 11

Sectoral distribution of aid ......................................................................................... 14

State aid to the manufacturing sector ......................................................................... 16

Part Two: Are Member States reforming their State aid policies?........................................... 18

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Horizontal objectives.................................................................................................. 18

Sectoral objectives...................................................................................................... 21

Coal and Steel............................................................................................................. 22

State aid supporting regional development and cohesion .......................................... 23

State aid instruments .................................................................................................. 25

Part Three: Procedural performance in the European Union ................................................... 27

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Registered aid cases ................................................................................................... 27

Commission Decisions............................................................................................... 27

Recovery of aid .......................................................................................................... 28

Modernising State aid control .................................................................................... 29

Part Four: State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises and the Internal Market ............ 31

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ........................................ 31

Performance of SMEs and State aid in Member States ............................................. 32

State aid, venture capital and creation of enterprises ................................................. 32

State aid for SME and the regulatory and administrative environment in the
Internal Market ........................................................................................................... 33

2

State aid fora............................................................................................................................. 35

Technical annex........................................................................................................................ 36

3

Graphs and Tables

Table 1: State aid in the Member States, 2000 ......................................................................... 11

Graph 1: State aid as a percentage of GDP, 1996 - 2000 ......................................................... 12

Table 2: State aid in absolute terms and per capita 1996-2000 ................................................ 13

Table 3: State aid in relative terms 1996-2000......................................................................... 13

Table 4: Sectoral distribution of aid, 2000 ............................................................................... 14

Table 5: State aid by sector in the Community 1996 –2000 .................................................... 15

Table 6: Share of State aid by sector in the Member States 1996–2000 .................................. 15

Table 7: State aid to the manufacturing sector, 2000 ............................................................... 16

Graph 2: State aid to the manufacturing sector, 1996 - 2000 ................................................... 17

Table 8: State aid to the manufacturing in relative terms 1996 - 2000 .................................... 17

Table 9: State aid for horizontal objectives, particular sectors, coal and regional

objectives, 2000.......................................................................................................... 19

Graph 3: Share of State aid directed to horizontal objectives*, 1996 - 2000 ........................... 20

Graph 4: Share of State aid to specific manufacturing and service sectors, 1996 - 2000 ........ 21

Table 10: State aid to coal mining, 1996 - 2000....................................................................... 22

Table 11: State aid for regional objectives, 2000 ..................................................................... 23

Graph 5: Share of national aid for regional objectives, 1996 - 2000 ....................................... 24

Graph 6: Share of each aid instrument in total EU aid to manufacturing, 1998 - 2000 ........... 25

Table 12: State aid to the manufacturing sector by type of aid instrument, 1998 - 2000......... 26

Graph 7: Share of negative decisions by Member State, 1999-2001 ....................................... 28

Table 13: Recovery orders pending at 05.03.2002................................................................... 28

Table 14: Recovery orders pending and amounts to be recovered by Member State. ............. 29

Graph 8: Venture capital and State aid to SMEs...................................................................... 33

Table 15: Indicators of administrative burden on enterprises .................................................. 34

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of government intervention and in particular intervention that takes the form
of State aid, is to remedy the unwanted outcomes of market processes. However, because
of  its  distortive  effect  on  competition,  intervention  by  way  of  State  aid  has  to  be
constantly  justified,  critically  examined  and  open  to  scrutiny.  Apart  from  the  need  to
minimise  distortion  to  competition,  the  grant  of  aid  must  also  be  balanced  against
constraints  on  national  public  finances  whilst  in  the  European  context  the  grant  of  aid
must be consistent with the framework of economic and monetary union and the Stability
and Growth pact. Public resources must be used restrictively and efficiently.

In the context of the commitments made by Member States at Stockholm and Barcelona
to demonstrate a reduction in State aid by 2003, a selection of data have been presented
in  this  Scoreboard  in  a  way  that  might  allow  more  informed  choices  to  be  made  with
regard to State  aid  reductions  and  where these reductions may be possible. The task of
reducing State aid levels will not be easy. As the Barcelona European Council renewed
its  call  to  Member  States  to  redirect  aid  towards  horizontal  objectives,  including
economic  and  social  cohesion,  the  greatest  room  for  manoeuvre  for  Member  States  to
reduce aid levels is arguably to be found in aid for particular manufacturing and service
sectors.

The  Commission  has  embarked  on  a  long-term  reform  exercise  aimed  at  simplifying
State aid procedures for clear-cut cases and concentrating Commission resources on the
most  serious  distortions  of  competition.  New  Community  guidelines  and  frameworks
have  or  are  in  the  process  of  being  drawn  up.  Aid  granted  in  the  area  of  small  and
medium-sized enterprises and training, responding to strict criteria which currently have
been  approved  by  the  Commission,  are  now  exempted  from  notification  requirements.
Furthermore,  a  new  employment  block  exemption  is  currently  being  prepared.  Such
group  exemptions  should  ensure  a  reduced  level  of  administrative  effort  on  the  part  of
Member  States  and  the  Commission  prior  to  implementation  of  aid  targeted  towards
these objectives, thereby allowing a greater focus on monitoring the effectiveness of such
aid.  The  new  environmental  protection  and  the  multi-sectoral  framework  have  been
approved and their impact on State aid levels will be closely followed up.

Main findings

Overall levels of State aid in the European Union have continued to fall

The overall level of national  State  aid  in  the  EU  fell  from  €105  billion  in  1996  to  €82
billion in 2000. Whilst the reduction in aid to regional objectives (€12 billion), financial
services (€4 billion) and transport (€4 billi on) contributed most to this €23 billion drop,
decreases  were  also  seen  in  levels  of  aid  granted  to  steel,  shipbuilding  and  other
manufacturing  sectors  as  well  as  the  agricultural  sector.  In  contrast  with  the  overall
downward trend, there was a significant increase of €4 billion in aid to environment. The
two  Member States that have  contributed most to the  marked  decrease  are  Germany  (a
fall of €7 billion) and Italy (a fall of €8 billion) due largely to substantial reductions of
aid for regional objectives.

5

Disparities between Member States in the resources allocated to national State aid
remain …

In relative terms, State aid amounted to 0.99% of EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
2000. This average masks significant disparities between Member States: the share of aid
to  GDP  ranges  from  0.46%  in  the  United  Kingdom  to  1.44%  in  Finland.  The  high
proportion  in  Finland  can  be  explained  by  the  relatively  large  amount  of  aid  to
agriculture which represents 70% of total aid in this country.

… but are diminishing as State aid as a percentage of GDP falls in the majority of
Member States

The level of State aid as a percentage of GDP decreased in eleven of the fifteen Member
States between 1996 and 2000, in line with the undertaking at Stockholm to demonstrate
a reduction in State aid by 2003. Greece, Italy and Portugal experienced the sharpest falls
(by around 0.4 percentage points) between 1996-1998 and 1998-2000. In contrast, aid in
relation  to  GDP  actually  increased  in  Denmark,  Ireland,  Luxembourg  and  the
Netherlands. In the case of Ireland, the rise is largely due to the inclusion of figures for
Irish Corporation tax that has been considered as a State aid only since 1998  combined
with smaller increases in aid to agriculture and financial services. The increases for the
other  three  Member  States  are  due  for  the  most  part  to  higher  levels  of  aid  granted  to
railway transport.

Sectoral  distribution  of  aid  varies  considerably  among  Member  States  and  over
time

It is not only the volume but also the composition of State aid that influences its impact
on  competition  in  the  Internal  market.  In  2000,  39%  of  State  aid  in  the  Union  was
granted to the transport sector, almost exclusively to  the  railway  network.  The share of
total  aid  directed  towards  the  manufacturing  sector  was  29%,  agriculture  and  fisheries
17% and coal 9%. There are significant differences between Member States in the sectors
to which they direct aid. Aid to the agricultural and fisheries sectors accounted for only
7% of overall aid in Germany while in Finland it was as high as 73%. Aid to the railway
sector made up more than 60% of total aid in Belgium and Luxembourg compared with
an  EU  average  of  39%.  Aid  to  the  coal  industry  accounts  for  almost  20%  of  aid  in
Germany and Spain as against a Community average of 9%.

Between  the  periods  1996-1998  and  1998-2000,  the  share  of  aid  to  the  manufacturing
sector fell by 3 percentage points while the share of transport increased by 3 percentage
points.

Disparities  remain  between  Member  States  in  their  award  of  aid  to  the  manufacturing
sector. The spread is sizeable when this aid  is expressed  in  percent  of value  added: the
4% level observed in Denmark is around 7 times higher than the lowest aid level in the
European  Union;  0.6%  observed  in  the  United  Kingdom.  In  addition,  France,  Ireland,
Italy and Luxembourg rank above the EU average of 1.6%.

6

Member States are redirecting aid to horizontal objectives

The  Stockholm  and  Barcelona  European  Councils  asked  Member  States  to  redirect  aid
towards  such  horizontal  objectives  that  tend  to  target  market  failures,  i.e.  environment,
training, research and development and small and medium-sized enterprises. Looking at
recent  trends,  the  share  of  EU  aid  granted  for  horizontal  objectives  increased  by  more
than 13 percentage points from the period 1996-1998 to 1998-2000. This positive trend
was  observed,  to  varying  degrees,  in  all  Member  States  with  the  exception  of  Austria
where the share decreased slightly from a relatively high level.

Most Member States have reduced their aid to specific manufacturing and service
sectors

Aid  to  support  specific  sectors  is  likely  to  distort  competition  more  than  aid  for
horizontal  objectives  and  also  tends  to  favour  other  objectives  than  identified  market
failures. In the majority of Member States, the underlying trend is downward. Spain and
France recorded the largest decreases between 1996 and 2000. Portugal, Ireland, Sweden,
France, Denmark and Finland have relatively high levels of aid to specific sectors.

Share of aid for regional development is decreasing

Between 1996-1998 and 1998-2000, the share of aid for regional objectives to total EU
aid fell by 5 percentage points from 19% to 14%. In the majority of Member States, the
share either fell or remained relatively stable. Germany and Italy experienced the largest
decreases of around 10 percentage points.

Share of State aid in cohesion countries practically unchanged

Due  to  data  constraints,  State  aid  for  economic  and  social  cohesion  is  not  assessed  at
regional  level  but  at  Member  State  level.  The  Commission  intends  to  work  with  the
Member States to develop a more precise indicator. The latest data indicate that the gap
between  the  level  of  State  aid  granted  in  the  richest  Member  States  and  in  the  four
cohesion countries has hardly diminished: the share of aid in the four cohesion countries,
Greece,  Ireland,  Portugal  and  Spain,  only  increased  from  12%  of  total  EU  aid  to  the
manufacturing, coal and service sectors in 1996-1998 to 14% in 1998-2000. Furthermore
this increase  is  mainly due to  the  inclusion  of data  on  an  Irish  Corporation  tax  scheme
that the Commission considers since 1998, as being a State aid.

With  a  view  to  correcting  regional  disparities,  financial  assistance  is  vital  and  its
effectiveness must not be compromised by the granting of disproportionate national State
aid elsewhere. The Commission will, insofar as is possible under current State aid control
rules, continue to reduce the cohesion gap.

Majority  of  Member  States  tend  to  provide  aid  to  manufacturing  in  the  form  of
grants

As to the instruments used when aid is granted to the manufacturing sector, grants are by
far  the  most  frequently  used  form  making  up  63%  of  the  EU  total.  In  addition  to  aid
awarded through the budget, other aid is paid through the tax or social security system.
EU-wide, tax exemptions make up 25% of the total. While Greece, Spain, Luxembourg,
Finland  and  the  United  Kingdom  provide  more  than  90%  of  their  aid  in  the  form  of

7

grants,  other  Member  States  make  greater  use  of  tax  exemptions,  particularly  France
(47%) and Ireland (74%).

A few figures on procedural performance …

In 2001, there  were more  than  1000  cases  registered  by  the  Commission.  Around  44%
were in the manufacturing, coal and service sectors, 39% in agriculture, 10% in fisheries
and 7% in transport. According to the Treaty, Member States should notify all State aid
to  the  Commission.  However,  for  around  15%  of  investigated  aid  cases,  it  was  not  the
Member State but the Commission that had to initiate the control procedure after finding
about the aid, for example following a complaint. During the period 1999-2001, 7% of all
final decisions taken by the Commission were negative ones.

State aid is not the only policy instrument that may help to tackle  market failures
affecting small and medium-sized enterprises

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make a major contribution to the European
economy in terms of growth and job creation but also in terms of the development of new
products  and  services.  However,  compared  with  large  enterprises,  they  tend  to  find  it
more  difficult  to  gain  access  to  external  sources  of  finance,  have  insufficient  access  to
information  and  are  particularly  vulnerable  to  heavy  administrative  burdens  and
regulatory changes. These market failures are considered to constrain the development of
SMEs,  particularly  in  the  start-up  and  development  phases,  therefore  warranting  the
provision of  state aid. However, it is  often  argued  that  other  policies  might  actually  be
more  effective  in  addressing  the  above  mentioned  market  failures  compared  to  the
provision of direct financial support to SMEs. In general, policy makers ought to assess,
on a case-by-case basis, whether existing market imperfections affecting SMEs would be
better addressed through the provision of state aid, advisory and information services, the
intensification of structural reforms, or a combination of these measures. Further research
is  needed  to  assess  the  impact  and  measure  the  effectiveness  of  aid  to  SMEs  vis-à-vis
other policy instruments.

State aid in the candidate countries: to be examined in future Scoreboards

The process of enlargement has continued apace. The establishment in these countries of
a competitive environment such as that of the Community has, therefore, become urgent.
Compliance with the State aid “Community acquis” is essential in meeting the accession
criteria  in  the  competition  area,  as  established  in  1993  at  the  Copenhagen  European
Council.  The  Commission,  therefore,  continues  to  follow  closely  the  developments  in
State aid in the candidate countries and intends to provide an overview of the State  aid
situation in these countries in future updates of the Scoreboard.

8

INTRODUCTION

In a rapidly changing world, an on-going review of State aid control policy is necessary
to ensure that  it remains fair  and  equitable  for  Member  States,  industry  and  consumers
alike.  The  application  of  its  basic  principles  must  evolve  to  keep  pace  with  the
fundamental changes that are taking place in the environment where European industries
operate and to underpin the evolution of industrial and social policies.

Although  each  individual  grant  of  aid  is  awarded  under  conditions  accepted  by  the
Commission  and notwithstanding the positive  effects  that  aid  may  have  in  other  policy
areas, it is undeniable that the cumulative effect of some €82 billion of State aid in 2000
has a considerable distortive effect on competition in the Internal Market.

Over the last ten years, the underlying trend in State aid, in terms of percentage of GDP,
has been downward  for  the  vast  majority of  Member States. Nevertheless, the need  for
further reductions in global aid levels and for the reorientation of aid towards horizontal
objectives  of  Community  interest  was  underlined  by  the  Stockholm  European  Council
and confirmed by the Barcelona European Council in March 2002 where Member States
were invited to continue their efforts to reduce aid levels by eliminating aid which has the
greatest distortive effects, reorienting aid towards horizontal objectives and targeting aid
to identified market failures. The Council thus affirms the Commission’s view that less
and better-targeted State aid is a key part of effective competition. The Broad Economic
Policy Guidelines  for 2002 contain  specific  recommendations  to  Member  States  to  this
effect.

This update of  the  State  aid  Scoreboard  intends  to  further  increase  transparency  and  to
raise awareness for the need of State aid control. In the context of the commitments made
by Member States at Stockholm and Barcelona, a selection of data have been presented
in  a  way  that  might  allow  more  informed  choices  to  be  made  with  regard  to  State  aid
reductions and where these reductions may be possible.

What is a State Aid ?

State aid is a form of state intervention used to promote a certain economic activity. State
aid  implies  that  certain  economic  sectors  or  activities  are  treated  more  favourably  than
others.  State  aid  thus  distorts  competition  because  it  discriminates  between  companies
that receive assistance and others that do not. Therefore, it presents a threat to the running
of  the  internal  market.  The  authors  of  the  EC  Treaty  recognised  this  risk  and  set  up  a
system which, while it is centred on the principle that State aid is incompatible with the
common  market,  nevertheless  accepts  that  the  granting  of  such  aid  can  be  justified  in
exceptional circumstances. The basic rules of the system are outlined in Articles 87-88 of
the Treaty. These rules have been amplified over the years by secondary legislation and
court  rulings.  For  more  information  on  the  legal  and  procedural  framework,  see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/legislation/

9

Structure

The  Scoreboard  is  being  restructured  and  improved  so  as  to  make  better  use  of  the
possibilities offered by the internet. In addition to this paper edition, a permanent online
Scoreboard (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/) consisting of a
series  of  key  indicators,  statistical  information  and  a  Member  State  Forum  will  soon  be
launched.

The Scoreboard will continue to be updated twice a year, in the spring and in the autumn.
The main aim of the spring update is to provide an overview of the State aid situation in
the Union and to examine the underlying trends based on the latest  available data.  It  is
divided  into  four  parts.  The  first  part  looks  at  the  extent  to  which  Member  States  are
reducing  their  State  aid  relative  to  GDP.  The  second  part  focuses  on  Member  States’
relative success in redirecting aid from specific sectors to horizontal objectives. The third
part  contains  data  on  State  aid  control  procedures  of  both  the  Commission  and  the
Member  States.  Finally,  in  part  four,  which  is  dedicated  to  State  aid  as  an  economic
instrument in the Internal Market, we have chosen to examine the role of State aid in the
context of small and medium-sized enterprise policy.

In order to avoid duplication of information, the Commission has now integrated the State
Aid Survey into the Scoreboard and thereby created one comprehensive State aid reference
document.

Limitations

This  edition  of  the  Scoreboard  focuses  largely  on  the  year  2000  that  predates  the
Stockholm  European  Council  in  2001.  The  following  data  restraints  have  to  be
considered when the objectives set in Stockholm will be revisited in 2003. A full set of
State aid data for the  year 2003 will only be  available in early 2005 as Member States,
together with the Commission, require up to one year to collect and analyse the data.

State aid data collected for the Scoreboard are grouped according to primary objectives.
It  has  to  be  noted  that  primary  objectives  cannot  always  give  a  completely  accurate
picture of the final beneficiaries: e.g., a part of regional aid is in fact paid to small and
medium size enterprises, aid for R&D goes to particular sectors, and so on. For the time
being,  analysis  of  horizontal,  regional  and  sectoral  aid  is,  due  to  a  lack  of  available
information, limited to manufacturing and service sectors. The Commission is currently
working on improving the detail and quality of the data it collects.

The  purpose  of  the  quantitative  information  provided  in  the  Scoreboard  is  to  highlight
factual  developments,  without  attempting  to  establish  causal  links.  In  this  way,  the
Scoreboard  does  not  make  judgements  but  is  offering  factual  data,  which  should
encourage a debate without prejudging its outcome.

State aid Register – a second transparency tool

In March 2001, the Commission unveiled the new public State aid Register. The Register
provides details on State aid cases dealt with by the Commission. It is updated regularly
and thus ensures that the public has timely access to the most recent State aid decisions.
It  is  available  on  the  homepage  of  the  Competition  Directorate  General’s  Internet  site
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/register/

10

PART ONE: OVERVIEW OF STATE AID IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

This chapter provides a snapshot of State aid granted in the European Union in 2000 and
an overview of the underlying trends.

1.1

State aid in absolute and relative terms

State  aid  granted  by  the  fifteen  Member  States  was  estimated  at  €82  billion  in  2000,
compared with €105 billion in 1996. The two Memb er States that have contributed most
to the marked decrease are Germany (a fall of €7 billion) and Italy (a fall of €8 billion)
due largely to substantial reductions of aid for regional objectives.

In  absolute  terms,  Germany  granted  the  most  aid  (€25  billion)  in  2000  followed  by
France (€15.7 billion) and Italy (€10.4 billion).

Table 1:

State aid in the Member States, 2000

Total state aid in billion €

82,4

3,3

2,4

25,0

1,1

5,8

15,7

1,2

10,4

0,2

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

3,8

A

P

FIN

S

UK

2,0

1,3

1,8

1,8

6,5

Total aid as % of GDP

0,99

1,34

1,23

1,23

0,89

0,99

1,13

1,20

0,92

1,24

0,98

0,97

1,18

1,44

0,75

0,46

Source: DG Competition

Disparities between Member States in the share of State aid as a percentage of GDP

In relative terms, State aid amounted to 0.99% of EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
2000. This average masks significant disparities between Member States: the share of aid
to  GDP  ranges  from  0.46%  in  the  United  Kingdom  to  1.44%  in  Finland.  The  high
proportion  in  Finland  can  be  explained  by  the  relatively  large  amount  of  aid  to
agriculture  which  represents  70%  of  total  aid  in  this  country.  The  figures  in  Greece,
Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Austria and Sweden are all at or below the EU average (Table
1).

11

Downward trend in the level of State aid in the majority of Member States

At the Stockholm  European  Council  in  2001,  Member  States  pledged  to  demonstrate  a
downward  trend  in  State  aid  in  relation  to  GDP  by  2003.  The  underlying  trend  can  be
observed by comparing the periods 1996-1998 and  1998-2000. EU-wide,  aid amounted
to  1.08%  of  GDP  on  average  for  the  period  1998-2000,  a  decrease  of  -0.25  points
compared  with  1996-1998.  The  trend  is  downward  in  eleven  of  the  fifteen  Member
States.  Greece,  Italy  and  Portugal  experienced  the  sharpest  falls  (around  –0.4  points)
between the two periods under review.

In contrast, aid in relation to GDP actually increased in Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg
and  the  Netherlands.  In  the  case  of  Ireland,  the  rise  is  largely  due  to  the  inclusion  of
figures for Irish Corporation tax that has been considered as a State aid only since 1998
combined  with  smaller  increases  in  aid  to  agriculture  and  financial  services.  The
increases for the other three Member States are due for the most part to higher levels of
aid granted to railway transport.

Graph 1: State aid as a percentage of GDP, 1996 - 2000

Average 1996 - 1998

Average 1998 - 2000

P
D
G

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p
a

s
a

2,0

1,8

1,6

1,4

1,2

1,0

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,0

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Source: DG Competition

State  aid  may  also  be  expressed  in  other  relative  terms:  per  capita  (Table  2)  and  per
person  employed  and  as  a  percentage  of  government  expenditure  (Table  3).  Over  the
period 1998-2000, the annual  average  volume  of  aid  in  the  Union  was  €230  per  capita
compared with €266 over the period 1996-1998.  In 
line with a general reduction in aid
levels, aid per person employed and as a percentage of government expenditure also fell
over these two periods.

12

 
 
 
 
Table 2:

State aid in absolute terms and per capita 1996-2000

Annual averages
1996 - 1998

Annual averages
1998 - 2000

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

In million €

€ per capita

In million €

99.471
3.312
1.695
29.892
1.520
6.604
19.086
730
16.364
194
2.974
2.312
1.725
2.072
1.942
9.048

266
325
321
365
145
168
328
199
285
461
190
286
173
403
220
153

86.550
3.268
2.041
26.008
1.155
6.052
16.885
1.179
11.764
251
3.534
2.088
1.381
1.927
1.825
7.194

€  per capita
230
320
384
317
110
153
288
314
204
579
223
258
137
373
206
121

Source: DG Competition

Table 3:

State aid in relative terms 1996-2000

In percent of GDP

In € per person employed

1996 - 1998
1,32
1,49
1,08
1,57
1,39
1,27
1,50
0,98
1,53
1,18
0,86
1,24
1,72
1,89
0,92
0,70

1998 - 2000
1,08
1,38
1,23
1,31
0,99
1,07
1,25
1,32
1,06
1,35
0,94
1,06
1,28
1,59
0,81
0,53

1996 - 1998
632
869
638
802
397
466
826
510
750
1.133
395
589
373
973
480
337

1998 - 2000
534
835
750
684
296
400
711
739
529
1.406
446
524
287
863
440
261

In percent of government 
expenditure

1996 - 1998
2,64
2,87
1,85
3,17
2,89
2,98
2,73
2,64
2,98
2,69
1,78
2,27
3,85
3,34
1,46
1,65

1998 - 2000
2,27
2,74
2,23
2,74
2,03
2,62
2,34
3,88
2,19
3,22
2,03
1,99
2,86
3,10
1,35
1,30

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

Source: DG Competition

13

1.2

Sectoral distribution of aid

Sectoral  distribution  of  aid  varies  considerably  among  Member  States  and  over
time

In  2000,  39%  of  State  aid  in  the  Union  was  granted  to  the  transport  sector,  almost
exclusively  to  the  railway  network.  The  share  of  total  aid  directed  towards  the
manufacturing sector was 29%, agriculture and fisheries 17% and coal 9%.

There  are  significant  differences  between  Member  States  in  the  sectors  to  which  they
direct aid. Aid to the agricultural and fisheries sectors accounted for only 7% of overall
aid in Germany while in Finland it was as high as 73%. Aid to the railway sector made
up  more  than  60%  of  total  aid  in  Belgium  and  Luxembourg  compared  with  an  EU
average of 39%. Aid to the coal industry accounts for almost 20% of aid in Germany and
Spain as against a Community average of 9%.

Table 4:

Sectoral distribution of aid, 2000

% of total

Services
(including tourism, 
financial, media and 
culture)
3
1
1
0
1
1
5
13
2
2
1
1
40
1
6
2

Transport

Agriculture
& Fisheries

Coal

Not 
elsewhere 
classified*

39
64
30
39
48
23
39
11
48
72
53
33
7
2
47
39

17
12
12
7
14
24
21
33
16
12
28
44
22
73
23
16

9
0
0
19
0
19
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

4
6
14
0
0
13
0
3
3
0
0
1
15
2
0
20

Million 
euro

Total

82.373
3.292
2.412
25.044
1.085
5.833
15.689
1.196
10.433
245
3.799
1.965
1.322
1.833
1.769
6.459

Manufacturing

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

29
18
43
36
37
21
29
40
31
15
19
20
16
22
24
19

* This column includes aid to employment and training that can not be classified under a particular sector.
Source: DG Competition

Between  1996-1998  and  1998-2000  the  volume  of  aid  fell  in  all  the  main  sectors:
manufacturing  was  down  €6.7  billion,  serv ices  €2.6  billion,  transport  €1.8  billion,
agriculture  €1.1  billion  and  coal  €1.0  billion  (Table  5).  An  analysis  of  the  trend  in  the
share of each sector paints a slightly different picture: manufacturing fell by 3 percentage
points  over  this  period  but  the  share  of  transport  increased  by  3  percentage  points.  At
national level, the share of each  sector  remained  fairly  stable  although  there  have  been
some significant fluctuations, the most noteworthy being the 15 percentage point drop in
Italian  manufacturing  aid.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  reduction  in  regional  aid  over  this
period. (Table 6).

14

Table 5: State aid by sector in the Community 1996 –2000

Annual average 
1996 - 1998
99,5

€ billion
Annual average 
1998 - 2000
86,5

14,8
0,3
32,5
8,2
34,0
33,0
6,6
3,1

13,7
0,3
25,8
7,2
32,2
32,1
4,0
3,3

Overall national aid
of which:
     Agriculture
     Fisheries
     Manufacturing
     Coal mining
     Transport
          of which rail transport 
     Services
Not elsewhere classified

Source: DG Competition

Table 6: Share of State aid by sector in the Member States 1996–2000

Manufacturing

Services
(including 
tourism,financial, 
media and culture)

Transport

Agriculture
 and Fisheries

Coal

Not elsewhere 
classified*

1996 - 
1998

1998 - 
2000

1996 - 
1998

1998 - 
2000

1996 - 
1998

1998 - 
2000

1996 - 
1998

1998 - 
2000

1996 - 
1998

1998 - 
2000

1996 - 
1998

1998 - 
2000

Percent

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

33

23

41

40

42

28

23

45

50

26

19

21

12

19

20

17

30

21

38

37

38

23

27

47

35

17

19

21

15

22

24

18

7

0

2

1

0

1

21

16

6

0

1

1

5

1

1

0

0

1

13

15

4

1

1

2

51

44

1

5

3

1

6

3

34

65

28

35

46

25

33

20

34

56

46

28

11

2

53

34

37

65

31

38

46

23

36

12

43

70

51

32

5

2

49

37

15

7

16

6

13

19

17

15

10

17

34

48

16

75

16

20

16

9

13

6

15

22

18

24

15

12

29

45

22

74

21

16

8

0

0

18

0

17

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

8

0

0

17

0

18

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

3

4

15

1

0

10

0

4

1

0

0

1

10

2

6

16

4

5

17

1

0

13

0

3

3

0

0

1

14

2

1

18

* This column includes aid to employment and training that can not be classified under a particular sector.
Source: DG Competition

15

State aid to the manufacturing sector

1.3
The  following  section  focuses  on  aid  to  the  manufacturing  sector1.  As  the  Barcelona
European Council  renewed  its  call  to  Member  States  to  redirect  aid  towards  horizontal
objectives,  including  economic  and  social  cohesion,  this  is  a  sector  in  which  Member
States  could  find  some  room  for  manoeuvre  in  order  to  comply  with  the  Stockholm
request to reduce State aid levels.

EU-wide, aid granted to manufacturing in 2000 amounted to €24 billion or, put another
way, 1.6% of value added in this sector. Denmark (4.0%) and Greece (3.0%) had by far
the  highest  levels  of  aid  granted  to  this  sector.  France,  Ireland,  Italy  and  Luxembourg
also rank above the Community average (Table 7).

Table 7: State aid to the manufacturing sector, 2000

State aid to
the manufacturing sector
in million €
State aid to
the manufacturing sector
as % of value added

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

23.844 590 1.035 8.925 404 1.202 4.509 481 3.249

37

710

401

213

411

429 1.251

1,6

1,5

4,0

2,1

3,0

1,3

1,8

1,7

1,6

1,9

1,2

1,0

1,0

1,5

1,0

0,6

Source: DG Competition

State aid to manufacturing relative to value added (and in Euro per person employed) fell
in the majority of Member States between 1996-1998 and 1998-2000 (Graph 2 and Table
8).  This  was  particularly  the  case  in  Italy,  where  the  long-term  downward  trend  has
continued,  but  also  in  Greece,  Germany  and  Spain.  In  contrast,  Denmark  and  Ireland
recorded significant rises. The increase seen in Ireland is due to the inclusion of figures
from 1998 on an Irish tax scheme that is now being phased out. If this were discounted
the underlying trend in Ireland would also be downwards. In Denmark, the upward trend
is the result of two large environmental aid schemes.

1 For the purposes of the Scoreboard, the  manufacturing sector includes aid  for steel, shipbuilding,  other
manufacturing  sectors,  rescue  and  restructuring,  regional  aid  and  aid  for  most  horizontal  objectives
including research and development, SMEs, environment, commerce and energy saving.

16

                                                
Graph 2: State aid to the manufacturing sector, 1996 - 2000

1996 - 1998

1998 - 2000

d
e
d
d
a

e
u
a
v

l

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p
a

s
a

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Source: DG Competition

Table 8: State aid to the manufacturing in relative terms 1996 - 2000

In million Euro

In percent
of value added

In Euro per
person employed
1996 - 1998 1998 - 2000 1996 - 1998 1998 - 2000 1996 - 1998 1998 - 2000
25.781
675
786
9.718
442
1.376
4.560
548
4.147
42
657
444
210
416
442
1.318

32.459
766
687
11.879
637
1.879
4.456
330
8.142
50
574
489
206
403
398
1.563

1.081
1.161
1.534
1.459
1.033
718
1.185
1.183
1.591
1.538
540
716
207
938
520
353

854
1.034
1.784
1.199
720
487
1.215
1.866
801
1.266
608
656
215
931
575
305

2,3
1,9
2,6
3,0
4,9
2,1
2,0
1,4
3,9
2,3
1,0
1,4
1,0
1,6
1,0
0,6

1,7
1,7
3,0
2,3
3,4
1,5
1,9
2,1
2,0
1,9
1,1
1,2
1,0
1,5
1,0
0,6

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

Source: DG Competition

17

 
 
 
 
 
PART TWO: ARE MEMBER STATES REFORMING THEIR STATE AID POLICIES?

The Barcelona European Council in March 2002 called for less and better-targeted State
aid  as  a  key  part  of  effective  competition  in  the  Internal  Market.  It  requested  Member
States  to  target  aid  to  identified  market  failures.  In  order  to  achieve  this  goal,  some
Member States will have to reflect on how they adapt their State aid policies.

2.1

Horizontal objectives

Member States are redirecting aid to horizontal objectives

State  aid  for  horizontal  objectives,  i.e.  aid  that  is  not  granted  to  specific  sectors  or
geographic areas, is usually considered as being targeted to market failures and as being
less distortive than sectoral and ad hoc aid. Research and development, safeguarding the
environment,  energy  saving  and  support  to  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  are  the
most prominent horizontal objectives pursued with State aid. Due to data constraints, this
section looks at horizontal objectives in the context of total aid less agriculture, fisheries
and transport.

In  2000,  aid  granted  for  horizontal  objectives  accounted  for  47%  of  total  EU  aid  less
agriculture, fisheries and transport. The remaining aid was granted for regional objectives
(22%),  coal  (19%)  and  specific  sectors  (11%).  There  are  large  disparities  between
Member  States  in  the  share  of  horizontal  objectives  ranging  from  8%  of  total  aid  in
Greece  to  83%  in  Denmark.  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  however  that,  in  some
Member States, aid schemes classified under the primary objective of regional  aid  may
also  support  secondary  objectives  such  as  R&D  and  training.  This  may  be  particularly
significant for countries such as Greece that have a relatively large share of regional aid.
Notwithstanding the measurement difficulties, the data do give an indication as to which
horizontal objectives are favoured by each Member State. For  example, around  30% of
aid in Austria and Finland is directed to research and development (EU average of 11%).
Denmark  (38%  of  total  aid),  Sweden  (27%)  and  Germany  (26%)  tend  to  favour
environmental objectives (EU average of 13%) while the United Kingdom devotes 45%
of its total aid (less agriculture, fisheries and transport) to training objectives (Table 9).

18

Table 9:
regional objectives, 2000

State aid for horizontal objectives, particular sectors, coal and

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

Percentage of total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport
F

FIN

IRL

UK

NL

A

P

S

L

I

Horizontal Objectives
     Research and Development
     Environment
     SME
     Commerce
     Energy saving
     Employment aid
     Training aid
     Other Objectives

Particular sectors
     Steel
     Shipbuilding
     Other Manufacturing Sectors
     Rescue and Restructuring
     Tourism
     Financial Services
     Media, Cultural sector & services

Coal

Regional aid
     Regions under 87(3)c
     Regions under 87(3)a
Total aid less agriculture, fisheries 
and transport in million € 

47
11
13
10
1
2
3
6
2

11
0
3
1
1
1
2
3

19

22
10
13

77
16
1
23
0
0
18
5
14

3
-
-
-
-
1
-
2

-

20
20
-

83
7
38
1
1
13
6
18
-

16
-
14
1
-
0
-
2

-

0
0
-

46
9
26
8
0
1
0
0
-

4
-
3
1
0
0
-
0

34

16
3
12

8
0
1
5
0
0
-
-
2

2
-
-
-
-
-
-
2

-

90
-
90

42
9
0
7
0
0
6
19
0

10
-
1
2
5
0

1

35

14
11
3

42
21
2
14
2
2
0
-
0

19
-
2
2
0
0
9
4

16

24
19
6

55
1
-
0
1
0
4
2
47

23
-
-
1
-
0
17
5

-

22
11
11

33
5
0
20
0
0
8
-
0

11
-
5
1
0
3
2
0

-

56
7
48

47
19
2
25
1
0
-
-
-

9
-
-
-
-
-
-
9

-

75
22
10
15
4
8
1
-
14

9
-
5
-
-
-
-
4

-

58
29
14
11
-
0
4
-
-

9
1
-
2
1
6
-
-

-

44
44
-

16
16
-

33
31
2

38
1
-
8
0
0
9
12
7

58
0
-
2
0
2
2
52

-

4
-
4

71
32
1
10
6
14
7
0
-

16
-
13
0
-
-
-
3

-

14
14
-

61
22
27
4
-
8
-
0
-

20
-
-
-
-
-
-
20

-

18
18
-

60
4
3
8
-
0
-
45
-

7
-
-
3
-
0
-
4

7

25
20
6

36.262 802 1.396 13.705 411 3.088 6.384 672 3.732

40

747

443

937

454

537 2.915

Note:  The  high  figure  for  Ireland  (47%)  under  ‘other  objectives’  is  due  to  the  Irish  Corporation  Tax.
Source: DG Competition

The  Barcelona  European  Council  renewed  its  call  to  Member  States  to  redirect  aid
towards such horizontal objectives of Community interest. Looking at recent trends, the
share of EU aid granted for horizontal objectives increased by more than 13 percentage
points  from  the  period  1996-1998  to  1998-2000  (Graph  3).  This  positive  trend  was
observed, to varying degrees, in all Member States with the exception of Austria where
the  share  decreased  slightly.  Any  comparison  of  trends  in  the  Member  States  should
clearly  take  account  of  the  overall  level  of  aid  for  horizontal  objectives.  For  example,
despite the slight decrease in Austria, the relative weight of horizontal objectives remains
above the EU average.

The  most  significant  increase  appears  to  be  in  Ireland.  However  this  is  due  to  the
inclusion of data, since 1998, on the Irish Corporation Tax (ICT) scheme.

19

Graph 3: Share of State aid directed to horizontal objectives*, 1996 - 2000

1996 - 1998

1998 - 2000

*
*
d
i
a

l
a
t
o
t

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p
a

s
a

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

* excluding rescue and restructuring 
** total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport

Source: DG Competition

20

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2

Sectoral objectives

Most Member States have reduced their aid to specific manufacturing and service
sectors

Aid  to  support  specific  sectors  is  likely  to  distort  competition  more  than  aid  for
horizontal  objectives  and  also  tends  to  favour  other  objectives  than  identified  market
failures.  Moreover,  a  significant  part  of  such  aid  is  granted  to  rescue  or  restructure
companies.

The  share  of  aid  granted  to  specific  sectors  in  the  EU,  as  opposed  to  regional  or
horizontal objectives, accounted for 11% of total aid to manufacturing, coal and services
in 2000. The high share of sectoral aid in Portugal (58% of total aid) is due to a single
regional  aid  tax  scheme  in  Madeira  that  mainly  supports  financial  services.  Ireland
(23%),  Sweden  (20%),  France  (19%),  Denmark  (16%)  and  Finland  (16%)  also  have
relatively high levels of aid to specific sectors.

In the majority of Member States, the underlying trend is downward: between 1996-1998
and 1998-2000, the EU share fell by more than 6 percentage points (Graph 4). Belgium
(a  fall  of  11  points),  Spain  (14  points)  and  France  (17  points)  recorded  the  largest
decreases. In contrast, Sweden (+4 points)  and  Luxembourg (+6 points) have increased
their share of sectoral aid.

Graph  4:  Share  of  State  aid  to  specific  manufacturing  and  service  sectors,  1996  -
2000

1996 - 1998

1998 - 2000

*
d

i
a

l
a
t
o
t

f
o

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p
a

s
a

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

* total aid less agriculture, fisheries and services in the transport sector

Source: DG Competition

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3

Coal and Steel

In July 2002, the ECSC Treaty will expire and with it the  State aid  rules  that currently
regulate the granting of State aid to ECSC coal and steel products. State aid to the steel
sector has dropped considerably over the last few years, from €437 million 1996 to just
€4 million in 2000.

In  the  case  of  coal,  some  €7  billion  was  granted  to  the  sector  in  2000.  Aid  to  current
production decreased steadily between 1996 and 2000 in line with the agreements on the
reduction  of  volumes  of  aid  to  the  coal  industry  until  2005.  Table  10  provides  an
overview of aid to the coal industry over the period 1996 - 2000.

Table 10: State aid to coal mining, 1996 - 2000

Yearly average of aid
not destined to current 
production (in million €)

Yearly average of aid destined to current production

1996 - 1998

1998 - 2000

1996 - 1998

1998 - 2000

in million €

EU
D
E
F
P
UK

2.191,5
348,1
353,9
607,4
0,3
881,8

2.113,6
639,6
388,9
622,3
-
462,8

5.960,0
4.898,2
776,4
285,5
-
-

€ per 
employee
47.421
62.511
33.249
23.706

-
-

in million €

5.049,0
3.872,9
728,9
376,1
-
71,0

€ per 
employee
48.461
60.014
40.363
39.067
-
5.937

Source: DG Competition

22

2.4

State aid supporting regional development and cohesion

Share of aid for regional development in manufacturing and services is decreasing

State aid granted specifically to support regional development in the EU amounted to €8
billion in 2000. Just over half the regional aid is targeted to the least developed regions,
i.e.  areas  qualifying  for  regional  aid  under  Article  87(3)a  of  the  EC  Treaty.  The
remainder  is  directed  to  aid,  as  defined  under  Article  87(3)c,  which  “facilitate  the
development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid
does  not  adversely  affect  trading  conditions  to  an  extent  contrary  to  the  common
interest.”

Aid granted specifically to support regional development accounted for 10% of total EU
State  aid  in  2000.  Put  another  way,  regional  aid  ,  as  opposed  to  sectoral  or  horizontal
objectives, accounted for 22% of aid to manufacturing,  coal and services  (total aid less
less  agriculture,  fisheries  and  transport).  There  are  large  disparities  between  Member
States although this can, in part, be explained by the different ways in which aid schemes
are classified (see remark under 2.1).

Table 11: State aid for regional objectives, 2000

EU

B DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN S

UK

in million €  at constant prices (1999)

8.108,5 158,9 4,7 2.172,0 370,3 420,8 1.542,1 146,1 2.078,1 17,8 116,9 146,8 34,9 61,3 99,3 738,5

3.505,7 158,9 4,7
4.602,8

471,6

1.700,4 370,3

332,4 1.190,8
351,3

88,4

75,3
70,7 1.806,7

271,5 17,8 116,9 136,4

10,4 34,9

61,3 99,3 568,6
169,8

Total aid
to regional objectives
     of which:
     regions under Art. 87(3)c
     regions under Art. 87(3)a

Source: DG Competition

Between 1996-1998 and 1998-2000, aid for regional objectives decreased from an annual
average  of €19 billion  to  €12  billion.  The  share  of  aid  for  regional  objectives  to  aid  to
manufacturing,  coal  and  services  fell  by  7  percentage  points  from  37%  to  30%.  In  the
majority of Member States, the share either fell or remained stable. The most significant
change  occurred  in  Germany  where  the  share  dropped  from  48%  to  32%  due  to  the
gradual  phasing  out  of  state  aid  for  the  new  Länder  granted  by  ‘Bundesanstalt  für
vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben’.

The Barcelona European Council also renewed its call to Member States to redirect State
aid  towards  economic  and  social  cohesion.  Due  to  data  constraints,  State  aid  for
economic and social cohesion is not assessed at regional level but rather at Member State
level.  The  Scoreboard  uses  a  proxy  approach  by  comparing  the  four  cohesion  Member
States  with  the  four  biggest  economies.  It  should  be  noted  that  even  for  the  latter
countries, State aid is also granted to a number of regions that are lagging behind.

When considering the overall differences in the Community under the aspect of cohesion,
the volume of aid in the four cohesion countries has hardly increased. It has only grown
from 12% of total EU aid to the manufacturing, coal and service sectors in 1996-1998 to
almost 14% in 1998-2000. Furthermore this increase is mainly due to the inclusion, since
1998, of data on the Irish Corporation tax scheme (annual average of €380 million). By
way of comparison, the share of the four big economies, Germany, Italy, France and the
United Kingdom, in manufacturing aid decreased from 80 to 76% over this period.

23

Graph 5: Share of national aid for regional objectives, 1996 - 2000

1996 - 1998

1998 - 2000

*
d
i
a

l
a
t
o
t

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p
a

s
a

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

* Total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport

Source: DG Competition

24

 
 
 
 
 
2.5

State aid instruments

Majority  of  Member  States  tend  to  provide  aid  to  manufacturing  in  the  form  of
grants …

All State aid represents a cost or a loss of revenue to the public authorities and a benefit
to recipients. However, the aid element, i.e. the ultimate financial benefit contained in the
nominal  amount  transferred  depends  to  a  large  extent  on  the  form  in  which  the  aid  is
provided. For the period 1998-2000, grants and tax exemptions, i.e. aid that is transferred
in  full  to  the  recipient,  accounted  for  almost  90%  of  all  State  aid  in  the  manufacturing
sector.

Graph 6: Share of each aid instrument in total EU aid to manufacturing, 1998 -
2000

Tax deferrals
0,6%

Soft loans
7,8%

Guarantees
2,8%

Equity participations
0,6%

Tax exemptions
25,0%

Grants
63,1%

Source: DG Competition

… though significant differences still exist in the use of instruments

Grants are by far the most frequently used form of aid instrument making up 63% of the
EU total. In addition to aid awarded through the budget, other aid is paid through the tax
or  social  security  system.  EU-wide,  tax  exemptions  make  up  25%  of  the  total.  While
Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, Finland and the United Kingdom provide more than 90% of
their aid in the form of grants, other Member States make greater use of tax exemptions,
particularly France (47%) and Ireland (74%).

25

There are other forms  of aid instrument  which vary  from one Member State to another
(Table  12).  One  such  category  covers  transfers  in  which  the  aid  element  is  the  interest
saved  by  the  recipient  during  the  period  for  which  the  capital  transferred  is  at  his
disposal.  The  financial  transfer  takes  the  form  of  a  soft  loan  or  tax  deferral.  The  aid
elements  in  this  category  are  much  lower  than  the  capital  values  of  the  transfers.  EU-
wide,  soft  loans  represent  around  8%  of  all  manufacturing  aid.  In  Germany,  Austria,
Portugal  and  Sweden  the  proportion  is  significantly  higher  (11-17%).  A  similar
instrument  is  a  tax  deferral  which  is  used  by  only  four  Member  States.  Tax  deferrals
account for 4% of all manufacturing aid in the Netherlands.

Aid may also be in the form of state equity participation which represent less than 1% of
all  EU  aid  to  the  manufacturing  sector.  Finally,  aid  may  be  provided  in  the  form  of
guarantees,  expressed  in  nominal  amounts  guaranteed.  The  aid  elements  are  normally
much  lower  than  the  nominal  amounts,  since  they  correspond  to  the  benefit  which  the
recipient  receives  free  of  charge  or  at  lower  than  market  rate  if  a  premium  is  paid  to
cover the risk. However, if losses are incurred under the guarantee scheme, the total loss,
net of any premiums paid, is included since it can be considered as a definitive transfer to
the  recipient.  The  share  of  guarantees  in  overall  levels  of  EU  aid  to  manufacturing
amounts to just under 3%.

Table 12: State aid to the manufacturing sector by type of aid instrument, 1998 -
2000

TYPE OF AID

Grants

63,1
74,6
84,7
55,7
95,9
92,6
42,6
19,4
70,1
94,9
77,6
79,1
82,9
91,3
72,4
95,8

Tax 
exemptions
25,0
16,7
9,8
26,1
4,0
0,0
46,4
73,9
24,6
1,4
11,4
0,0
1,6
1,8
14,3
0,7

Equity 
participations
0,6
3,4
0,0
0,1
0,0
0,9
0,0
3,9
1,9
0,0
0,0
0,1
2,9
0,4
1,0
0,9

Soft loans

7,8
4,1
4,2
11,7
0,0
6,5
7,6
0,0
3,2
3,7
6,0
16,9
11,0
6,4
12,2
2,6

Tax 
deferrals
0,6
0,5
0,0
1,2
0,0
0,0
0,4
0,0
0,0
0,0
3,8
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

Percent

Guarantees

2,8
0,9
1,3
5,3
0,1
0,0
3,0
2,8
0,3
0,0
1,2
3,9
1,6
0,1
0,1
0,0

26

PART THREE: PROCEDURAL PERFORMANCE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

3.1

Registered aid cases

The Commission controls the Member States’ granting of State aid by means of a formal
and transparent procedure2. In 2001, there were more than 1000 cases registered by the
Commission. Around 44% were in the manufacturing, coal and service sectors, 39% in
agriculture,  10%  in  fisheries  and  7%  in  transport.  2001  saw  an  increase  of  around  100
notified cases in the agricultural sector, partly due to the BSE crisis.

According to the Council regulation, “any plans to grant new aid shall be notified to the
Commission  in  sufficient  time  by  the  Member  State  concerned.”  However,  for  around
15% of investigated aid cases, it was not the Member State but the Commission that had
to  initiate  the  control  procedure  after  finding  about  the  aid,  for  example  following  a
complaint.

With  a  view  to  reducing  the  administrative  burden  for  specific  types  of  aid,  two  block
exemptions, one for small and medium-sized enterprises, the other for training aid came
into force in February 2001 (see 3.4 for  further information). As one would expect, the
number of notifications for these two types of aid fell sharply in 2001 as Member States
made  use  of  the  block  exemptions:  the  Commission  received  around  50  information
forms  on  exempted  training  aid  and  more  than  100  forms  on  exempted  aid  for  SMEs.
Almost two thirds of the information sheets received in 2001 were sent by either Italy or
Germany while some other Member States continued, for the time being, to notify such
aid.

3.2

Commission Decisions

Where the Commission has doubts whether certain aid measures comply with State aid
rules,  it  carries  out  a  formal  investigation  during  which  third  parties  and  all  Member
States  are  invited  to  provide  observations.  In  most  of  the  cases,  the  Commission  has,
however,  no  doubt  on  the  compatibility  with  the  State  aid  rules  and  allows  Member
States  to  award  such  aid  without  carrying  out  a  formal  investigation  procedure.  It  only
opens this procedure when doubts  exist.  Cases which  were only decided upon  after the
formal investigation procedure represented 12% of all final decisions taken in 2001.

When,  at  the  end  of  the  formal  investigation  procedure,  the  Commission  comes  to  the
conclusion that the examined aid does not comply with State aid rules and hence is not
compatible  with  the  Common  Market,  it  takes  a  negative  decision.  Graph  7  shows  the
share  of  incompatible  and  compatible  aid  cases  that  have  been  examined  by  the
Commission. During the period 1999-2001, 7% of all final decisions were negative ones.
The total includes conditional decisions which are rather rare with only 8 being recorded
during the period.

2 Council regulation No 659/1999

27

                                                
Graph 7: Share of negative decisions by Member State, 1999-2001

Negative decisions

Positive and conditional decisions

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p
n

i

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

93

92

100

90

91

93

93

89

98

100

94

98

96

100

97

99

7

8

0

10

9

7

7

2

11

EU
(1955)

B
(102)

DK
(49)

D
(389)

EL
(44)

E
(343)

F
(163)

IRL
(57)

I
(328)

2

4

6

NL
(141)

A
(97)

P
(50)

0

L
(9)

0

FIN
(46)

3

1

S
(31)

UK
(106)

Figures in brackets show total number of decisions 1999 - 2001

Note: The total excludes those decisions in which the Commission decides that the notified aid does not in
fact  constitute  aid  as  defined  under  Article  87(1).  There  were  43  such  decisions  in  2001.  Source:  DG
Agriculture, DG Fisheries, DG Competition and DG Transport and Energy.

3.3

Recovery of aid

In  case  of  a  negative  decision  the  Commission  orders,  as  a  general  rule,  the  Member
State to recover aid from the beneficiary if the aid has been already awarded.  Table  13
gives an overview of the present situation of these recovery orders.

Table 13: Recovery orders pending at 05.03.2002

In process of
execution

35

Forming part of
bankruptcy
procedures
20

Currently object
of National court
procedures
8

Currently object
of European court
procedures
6

Total number
pending

69

Note: State aid recovery procedures in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries and transport. Source: DG
Competition.

Table  14  provides  a  breakdown  of  the  amounts  of  incompatible  aid  that  have  to  be
recovered in Member States. In some cases where the number of beneficiaries is high, it
is  not  possible  to  specify  the  exact  amount  of  incompatible  aid  before  it  has  been
reimbursed by the beneficiaries.  About half of the amount  to  be  recovered  in  Germany
and  almost  the  entire  amount  for  Italy  are  attributed  to  only  one  case  in  each  Member
State.

28

 
Table 14: Recovery orders pending and amounts to be recovered by Member State.

Situation at
05.03.2002

D
E
F
I
B
NL
EL
UK
EU

Recovery
orders pending
33
16
6
5
5
2
1
1
69

Amount to be
recovered in million €

1.840
143
223
1.002
40
<1
8
2
3.259

Number of cases were the
amount is not specified
3
13
1
2
2
1
0
0
23

Note: State aid recovery procedures in sectors other than agriculture, fisheries and transport. Source: DG
Competition.

3.4 Modernising State aid control

The  Commission  has  embarked  on  a  long-term  reform  exercise  aiming  at  simplifying
State aid procedures for clear-cut cases and concentrating Commission resources on the
most serious distortions of competition, with the objective of ensuring that the necessary
changes are in place before enlargement.

The entry into force of the first three regulations adopted in principle in December 2000
on the basis of the enabling Regulation (EC) No 994/98 represents an important step in
this  process.  They  consist  of  two  regulations  introducing  block  exemptions  for  aid  to
small and medium-sized enterprises  and training  aid3  and  a  regulation  codifying  the  de
minimis rule. 4 Under this rule, aid to an enterprise that does not exceed the threshold of
EUR  100  000  over  any  period  of  three  years  is  not  considered  State  aid  within  the
meaning  of  Art.  87  (1)  of  the  Treaty  and  therefore  not  subject  to  the  notification
obligation.

The block exemptions, which came into force in February 2001, allow Member States to
grant  aid  immediately,  without  need  for  prior  notification  to  and  authorisation  by  the
Commission,  provided  the  conditions  fixed  in  the  exemption  regulation  are  met.  The
block  exemption  regulations  benefit  not  only  the  Commission,  but  also  the  national,
regional and local administrations in the Member States, since to procedure for granting
aid  can  be  much  quicker  and  the  administrative  burden  is  reduced.  However,  this
procedural simplification does not entail a lesser degree of control in or a relaxation of
the rules on State aid. Several provisions in the regulations make sure that Member States
have to inform the Commission through summary information sheets and annual reports,
thereby  allowing  the  Commission  to  monitor  the  application  of  the  block  exemptions.
Moreover,  since  the  regulations  are  directly  applicable  in  the  Member  States,
complainants can also go to national courts if their competitors have received aid which
does not respect all the conditions of the exemption regulation concerned.

The  Commission  is  also  engaged  in  a  long-term  reform  exercise  simplifying  State  aid
procedures  for  clear-cut  cases  and  concentrating  Commission  resources  on  the  most

3 Regulation (EC) N°68/2001 and N° 70/2001
4 OJ 2001 L 10 of 13.1.2001

29

                                                
serious distortions of competition. New Community guidelines and frameworks have or
are in the process of being drawn up. Aid granted in the area of small and medium-sized
enterprises and training, responding to strict criteria currently have been approved by the
Commission, are now exempted from notification requirements. Such group exemptions
should ensure a reduced level of administrative effort on the part of Member States and
the Commission prior to implementation of aid targeted towards these objectives, thereby
allowing  a  greater  focus  on  monitoring  the  effectiveness  of  such  aid.  A  new
environmental  protection  framework  has  been  published  and  its  impact  on  State  aid
levels  will  be  closely  followed  up.  Rules  on  the  provision  of  State  aid  to  stimulate  the
provision  of  venture  capital  to  provide  an  important  boost  to  the  development  of
companies and employment have been developed. A new employment block exemption
regulation  is  currently  being  prepared  while  work  also  continues  on  identifying  tax
measures in the form of State aid.

30

PART  FOUR:  STATE  AID  FOR  SMALL  AND  MEDIUM-SIZED  ENTERPRISES  AND  THE
INTERNAL MARKET

4.1

State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

State aids to SMEs can benefit from a derogation from the general restriction on state aid
in consideration to their contribution to “the development of certain economic activities
(..)”5  (art  87(3)(c)).  At  its  meeting  in  Cannes  in  June  1995,  the  European  Council
emphasised in its conclusions that SMEs "play a decisive role in job creation and, more
generally, act as a factor of social stability and economic drive".

With  regard  to  the  contribution  of  SMEs  to  the  attainment  of  desirable  economic  and
social goals, mention is typically made to the role of SMEs in innovative activity and to
the fact that they are more flexible and adaptable than large firms, helping to keep market
contestable and easing the reallocation of resources from declining to emerging sectors.
As  a  result,  SMEs  also  contribute  to  employment  creation  and  the  promotion  of  social
cohesion.

However, the development of SMEs is hindered by a number of factors. The main market
failures mentioned in relation to SMEs refer to imperfections in the capital market. The
argument  is  that  financial  markets  are  typically  reluctant  to  finance  SMEs  because  of
asymmetric information on their profitability and prospects of success. This situation is
exacerbated  by  the  limited  guarantees  which  SMEs  can  offer  to  their  creditors.  Other
commonly  cited  market  failures  affecting  SMEs  are  the  fact  that,  due  to  limited
resources,  they  are  penalised  by  insufficient  access  to  information  (notably  on  new
technologies and markets), and that they are very vulnerable to regulatory changes and to
risks  in  general  compared  to  larger  enterprises,  whose  activities  are  more  diversified.
These market failures are considered to constrain the development of SMEs, particularly
in the start-up and development phases, therefore warranting the provision of state aid.

Economists  note  that  other  policies  might  actually  be  more  effective  in  addressing  the
above mentioned market failures compared to the provision of direct financial support to
SMEs. For instance, if the problem identified is access to capital by SMEs, then a first-
best response would be to tackle the market failure at its source, such as supporting the
establishment  of  specialised  financial  institutions  or  credit-rating  agencies  for  SMEs,
promoting  venture capital6 or  facilitating  SME’s  access  to  equity  markets  (e.g.  through
the “new markets” stock exchanges). If, on the other hand, the problem for SMEs is the
difficult access to information or the high costs of government regulation, then attention
could  be  given  to  the  diffusion  of  relevant  information  across  the  economy  and  to  the
reduction  of  the  regulatory  burden  on  businesses.  In  general,  policy  makers  ought  to
assess,  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  whether  existing  market  imperfections  affecting  SMEs
would  be  better  addressed  through  the  provision  of  state  aid,  advisory  and  information
services, the intensification of structural reforms, or a combination of these measures.

5  The  other  necessary  condition  being  that  “such  aid  does  not  adversely  affect  trading  conditions  to  an
extent contrary to the common interest”;
6 The EC competition rules applicable to the provision of state aid to provide or promote the supply of risk
capital, notably to SMEs, were set out in 2001.

31

                                                
4.2

Performance of SMEs and State aid in Member States

Comparison between the performances of SMEs and those of large enterprises

With some notable exceptions (Greece and Sweden), the performance of large enterprises
in  terms  of  production  (value  added)  has  been  slightly  better  than  the  performance  of
SMEs over the period 1996-2001.  In contrast  with  production, employment tends to be
negatively correlated to enterprise size over time. However, sustained economic  growth
over the period 1996-2001 led to employment increases in all countries and size classes
of enterprises (with the notable exception of Germany).

Large  enterprises  (LEs)  outperform  SMEs  in  terms  of  both  labour  productivity  (except
for  Germany)  and,  less  clearly  so,  profitability.  The  sectoral  distribution  of  enterprises
explains, in part, the variations in terms of class size and Member States, but, overall, the
better  performance  of  LSEs  seems  to  be  a  structural  phenomenon,  for  instance,  in
manufacturing, linked to economies of scale and market power effects.

Share of State aid to SMEs

The  share  of  State  aid  to  SMEs  varies  considerably  between  Member  States  and,  to  a
lesser  extent,  over  time.  Aid  to  SMEs  as  a  percentage  of  total  aid  (less  agriculture,
fisheries and transport) ranges from less than 1% in Denmark and Ireland to around 25%
in Belgium and Luxembourg. EU-wide, the average is 10% (Table 9). It is important to
note that these figures only capture aid for which the primary  objective  of  the  Member
State  is  to  assist  SMEs.  Other  forms  of  aid  such  as  regional  aid  could  also  help  to
improve the business environment of SMEs.

4.3

State aid, venture capital and creation of enterprises

Available  information  and  literature  seem  to  support  the  hypothesis  of  both  “pull”
(economic  prosperity)  and  “push”  factors  (mainly  unemployment)  affecting  firm
creation. The two main obstacles reported by new enterprise founders are funding (before
and  during  the  first  years  of  operation)  and  lack  of  appropriate  information.  Public
financial  grants  are  considered  as  a  relevant  external  source  of  funding,  however,  the
actual launching of a new firm seems not to depend on them7.

It is tempting to plot State aid to SMEs against venture capital as a way to compare them
as  alternative  sources  of  funding,  even  if  they  are  not  strictly  comparable,  nor  do  they
represent the only possible sources. There is no apparent correlation between these two
variables,  aid  to  SMEs  and  venture  capital.  However,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the
Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom,  with  large  shares  of  venture  capital,  grant
relatively low levels of State aid specifically to SMEs (Graph 8). It is important to bear in
mind that SMEs often benefit from other types of horizontal aid.

7  For  discussion  of  factors  affecting  business  demography  see  report  “Business  demography  in  Europe”,
co-ordinated by Instituto Giuglielmo Tagliacarne, in Observatory of European SMEs, forthcoming, 2002.

32

                                                
Graph 8: Venture capital and State aid to SMEs

 Total Venture Capital
as % of GDP, 2000

State aid to SME as % of GDP,
annual average 1998-2000

P
D
G

f
o
%
s
a

0,45

0,4

0,35

0,3

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Note: Total Venture Capital includes early stage, expansion and replacement
Source: DG Competition and Eurostat

4.4

State  aid  for  SME  and  the  regulatory  and  administrative  environment  in
the Internal Market

By  providing  State  aid  to  SMEs  compatible  with  the  Treaty,  Member  States  can  help
remove  the  competitive  disadvantages  for  SMEs  resulting  from  market  failures.
However, the mere amount of State aid granted to SMEs gives an incomplete indication
of  the  overall  impact  of  public  policy  interventions  on  SMEs’  performance.  SME
performance is also affected to a significant extent by the environment in which business
operates. Notably, if public policies result in a cumbersome regulatory and administrative
framework for businesses, this will impose additional costs to SMEs which, compared to
larger firms, are more vulnerable to administrative and regulatory hurdles. This points to
the need for a consistent use of the various policy instruments to foster the development
of SMEs.

There is no precise and common unit to measure both positive and negative impacts of
different public policies and their net impact on SMEs. Nevertheless, there are different
indicators  measuring  in  different  ways  the  effects  that  public  polices  have  on
entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  in  particular.  Combining  these  indicators  with  information
on State aid to SMEs we can have a more complete and accurate idea of Member States’
net support to SMEs. For instance, the intended positive effects of aid could be offset, in
part, by an excessive administrative burden or inefficient legislation. On the other hand,
the impact of the same  aid volume could be  enhanced by other policies  with beneficial
effects on SMEs.

33

 
 
 
Table 15: Indicators of administrative burden on enterprises

Setting up a private limited company

State aid to 
SME as % of 
GDP

typical

ranking

average 
ranking time 
& cost

ranking

B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

time (days)
32
18
22
15
24
29
8
35
30
30
24
26
30
25
7

cost (€)

time

cost

980
0
805
1700
1590
213
445
1620
850
885
2232
600
252
186
40

14
4
5
3
6
10
2
15
11
11
6
9
11
8
1

11
1
8
14
12
4
6
13
9
10
15
7
5
3
2

12,5
2,5
6,5
8,5
9
7
4
14
10
10,5
10,5
8
8
5,5
1,5

15
2
13
5
8
11
1
14
12
4
7
9
10
3
6

Source: DG Enterprise ‘Benchmarking the administration of business start-ups’, 2002 and DG Competition
(State aid data).

Table  15  provides  information  on  the  typical  time  and  cost  to  set  up  a  private  limited
company  in  each  of  the  fifteen  Member  States.  These  are  among  the  most  commonly
used indicators to measure the administrative burden on business activity. On the basis of
a  combined  time  and  cost  indicator,  the  administrative  burden  is  lowest  in  the  United
Kingdom,  Denmark  and  Ireland  and  at  its  highest  in  Italy,  Belgium  and  Austria.  It  is
interesting to note that Italy and Belgium have relatively high levels of State aid to SMEs
(see Graph 8).

The Broad Economic Policy Guidelines for 2002 include a number of recommendations
on  encouraging  entrepreneurship.  One  of  them  concerns  the  creation  of  a  business-
friendly  environment,  whereby  Member  States  should  “improve  and  simplify  the
corporate  tax  system  and  the  regulatory  environment.  Reduce  administrative  and  legal
barriers to entrepreneurship to the barest minimum, in particular through a reduction of
the typical time and cost required for setting up  a new company”. Member  States have
also  been  invited  to  “translate  into  action  the  commitments  made  under  the  European
Charter for  Small Enterprises”  and  “encourage  risk-taking  through  improving  access  to
finance especially for SMEs in their early stages”. These reforms are aimed to stimulate
business  creation  and  expansion,  improve  productivity  and  raise  the  level  of  potential
growth of the European economy.

34

STATE AID FORA

The online Scoreboard contains internet-links to information on State aid policy issues of
the Member States and the European Parliament.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/

35

TECHNICAL ANNEX

The Scoreboard covers national State aid as defined under Article 87(1) EC Treaty that is
granted by the fifteen Member States and has been examined by the Commission.
Accordingly, general measures are not included in the figures. Neither are Community funds
and instruments. All State aid data refer to the implementation of Commission decisions and
not cases that are still under examination, which once decided upon, may have an effect on
historical data. State aid expenditure is attributed to the year it was made. In cases that result
in expenditure over a number of years, the total amount is attributed to each of the years in
which expenditure took place.

All data are provided in million (or billion where appropriate) euro at constant 1999 prices.

Further information on methodological issues and a wide array of statistical tables may be
found on the online Scoreboard:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/

36

Data for table 1

Total state aid by Member State, in million euro

1996

EU 105.437,4
3.528,4
B
1.751,1
DK
32.342,6
D
1.592,2
EL
6.878,7
E
18.937,0
F
550,0
IRL
18.789,2
I
159,3
L
2.864,8
NL
2.396,1
A
1.552,4
P
2.062,7
FIN
2.127,1
S
9.905,7
UK

1997
99.207,0
3.175,7
1.686,5
29.466,2
1.712,9
6.507,9
19.585,3
580,2
16.232,2
168,9
2.956,3
2.335,0
2.184,1
2.082,0
1.765,0
8.768,7

1998
93.767,7
3.232,4
1.647,8
27.867,7
1.254,8
6.425,4
18.735,1
1.060,1
14.071,1
253,5
3.100,0
2.205,7
1.439,4
2.070,3
1.934,8
8.469,5

1999
83.508,6
3.278,7
2.063,7
25.113,1
1.124,1
5.898,8
16.231,4
1.280,0
10.788,0
253,1
3.702,4
2.093,6
1.382,5
1.876,4
1.770,2
6.652,6

2000
82.373,4
3.291,6
2.412,5
25.043,6
1.084,7
5.833,0
15.688,9
1.195,6
10.432,7
245,1
3.798,5
1.964,5
1.321,8
1.833,1
1.768,7
6.459,1

Source: DG Competition

GDP by Member State, in million euro

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
I R L
I
L
N L
A
P
F I N
S
U K

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

7 . 4 0 4 . 4 3 5
2 1 5 . 9 0 7
1 5 3 . 0 3 6
1 . 8 7 4 . 9 5 0
1 0 6 . 1 9 0
5 0 0 . 3 5 3
1 . 2 4 5 . 6 5 0
6 6 . 7 2 4
1 . 0 4 9 . 5 3 8
1 5 . 0 8 8
3 3 2 . 5 2 9
1 8 1 . 8 9 4
9 6 . 3 5 1
1 0 3 . 4 6 4
2 0 5 . 9 8 3
1 . 2 5 6 . 7 7 8

7 . 5 9 3 . 4 9 0
2 2 3 . 6 1 3
1 5 7 . 5 7 3
1 . 9 0 1 . 2 6 8
1 0 9 . 9 2 8
5 2 0 . 4 9 8
1 . 2 6 8 . 2 0 2
7 3 . 9 5 3
1 . 0 7 0 . 7 4 5
1 6 . 4 4 8
3 4 5 . 3 0 2
1 8 4 . 7 8 9
1 0 0 . 1 4 1
1 0 9 . 9 7 5
2 1 0 . 2 4 4
1 . 3 0 0 . 8 1 1

7 . 8 1 5 . 1 5 3
2 2 8 . 6 2 7
1 6 1 . 9 1 6
1 . 9 3 8 . 4 1 8
1 1 3 . 2 7 7
5 4 3 . 0 4 6
1 . 3 1 2 . 2 7 4
8 0 . 3 1 5
1 . 0 9 0 . 1 2 5
1 7 . 4 0 6
3 6 0 . 3 0 1
1 9 1 . 2 8 6
1 0 4 . 6 6 9
1 1 5 . 8 3 7
2 1 7 . 7 8 7
1 . 3 3 9 . 8 6 8

8 . 0 1 7 . 8 9 6
2 3 5 . 5 3 8
1 6 5 . 3 6 5
1 . 9 7 4 . 2 0 0
1 1 7 . 0 8 0
5 6 5 . 4 8 3
1 . 3 5 0 . 1 5 9
8 9 . 0 2 9
1 . 1 0 7 . 7 7 9
1 8 . 4 4 9
3 7 3 . 6 6 4
1 9 6 . 6 5 8
1 0 8 . 2 1 4
1 2 0 . 4 9 1
2 2 7 . 6 0 7
1 . 3 6 8 . 1 8 1

8 . 2 8 1 . 6 5 1
2 4 5 . 0 1 5
1 7 0 . 6 6 6
2 . 0 3 3 . 4 0 8
1 2 2 . 1 1 6
5 8 8 . 6 3 3
1 . 3 9 1 . 4 2 2
9 9 . 2 3 9
1 . 1 4 0 . 0 3 2
1 9 . 8 3 3
3 8 6 . 6 4 2
2 0 2 . 4 7 5
1 1 1 . 9 0 3
1 2 7 . 3 6 6
2 3 5 . 8 2 6
1 . 4 0 7 . 0 7 6

Source: Eurostat database Newcronos

37

Data for graph 1

Total state aid

GDP

State aid as a % of GDP

Average 
1996 - 1998
99.470,7
3.312,2
1.695,1
29.892,2
1.520,0
6.604,0
19.085,8
730,1
16.364,2
193,9
2.973,7
2.312,2
1.725,3
2.071,7
1.942,3
9.048,0

Average 
1996 - 1998

Average 
1998 - 
Average 
2000
1998 - 2000
86.549,9 7.604.359,5 8.038.233,1
236.393,4
222.715,5
3.267,6
2.041,3
165.982,6
157.508,3
26.008,1 1.904.878,6 1.982.008,7
117.490,9
109.798,4
1.154,5
6.052,4
565.720,5
521.298,9
16.885,2 1.275.375,5 1.351.285,0
1.178,6
89.527,7
73.664,1
11.763,9 1.070.136,1 1.112.645,6
18.562,7
16.314,1
250,6
373.535,5
346.044,1
3.533,6
196.806,4
185.989,8
2.088,0
108.261,6
100.387,0
1.381,2
121.231,2
109.758,5
1.926,6
227.073,2
211.338,0
1.824,6
7.193,7 1.299.152,5 1.371.708,2

Average 1996 -
1998
1,32
1,49
1,08
1,57
1,39
1,27
1,50
0,98
1,53
1,18
0,86
1,24
1,72
1,89
0,92
0,70

Average 
1998 - 2000
1,08
1,38
1,17
1,31
0,99
1,07
1,25
1,32
1,06
1,35
0,94
1,06
1,28
1,60
0,81
0,53

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

Data for table 2

Total state aid by Member State: see Technical Annex table 1.

GDP by Member State: see Technical Annex table 1.

Total population by Member State, in millions

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
I R L
I
L
N L
A
P
F I N
S
U K

3 7 2 , 9
1 0 , 2
5 , 3
8 1 , 9
1 0 , 5
3 9 , 3
5 8 , 0
3 , 6
5 7 , 4
0 , 4
1 5 , 5
8 , 1
9 , 9
5 , 1
8 , 8
5 8 , 8

3 7 3 , 8
1 0 , 2
5 , 3
8 2 , 0
1 0 , 5
3 9 , 3
5 8 , 2
3 , 7
5 7 , 5
0 , 4
1 5 , 6
8 , 1
9 , 9
5 , 1
8 , 8
5 9 , 0

Source: Eurostat database Newcronos

3 7 5 , 8
1 0 , 2
5 , 3
8 2 , 1
1 0 , 5
3 9 , 6
5 8 , 6
3 , 8
5 7 , 6
0 , 4
1 5 , 8
8 , 1
1 0 , 1
5 , 2
8 , 9
5 9 , 5

3 7 7 , 2
1 0 , 3
5 , 3
8 2 , 2
1 0 , 6
3 9 , 9
5 8 , 9
3 , 8
5 7 , 8
0 , 4
1 5 , 9
8 , 1
1 0 , 2
5 , 2
8 , 9
5 9 , 8

3 7 4 , 7
1 0 , 2
5 , 3
8 2 , 0
1 0 , 5
3 9 , 5
5 8 , 4
3 , 7
5 7 , 6
0 , 4
1 5 , 7
8 , 1
1 0 , 0
5 , 2
8 , 9
5 9 , 2

38

Data for table 3

Total state aid by Member State: see Technical Annex table 1.

Total employment by Member State, in millions

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
IR L
I
L
N L
A
P
FIN
S
U K

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

155,62
3,78
2,63
37,21
3,81
13,75
22,94
1,33
21,74
0,17
7,30
3,91
4,54
2,07
4,06
26,41

157,12
3,81
2,66
37,15
3,79
14,15
23,06
1,41
21,79
0,17
7,53
3,92
4,62
2,14
4,02
26,92

159,58
3,86
2,69
37,55
3,92
14,65
23,36
1,51
21,98
0,17
7,73
3,95
4,74
2,18
4,06
27,23

162,18
3,91
2,72
38,02
3,89
15,16
23,77
1,60
22,24
0,18
7,92
4,00
4,83
2,24
4,15
27,56

164,98
3,97
2,74
38,64
3,88
15,62
24,19
1,68
22,62
0,18
8,10
4,02
4,91
2,28
4,24
27,91

Source: Eurostat database Newcronos

Gross Government Expenditure by Member State

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
I R L
I
L
N L
A
P
F I N
S
U K

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

3 . 7 6 6 . 7 0 8 , 9
1 1 4 . 4 3 0 , 8
9 1 . 5 1 5 , 4
9 4 3 . 0 9 9 , 9
5 2 . 2 4 5 , 6
2 1 8 . 6 5 4 , 1
6 9 1 . 3 3 5 , 9
2 6 . 4 2 2 , 6
5 5 8 . 3 5 4 , 3
6 . 8 5 0 , 0
1 6 4 . 9 3 4 , 4
1 0 2 . 9 5 2 , 1
4 3 . 9 3 6 , 0
6 1 . 9 7 4 , 7
1 3 4 . 5 0 6 , 9
5 5 5 . 4 9 6 , 1

3 . 7 4 7 . 7 0 3 , 4
1 1 5 . 6 0 7 , 7
9 1 . 3 9 2 , 4
9 3 7 . 3 2 4 , 9
5 2 . 1 0 5 , 9
2 1 9 . 6 5 0 , 2
6 9 7 . 5 1 1 , 2
2 7 . 6 5 8 , 3
5 4 7 . 1 5 0 , 6
7 . 1 2 2 , 0
1 6 6 . 4 3 5 , 5
9 9 . 6 0 1 , 3
4 4 . 4 6 2 , 7
6 2 . 4 6 5 , 9
1 3 2 . 8 7 4 , 1
5 4 6 . 3 4 0 , 8

3 . 7 7 8 . 4 5 2 , 4
1 1 6 . 3 7 0 , 9
9 2 . 1 3 0 , 2
9 4 5 . 9 4 8 , 1
5 3 . 9 1 9 , 8
2 2 6 . 9 9 3 , 2
7 0 7 . 3 1 5 , 8
2 8 . 2 7 1 , 2
5 4 0 . 7 0 2 , 2
7 . 5 3 6 , 9
1 7 0 . 0 6 2 , 3
1 0 3 . 6 7 7 , 0
4 6 . 1 5 9 , 0
6 1 . 6 2 5 , 2
1 3 2 . 4 1 4 , 7
5 4 5 . 3 2 6 , 2

3 . 8 4 8 . 0 4 6 , 4
1 1 9 . 4 1 7 , 8
9 1 . 6 1 2 , 5
9 6 5 . 3 8 3 , 9
5 7 . 0 1 8 , 0
2 3 1 . 8 4 7 , 9
7 2 2 . 3 3 5 , 1
3 0 . 9 8 2 , 1
5 4 1 . 7 0 3 , 9
7 . 8 9 6 , 2
1 7 5 . 9 9 5 , 5
1 0 5 . 6 0 5 , 1
4 9 . 2 3 7 , 1
6 2 . 8 9 6 , 0
1 3 7 . 4 7 4 , 5
5 4 8 . 6 4 0 , 8

3 . 8 4 2 . 0 9 9 , 1
1 2 2 . 2 6 2 , 7
9 1 . 1 3 5 , 9
9 3 3 . 3 3 4 , 1
6 0 . 2 0 3 , 1
2 3 5 . 4 5 3 , 1
7 3 4 . 6 7 0 , 6
3 1 . 7 5 6 , 5
5 3 0 . 1 1 5 , 1
7 . 9 5 2 , 9
1 7 5 . 5 3 5 , 3
1 0 5 . 0 8 4 , 7
4 9 . 9 0 8 , 5
6 2 . 0 2 7 , 4
1 3 7 . 0 1 4 , 6
5 6 5 . 6 4 4 , 4

Source: Eurostat database Newcronos

39

Data for table 5

State aid by sector in the Community, 1996 - 2000

Overall national aid
of which:
     Agriculture
     Fisheries
     Manufacturing
     Coal mining
     Transport
          of which rail transport
     Services 
     Not elsewhere classified*

1996
105.437,4

1997
99.207,0

1998
93.767,7

1999
83.508,6

15.562,8
249,2
35.521,4
7.908,3
36.022,9
34.531,2
6.724,5
3.448,3

15.557,6
255,9
33.384,6
8.107,0
33.252,8
31.945,8
5.861,8
2.787,4

13.297,3
309,9
28.470,6
8.439,0
32.730,7
32.655,8
7.256,7
3.263,5

13.971,0
303,7
25.026,6
6.039,3
31.984,3
31.900,2
2.602,7
3.581,0

million €
2000
82.373,4

13.932,8
296,6
23.844,4
7.009,5
31.881,8
31.744,9
2.149,9
3.258,5

*  The  figures  include  aid  to  employment  and  training  that  can  not  be  classified  under  a
particular sector.

Source: DG Competition

Data for table 7

State aid to the manufacturing sector by Member State.

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
I R L
I
L
N L
A
P
F I N
S
U K

1 9 9 6
3 5 . 5 2 1 , 4
9 5 7 , 3
6 4 6 , 0
1 3 . 3 7 4 , 6
6 3 1 , 2
2 . 0 1 1 , 5
3 . 6 6 8 , 3
2 0 0 , 5
1 0 . 3 6 6 , 7
4 8 , 7
6 1 0 , 6
4 6 3 , 2
1 9 7 , 2
3 3 6 , 4
3 6 7 , 3
1 . 6 4 1 , 9

1 9 9 7
3 3 . 3 8 4 , 6
6 3 2 , 2
7 5 5 , 0
1 1 . 6 3 0 , 8
7 6 4 , 3
1 . 8 2 8 , 6
5 . 4 3 0 , 5
1 5 8 , 8
8 . 3 1 6 , 2
5 1 , 1
5 5 7 , 7
5 2 4 , 9
2 2 8 , 6
4 4 7 , 7
3 7 8 , 1
1 . 6 8 0 , 0

1 9 9 8
2 8 . 4 7 0 , 6
7 0 7 , 3
6 6 1 , 1
1 0 . 6 3 0 , 9
5 1 5 , 3
1 . 7 9 6 , 8
4 . 2 6 8 , 8
6 3 1 , 2
5 . 7 4 4 , 5
5 1 , 3
5 5 3 , 5
4 7 7 , 6
1 9 2 , 3
4 2 6 , 1
4 4 8 , 3
1 . 3 6 5 , 7

1 9 9 9
2 5 . 0 2 6 , 6
7 2 7 , 7
6 6 1 , 0
9 . 5 9 7 , 5
4 0 6 , 0
1 . 1 3 0 , 3
4 . 9 0 1 , 1
5 3 3 , 2
3 . 4 4 6 , 5
3 7 , 3
7 0 7 , 4
4 5 2 , 5
2 2 6 , 0
4 1 1 , 8
4 5 0 , 0
1 . 3 3 8 , 3

2 0 0 0
2 3 . 8 4 4 , 4
5 9 0 , 1
1 . 0 3 4 , 8
8 . 9 2 4 , 5
4 0 3 , 8
1 . 2 0 1 , 8
4 . 5 0 9 , 4
4 8 1 , 1
3 . 2 4 9 , 0
3 6 , 7
7 1 0 , 2
4 0 0 , 8
2 1 2 , 5
4 1 0 , 6
4 2 8 , 8
1 . 2 5 0 , 5

Source: DG Competition

40

Value added manufacturing sector by Member State

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
I R L
I
L
N L
A
P
F I N
S
U K

1 9 9 6
1 . 4 2 4 .0 6 0 ,7
3 8 .9 3 6 ,8
2 5 .3 6 3 ,3
3 9 1 .4 0 5 ,3
1 3 .2 7 7 ,6
8 7 .1 9 3 ,9
2 2 0 .7 9 1 ,7
2 0 .5 9 6 ,1
2 0 8 .4 8 1 ,4
2 .1 6 6 ,5
5 6 .3 0 3 ,1
3 4 .5 0 1 ,7
2 0 .6 7 8 ,3
2 2 .6 2 6 ,1
4 0 .1 2 6 ,0
2 4 1 .6 1 2 ,9

1 9 9 7
1 .4 6 4 .1 1 9 , 2
4 0 .6 4 4 , 0
2 6 .0 3 1 , 4
3 9 8 .8 8 9 , 1
1 3 .0 1 3 , 8
9 1 .4 8 8 , 6
2 2 7 .5 5 6 , 9
2 2 .3 6 0 , 6
2 1 0 .7 0 8 , 5
2 .1 9 6 , 7
5 8 .9 4 2 , 8
3 6 .3 9 1 , 2
2 1 .1 6 5 , 7
2 4 .9 4 0 , 9
4 0 .2 0 9 , 0
2 4 9 .5 8 0 , 1

1 9 9 8
1 .4 9 4 .4 4 5 ,3
4 0 .8 4 5 ,3
2 7 .2 4 5 ,5
4 0 9 .5 0 4 ,7
1 2 .7 1 0 ,0
9 4 .9 5 7 ,6
2 3 2 .0 1 6 ,6
2 5 .0 9 2 ,7
2 1 3 .1 4 3 ,9
2 .3 3 5 ,7
6 1 .1 6 8 ,6
3 7 .7 3 2 ,8
2 1 .7 5 9 ,7
2 7 .0 9 9 ,5
4 2 .1 2 1 ,6
2 4 6 .7 1 1 ,1

1 9 9 9
1 .4 9 7 .0 4 0 ,7
4 0 .1 8 2 ,3
2 6 .6 5 7 ,4
4 1 2 .7 6 5 ,9
1 3 .0 9 2 ,3
9 5 .0 1 4 ,7
2 4 2 .6 8 3 ,9
2 6 .6 1 0 ,2
2 1 0 .4 3 8 ,6
2 .1 4 4 ,2
6 1 .9 0 6 ,6
3 8 .2 3 5 ,0
2 1 .3 9 7 ,5
2 7 .5 3 8 ,3
4 3 .6 0 2 ,5
2 3 4 .7 7 1 ,1

2 0 0 0
1 .4 9 9 . 2 8 0 ,8
3 9 . 4 7 5 ,9
2 5 . 9 1 0 ,2
4 1 9 . 5 5 4 ,6
1 3 . 2 9 0 ,3
9 4 . 4 7 5 ,5
2 5 2 . 0 6 7 ,8
2 7 . 9 3 8 ,1
2 0 6 . 4 6 2 ,3
1 . 9 3 9 ,1
6 1 . 3 8 7 ,6
3 8 . 5 5 2 ,7
2 1 . 0 9 8 ,7
2 7 . 0 3 2 ,6
4 4 . 9 0 2 ,0
2 2 5 . 1 9 3 ,7

Source: Eurostat database Newcronos

Data for graph 2

A id  to
th e m an u factu rin g 
sector
in  m illio n  €

V alu e a d d ed  in
th e m a n u fa ctu rin g  
secto r
in  m illion  €

A id  to
th e m a n u fa ctu rin g  secto r
a s %  of th e va lu e a d d ed

A v era g e
1 9 9 6 - 1 99 8

3 2 .4 58 ,9
7 65 ,6
6 87 ,4
1 1 .8 78 ,8
6 37 ,0
1 .8 78 ,9
4 .4 55 ,8
3 30 ,2
8 .1 42 ,5
50 ,3
5 74 ,0
4 88 ,6
2 06 ,0
4 03 ,4
3 97 ,9
1 .5 62 ,5

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
IR L
I
L
N L
A
P
F IN
S
U K

A v era g e
19 9 6 - 1 9 98

A v era g e
1 9 9 8 - 2 00 0

A vera g e
1 9 98  - 
20 0 0
2 5.7 80 ,6 1 .4 6 0.87 5 ,1 1 .4 96 .9 2 2 ,2
40 .1 6 7 ,8
4 0.14 2 ,0
26 .6 0 4 ,4
2 6.21 3 ,4
4 13 .9 4 1,7
3 9 9.93 3 ,0
13 .0 3 0 ,9
1 3.00 0 ,4
94 .8 1 5 ,9
9 1.21 3 ,4
2 42 .2 5 6,1
2 2 6.78 8 ,4
26 .5 4 7 ,0
2 2.68 3 ,1
2 10 .0 1 4,9
2 1 0.77 7 ,9
2 .1 3 9 ,7
2.23 3 ,0
61 .4 8 7 ,6
5 8.80 4 ,8
38 .1 7 3 ,5
3 6.20 8 ,6
21 .4 1 8 ,6
2 1.20 1 ,3
27 .2 2 3 ,4
2 4.88 8 ,8
43 .5 4 2 ,0
4 0.81 8 ,9
2 35 .5 5 8,6
2 4 5.96 8 ,0

6 75 ,0
7 85 ,7
9 .7 17 ,7
4 41 ,7
1 .3 76 ,3
4 .5 59 ,8
5 48 ,5
4 .1 46 ,7
41 ,8
6 57 ,0
4 43 ,6
2 10 ,3
4 16 ,1
4 42 ,3
1 .3 18 ,2

1 9 96  - 1 99 8 19 9 8  - 2 0 00

2,3
1,9
2,6
3,0
4,9
2,1
2,0
1,5
3,9
2,3
1,0
1,3
1,0
1,6
1,0
0,6

1 ,7
1 ,7
3 ,0
2 ,3
3 ,4
1 ,5
1 ,9
2 ,1
2 ,0
2 ,0
1 ,1
1 ,2
1 ,0
1 ,5
1 ,0
0 ,6

41

Data for table 8

State aid to the manufacturing by Member State: see Technical Annex table 7.

Value added manufacturing by Member State: see Technical Annex table 7.

Employment in manufacturing by Member State

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
I R L
I
L
N L
A
P
F I N
S
U K

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 9 , 9 4 8
0 , 6 6 6
0 , 4 5 0
8 , 2 1 2
0 , 6 2 6
2 , 5 0 4
3 , 8 1 2
0 , 2 5 7
5 , 0 9 6
0 , 0 3 2
1 , 0 5 1
0 , 6 8 6
0 , 9 9 1
0 , 4 1 7
0 , 7 6 8
4 , 3 8 1

2 9 , 9 0 7
0 , 6 5 4
0 , 4 4 6
8 , 0 8 8
0 , 6 0 5
2 , 6 1 9
3 , 7 3 7
0 , 2 7 5
5 , 0 9 3
0 , 0 3 3
1 , 0 6 7
0 , 6 8 0
0 , 9 9 0
0 , 4 2 9
0 , 7 6 0
4 , 4 3 1

3 0 , 3 0 1
0 , 6 5 5
0 , 4 4 9
8 , 1 2 0
0 , 6 2 2
2 , 7 5 3
3 , 7 4 7
0 , 2 8 8
5 , 1 9 6
0 , 0 3 3
1 , 0 7 3
0 , 6 8 1
0 , 9 9 9
0 , 4 4 2
0 , 7 6 9
4 , 4 7 4

3 0 , 1 1 9
0 , 6 5 0
0 , 4 3 9
8 , 0 8 7
0 , 6 1 3
2 , 8 4 3
3 , 7 4 2
0 , 2 9 5
5 , 1 7 1
0 , 0 3 3
1 , 0 8 0
0 , 6 7 4
0 , 9 7 6
0 , 4 4 5
0 , 7 6 6
4 , 3 0 4

3 0 , 1 2 6
0 , 6 5 2
0 , 4 3 6
8 , 1 1 5
0 , 6 0 4
2 , 9 2 8
3 , 7 7 0
0 , 3 0 0
5 , 1 5 8
0 , 0 3 3
1 , 0 8 8
0 , 6 7 2
0 , 9 6 6
0 , 4 5 4
0 , 7 7 4
4 , 1 7 6

Source: Eurostat database Newcronos.

Data for table 9

State  aid  for  horizontal  objectives,  particular  sectors,  coal  and  regional  objectives,  averages
1996-1998

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

Percentage of total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport
F

FIN

IRL

UK

NL

A

P

S

L

I

Horizontal Objectives
     Research and Development
     Environment
     SME
     Commerce
     Energy saving
     Employment aid
     Training aid
     Other Objectives

Particular sectors
     Steel
     Shipbuilding
     Other Manufacturing Sectors
     Rescue and Restructuring
     Tourism
     Financial Services
     Media, Cultural sector & services

Coal

Regional aid
     Regions under 87(3)c
     Regions under 87(3)a
Total aid less agriculture, fisheries 
and transport in million € 

26
8
1
7
1
1
2
5
1

21
1
3
1
3
0
9
3

16

37
8
29

60
13
1
14
1
0
12
2
16

11
0
-
9
1
1
-
0

-

29
29
-

89
17
24
3
4
15
8
17
-

10
-
7
0
-
1
-
2

-

2
2
-

18
7
1
8
0
1
1
0
0

4
0
2
1
0
0
1
0

30

47
4
43

2
0
0
2
0
-

-

-
0

2
1
1
-

-

-

-
0

-

96
-
96

32
5
1
8
0
1
3
14
1

29
2
19
5
2
1
-
1

31

8
6
2

20
14
0
3
2
0
0
0
0

51
0
1
2
6
-
40
3

9

19
12
7

37
3
-
1
1
1
5
2
24

34
7
-
1
-
0
25
1

15
3
0
9
0
0
2
-
1

22
1
2
1
7
1
8
1

-

-

32
7
4
21
1
-

-

-

-

2
-

-
0
-

-

-
2

-

28
-
28

63
5
59

66
66
-

76
25
6
4
5
32
0
-
5

11
-
6

0
-

-
4

-

13
13
-

57
30
10
13
-
1
3
-

-

15
1
-
2
6
6
-

-

29
23
6

26
1
-
1
0
1
8
6
8

72
0
1
1
1
2
0
66

0

3
-
3

74
31
1
16
9
5
11
-

-

11
-
7
1
-

-

-
3

-

14
14
-

52
15
9
7
-
4
12
6
0

15
-

-

-

-

-

-
15

-

33
33
-

48
4
0
8
2
0
-
34
-

7
-
0
0
-
0
-
6

21

24
17
6

50.391

908

962 17.451 637 3.694 9.405 476 9.199

51

597

541 1.269 467

599 4.133

Source: DG Competition

42

State  aid  for  horizontal  objectives,  particular  sectors,  coal  and  regional  objectives,  averages
1998-2000

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

Percentage of total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport
F

FIN

IRL

UK

NL

A

P

S

L

I

Horizontal Objectives
     Research and Development
     Environment
     SME
     Commerce
     Energy saving
     Employment aid
     Training aid
     Other Objectives

Particular sectors
     Steel
     Shipbuilding
     Other Manufacturing Sectors
     Rescue and Restructuring
     Tourism
     Financial Services
     Media, Cultural sector & services

Coal

Regional aid
     Regions under 87(3)c
     Regions under 87(3)a
Total aid less agriculture, fisheries 
and transport in million € 

39
10
7
9
1
2
3
6
2

14
0
3
1
1
1
6
3

18

29
10
19

72
15
1
21
0
0
14
5
16

2
-

-
0
0
1
-
1

-

26
26
-

90
13
30
1
2
15
11
19
-

9
-
5
1
-
1
-
2

-

1
1
-

33
9
13
8
0
1
1
0
1

4
-
2
1
0
0
0
0

31

32
5
27

6
0
0
4
0
-

-

-
1

3
-
1
-

-

-

-
1

-

91
-
91

40
7
1
7
0
1
5
19
1

15
1
7
4
2
0
-
1

34

12
9
3

31
17
1
10
2
1
0
0
0

31
-
4
2
0
0
21
3

13

24
17
7

59
1
-
0
1
1
4
1
52

23
-

-
1
-
0
20
3

29
5
0
16
0
0
7
-
0

14
0
4
1
2
2
6
1

-

-

18
4
14

57
7
50

43
14
3
24
1
-

-

-

-

8
-

-
0
-

-

-
8

-

79
25
8
7
5
16
0
-
17

8
-
4
-

-

-

-
4

-

50
50
-

13
13
-

55
29
12
11
-
0
3
-

-

11
1
-
2
2
7
-

-

-

33
29
5

32
1
-
5
0
1
9
10
7

64
0
-
2
2
3
1
56

-

4
-
4

75
34
1
13
7
13
8
0
-

10
-
6
1
-

-

-
3

-

15
15
-

56
18
24
5
-
6
0
2
-

18
-

-

-

-

-

-
18

-

26
26
-

54
4
2
7
0
0
-
40
-

8
-
0
1
-
0
-
6

13

25
18
6

40.314

849 1.156 14.454 447 3.314 7.732 757 4.964

45

691

493 1.008 469

558 3.377

Source: DG Competition

Data for graph 3

Aid to horizontal 
objectives *
in million €

Total aid **
in million €

Aid to horizontal objectives *
as a % of total aid **

Average
1996 - 1998

Average
1998 - 2000

Average
1996 - 1998

Average
1998 - 2000

1996 - 1998

1998 - 2000

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

12.920,3
533,6
854,7
3.193,3
9,9
1.179,4
1.838,2
221,0
1.340,2
16,3
454,0
307,2
313,2
345,5
318,2
1.995,6

15.260,8
609,3
1.035,2
4.719,7
26,8
1.303,5
2.215,7
448,7
1.310,3
18,9
543,3
272,4
323,0
352,6
313,2
1.768,3

50.391,0
907,7
961,8
17.451,1
637,0
3.694,4
9.405,5
476,4
9.199,3
51,3
597,2
540,7
1.269,1
467,4
599,0
4.133,1

40.313,9
848,6
1.155,7
14.454,1
446,6
3.313,7
7.732,1
757,3
4.964,5
45,1
691,0
492,6
1.008,1
468,9
558,4
3.377,4

25,6
58,8
88,9
18,3
1,6
31,9
19,5
46,4
14,6
31,9
76,0
56,8
24,7
73,9
53,1
48,3

37,9
71,8
89,6
32,7
6,0
39,3
28,7
59,3
26,4
41,8
78,6
55,3
32,0
75,2
56,1
52,4

*  excluding rescue and restructuring
** total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport

Source: DG Competition

43

Data for graph 4

Sectoral aid in manufacturing 
and services
in million €

Total aid less agriculture, 
fisheries and transport
in million €

Sectoral aid in manuf. and services
as a % of total aid less agriculture, fisheries 
and transport

Average
1996 - 1998

Average
1998 - 2000

Average
1996 - 1998

Average
1998 - 2000

10.573,5
117,7
92,0
713,8
15,4
1.072,6
4.843,7
140,7
2.080,7
1,0
64,8
78,6
923,9
55,3
87,7
285,6

5.985,2
19,6
109,3
528,7
12,3
512,2
2.646,3
176,5
813,6
3,4
55,5
55,7
649,2
47,1
101,9
253,7

50.391,0
907,7
961,8
17.451,1
637,0
3.694,4
9.405,5
476,4
9.199,3
51,3
597,2
540,7
1.269,1
467,4
599,0
4.133,1

40.313,9
848,6
1.155,7
14.454,1
446,6
3.313,7
7.732,1
757,3
4.964,5
45,1
691,0
492,6
1.008,1
468,9
558,4
3.377,4

1996 - 1998
21,0
13,0
9,6
4,1
2,4
29,0
51,5
29,5
22,6
1,9
10,9
14,5
72,8
11,8
14,6
6,9

1998 - 2000
14,8
2,3
9,5
3,7
2,8
15,5
34,2
23,3
16,4
7,5
8,0
11,3
64,4
10,0
18,3
7,5

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

Source: DG Competition

Data for graph 5

R egion a l aid

T o tal aid  less agricu ltu re, 
fish eries an d  tran sp ort
in  m illion  €

A id  for region al 
ob jectives
a s a  %  of total a id  **

A verag e
1996  - 199 8

A verage
19 98 - 2 000

A verage
19 96 - 1 998

A verage
1 998 - 2000

A verage
1996 - 1998

A verag e
1998  - 200 0

40.313,9
8 48,6
1.1 55,7
14.454,1
4 46,6
3.3 13,7
7.7 32,1
7 57,3
4.9 64,5
45,1
6 91,0
4 92,6
1.0 08,1
4 68,9
5 58,4
3.3 77,4

37
28
2
48
96
8
19
24
63
66
13
29
2
14
32
23

30
26
1
32
91
11
24
17
57
51
13
33
4
15
26
24

E U
B
D K
D
E L
E
F
IR L
I
L
N L
A
P
F IN
S
U K

1 8.74 5,8
25 6,5
1 5,2
8.29 7,7
61 1,7
31 2,2
1.83 0,8
11 4,7
5.77 8,5
3 3,9
7 8,4
15 4,9
3 1,7
6 6,5
19 3,2
97 0,0

11.9 05,3
2 19,6
11,2
4.6 93,2
4 07,4
3 80,1
1.8 71,7
1 32,0
2.8 40,6
22,9
92,1
1 64,4
36,0
69,3
1 43,3
8 21,6

Source: DG Competition

50.3 91,0
9 07,7
9 61,8
17.4 51,1
6 37,0
3.6 94,4
9.4 05,5
4 76,4
9.1 99,3
51,3
5 97,2
5 40,7
1.2 69,1
4 67,4
5 99,0
4.1 33,1

44

Data for graph 6

T o ta l E U  a id  to  m a n u fa c tu r in g
o f  w h ic h :
          G r a n ts
          T a x  e x e m p tio n s
          E q u ity  p a r tic ip a tio n s
          S o f t lo a n s
          T a x  d e f e r r a ls
          G u a r a n te e s

Source: DG Competition

Data for graph 7

Approval
without 
objections

Closing of proceedings with a:

Positive
decisions

Conditional
decisions 

Negative
decisions

EU

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001

539
571
591
47
23
21
14
11
23
94
95
123
11
9
16
92
104
112
21
58
68
16
17
20

42
28
37
1
0
2
1
0
0
15
9
11
3
0
1
3
3
3
2
0
3
1
2
0

3
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

44
53
42
0
5
3
0
0
0
14
12
14
3
1
0
5
8
12
3
4
4
0
1
0

A v e r a g e
1 9 9 8  -  2 0 0 0

in  %  o f  t o t a l

2 5 .7 8 0 ,6

1 6 .2 7 1 ,4
6 .4 4 2 ,8
1 6 6 ,4
2 .0 1 5 ,2
1 5 7 ,7
7 2 6 ,9

6 3 ,1
2 5 ,0
0 ,6
7 ,8
0 ,6
2 ,8

Negative 
decisions 
as % 
of total
7,0
8,1
6,3
0,0
17,9
11,5
0,0
0,0
0,0
11,3
10,3
9,5
17,6
10,0
0,0
5,0
6,9
9,4
11,5
6,5
5,3
0,0
5,0
0,0

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001
1999
2000
2001

Approval
without 
objections

Closing of proceedings with a:

Positive
decisions

Conditional
decisions 

Negative
decisions

110
92
61
3
4
2
39
48
38
25
31
36
16
16
15
11
22
9
10
13
5
30
28
42

10
7
9
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
2
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
2
0
3

1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

14
15
7
0
0
0
1
5
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0

Negative 
decisions 
as % 
of total
10,4
13,0
9,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
2,3
9,1
4,7
7,4
0,0
0,0
5,9
5,6
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
6,7
0,0
3,0
0,0
0,0

Source: EU Commission database Integrated State Aid Information System

45

Data for graph 8

 Total Venture Capital
as % of GDP, 2000

State aid to SME as % of 
GDP,
annual average 1998-2000

EU
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

0,231
0,216
0,108
0,194
0,16
0,134
0,234
0,21
0,137

0,389
0,072
0,121
0,191
0,228
0,405

0,044
0,074
0,005
0,060
0,016
0,040
0,050
0,004
0,065
0,058
0,014
0,028
0,041
0,049
0,014
0,018

Source: DG Competition and Eurostat

46