Regional Policy or according to today’s official appellation Cohesion Policy of the EU is widely (and rightly) regarded as a model of a public policy to tackle regional income gaps. Indeed in other regions of the world, regional income disparities are wider (Mercosur, ASEAN). In the case of Mercosur, FOCEM (Fondo de Convergencia Estructural del MERCOSUR), since its creation in 2006, is being strengthened to include human rights dimensions. As for ASEAN, since the Hanoi Declaration of the 6th ASEAN Summit in 1998, the task of reducing region-wide income gaps is now incorporated as a priority issue. These developments tend to reinforce the view that EU Cohesion Policy is looked upon as a model. However, in spite of this recognition of the significance of a public policy to reduce regional disparities, and despite the diffusion of EU style regionalism around the globe as seen by inter-regionalism promoted by the EU itself, Cohesion Policy is actually not sought after by other regional institutions around the world as a model to follow. How can we explain this apparent gap in perception and reality? This paper argues that there are different models of regional policy adapted to regions with different phase of integration. It is no coincidence that Cohesion Policy is more often referred to by countries with substantial size (Russia, China, and Brazil). It shows that EU style regional policy presupposes the existence of a centralized bureaucracy in charge of conceptualization and implementation, which is absent in other regions of the world. This paper attempts to classify existing models of regional policy based on the criteria of institutional settings of implementation.
