Missed opportunity: structural barriers to inclusion in EU Community-Led Local Development

Key findings from this study

• The study found that excessive bureaucracy, short-term funding cycles, and absent genuine co-production systematically exclude grassroots actors from EU development programmes.
• The researchers demonstrate that funding frameworks privilege resource-rich organisations while further marginalising communities most in need, despite inclusive policy rhetoric.
• The authors argue that these structural barriers stem from neoliberal governance logics prioritising market efficiency and rapid outcomes over democratic participation and long-term social equity.

Overview

This qualitative research examines structural barriers within European Union Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) funding mechanisms that prevent marginalised communities from accessing resources. The study demonstrates that despite inclusive policy rhetoric, neoliberal governance logics and bureaucratic frameworks systematically exclude grassroots actors while privileging resource-rich organisations. Research across seven European cities reveals that short-term project cycles, excessive administrative requirements, and absent genuine co-production reinforce existing inequalities rather than mitigate them.

Methods and approach

The researchers conducted qualitative research across seven European cities to analyse urban development policies and CLLD implementation. Data collection examined how funding frameworks operate in practice, focusing on access barriers, decision-making processes, and participation mechanisms. The analysis centred on governance structures, administrative procedures, and the gap between inclusive policy discourse and actual implementation outcomes.

Results

Structural barriers systematically obstruct marginalised communities' access to EU development funds. Excessive bureaucracy, short-term project cycles, and lack of genuine co-production exclude grassroots actors from meaningful participation. Funding frameworks privilege resource-rich organisations while further marginalising those most in need, despite inclusive policy language. The researchers identify these limitations as symptomatic of deeper governance structures that prioritise rapid, quantifiable outcomes over long-term, transformative social change. Neoliberal logics and economisation of governance have shifted priorities away from democratic participation and social equity toward market efficiency. The apparent gap between inclusive discourse and exclusionary outcomes reveals governance mechanisms fundamentally misaligned with stated poverty reduction objectives.

Implications

Current EU urban policy frameworks risk perpetuating the inequalities they aim to resolve without substantive structural reform. Recalibrating CLLD approaches requires centring co-creation, redistributing decision-making power, and meaningfully integrating community voices in policy design and implementation. Governance structures must prioritise long-term transformative outcomes over short-term quantifiable metrics to enable authentic participation of marginalised actors. Policymakers must address how bureaucratic complexity and project cycle design function as mechanisms of exclusion. Resource allocation frameworks require fundamental reorientation toward supporting grassroots organisations. Without addressing these structural features, incremental policy adjustments will prove insufficient to achieve inclusive growth.

Scope and limitations

This summary is based on the study abstract and available metadata. It does not include a full analysis of the complete paper, supplementary materials, or underlying datasets unless explicitly stated. Findings should be interpreted in the context of the original publication.