{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016511867905056758, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0196078431372549, 'mean_word_length': 5.258064516129032, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Urban Governance and Economic Development

In recent years there has been an accelerating academic interest in the coherence of European regional policy, particularly in relation to the local application of Structural Funds. In tandem there has also been an increasing importance attached to the governance of regions and localities. This article fuses these two sets of debates in critically examining European Objective 1 support for Merseyside in the UK. Merseyside was an Objective 1 region for the 1994-1999 programming period, and this article traces some of the fundamental fault lines in the design and delivery of its Single Programming Document - the strategy and resource framework accompanying Structural Funding. It therefore provides some instructive lessons for the 2000-2006 UK-based Objective 1 regions: Merseyside (receiving its second tranche of support) and the new recipients of Cornwall and Scilly, South Yorkshire, and West Wales and the Valleys.