Does EU cohesion policy work? Theory and evidence

This paper evaluates the effectiveness of European Cohesion Policy in the regions of 12 EU countries in the period 1991–2008, on the basis of a spatial growth model, which allows for the identification of both direct and indirect effects of EU funds on GDP per worker growth. We find that “Objective 1” funds are characterized by strong spatial externalities and a positive and concave effect on the growth of GDP per worker, which reaches a peak at the ratio funds/GDP of approximately 3 percent and becomes non‐significant after 4 percent. “Objective 2” and “Cohesion” funds have nonsignificant effects, while all the other funds exert a positive and significant effect, but their size is very limited. EU Cohesion Policy, moreover, appears to have increased its effectiveness over time. In the period 2000–2006 Objective 1 funds are estimated to have a median multiplier equal to 1.52, and to have added 0.37 percent to the GDP per worker growth. Overall, in the period 1991–2008, funds are estimated to have added 1.4 percent to the median annual growth, and to have reduced regional disparities of 8 basis points in terms of the Gini index.     

韧性概念演变与区域经济韧性研究进展

区域经济韧性试图解释当冲击发生时为何部分区域能够适应恢复,实现区域经济的持续发展,而有的区域不能摆脱冲击影响,步入经济衰退轨迹。本文通过对国内外相关文献的梳理,总结了工程韧性、生态韧性和演化韧性的概念演变以及从均衡论观点到演化观点的转向,据此重新定义了区域经济韧性的概念内涵,认为区域经济韧性是系统面对冲击时,抵抗冲击影响避免脱离发展轨迹或通过适应恢复实现经济持续发展的能力,是一个不断演化的过程。探讨了区域经济韧性研究的三个理论分析方法,对关于区域经济韧性的测度和影响因素的实证研究进行了评述,强调亟需加强韧性理论研究,界定清晰概念内涵,同时加强区域经济韧性定量本土化研究,将区域经济韧性理论应用到我国老工业基地等经济衰退地区的经济振兴与转型问题中,以期对区域经济发展提供科学参考。     

缓解发达地区省内区域经济差距的区域政策研究——以广东省为例

本文首先报告了作者对1990!2004年广东省区域经济差距的变动趋势和影响因素的前期研究,发现广东省内总体区域差距基本呈明显上升趋势,其中,三大地带间差距和珠江三角洲内部差距、第二产业差距和第三产业差距对全省总体差距的影响最大。文章继而详细论述了在市场经济条件下缓解广东省内日益扩大的区域差距的基本思路。在此基础上,本文给出了缩小广东省区域经济差距的区域政策建议。     

On a Quantitative Assessment of the Economic-Geographic Situation of Cities

The author suggests the use of combined production and transport costs of raw materials and manufactured goods to the consumer as an indicator of the economic-geographic situation of a city. He contends that it is no longer sufficient to characterize the situation simply as “favorable” or “unfavorable” and that there is a real need for quantification with the purpose of using this technique in long-range plans.     

Postcrisis recovery in the regions of Europe: Does institutional quality matter?

This paper investigates how institutional quality and its components (quality, impartiality, and control of corruption) are associated with the economic recovery in the aftermath of the global recession (2010–2016). The evidence suggests that the postcrisis dynamism of a region depends on whether its economy is accompanied by a good governance at the local level. The results also show the heterogeneity in the effects of institutional characteristics and other traditional determinants of growth for the high-income club (core) and the low-income club (periphery), respectively. This evidence can provide indications to define ad hoc policies apt to mitigate the recent surge in inequality among EU regions.     

The Global Economic Crisis and Foreign Investment in Russia from the EU: Empirical Evidence from Firm-Level Data

This paper empirically examines the impact of the recent global economic crisis on foreign investment from EU countries in Russia by estimating a location choice model for foreign firms' entry in Russian regions for the period 1997-2011. It also examines the relative importance of various determinants of location choice on the redistribution of foreign-owned firms among Russian regions before and after the crisis. Strong evidence during the post-crisis period (2008-2011) of a decrease in market-seeking foreign investment in manufacturing and resource-seeking foreign investment in trade is examined not only in light of the crisis but also (in the latter case) within the context of the new Russian law for foreign investment in strategic industries, which went into effect in 2008.     

Are there differences in social capital related to corporate regional engagement in dynamic and less dynamic non-core regions?

ABSTRACT

This article explores corporate regional engagement and related social capital in non-core regions. Corporate regional engagement comprises various activities of firms to influence regional contexts, which are challenging in non-core regions (e.g. on account of their organizational or institutional thinness). Corporate regional engagement engenders positive effects for regional development when firms collaborate among themselves (bonding social capital) and with other actors (bridging social capital) to improve regional endowments. We assume that dynamic regions have at their disposal higher levels of inclusive social capital in terms of collaboration networks for regional concerns and trust, while less dynamic regions have more exclusive and fragmented social capital. Consequently, less dynamic regions in particular appear to have potential to develop in a more social sense by activating the endogenous potential of region-wide collaboration. Those assumptions are tested based on a survey with Chief Executive Officers from the manufacturing industry from three dynamic and three less dynamic Swiss regions. The findings show that in dynamic regions, more firms are members of regional cross-industry associations, favouring regional collaboration; in less dynamic regions, meanwhile, more firms are members of industry-specific associations and service clubs, where benefits seem to be higher for individual firms than for the regional business environment.     

In the Shadow of Globalization: The European Community and the United States in the GATT Negotiations of the Tokyo Round (1973–1979)

This article explores the trade negotiations between the United States and the European Community in the Tokyo Round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations, held in Geneva from 1973 to 1979. The article shows how the economic turbulence and the different domestic stances and policies toward the globalizing economy split the Western members of GATT into two camps. Countries, like France and the United Kingdom, less well equipped to face increased worldwide competition and the economic crisis were not keen on trade liberalization. Countries, like the United States and Germany, better equipped to face worldwide competition and in favour of policies that strengthened it, saw trade liberalization as the right path. Eventually, under US President Jimmy Carter's leadership and with the key support of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the results of the Round reflected a vote in favour of liberalizing international trade. Thus, the Round was shaped by the globalizing economy but, at the same time, its results gave further impetus to the globalization wave that would reach full swing in the 1980s–1990s. The GATT talks took place in the shadow of globalization: while attempting to govern the process, also built it up.