Suchergebnisse

Structural policies in the euro area are of great interest for the Eurosystem, particularly as they can support the smooth functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the effectiveness of monetary policy. This paper adopts a broad definition of structural policies, analysing not only the benefits of efficient labour, product and financial market regulations, but also emphasising the importance of good governance and efficient institutions that ensure high quality and impartial public services, the rule of law and the control of rent-seeking. The paper concludes that there are many opportunities for enhanced structural policies in EU and euro area countries which can yield substantial gains by boosting long-term income and employment growth and supporting social fairness, also via better and more equal opportunities. It provides empirical and model-based analyses on the impacts and the interactions of structural policies, highlighting synergies between growth and inclusiveness, while acknowledging that structural policy changes need to be country-specific to reflect national conditions and social preferences. Well-designed structural policies would also strengthen economic resilience and convergence of Member States, bringing the euro area closer to the requirements of an optimal currency area and improving the transmission of monetary policy. The paper also discusses the political economy causes of the sluggish implementation of socially beneficial structural policies and assesses ways to deal with possible short-term costs of reforms.

Structural policies in the euro area are of great interest for the Eurosystem, particularly as they can support the smooth functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and the effectiveness of monetary policy. This paper adopts a broad definition of structural policies, analysing not only the benefits of efficient labour, product and financial market regulations, but also emphasising the importance of good governance and efficient institutions that ensure high quality and impartial public services, the rule of law and the control of rent-seeking. The paper concludes that there are many opportunities for enhanced structural policies in EU and euro area countries which can yield substantial gains by boosting long-term income and employment growth and supporting social fairness, also via better and more equal opportunities. It provides empirical and model-based analyses on the impacts and the interactions of structural policies, highlighting synergies between growth and inclusiveness, while acknowledging that structural policy changes need to be country-specific to reflect national conditions and social preferences. Well-designed structural policies would also strengthen economic resilience and convergence of Member States, bringing the euro area closer to the requirements of an optimal currency area and improving the transmission of monetary policy. The paper also discusses the political economy causes of the sluggish implementation of socially beneficial structural policies and assesses ways to deal with possible short-term costs of reforms.

In this paper we examine why monetary aggregates of euro area Member States have developed differently since the inception of the euro. We derive a money demand equation that incorporates housing wealth and collateral as well as substitution effects on real money holdings. Empirically, we show that cross-country differences in real balances are determined not only by income differences, a standard determinant of money demand, but also by house price developments. Higher house prices and higher user costs of housing are both associated with larger money holdings. Country-specific money holdings are also connected with structural features of the housing market. [Copyright Elsevier B.V.]

This paper empirically investigates the differences in the motives of raising privatisation proceeds for a panel of EU countries from 1990 to 2000. More specifically, we test whether privatisations can be mainly interpreted (a) as ingredients of a larger reform package of economic liberalisation in formerly overregulated economies, (b) as a reaction to an increasing macroeconomic problem pressure and (c) as a means to foster growth and increase tax income and relax the fiscal stance with an eye on the demands by integration of economic and financial markets. Whereas we are able to corroborate claim (a) only partly, we gain consistent evidence in favour of claims (b) and (c).

This paper empirically investigates the differences in the motives of raising privatisation proceeds for a panel of EU countries from 1990 to 2000. More specifically, we test whether privatisations can be mainly interpreted (a) as ingredients of a larger reform package of economic liberalisation in formerly overregulated economies, (b) as a reaction to an increasing macroeconomic problem pressure and (c) as a means to foster growth and increase tax income and relax the fiscal stance with an eye on the demands by integration of economic and financial markets. Whereas we are able to corroborate claim (a) only partly, we gain consistent evidence in favour of claims (b) and (c).

This paper empirically investigates the differences in the motives of raising privatisation proceeds for a panel of EU countries from 1990 to 2000. More specifically, we test whether privatisations can be mainly interpreted (a) as ingredients of a larger reform package of economic liberalisation in formerly overregulated economies, (b) as a reaction to an increasing macroeconomic problem pressure and (c) as a means to foster growth and increase tax income and relax the fiscal stance with an eye on the demands by integration of economic and financial markets. Whereas we are able to corroborate claim (a) only partly, we gain consistent evidence in favour of claims (b) and (c).

This paper empirically investigates the differences in the motives of raising privatisation proceeds for a panel of EU countries from 1990 to 2000. More specifically, we test whether privatisations can be mainly interpreted (a) as ingredients of a larger reform package of economic liberalisation in formerly overregulated economies, (b) as a reaction to an increasing macroeconomic problem pressure and (c) as a means to foster growth and increase tax income and relax the fiscal stance with an eye on the demands by integration of economic and financial markets. Whereas we are able to corroborate claim (a) only partly, we gain consistent evidence in favour of claims (b) and (c).