Suchergebnisse

The expansion and innovation of financial markets, commonly known as financialisation, is closely linked to the growth of pension funds. While the conventional narrative is based on the notion of financial development as a positive change, this paper argues that pension funds may induce demand-led pressures on the financial system, generating potential for systemic risk and instability. The rise of pension funds is therefore important for the process of financialisation, as these institutions' demand for assets continuously sparks growth and innovation in financial markets. In the current context pension funds are attempting to reduce risk by rebalancing their allocations away from equities towards 'alternatives', such as hedge funds and private equity. Coupled with the current regulatory trends towards risk-based funding regulation, we argue that pension funds are unlikely to be a stabilising force in financial markets today.

The objective of the PICK-ME (Policy Incentives for Creation of Knowledge - Methods and Evidence) research project is to provide theoretical and empirical perspectives on innovation which give a greater role to the demand-side aspect of innovation. The main question is how can policy make enterprises more willing to innovate? This task is fulfilled by identifying what we consider the central or most salient aspect of a demand-side innovation- driven economy, which is the small and entrepreneurial yet fast growing and innovative firm. We use the term "Gazelle" to signify this type of firm throughout the paper. The main concern of policy-makers should therefore be how to support Gazelle type of firms through various policies. The effectiveness of different policy instruments are considered. For example, venture capitalism is in the paper identified as an important modern institution that renders exactly the type of coordination necessary to bring about an innovation system more orientated towards the demand side. This is because experienced entrepreneurs with superior skills in terms of judging the marketability of new innovations step in as financiers. Other factor market bottlenecks on the skills side must be targeted through education policies that fosters centers of excellence. R&D incentives are also considered as a separate instrument but more a question for future research since there is no evidence available on R&D incentives as a Gazelle type of policy. Spatial policies to foster more innovation have been popular in the past. But we conclude that whereas the literature often finds that new knowledge is developed in communities of physically proximate firms, there is no overshadowing evidence showing that spatial policies in particular had any impact on generating more of the Gazelle type of firms.

According to the latest estimates over 16 per cent of the EU citizens are poor (based on monetary concept). Using Europe 2020 strategy indicator people at risk of poverty or social exclusion over 23 percent of EU citizens can be considered poor. Analyses of poverty may be based on several poverty concepts. The assessment of well-being for poverty analyses is usually based on two main conceptual approaches: the welfarist approach and the non-welfarist approach. Measurement of well-being using welfarist approach is based on proxies such as income, consumption or expenditures data, while the non-welfarist approach is based on proxies such as material deprivation. Furthermore distinction may be made between objective measures of poverty and subjective perception of the phenomenon by individuals alone. The goal of this paper is to analyse the spatial distribution of poverty across the EU regions. The following poverty concepts are considered: monetary poverty, relative material deprivation, and subjective perception of poverty. Analyses performed in the study are based on EU SILC 2005-2010/2011 microdata using standard spatial statistical tools. All countries do not publish the "region" variable, and hence poverty measures may not be estimated for all EU regions. In terms of monetary poverty, poverty line is set at 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfers. In our study two additional poverty lines are adopted to each region: EU-wide poverty line, and a region-specific poverty line. There are considerable differences in these three results, especially for Eastern EU countries. Furthermore, it is interesting to see the differences in poverty measures across EU regions before and after the crisis, and the different perceptions of poverty in Western and Eastern EU countries.