Suchergebnisse

Background: Country-level data suggest large differences in the supply of health professionals among European countries. However, little is know about the regional supply of health professionals taking a cross-country comparative perspective. The aim of the study was to analyse the regional distribution of physicians, nurses and midwives in the highest and lowest density regions in Europe and examine time trends. Methods: We used Eurostat data and descriptive statistics to assess the density of physicians, nurses and midwives at national and regional levels (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 2 regions) for 2017 and time trends (2005–2017). To ensure cross-country comparability we applied a set of criteria (working status, availability over time, geographic availability, source). This resulted in 14 European Union (EU) countries and Switzerland being available for the physician analysis and eight countries for the nurses and midwives analysis. Density rates per population were analysed at national and NUTS 2 level, of which regions with the highest and lowest density of physicians, nurses and midwives were identified. We examined changes over time in regional distributions, using percentage change and Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR). Results: There was a 2.4-fold difference in the physician density between the highest and lowest density countries (Austria national average: 513, Poland 241.6 per 100,000) and a 3.5-fold difference among nurses (Denmark: 1702.5, Bulgaria: 483.0). Differences by regions across Europe were higher than cross-country variations and varied up to 5.5-fold for physicians and 4.4-fold for nurses/midwives and did not improve over time. Capitals and/or major cities in all countries showed a markedly higher supply of physicians than more sparsely populated regions while the density of nurses and midwives tended to be higher in more sparsely populated areas. Over time, physician rates increased faster than density levels of nurses and midwives. Conclusions: The study shows for the first time the large variation in health workforce supply at regional levels and time trends by professions across the European region. This highlights the importance for countries to routinely collect data in sub-national geographic areas to develop integrated health workforce policies for health professionals at regional levels. ; TU Berlin, Open-Access-Mittel – 2020

This paper is an examination of how state policies have influenced the spatial distribution of industry in Greece throughout the period after World War 2. The focus is only on those aspects of state policy that directly influence the spatial distribution of industry, that is regional policy, which was always orientated, in theory at least, towards the vague notion of the 'more even' regional development of the country. It is argued that state regional policies were not on the whole successful. The regional incentives system for industry in particular, which was the most important instrument of state regional policy, was quite inadequate, and, moreover, its cost to society increased steadily while its contribution towards a more even spatial distribution of industry was marginal. That is, the incentives system does not seem to have facilitated the regional reorganisation of industry in the sense of diminishing the spatial inequalities in the distribution of industrial activities. It was not 'accidental' that the regional incentives system, with its innate weaknesses and increasing cost, survived for so long, despite the fact that it was ineffective. Its survival can be explained in terms of the particular characteristics of Greek society, such as the predominance of the political over the economic sphere and the prevalence of clientelism in politics. In such a context the innate weaknesses of the incentives system allowed certain groups of people to enjoy economic benefits with noneconomic means.

BACKGROUND: Country-level data suggest large differences in the supply of health professionals among European countries. However, little is know about the regional supply of health professionals taking a cross-country comparative perspective. The aim of the study was to analyse the regional distribution of physicians, nurses and midwives in the highest and lowest density regions in Europe and examine time trends. METHODS: We used Eurostat data and descriptive statistics to assess the density of physicians, nurses and midwives at national and regional levels (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 2 regions) for 2017 and time trends (2005–2017). To ensure cross-country comparability we applied a set of criteria (working status, availability over time, geographic availability, source). This resulted in 14 European Union (EU) countries and Switzerland being available for the physician analysis and eight countries for the nurses and midwives analysis. Density rates per population were analysed at national and NUTS 2 level, of which regions with the highest and lowest density of physicians, nurses and midwives were identified. We examined changes over time in regional distributions, using percentage change and Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR). RESULTS: There was a 2.4-fold difference in the physician density between the highest and lowest density countries (Austria national average: 513, Poland 241.6 per 100,000) and a 3.5-fold difference among nurses (Denmark: 1702.5, Bulgaria: 483.0). Differences by regions across Europe were higher than cross-country variations and varied up to 5.5-fold for physicians and 4.4-fold for nurses/midwives and did not improve over time. Capitals and/or major cities in all countries showed a markedly higher supply of physicians than more sparsely populated regions while the density of nurses and midwives tended to be higher in more sparsely populated areas. Over time, physician rates increased faster than density levels of nurses and midwives. CONCLUSIONS: The study ...

Die Vielfalt an sektoralen und regionalen Förderprogrammen und das inhaltliche und räumliche Zusammenwirken verschiedener Fördermaßnahmen aus verschiedenen Ressorts erschweren die Konzipierung einer effizienten Förderpolitik. Will man die Mittel der Förderpolitik in Zeiten konsolidierender Haushalspolitik zielgerichtet einsetzen, muss man die Maßnahmen inhaltlich prüfen und ggf. neu bündeln. Dies erfordert, dass einige Wissenslücken in der regionalen Verteilung raumwirksamer finanzieller Staatshilfen noch geschlossen werden müssen. Der vorliegende Beitrag trägt dazu bei, indem er Unterschiede in der Förderintensität und Struktur der Förderung regional differenziert beschreibt und die Förderung in ländlichen Regionen mit jener in nicht ländlichen Regionen sowie Regionen mit unterschiedlichem Wirtschaftswachstum vergleicht. Der Beitrag kommt u. a. zu dem Ergebnis, dass ländliche Räume zumeist eine höhere Förderintensität pro Einwohner haben als nicht ländliche Räume. Mit einem Anteil von bis zu 30 % kommt den Fördermaßnahmen zur Entwicklung ländlicher Räume in den ländlichen Räumen eine besonders hohe Bedeutung zu. Bei einer Klassifizierung von Landkreisen nach der wirtschaftlichen Ausgangslage und der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung gibt es jedoch nur wenige " ländliche dynamische Wachstumsregionen". Eine Gegenüberstellung des Finanzanteils und des BIP-Beitrags zeigt, dass nicht nur die Landkreise und kreisfreien Städte der neuen Bundesländer im Untersuchungszeitraum 1995 bis 2008 deutlich mehr Finanzhilfen erhalten haben als es ihrem BIP-Beitrag entspricht, sondern dass dies auch für einige Regionen in den alten Bundesländern zutrifft. ; The diversity of sectorial and regional financial support programs, and the substantive and spatial interaction of various promotional measures from various supporters, makes the conception of efficient promotional policy difficult. If, in a period of consolidation, one does not wish to shorten the funds available for promotional policy with a broad brush approach, but rather restructure and pull measure measures together, some gaps in knowledge of the regional distribution of spatial-related financial government support must be closed. The present paper contributes some pieces to the puzzle. It describes regional differences in the funding intensity and structure, and compares promotion in rural areas with that in non rural areas as well as among regions with various economic growth levels. The paper concludes, among other things, that rural areas mostly have a higher funding intensity than non rural areas. With a portion of up to 30 per cent, the rural development measures are particularly important for rural areas. With a classification of counties based on their initial economic situation and growth rates, there are, however, only few "rurally dynamic growth regions". In the study period 1995 to 2008, counties and towns that received more financial aid than their BIP contributions deserve were not only located in the new German federal states; some can also be found in the former German States.

ABSTRACTThe Japanese presence in U.S. banking markets is of particular significance. Japanese represent slightly over one‐half of the total foreign banking presence in the U.S., concentrated in two states (California and New York). The growth of Japanese direct investment in the U.S. and the yen/dollar exchange rate appear to be the two most important economic factors influencing this rising Japanese banking presence. Japanese legislation liberalizing the flow of investment in and out of Japan, beginning in 1980, is a very important factor. Also, the International Banking Act of 1978 may be important in explaining the recent growth of Japanese bank branches in California.

Abstract Fiscal institutions, which are responsible for the delegation of tax and spending powers among different tiers of governments, are important determinants of the size and efficiency of public redistribution. In this paper we develop a comparative analysis of the impact of fiscal decentralization vis-à-vis tax revenue sharing on the government's effort to redistribute income. The main findings are: first, the size of the national budget for public redistribution is the same under fiscal decentralization and tax revenue sharing. Second, different fiscal institutions lead to different regional distributions of public transfers. Third, when choosing between decentralization and tax revenue sharing, there is a tradeoff between the efficiency and the regional effort of the government to redistribute income. Resumen Las instituciones fiscales, que determinan la responsabilidad del diseño de impuestos y gasto entre los diferentes niveles de gobierno, son importantes determinantes del tamaño y eficiencia de la redistribución pública. En este artículo, se desarrolla un análisis comparativo del impacto en el esfuerzo del gobierno en redistribuir el ingreso, entre la descentralización fiscal en y una política de compartir el ingreso fiscal. Los principales resultados son: primero, el tamaño del presupuesto en redistribución es el mismo para una economía con descentralización o en la que se comparte el ingreso fiscal. Segundo, las instituciones fiscales implican una asignación diferente en la distribución regional de transferencias públicas. Tercero, al escoger entre descentralización y el compartir el ingreso fiscal, existe un intercambio entre la eficiencia y la distribución regional de las transferencias públicas.