Suchergebnisse

This paper describes some of the features of a new dynamic general equilibrium framework (RHOMOLO) being developed at the European Commission (JRC-IPTS, together with DG REGIO) for evaluating EU Cohesion Policy. The design of the model reflects the objectives of Cohesion Policy, and a broader understanding of impact analysis which goes beyond pure economic effects and also considers environmental and social indicators. The model has both regional and sectoral dimensions - regionally, the aim is for complete NUTS2 (NUTS1 for Germany) coverage of the EU27, while the potential sector coverage is 23 - all of which leads to very large modelling dimensions and presents challenges in terms of data availability. The model is constructed using the concept of Dynamic Spatial Computable General Equilibrium (DSCGE), which ensures Walrasian equilibrium in a sequence of model solutions over time, and also incorporates elements of New Economic Geography (NEG) in the way it captures the forces of economic agglomeration and dispersion.

This paper discusses ways in which a system of Purchasing Power Parities defined at the NUTS-2 regional disaggregation could be developed, and what the implications could be for EU policy, particularly the evaluation of Structural Funds and the conclusions made thus far about regional convergence and development. Currently regional GDP in current prices is deflated using national purchasing power indices, mostly only derived from surveys undertaken in the capital cities of the Member States. For some Member States, the national PPP are corrected for price differences within the country, using spatial correction factors for individual price surveys, given these factors are provided by the countries. Clearly, therefore, for the majority of the countries, these estimates of regional GDP do not take any account of significant differences in cost of living within countries. This paper draws on the preliminary results of a research project being undertaken for Eurostat to examine options for deriving a system of regional prices. Much research has already been published at the level of international prices, partly through the International Comparison Programme (ICP), but little work has been carried out on inter-regional differences. The paper reviews briefly the theoretical and empirical literature on national PPPs. It then discusses key conceptual issues, including the problem of the difference between expenditure-based measures (used for national PPPs) versus the output-based procedure used to estimate regional GDP. A review of what data currently exists to inform estimates, particularly the detailed tables of consumer price indices (CPI), is followed by proposals for how a system of regional PPPs might be developed. This paper concludes with an examination of the potential implications of the work, how it could affect regional policy in the future and conclusions already made about regional development. Some stylised examples are used to show how adopting regional versus national prices could affect the results.

This paper reports on the availability of regional capital stock data,1 in the form of new/updated regional (NUTS2 level) capital stock estimates,2 building on an approach (Perpetual Inventory Method) which had been previously developed for the European Commission. The particular focus here is on the UK and how these data are used to shed light on regional labour productivity disparities. Using a NUTS2 level dataset constructed for the period 2000–16, we use a dynamic spatial panel approach from Baltagi et al. (2019) to estimate a model relating productivity to output (growth or levels) and augmented by explicit incorporation of capital stock plus various other covariates such as human capital. We find that regional variations in capital stocks per worker make a significant contribution to regional variations in labour productivity, but the geography of human capital is also highly relevant. Moreover, we give evidence to show that as human capital rises, notably as we move from the regions to London, the impact of capital stock per worker is less. The effect of capital stock depends on the level of human capital.

"In den letzten Jahren hat die Idee einer regionalen Wettbewerbsfähgkeit erhebliches Interesse unter Akademikern und Wirtschaftspolitikern ausgelöst. Doch trotz der verhältnismäßigen Popularität des Ausdrucks besteht ein überraschender Mangel an Übereinstimmung, was Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Regionen und Städten eigentlich bedeutet. Dieser Aufsatz bespricht einige der Hauptfragen, die bei der Anwendung des Begriffes auftauchen, und konzentriert sich auf die zentrale Relevanz der Produktivität in der Debatte über regionale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Er untersucht sodann die Muster und Dynamik regionaler Produktivität in der gesamten europäischen Union einschließlich. der neuen CEEE Vergrößerungsstaaten, und beschäftigt sich vorallem mit der Frage, ob, und in welchem Ausmaß eine regionale Konvergenz der Produktionshöhen während der beiden letzten Jahrzehnte stattgefunden hat. Es wird festgestellt, daß regionale Konvergenz in den 15 Staaten der EU außergewöhnlich langsam vonstatten gegangen ist, und obschon in letzter Zeit in den CEEE Mitgliedstaaten eine rasche regionale Produktionszunahme festzustellen war, die Möglichkeiten des Aufholens in jenen Staaten nahelegt, dies von einer Abnahme in regionalen Beschäftigungsraten begleitet, und sogar teilweise durch sie erreicht worden zu sein scheint, eine Kombination, die sich auf lange Sicht kaum als nachhaltig erweisen dürfte. Das Fortbestehen regionaler Ungleichheiten der Produktivität in der EU wirft offensichtlich grundlegende Fragen für die Politik auf, und das genau zu dem Zeitpunkt, da Umfang und Zuweisung des Strukturfonds ernsthaft diskutiert werden." (Autorenreferat, IAB-Doku)

This report is an annex to wiiw Research Report 421, 'Economic Challenges of Lagging Regions I Fiscal and Macroeconomic Environment'. It provides eight detailed country case studies, analysing the fiscal and macroeconomic environment in Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain and its effects on the development of the lagging regions in those countries.

The report analyses the fiscal and macroeconomic environment in the lagging regions and the relevant Member States of the EU, as a sound and sustainable macroeconomic framework is a necessary, but by itself not a sufficient precondition for investment and growth in the regions. It starts with identifying relevant indicators to highlight the macroeconomic environment in the lagging regions, assessing the performance of the regions across these indicators, and establishing a framework which sets out the potential causes of these imbalances. This sets the scene for further analysis of the transmission mechanisms which cause the regional discrepancies in these Member States between the lagging and the non-lagging regions, as well as exploring the differences between the low growth and low income lagging regions. The report concludes with a summary of these findings and how they could be used as a basis for policy recommendations which might improve the economic performance of the lagging regions.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Foreword -- About the authors -- Acknowledgements -- Preamble -- Executive summary and key recommendations -- Chapter 1: Introduction: The new discourse of "left behind places" -- 1.1: The Re-emergence and (Re)discovery of "left behind places" -- 1.2: "Left Behind places" as sites of discontent -- 1.3: What are "left behind places"? -- 1.4: "Levelling up": Moving beyond slogans -- Chapter 2: Becoming "left behind": How places have grown apart -- 2.1: Situating the "left behind" problem -- 2.2: The "great turnaround": From convergence to divergence -- 2.3: Growing apart: macro-geographies of "falling behind" -- 2.4: From broad regions to local places: The complexity of the "left behind" landscape -- 2.5: The productivity puzzle and "left behind places" -- 2.6: Conclusions: The scale and geographies of the "left behind" problem -- Chapter 3: Why places have fallen behind: The geographically uneven effects of economic transformation -- 3.1: Evolving geographies of economic transformation -- 3.2: Post-industrial spaces of growth and decline -- 3.3: The changing location of employment -- 3.4: The rise of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) -- 3.5: A public sector counter-weight? -- 3.6: A combined urban and regional problem -- 3.7: Cumulative processes and vicious circles -- 3.8: Conclusions: Understanding how places have become "left behind" -- Chapter 4: Economic shocks and the differential resilience of places -- 4.1: Local economic development as a shock-prone process -- 4.2: The notion of local economic resilience -- 4.3: Economic resilience across UK localities -- 4.4: The emerging implications of brexit and the pandemic shocks -- 4.5: Conclusions: Resilience and recovery -- Chapter 5: Learning from past policies for "levelling up" and "left behind places" in the UK.