Does EU cohesion policy work? Theory and evidence

被引:41
|
作者
Fiaschi, Davide [1 ]
Lavezzi, Andrea Mario [2 ,3 ]
Parenti, Angela [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pisa, Dipartimento Econ & Management, Via Cosimo Ridolfi 10, I-56124 Pisa, Italy
[2] Univ Palermo, Departimento Giurisprudenza, Piazza Bologni 8, I-90134 Palermo, Italy
[3] CICSE, Siena, Italy
[4] IMT Sch Adv Studies Lucca, Piazza S Francesco 19, I-55100 Lucca, Italy
关键词
European regional disparities; European regional policy; spatial panel model; spatial spillovers; structural and cohesion funds; EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL FUNDS; SPATIAL EXTERNALITIES; ECONOMIC-GROWTH; REGIONAL POLICY; CONVERGENCE; IMPACT; INNOVATION; DISCONTINUITY; SPILLOVERS; UNION;
D O I
10.1111/jors.12364
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:386 / 423
页数:38
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] ADVANTAGES AND CONTROVERSY OF COMMON AGRICULTURAL AND COHESION POLICY IN THE EU
    Kostic, Vladimir
    Simonovic, Zoran
    Kostic, Aleksandar
    [J]. EKONOMIKA POLJOPRIVREDA-ECONOMICS OF AGRICULTURE, 2016, 63 (04): : 1365 - 1378
  • [42] EU cohesion policy and competing models of European capitalism
    Hooghe, L
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES, 1998, 36 (04): : 457 - 477
  • [43] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN EU COHESION POLICY - A STATISTICAL APPROACH
    Ptak, Michal
    [J]. EKONOMIA I SRODOWISKO-ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENT, 2015, 4 (55): : 53 - 63
  • [44] REGIONAL AND COHESION POLICY - THE CROSSROADS OF EU SECTORAL POLICIES
    Bargaoanu, Alina
    Calinescu, Loredana
    [J]. ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, 2009, 9 (04) : 5 - 17
  • [45] Cohesion policy in the EU: Going beyond fiscal transfers?
    不详
    [J]. ECONOMIST-NETHERLANDS, 2001, 149 (03): : 365 - 376
  • [46] REGIONAL DISPARITIES AND CONVERGENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EU COHESION POLICY
    Horka, Lenka
    [J]. 15TH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON REGIONAL SCIENCES, 2012, : 28 - 35
  • [47] EU COHESION POLICY: IMPACT ON PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN LATVIA
    Spiridonovs, Jurijs
    [J]. NEW SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE 2010, 2011, : 64 - 69
  • [48] Does environmental policy work? The theory and practice of outcome assessment
    Daedlow, K
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 2005, 14 (05) : 730 - 731
  • [49] DOES ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY WORK? THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT
    Bozic, Marin
    [J]. EKONOMSKI PREGLED, 2005, 56 (7-8): : 596 - 600
  • [50] Nursing work directions in Australia: Does evidence drive the policy?
    Roche, Michael
    Duffield, Christine
    Aisbett, Chris
    Diers, Donna
    Stasa, Helen
    [J]. COLLEGIAN, 2012, 19 (04) : 231 - 238