Evaluation Methods of European Regional Policy and Reasons for Different Outcomes
AbstractIt is a very generally accepted view that financial support received from the European Union generates a large growth surplus. The potential effects of the structural funds calculated in model simulations carried out by the European Commission support these positive expectations. However empirical studies of the real effects of the funds are few and far between measuring the growth surpluses attributed to the process of catching up with richer EU economies. The aim of the present paper is to remedy this contradiction, on the following logical basis. First of all the paper examines the processes and types of evaluation that have developed in the EU; it then examines some of the lessons to be drawn concerning the methods of analysis through a closer look of case studies, model simulations and econometric analyses employed. We can state that examinations based on computable general equilibrium models and input-output analyses predict greater growth effects than studies using regression analysis. This is primarily due to the fact that while the results of the model simulations estimate an upper limit for the expected effects – the result that is to be expected if the funds are used appropriately and efficiently –, the results of the econometric analyses reflect the imperfections of real events. The estimates from the first type of study are expected to be higher than the estimates of the second. The differences are not necessarily inconsistent. Rather, the various results are complementary: the potential impact can be set against the actual impact. To bridge the gap is of course the challenge of future reforms of cohesion policy. The conclusion that emerges is that the regional policy intentions are only partly realised, for various reasons, including the crowding out effect of the financial aid, rentseeking behaviour and the moral hazard of the governments involved.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest in its journal Romanian Economic Journal.
Volume (Year): 12 (2009)
Issue (Month): 32 ((2))
European Union; regional policy; evaluation;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
- R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Paul M Romer, 1999.
"Endogenous Technological Change,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
2135, David K. Levine.
- Sarah Batterbury, 2006. "Principles and purposes of European Union Cohesion policy evaluation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 179-188.
- repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/9343 is not listed on IDEAS
- John Bradley & Timo Mitze & Edgar Morgenroth & Gerhard Untiedt, 2005. "An Integrated Micro-Macro (IMM) Approach to the Evaluation of Large-scale Public Investment Programmes: The Case of EU Structural Funds," Papers WP167, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
- Michele Boldrin & Fabio Canova, 2001. "Inequality and convergence in Europe's regions: reconsidering European regional policies," Economic Policy, CEPR & CES & MSH, vol. 16(32), pages 205-253, 04.
- Bradley, John & Herce, Jose-Antonio & Modesto, Leonor, 1995. "The macroeconomic effects of the CSF 1994-1999 in the EU periphery : An analysis based on the HERMIN model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 323-333, July.
- Andres RodrIguez-Pose & Ugo Fratesi†, 2004.
"Between Development and Social Policies: The Impact of European Structural Funds in Objective 1 Regions,"
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 97-113.
- Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Ugo Fratesi, 2003. "Between development and social policies: the impact of European Structural Funds in Objective 1 Regions," European Economy Group Working Papers 28, European Economy Group.
- John Bradley, 2006. "Evaluating the impact of European Union Cohesion policy in less-developed countries and regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 189-200.
- Puga, Diego, 2001.
"European Regional Policies in Light of Recent Location Theories,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
2767, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Diego Puga, 2002. "European regional policies in light of recent location theories," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(4), pages 373-406, October.
- Ward Romp & Jakob de Haan, 2007.
"Public Capital and Economic Growth: A Critical Survey,"
Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik,
Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 8(s1), pages 6-52, 04.
- Romp, Ward & de Haan, Jakob, 2005. "Public capital and economic growth: a critical survey," EIB Papers 2/2005, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
- Philippe Martin, 1999. "Are European regional policies delivering?," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/9343, Sciences Po.
- Philippe Martin, 1998. "Can Regional Policies Affect Growth and Geography in Europe?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(6), pages 757-774, 08.
- Karen Helene Midelfart-Knarvik & Henry G. Overman, 2002. "Delocation and European integration: is structural spending justified?," Economic Policy, CEPR & CES & MSH, vol. 17(35), pages 321-359, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Radu Lupu).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.