EU cohesion policy and “conditional” effectiveness: What do cross-section regressions tell us?
AbstractAbout one third of total EU budgetary resources are spent on implementing cohesion policy. Therefore, it is understandable that the European Commission and especially donor states (acting for the taxpayers) need to be reassured that their contributions are spent wisely and are being used effectively in achieving their stated goal of promoting growth and thereby reducing welfare differences throughout the Union. Different evaluation methods have been proposed to look at the likely impact of Structural Funds interventions ranging from macroeconometric models to case studies. Recently, evaluation results based on enhanced growth rate regressions with panel data have received wide interest. Ederveen et al. (2006, 2002) are two widely cited works that address the evaluation of the effectiveness of cohesion policy using the single equation, panel dataset approach. The results support a serious critique of cohesion policy, asserting that its effectiveness is conditional on country characteristics that may be in short supply in many poorer member states (e.g., the quality of public institutions), and that cohesion policies should not be implemented in the new member states unless the institutional capacities are installed. This paper takes a closer look at the Ederveen et al. results, mainly from three directions. Firstly, we discuss some issues concerning the general set-up of the database and the time period that was used, secondly show that their preferred regression seems mis-specified and instable concerning the countries included and the time period used and thirdly discuss in more general terms that the use of this methodology in the whole area of policy evaluation has been shown to be deeply flawed and to tell us nothing about the effectiveness of public policy. Our analysis of the methodology and results of Ederveen et al. drive us to the conclusions that the policy recommendations derived from this work are unsound, unwise and without merit. In particular, the recommendations concerning the new EU member states should not be based on an appeal to the cross-section regressions that are presented in their 2006 paper. In contrast, we propose two other approaches – the macroeconometric modelling approach and the microeconomic approach - which, if developed together, hold out the possibility of more robust and insightful analysis and conclusions. Only by looking deeper into the manner in which EU Cohesion Policy is actually designed and implemented, the manner in which national governments operate parallel regional policies with no reference to Brussels, and by making use of more searching and holistic models is it likely to be possible to deliver verdicts on whether or not the EU has a role in this important area of integration, and if the answer is “yes”, how that policy can be modified in light of the recent enlargements. Dogmatic conclusions reached in the literature, mainly negative, but the point also applies to supportive conclusions, are premature and almost certainly wrong.
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 InfoPaper provided by GEFRA - Gesellschaft fuer Finanz- und Regionalanalysen in its series Working Papers with number 4-2008.
Length: 28 pages
Date of creation: May 2008
Date of revision:
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2008-06-13 (All new papers)
- NEP-EEC-2008-06-13 (European Economics)
- NEP-GEO-2008-06-13 (Economic Geography)
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.:
- Douglas Laxton & Susanna Mursula & Michael Kumhof & Dirk Muir, 2010. "The Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal Model (GIMF)," IMF Working Papers 10/34, International Monetary Fund.
- Francesco Giavazzi & Marco Pagano, 1990.
"Can Severe Fiscal Contractions Be Expansionary? Tales of two Small Euopean Countries,"
89, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
- Francesco Giavazzi & Marco Pagano, 1990. "Can Severe Fiscal Contractions Be Expansionary? Tales of Two Small European Countries," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1990, Volume 5, pages 75-122 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Giavazzi, Francesco & Pagano, Marco, 1990. "Can Severe Fiscal Contractions Be Expansionary? Tales of Two Small European Countries," CEPR Discussion Papers 417, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Francesco Giavazzi & Marco Pagano, 1990. "Can Severe Fiscal Contractions be Expansionary? Tales of Two Small European Countries," NBER Working Papers 3372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew Warner, 1995.
"Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,"
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity,
Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 1-118.
- Jeffrey Sachs & Andrew Warner, 1995. "Economic Reform and the Progress of Global Integration," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1733, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1990.
"A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth,"
NBER Working Papers
3541, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Sjed Ederveen & Joeri Gorter & Ruud de Mooij & Richard Nahuis, 2003. "Funds and Games: The Economics of European Cohesion Policy," Occasional Papers 03, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.
- David Roodman, 2007.
"The Anarchy of Numbers: Aid, Development, and Cross-Country Empirics,"
World Bank Economic Review,
World Bank Group, vol. 21(2), pages 255-277, May.
- David Roodman, 2004. "The Anarchy of Numbers: Aid, Development, and Cross-country Empirics," Development and Comp Systems 0412003, EconWPA.
- ARGUELLES, Margarita & BENAVIDES, Carmen & MAYOR, Matias, 2011. "Regional Policy In The Eu Less Favoured Regions For The Period 2000-2006: An Assessment Of The Expenditure Allocation And Governance," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 11(1).
- Stoyan Totev, 2011. "EU Periphery, Economic Problems and Opportunities – The Case of Balkan Countries," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 2, pages 59-68.
- John Bradley, 2010. "EU Cohesion Policy in a Period of Economic Crisis: Evaluating Impacts in Small Open Economies," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 7, pages 50-67.
- Stoyan Totev, 2010. "Economic Integration and Conversion in the EU Member States," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 5, pages 3-23.
- Stoyan Totev, 2010. "Economic Integration and Convergence of EU Member States," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 7, pages 68-86.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Inge Khodjasteh).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.