IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wuewwb/71.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ballungsprozesse im Standortwettbewerb: Was können die deutschen Bundesländer ausrichten?

Author

Listed:
  • Berthold, Norbert
  • Neumann, Michael

Abstract

Standortwettbewerb der Bundesländer ist prinzipiell eine gute Sache. Er bringt Effizienzgewinne, Kosteneinsparungen, verbesserte Leistungsangebote durch Konkurrenzdruck und präferenzgerechtere öffentliche Institutionen. Aber er kann dies nur, wenn es zu einem wirklichen Wettbewerb kommt. Natürlich können die Länder auch derzeit mit ihren Parametern ihre Wirtschaftspolitik beeinflussen. Doch große Aufholchancen oder gar ein Überflügeln der Konkurrenz ist nicht möglich. Zu gering sind die Handlungsparameter und -anreize, zu lange benötigen staatliche Änderungen in ihrer Wirkung und zu groß sind bestehende Agglomerationsvorteile der Konkurrenz. Sicherlich ist es möglich, den Agglomerationsprozess umzudrehen bzw. eine Agglomeration in der Peripherie zu starten. Dies aber benötigt einen langen strukturellen Wandel. Und es benötigt vor allem die Ausnutzung aller zur Verfügung stehender komparativer Vorteile in einem Land. Dazu gehört auch die steuerliche Belastung – eine klare Trennung in Steuern des Landes und Steuern des Bundes wäre von Vorteil, um die Ineffizienzen der Landespolitik in diesem Bereich aufzudecken. Ebenso sind regionale Arbeitsmarktrahmenbedingungen notwenig – gerade mit Lohnflexibilität und unterschiedlichen regionalen Arbeitsmarktregelungen kann man entsprechend benötigte Arbeitnehmer oder Unternehmer anlocken. Für einen funktionsfähigen Standortwettbewerb bedarf es unbedingt einer diesbezüglichen Ausweitung der landespolitischen Parameter. Wenn die Länder wie bisher hauptsächlich mit schon existenten Ballungsvorteilen werben müssen, lässt sich ein Agglomerationsprozess von einem Land kaum mehr beeinflussen. Dann ist es in der Tat für das Bundesland besser, seine Ressourcen statt in eine effiziente Standortpolitik in politische Lobbyarbeit auf zentralstaatlicher Ebene zu investieren, um möglichst hohe Zuschüsse des Bundes oder der EU zu erhalten. Dies bringt Deutschland zwar nicht weiter – das einzelne Bundesland als solches kann davon aber heutzutage mehr profitieren als von einer soliden Standortpolitik.

Suggested Citation

  • Berthold, Norbert & Neumann, Michael, 2004. "Ballungsprozesse im Standortwettbewerb: Was können die deutschen Bundesländer ausrichten?," Discussion Paper Series 71, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Chair of Economic Order and Social Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wuewwb:71
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/22311/1/dp71.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David E. Wildasin, 1998. "Factor Mobility and Redistributive Policy: Local and International Perspectives," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Peter Birch Sørensen (ed.), Public Finance in a Changing World, chapter 6, pages 151-192, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Krugman, Paul, 1991. "Increasing Returns and Economic Geography," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 483-499, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Hans–Werner Sinn, 2002. "Der neue Systemwettbewerb," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(4), pages 391-407, November.
    5. Berthold, Norbert & Neumann, Michael, 2001. "Sozialsysteme im Wettbewerb - das Ende der Umverteilung?," Discussion Paper Series 41, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Chair of Economic Order and Social Policy.
    6. Baretti, Christian & Huber, Bernd & Lichtblau, Karl, 2002. "A Tax on Tax Revenue: The Incentive Effects of Equalizing Transfers: Evidence from Germany," Munich Reprints in Economics 20129, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    7. Baldwin, Richard E. & Krugman, Paul, 2004. "Agglomeration, integration and tax harmonisation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Christian Baretti & Bernd Huber & Karl Lichtblau, 2002. "A Tax on Tax Revenue: The Incentive Effects of Equalizing Transfers: Evidence from Germany," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 9(6), pages 631-649, November.
    9. Wallace E. Oates & Wallace E. Oates, 2004. "Fiscal and Regulatory Competition: Theory and Evidence," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 11, pages 195-208, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Amiti, Mary, 1998. "New Trade Theories and Industrial Location in the EU: A Survey of Evidence," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 45-53, Summer.
    11. Martin Hallet, 2002. "Regional Specialisation and Concentration in the EU," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Juan R. Cuadrado-Roura & Martí Parellada (ed.), Regional Convergence in the European Union, chapter 3, pages 53-76, Springer.
    12. Stefan Sinn, 1992. "The taming of Leviathan: Competition among governments," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 177-196, March.
    13. Krugman, Paul & Venables, Anthony J, 1990. "Integration and the Competitiveness of Peripheral Industry," CEPR Discussion Papers 363, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berthold Norbert & Neumann Michael, 2004. "Ballungsprozesse im Standortwettbewerb der deutschen Bundesländer," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 55(1), pages 169-190, January.
    2. Casella, Alessandra, 2005. "Redistribution policy: A European model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(7), pages 1305-1331, July.
    3. Toshiaki Takahashi & Hajime Takatsuka & Dao-Zhi Zeng, 2013. "Spatial inequality, globalization, and footloose capital," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 53(1), pages 213-238, May.
    4. Helena Marques, 2008. "Trade And Factor Flows In A Diverse Eu: What Lessons For The Eastern Enlargement(S)?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 364-408, April.
    5. Simonetta Longhi & Peter Nijkamp & Iulia Traistaru, 2003. "Determinants of Manufacturing Location in EU Accession Countries," ERSA conference papers ersa03p310, European Regional Science Association.
    6. Paolo Surico, 2003. "Geographic Concentration and Increasing Returns," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 693-708, December.
    7. Gallo, Fredrik, 2010. "Resisting economic integration when industry location is uncertain," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 467-482, April.
    8. Jean Hindriks & Susana Peralta & Shlomo Weber, 2014. "Local Taxation of Global Corporation: A Simple Solution," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 113-114, pages 37-65.
    9. Karl, Helmut & Matus Velasco, Ximena Fernanda, 2004. "Lessons for regional policy from the new economic geography and the endogenous growth theory," Studies in Spatial Development: Chapters, in: Employment and regional development policy: Market efficiency versus policy intervention, pages 71-89, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    10. Gianmarco Ottaviano, 2003. "Regional Policy in the Global Economy: Insights from New Economic Geography," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6-7), pages 665-673.
    11. Simón Sosvilla-Rivero & Oscar Bajo-Rubio & Carmen Díaz-Roldán, 2006. "Assessing the effectiveness of the EU's regional policies on real convergence: An analysis based on the HERMIN model," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 383-396, April.
    12. Zeddies, Götz, 2015. "Corporate Taxation and Firm Location in Germany," IWH Discussion Papers 2/2015, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    13. Forslid, R. & Knarvik, K.H.M., 2001. "Globalization, Industrial Policy and Clusters," Papers 30/2001, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration-.
    14. HINDRIKS, Jean & PERALTA, Susana & WEBER, Shlomo, 2005. "Fiscal competition, revenue sharing, and policy-induced agglomeration," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2005093, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    15. Frances Ruane & Xiaoheng Zhang, 2007. "Location Choices of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Europe after 1992," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp220, IIIS.
    16. Hans Pitlik, 2005. "Folgt die Steuerpolitik in der EU der Logik des Steuerwettbewerbs," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 256/2005, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    17. Stefan Gruber & Luigi Marattin, 2010. "Taxation, infrastructure and endogenous trade costs in new economic geography," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(1), pages 203-222, March.
    18. Kristian Behrens & Frédéric Robert‐Nicoud, 2009. "Krugman's Papers in Regional Science: The 100 dollar bill on the sidewalk is gone and the 2008 Nobel Prize well‐deserved," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(2), pages 467-489, June.
    19. Traistaru, Iulia & Nijkamp, Peter & Longhi, Simonetta, 2002. "Regional specialization and concentration of industrial activity in accession countries," ZEI Working Papers B 16-2002, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    20. Bofinger, Peter & Schnabel, Isabel & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2014. "Mehr Vertrauen in Marktprozesse. Jahresgutachten 2014/15 [More confidence in market processes. Annual Report 2014/15]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201415.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wuewwb:71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/viwuede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.