IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/74-1-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Europäische Regionalpolitik: Gift für rückständige Regionen?

Author

Listed:
  • Norbert Berthold
  • Michael Neumann

Abstract

The European Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of developmemt of the various regions. Especially focussed is the reduction of unemployment in lagging regions. The article shows that agglomeration forces can cause market failure. This justifies taking measures to correct the market process. But it is to be doubted, that European Structural Funds go the right way to prevent market failure. Redistribution to regions with high unemployment draws out urgently needed national reforms and prevents the unemployed from migrating to other regions with less unemployment. The help - considered as a medicine - turns out to be poison for regions whose delelopment is lagging behind. Die Europäische Union hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, die Unterschiede im Entwicklungsstand der verschiedenen Regionen zu verringern. Insbesondere der Abbau der Arbeitslosigkeit in rückständigen Regionen steht dabei im Blickpunkt. Der Artikel zeigt, dass Agglomerationskräfte ein Marktversagen verursachen können. Dies rechtfertigt Maßnahmen zur Korrektur des Marktprozesses. Es ist indes anzuzweifeln, dass man mit den Europäischen Strukturfonds auf dem richtigen Weg ist, dieses Marktversagen zu beseitigen. Umverteilung in Regionen mit hoher Arbeitslosigkeit verzögert dringend notwendige nationale Reformen und hält die Arbeitslosen von einem Umzug in Gebiete mit geringerer Arbeitslosigkeit ab. Die als Medizin gedachte Hilfe wird so zu einem Gift für rückständige Regionen.

Suggested Citation

  • Norbert Berthold & Michael Neumann, 2005. "Europäische Regionalpolitik: Gift für rückständige Regionen?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 74(1), pages 47-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:74-1-4
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.74.1.47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.74.1.47
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.74.1.47?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    2. Pollak, Robert A, 1978. "Endogenous Tastes in Demand and Welfare Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 374-379, May.
    3. Samuel Bowles, 1998. "Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 75-111, March.
    4. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 2002. "Darwinism in economics: from analogy to ontology," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 259-281.
    5. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    6. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    8. von Weizsacker, Carl Christian, 1971. "Notes on endogenous change of tastes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 345-372, December.
    9. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    10. R. Janssen & G. Munda, 1999. "Multi-criteria methods for quantitative, qualitative and fuzzy evaluation problems," Chapters, in: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.), Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 58, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. O'Connor, Martin, 2000. "Pathways for environmental evaluation: a walk in the (Hanging) Gardens of Babylon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 175-193, August.
    12. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.), 1999. "Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 801.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schwengler, Barbara, 2013. "Einfluss der europäischen Regionalpolitik auf die deutsche Regionalförderung," IAB-Discussion Paper 201318, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].

    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. Sigrid Stagl, 2004. "Valuation for Sustainable Development: The Role of Multicriteria Evaluation," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 73(1), pages 53-62.
    2. Szántó, Richárd, 2012. "Több szempontú részvételi döntések a fenntarthatósági értékelésekben. A legnépszerűbb módszerek összehasonlítása [Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis. A comparison of methodologies]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1336-1355.
    3. Madlener, Reinhard & Stagl, Sigrid, 2005. "Sustainability-guided promotion of renewable electricity generation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 147-167, April.
    4. Shmelev, Stanislav E. & Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz, 2009. "Dynamic multidimensional assessment of sustainability at the macro level: The case of Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2560-2573, August.
    5. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    6. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    8. Marta Bottero & Chiara D’Alpaos & Alessandra Oppio, 2019. "Ranking of Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Abandoned Industrial Heritage in Vulnerable Contexts: A Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Giuseppe Munda, 2012. "Intensity of preference and related uncertainty in non-compensatory aggregation rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 649-669, October.
    10. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    12. Stanislav Edward Shmelev (ODID), "undated". "Multi-criteria Assessment of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: New Dimensions and Stakeholders in the South of France," QEH Working Papers qehwps181, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    13. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    14. Giuseppe Munda, 2022. "Qualitative reasoning or quantitative aggregation rules for impact assessment of policy options? A multiple criteria framework," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3259-3277, October.
    15. Cem Iskender Aydin & Gokhan Ozertan & Begum Ozkaynak, 2011. "Should Turkey Adopt GM Crops? A Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for the Case of Cotton Farming in Turkey," Working Papers 2011/07, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    16. Vasilis Angelis & Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis & Katerina Dimaki, 2013. "A Country's Process of Development as Described by a Butterfly Catastrophe Model: The Case of European South," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), International Hellenic University (IHU), Kavala Campus, Greece (formerly Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology - EMaTTech), vol. 6(2), pages 25-45, September.
    17. Kowalski, Katharina & Stagl, Sigrid & Madlener, Reinhard & Omann, Ines, 2009. "Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(3), pages 1063-1074, September.
    18. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    19. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2014. "Preference endogeneity in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 90-105.
    20. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.

    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:diw:diwvjh:74-1-4. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.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.