IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gef/wpaper/4-2008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

EU cohesion policy and “conditional” effectiveness: What do cross-section regressions tell us?

Author

Listed:
  • John Bradley

    () (EMDS - Economic Modelling and Development Strategies)

  • Gerhard Untiedt

    () (GEFRA - Gesellschaft fuer Finanz- und Regionalanalysen)

Abstract

About 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.

Suggested Citation

  • John Bradley & Gerhard Untiedt, 2008. "EU cohesion policy and “conditional” effectiveness: What do cross-section regressions tell us?," Working Papers 4-2008, GEFRA - Gesellschaft fuer Finanz- und Regionalanalysen.
  • Handle: RePEc:gef:wpaper:4-2008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gefra-muenster.org/downloads/doc/gefra-wp-2008-4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 407-437.
    5. 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.
    6. Douglas Laxton & Susanna Mursula & Michael Kumhof & Dirk V Muir, 2010. "The Global Integrated Monetary and Fiscal Model (GIMF) – Theoretical Structure," IMF Working Papers 10/34, International Monetary Fund.
    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. Tobias Hagen & Philipp Mohl, 2011. "Econometric Evaluation of EU Cohesion Policy: A Survey," Chapters,in: International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume III, chapter 16 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Zsuzsanna Tron, 2009. "Examining the impact of European regional policy," IWE Working Papers 188, Institute for World Economics - Centre for Economic and Regional Studies- Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
    7. 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.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gef:wpaper:4-2008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Inge Khodjasteh). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/gefrade.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.