IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/str/wpaper/0812.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Relative Efficiency of Automatic and Discretionary Industrial Aid

Author

Listed:
  • Kim Swales

    () (Department of Economics, University of Strathclyde)

Abstract

For the last two decades, the primary instruments for UK regional policy have been discretionary subsidies. Such aid is targeted at “additional†projects - projects that would not have been implemented without the subsidy - and the subsidy should be the minimum necessary for the project to proceed. Discretionary subsidies are thought to be more efficient than automatic subsidies, where many of the aided projects are non-additional and all projects receive the same subsidy rate. The present paper builds on Swales (1995) and Wren (2007a) to compare three subsidy schemes: an automatic scheme and two types of discretionary scheme, one with accurate appraisal and the other with appraisal error. These schemes are assessed on their expected welfare impacts. The particular focus is the reduction in welfare gain imposed by the interaction of appraisal error and the requirements for accountability. This is substantial and difficult to detect with conventional evaluation techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim Swales, 2008. "The Relative Efficiency of Automatic and Discretionary Industrial Aid," Working Papers 0812, University of Strathclyde Business School, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:str:wpaper:0812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/1newwebsite/departmentsubject/economics/research/researchdiscussionpapers/2008/DP12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Criscuolo, Chiara & Martin, Ralf & Overman, Henry & Van Reenen, John, 2012. "The Causal Effects of an Industrial Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 6323, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    2. Colin Wren, 2007. "Reconciling Practice with Theory in the Micro-Evaluation of Regional Policy," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 321-337.
    3. Eric Mcvittie & J. Kim Swales, 2007. "'Constrained Discretion' in UK Monetary and Regional Policy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 267-280.
    4. Gary Gillespie & Peter Mcgregor & J. Kim Swales & Ya Ping Yin, 2001. "The Displacement and Multiplier Effects of Regional Selective Assistance: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 125-139.
    5. J. E. King, 1999. "Introduction," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 251-255.
    6. Kim Swales, 1997. "A cost-benefit approach to the evaluation of regional selective assistance," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 73-85, February.
    7. Holden, Darryl R & Swales, J K, 1995. "The Additionality, Displacement and Substitution Effects of Factor Subsidies," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 42(2), pages 113-126, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    discretionary subsidies; appraisal error; accountability; cost benefit analysis;

    JEL classification:

    • R13 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General Equilibrium and Welfare Economic Analysis of Regional Economies
    • R38 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - Government Policy
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    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:str:wpaper:0812. 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: (Kirsty Hall). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/edstruk.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.