Transcript Diapositiva 1

An empirical analysis of the determinants of the
Rural Development policy spending
for Human Capital
Beatrice Camaioni1, Valentina Cristiana Materia2
agriregionieuropa
2.
1. DEAR, Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy
Department of Economics, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
122nd European Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar
Evidence-Based Agricultural and Rural Policy Making
Methodological and Empirical Challenges of Policy Evaluation
February 17th – 18th, 2011, Ancona (Italy)
Università Politecnica delle Marche
Centro Studi Sulle Politiche
Economiche, Rurali e Ambientali
associazioneAlessandroBartola
studi e ricerche di economia e di politica agraria
Outline
A. The aim of the paper
B. The Human Capital (HC) policy
agriregionieuropa
 overview in Rural Development (RD) plans
 regional analysis of HC expenditure
C. Empirical analysis
D. Concluding remarks
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
A. The aim of the paper
agriregionieuropa
Analyse the distribution of the Rural
Development (RD) expenditure for specific
measures related to Human Capital
across EU
Investigate which factors weigh more in
determining the expenditure for the
Human Capital policy of the EU regions
(Nuts 2 level)
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
B. The Human Capital (HC) policy
 EU 2020 strategy:
agriregionieuropa
– smart growth (education, knowledge and innovation)
– sustainable growth (a resource-efficient, greener and more
competitive economy)
– inclusive growth (high employment and economic, social and
territorial cohesion)
 RD policy framework:
Generational change, training and education, and advisory
services are associated with the enhancement of human capital
in order to pursue the objective of competitiveness (Axis 1)
Human
capital and
knowledge
transfer
»
»
»
»
»
Vocational training and information actions (111)
Setting up of young farmers (112)
Early retirement (113)
Use of advisory services (114)
Setting up of management, relief and advisory services (115)
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
Overview in RD plans (1)
Programming period 2007-2013
– 96.1 billion euro EAFRD available for RD policy
agriregionieuropa
•
•
•
•
•
44.5% to Axis 2 – Agro-environment
33.6% to Axis 1 – Competitiveness
13.3% to Axis 3 – Diversification,
5.9% to Axis 4 – Leader
2% to Technical assistance
71% Physical Capital and Innovation
23% HC and Knowledge transfer
2% Food&Processing modernisation, Innovation&Quality
4% other Axis 1 measures
– HC: 7.8% of the entire budget for RD policy
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
Overview in RD plans (2)
agriregionieuropa
Relative importance of HC budget on total RD policy
Poland
France
Lithuania
Belgium
Greece
Spain
Cyprus
Total EU-27 (EAFRD)
Italy
Slovenia
Denmark
Sweeden
Bulgaria
Portugal
the Netherlands
Ireland
Hungary
Finland
Malta
Romania
Czech Republic
Latvia
United Kingdom
Austria
Estonia
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Germany
EU-27: 7,8%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
Overview in RD plans (3)
agriregionieuropa
Member States allocation for HC measures
Total EU-27 (EAFRD)
United Kingdom
Sweeden
Finland
Slovakia
Slovenia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Austria
the Netherlands
Malta
Hungary
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Cyprus
Italy
France
Spain
Greece
Ireland
Estonia
Germany
Denmark
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Belgium
0%
20%
Vocational training and information actions
Early retirement
Setting up of management, relief & adv. services
40%
60%
80%
100%
Setting up of young farmers
Use of advisory services
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
Regional analysis of HC expenditure
 Divergences btw MS may reflect:
– Difficulties in terms of capacity of spending?
– “Administrative” consequence?
– Legitimate political choice?
agriregionieuropa
 The emerging picture for EU-15:
– The Continental regions show the highest capacity of
spending and the highest value of
HC expenditure/holdings
AT, BE, DE, FR, LU, NL
– The Northern regions show the highest value of HC
expenditure/AWU
DK, FI, IE, SE, UK
– The Southern regions show lagging value for both the
indicators (but NOT Spain and Italy)
GR, PT
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
agriregionieuropa
HC expenditure/holdings
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
agriregionieuropa
HC expenditure/AWU
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
C. The empirical analysis
Which factors might determine the differences btw regions in
terms of spending for HC?
Do they really explain the emerging distribution of expenditure?
 A set of relevant socio-economic (baseline and impact) indicators
selected from CMEF:
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
GDP_PPS_PC
GVA_AGR
agriregionieuropa
MANGER_EDU_AGR
AGE_RATIO_35_55
LAB_PROD
AWU
DESCRIPTION
GDP per capita in Purchasing Power
Standards (PPS) (EU-27 = 100)
Gross Value Added in primary sector
(millions of euro)
Percentage of managers with basic or
full agricultural training
Ratio between the number of farmers
under 35 and the number of farmers
over 55 (percentage)
Labour productivity (GVA/AWU)
Labour force
CMEF INDICATORS
Economic development
Training and Education
Age structure
Labour productivity
Annual working units
 Dependent variable: HC expenditure (thousand euro)
 Year: 2007-2008
 Several estimation attempts (OLS)
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
Some interesting findings...
First attempt of estimation:
– we use the only CMEF indicators… but:
• Significant: Age ratio (+) and % managers with a basic
or full agricultural training (-)
• Not significant: GDP and GVA/AWU
agriregionieuropa
Second attempt:
– we use a “proxy” for lab. Productivity... but:
• Significant: GDP, AWU, age ratio, % managers with a
basic or full agricultural training
• Not significant: GVA
At regional level, are there other variables, in any way related
to CMEF, significant and influent as it seems?
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
Results of the last estimation
VARIABLES
GDP_PPS_PC
GVA_AGR
AWU
AGE_RATIO_35_55
UAA
agriregionieuropa
FARMS
RURAL
CONVERG
CONS_
Number of observations:
R2:
Adj R2:
COEFFICIENT
(STD ERROR)
45,81
(15,63)
-2,023
(0,702)
0,158
(0,026)
134,51
(36,31)
0,002
(0,000)
-0,076
(0,021)
-18,55
(887,5)
337,43
(1205,9)
-6873,2
(2212,2)
P>|z|
**
0,004
**
0,004
**
0,000
**
0,000
**
0,001
**
0,001
0,983
0,780
**
 The age structure is
the main factor of
influence (+)
 The fact that a region
is Rural or Converg.
seems not significant
 AWU (+), UAA (+)
 GVA is not significant
(-)
0,002
212
0,4588
0,4375
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
D. Concluding remarks (1)
agriregionieuropa
 Although the relevance of the HC issue in light of the EU 2020
challenges, the budget dedicated to this policy is relative low
(7.8%) with respect to the entire budget for the RD policy (20072013)
 No homogeneity btw the EU countries in terms of spatial
distribution of the spending for HC: Member States with a lower
budget profile on HC, tend to invest in more complex and time
consuming measures (vocational training), while countries
allocating more funds to the HC policy invest more in generational
turnover measures ( “premium” measures: early retirement and
setting up of young farmers)
 The empirical estimations demonstrate that at regional level the
variable strictly associated to HC as suggested by the CMEF are
not relevant
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
D. Concluding remarks (2)
 Rather, other variables, in any way related to agriculture, are
relevant in the decision of spending:
 ... age structure and AWU are obviously relevant, in fact, they
reflect the target of the beneficiaries the measures analysed are
addressed to
 ... but also the UAA, as indicator of the importance of agriculture
in the regions, and the number of holdings have a great impact
agriregionieuropa
 TO DO...
– extend this analysis to a longer series of data covering several
years
– repeat the analysis distinguishing by measures
– apply an estimation by GWR techniques, in order to test the
spatial effects
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)
agriregionieuropa
Thank you
for your attention
[email protected]
[email protected]
122nd EAAE Seminar, February 17th – 18th , 2011, Ancona (Italy)