Transcript Cohesion Policy after 2013

A new Regional Policy:
Innovative Ideas for the Post-2013 Reform
EPP-ED Hearing
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Untiedt
GEFRA – Society for Regional and Financial Analyses
Brussels November 8, 2007
Ludgeristr. 56, D-48143 Münster
Tel.: (+49-251) 263 9311 Fax: (+49-251) 263 9319
Email: [email protected]
Overview
1. Preliminary remarks
2. The Cohesion Policy period: 2007-2013
3. The Future of Cohesion Policy after 2013
4. Summary
Page: 2
Cohesion Policy 2007-2013
Impulse:
around 350 billion Euro
(in current prices)
Some relationships:
More than a third of the total EU-budget
Around a third percentage point of the
EU GNP
Up to 4 percent of the national GNP of
receiving countries
Page: 3
Cohesion Policy 2007-2013
Distribution by target:
1.
81.5 % for „Convergence“
2.
16.0 % for „Competition and Employment“
3.
2.5 % for „territorial co-operation“
Page: 4
Cohesion Policy 2007-2013
Page: 5
Income convergence (1997-2005)
Strong positive „catch-up“
by the new member states
„catch-up“ slows down with
higher initial income
Cohesion countries
(Ireland, Spain Greece) are
also successful
Exception: Portugal
60
EE
Veränderung zwischen 1997 und 2005, in %
Income convergence within
the EU-27 at the national
level
50
LV
40
LT
RO
LU
30
BG
HU
IE
SK
20
EL
SI
PL
10
ES
CY
UK
CZ
FI
0
BE
PT
-10
FR
NL
SW
AT
DK
DE
MT
IT
-20
0
40
80
120
160
BIP pro Kopf in KKP 1997 (EU-25 = 100)
200
Cohesion Policy 2007-2013
Page: 6
Long-run impact of the Cohesion Policy on the level
of GDP per capita around 2 percent points
(on average, depending on the national impulse)
Stronger impacts in those economies that are more
deregulated and have open labour markets
Catch-up during the period 2007-2013 will reduce
income disparites
Impact of the Cohesion Policies is to small to change
the spatial pattern substantially
Cohesion Policy after 2013
Country specific needs should determine the areas
of intervention
• Human ressources
• Research and Development
• Infrastructure
• Direct aid to the firms
Cohesion Policy should not be overloaded with
targets (climate change, aging population etc.)
Page: 7
Cohesion Policy after 2013
Page: 8
Lisbon-type interventions (especially R&D support)
may not be the best way to spend the subsidies
Mix of interventions necessary depending on the
development stage of the economy:
- technological lagging economies will catch-up by imitation
and adoption of existing technologies
- technological leading economies need to invest in innovation to
protect their welfare
Cohesion Policy after 2013
Page: 9
Different „social returns of investment“ by types of
interventions
Investment in infrastructure and human ressources
probably have the highest returns
Knowledge about social returns of „R&D support“ is
limited. Existing evidence suggests a small positive
impact
Social return of direct aid to the firms more or less
negligible (Investment decisions are seldom a
function of the investment subsidies)
Cohesion Policy after 2013
Page: 10
Strengthen: Infrastructure and Human ressources in
the most lagging regions
R&D subsidies should not be the prior areas for the
Cohesion Policies within the lagging regions
Direct aid to the firms is at least problematic. A
reduction of the upper limit of subsidies would be an
appropriate reaction.
But, the optimal mix of measures is an open question
Problem: Too much of a good thing
Cohesion Policy after 2013
Page: 11
Regional Concentration: Most lagging countries
Evidence exists that during catch-up-processes
regional disparities increase
No specific orientation towards agglomerations
necessary: Lot of the measures are demand driven.
Exception: Infrastructure (in a wide definition)
Cluster-type policies should be investigated critically.
Summary
Page: 12
Convergence of Income at the national level
Path dependence of development
Interventions in dependence of the stage of development
Concentration on most lagging countries or
macro-regions
Without further enlargements the distribution of aids
will not change substantially
Many thanks for your attention
Gerhard Untiedt