Do economic models tell us anything useful about Cohesion Policy impacts? A comparison of HERMIN, QUEST and ECOMOD

An ex-ante impact analysis of EC Cohesion Policy investment programmes for the period 2007-2013 was recently carried out on behalf of the European Commission (DG Regional Policy) using three different economic models: the QUEST II model of DG-ECFIN, the ECOMOD model of EcoMod Network/Free University of Brussels and the COHESION system of HERMIN models of GEFRA/EMDS. The main results were published in the most recent Fourth Cohesion Report (EC, 2007), and it turned out that different models gave different results. In some cases the differences were very big and pointed to quite different conclusions about the impact of the European Cohesion Policy on growth and employment impacts. In order to progress the debate on the usefulness of model-based policy impact analysis, we first set out the wider context within which EC Cohesion Policy is designed, implemented and evaluated. We then present a brief summary of the main findings of the model-based analysis in terms of impacts on aggregate GDP and total employment. We conclude with a discussion of possible reasons why two of the models – QUEST and HERMIN - may be producing different results.

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

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.

Plant connectivity underlies plant-pollinator-exploiter distributions in Ficus petiolaris and associated pollinating and non-pollinating fig wasps

Peer reviewedPostprin

G protein-coupled receptor signalling in astrocytes in health and disease: A focus on metabotropic glutamate receptors

Work published over the past 10–15 years has caused the neuroscience community to engage in a process of constant re-evaluation of the roles of glial cells in the mammalian central nervous system. Recent emerging evidence suggests that, in addition to carrying out various homeostatic functions within the CNS, astrocytes can also engage in a two-way dialogue with neurons. Astrocytes possess many of the receptors, and some of the ion channels, present in neurons endowing them with an ability to sense and respond to an array of neuronal signals. In addition, an expanding number of small molecules and proteins have been shown to be released by astrocytes in both health and disease. In this commentary we will highlight advances in our understanding of G protein-coupled receptor signalling in astrocytes, with a particular emphasis on metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) receptors. Discussion will focus on the major mGlu receptors expressed in astrocytes, mGlu3 and mGlu5, how these receptors can influence different aspects of astrocyte physiology, and how signalling by these G protein-coupled receptors might change under pathophysiological circumstances