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.

Trade, FDI and Cross-Variable Linkages: A German (Macro-)Regional Perspective

We analyse the evolution of German Trade and FDI activity within the EU27 using a simultaneous equation gravity approach for imports, exports, in- and outward FDI stocks based on German regional data (NUTS1-level) for 1993-2005. Our approach seeks to explore the main long-run driving forces of both trade/FDI and identify the likely linkages among them. Our motivation for a joint system estimation rests on the observation of a significant cross-equation residual correlation for single equation trade/FDI gravity models, which in turn opens up the possibility for enhancing estimation efficiency in a full information approach. 'On the fly' the simultaneous equation model also allows us to derive a measure for trade/FDI linkages based on the variance-covariance matrix of the system's error term. Adopting both a Hausman-Taylor (1981) IV approach (3SLS-GMM) and a rival non-IV estimator (the system extension to the Fixed Effects Vector Decomposition model recently proposed by Plümper \& Tröger, 2007) our main results are: We find empirical support for the chosen gravity setup as an appropriate framework in explaining German trade and FDI patterns with a prominent role given to trade costs (proxied by geographical distance). Looking at cross-variable linkages we find a substitutive link between trade (both ex-/imports) and outward FDI for the average of German states in line with earlier evidence for Germany, while imports and inward FDI are found complement each other. We also analyse the sensitivity of the results for regionally disaggregated sub-aggregates among the total pool of German state - EU27 country pairs. The results hint at structural differences among the trade and FDI activity of the two German Eastern and Western macro regions on the one hand, and also their interaction with the 'core' EU15 member states opposed to the overall EU27 aggregate on the other hand. Taking the West German - EU27 trade \& FDI relationship as an example, the identified pairwise linkages between the four variables closely follow the predictions of the New Trade theory model of Baldwin \& Ottaviano (2001): That is, when trade is merely of intra industry type with non-zero trade costs, the latter shift production abroad and lead to export replacement effects of FDI. However, at the same time outward FDI may stimulates trade via reverse good imports. For the West German - EU15 aggregate we even reveal complementaries among export and FDI activity, which have not been identified for German data before. This strongly advocates the importance of the regional dimension in analysing cross-variable linkages among trade and FDI.Trade, FDI, Panel Data, Simultaneous equations

Internal Migration, Regional Labour Market Dynamics and Implications for German East-West Disparities – Results from a Panel VAR

This paper analyses the causal linkages between regional labour market variables and internal migration flows among German states between 1991–2006. We adopt a Panel VAR approach to identify the feedback effects among the variables and analyse the dynamic properties of the system through impulseresponse functions.We also use the model to track the evolution of the particular East-West migration since re-unification aiming to shed more light on the East German “empirical puzzle”, characterized by lower migration responses than expected from the regional labour market position relative to the West. We indeed get evidence for such a puzzle throughout the mid-1990s, which is likely to be caused by huge West-East income transfers, a fast exogenously driven wage convergence and the possibility of East-West commuting. However, we also observe an inversion of this relationship for later periods:That is, along with a second wave of East-West movements around 2001 net flows out of East Germany were much higher than expected after controlling for its weak labour market and macroeconomic performance. Since this second wave is also accompanied by a gradual fading out of economic distortions, this supports the view of “repressed” migration flows for that period.Internal migration, Panel VAR, System GMM

Macro-regional evaluation of the Structural Funds using the HERMIN modelling framework

The structural fund interventions play a crucial role in improving the social and economic cohesion of the EU. A particular focus of the structural funds is on those regions that lag behind to the extent that their GDP per capita is below 75 per cent of the EU average ? Objective 1 regions. In 1999 these regions accounted for 25 per cent of total EU population, and in general they are poorly endowed in a number of areas, such as infrastructure, human capital, and modern high productivity industries and services. As a consequence, they tend to have higher rates of unemployment. The amount of investment that is funded though the structural funds by the EU is substantial (?103 billion over the period 1994 to 1999 for Objective 1 regions). Given their size and significance, EU legislation requires the appraisal of the structural funds. However, while systematic monitoring and evaluation frameworks are available at the national level and at the project level, a rigorous and systematic method for quantifying the socio-economic impacts of structural fund interventions on the regional economies has not been developed to the same extent. Thus, policy-makers seldom have access to accumulated research on the macroeconomic and macro-sectoral performance at a regional (NUTS II) level, which would allow them to assess the overall impact of the structural funds. One modelling framework ? HERMIN - has been widely applied to Structural Fund analysis at the national level (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Estonia, Latvia) and macro-regional level (East Germany and Northern Ireland). In this paper we review the theoretical foundations of this modelling approach, outline its application and highlight the results from the application of the HERMIN modelling framework to structural funds evaluation. This review will highlight not only the strengths of the approach but also the weaknesses and areas for further research. The theoretical underpinning of the HERMIN model is that of a small open economy model with a Keynesian role for domestic demand. The HERMIN framework is designed as a macroeconometric model composed of four sectors: manufacturing (a mainly traded sector), market services (a mainly non-traded sector), agriculture and government (or non-market) services. This level of disaggregation is the minimum necessary to identify the key sectoral shifts in a developing (regional) economy over the years of the Structural Funds programme. The model incorporates the mechanisms through which the Objective 1 national or regional economy is inter-connected to the external world, and most importantly it incorporates mechanisms through which the Structural Funds impact on the economy in the short and long-run. It therefore captures not only the short run Keynesian demand effects but also the long-run supply side effects.

Trade-FDI Linkages in a System of Gravity Equations for German Regional Data

We analyse the nature of German trade-FDI linkages within the EU27 based on a simultaneous equation gravity approach for imports, exports, in- and outward FDI stocks.We adopt both a Hausman-Taylor (1981) IV approach (3SLS-GMM) and rival non-IV estimation (the system extension to the Fixed Effects Vector Decomposition model recently proposed by Plümper & Tröger, 2007).Turning to the results, both estimators give empirical support for our chosen gravity setup as an appropriate framework in explaining German trade and FDI activity. Looking carefully at cross-variable linkages we basically find substitutive links between trade flows and outward FDI in line with earlier empirical evidence for Germany. Building upon German state level data we are also able to analyse the sensitivity of the results for regional sub-samples. The latter disaggregation hints at structural differences among the trade and FDI activity of the twoWest and East German macro regions on the one hand, and also their interaction with the ’core’ EU15 member states opposed to the overall EU27 aggregate on the other hand.TakingWest German–EU27 trade & FDI as an example, the identified pairwise linkages closely follow the theoretical predictions of New Trade Theory models as in Baldwin & Ottaviano (2001): That is, when trade is merely of intra-industry type with non-zero trade costs,we observe export replacement effects of FDI.However, at the same time outward FDI stimulates trade via reverse good imports. For the West German–EU15 sub-sample we even reveal complementaries among export and outward FDI activity.This strongly advocates to care for the regional dimension in analysing cross-variable linkages of trade and FDI.Trade, FDI, panel data, simultaneous equations

Effectiveness of Public R&D Subsidies in East Germany – Is it a Matter of Firm Size?

This paper analyses the impact of public subsidies on private sector research and development (R&D) activity for East German firms. Using propensity score matching, our empirical results indicate that subsidized firms indeed show a higher level of R&D intensity and a higher probability for patent application compared to non-subsidized firms for our sample year 2003. On average we find an increase in the R&D intensity of about 3.7 percentage points relative to non-subsidized firms. The probability for patent applications rises by 21 percentage points. These results closely match earlier empirical results for East Germany. Given the fact that the East German innovation system is particularly driven by small and medium sized enterprises (SME), we put a special focus on the effectiveness of the R&D subsidies for this latter subgroup. Here no previous empirical evidence is available so far. Our findings indicate that policy effectiveness also holds for private R&D activity of SMEs, where the highest increase in terms of R&D intensity is estimated for micro businesses with up to 10 employees.Propensity score matching; R&D subsidies; East Germany; SME

Die geografische Konzentration von Industrie und Dienstleistungen in Deutschland. Neue empirische Evidenz mittels des Ellison-Glaeser-Index

In diesem Beitrag wird die räumliche Konzentration der Wirtschaftszweige in Deutschland im Jahr 1998 untersucht. Unsere Untersuchung schließt im Unterschied zu allen bisherigen Analysen neben den Wirtschaftszweigen des Produzierenden Gewerbes sowohl Branchen des landwirtschaftlichen Bereichs als auch Dienstleistungssektoren ein, wobei die von Ellision und Glaeser (1997) entwickelten Konzentrationsmaße zur Anwendung kommen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass nahezu sämtliche Wirtschaftszweige in Deutschland eine signifikant höhere geografische Konzentration aufweisen als man es bei einer rein zufälligen Standortwahl erwarten würde. Insgesamt ist das Ausmaß der regionalen Konzentration aber eher gering. Unabhängig von den verschiedenen regionalen und sektoralen Aggregationsebenen bleibt das Konzentrationsmuster stabil: Die an natürliche Standortvorteile gebundenen Wirtschaftszweige sind am stärksten agglomeriert, während handels- und versorgungsorientierte Dienstleistungen eine hohe räumliche Dispersion besitzen. Nicht die technologie- und F&E-intensiven, sondern die eher traditionellen Industriezweige weisen den höchsten Grad an geografischer Konzentration im Verarbeitenden Gewerbe auf. Zur Erklärung unterschiedlicher Ausmaße an Konzentration wird auf einen qualtitativen Dummy-Variablenansatz zurückgegriffen. Die Klassifizierung der Wirtschaftszweige aus dem Industrie- und Dienstleistungsbereich orientiert sich dabei an ihrem Einsatz von Technologie- und Wissen sowie von Humankapital in der Produktion bzw. bei der Erbringung der Dienstleistung. Auch hier zeigt sich, dass die an natürliche oder infrastrukturelle Standortgegebenheiten gebundenen Wirtschaftszweige die höchsten räumlichen Konzentrationen aufweisen. Die eher von einem hohen Arbeitseinsatz mit geringen Qualifikationserfordernissen geprägten Industriezweige weisen signifikant höhere Konzentrationsraten auf als sachkapital- und technologieintensive Industriezweige. Wirtschaftspolitisch ist in jüngster Zeit die Förderung von regionalen Wirtschaftsclustern in das Zentrum der deutschen Regionalpolitik gerückt. Sowohl Bund, Länder und Kommunen versuchen durch zahlreiche förderpolitische Maßnahmen die regionale Konzentration insbesondere von technologieorientierten Wirtschaftszweigen zu unterstützen. Vor dem Hintergrund der vorliegenden Befunde verliert die Förderung von „Clustern“, wonach räumlich eng begrenzte Wissensflüsse zwischen Unternehmen eines Wirtschaftszweiges sich zu einem sich selbst verstärkenden Prozess führen, der weiteres Einkommens- und Beschäftigungswachstum verspricht, viel von seiner Überzeugungskraft.

How can we know if EU cohesion policy is successful? Integrating micro and macro approaches to the evaluation of Structural Funds

In this paper we describe an integrated approach for assessing the general economic effectiveness, efficiency and impact of public policy actions for large investment programs of the kind implemented over the past fifteen years in EU-aided Structural Fund programmes. Far from being rigid, our modelling philosophy includes both formal tools designed to assess all relevant effects, as well as informal (intuitive) elements to allow for flexible policy design and evaluation. When setting up an integrated micro-macro (IMM) model we are trying to over-come two major shortcomings in actual policy design and analysis: Firstly, to bridge the gap between the scientific requirements of model-based decision making and evaluation and the practical requirement for flexible and easy to use decision support tools that are well suited for day-to-day application. Secondly, to address the observed discrepancy in policy analysis between programme monitoring and evaluation realized at a highly aggregate level using quantitative macromodels (the so called “top down” approach) and the highly disaggregated approach to project evaluation, marked as micro- or “bottom up”-approaches.