Convergence among EU regions, 1990-2001: Quality of national institutions and "objective 1" status

Intereconomics

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 270-275

  de Freitas, Miguel Lebre ^a,b   Pereira, Filipa ^a   Torres, Francisco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AVEIRO   (Portugal)

^b BANCO DE PORTUGAL   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865289573     PISSN: 00205346     EISSN: 1613964X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03031729     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. D. Puga: European regional policies in light of recent location theories, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2767, 2001.
2. J. Delors: Foreword, in B. Ardy, I. Begg, W. Schelkle, E Tortes: EMU and Cohesion: Theory and Policy, Cascais 2002, Principia.
3. Since 1989, the European regional policy defines five types of priority regions, according to their needs. Regions eligible for objective 1 are those regions with GDP per capita below 75% of EU average.
4. See, for example, R. J. Barro: Economic growth in a cross-section of countries, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, VoL 106, No. 2, 1991, pp. 407-443.
5. Robert J. Barro, Xavier Sala-i-Martin: Convergence across states and regions, in: Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1, 1991, pp, 107-182
6. X. Sala-i-Martin: Regional cohesion: evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence, in: European Economic Review, Vol. 40, 1996, pp. 1325-1352
7. D. Neven, C. Gouyett: Regional convergence in the European Community, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, No. 21, 1998, pp. 757-774
8. R. Paci: More similar and less equal: economic growth in the European regions, in: Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 133, No. 4, 1997, pp. 609-634
9. J. Cuadrado-Roura: Regional convergence in the European Union: from hypothesis to the actual trends, in: The Annals of Regional Science, No. 35, 2001, pp. 333-356
10. M. Boldrin, E Canova: Inequality and convergence in Europe's regions: reconsidering European regional policies, in: Economic Policy, No. 32, 2001, pp. 207-253.
11. Robert J. Barro, Xavier Sala-i-Martin: Convergence across states and regions, in: Brooking Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1, 1991, pp, 107-182
12. X. Sala-i-Martin: Regional cohesion: evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence, in: European Economic Review, Vol. 40, 1996, pp. 1325-1352
13. D. Neven, C. Gouyett: Regional convergence in the European Community, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, No. 21, 1998, pp. 757-774
14. M. Boldrin, E Canova: Inequality and convergence in Europe's regions: reconsidering European regional policies, in: Economic Policy, No. 32, 2001, pp. 207-253.
15. European Commission: First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Commission of the European Communities, 1996.
16. B. Ardy, I. Begg, W. Schelkle, E Torres: How Will EMU Affect Cohesion?, in: INTERECONOMICS, VoL 37, No. 6, 2002, pp. 300-314.
17. European Commission: Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Commission of the European Communities, 2001.
18. Data are expressed at constant prices but not in purchasing power parities (PPP). The reason is that there are no data on PPP at the regional level in Europe. Since national data are based on the observation of prices in the main cities, using national PPPs for the poorest regions of each country would cause a significant bias.
19. Ireland provides an illustrative case for distinguishing Q/N from Q/A. Because of a baby boom in the 1970s, the ratio A/N in Ireland (relative to EU) rose at an average rate of 0.9% per annum in the period 1986-2000. This purely demographic effect translated into a faster growth of relative Q/N (3.7% a year) than relative Q/A (2.8%). For a discussion of the Irish case, see M. L. Freitas: Quantity versus Quality: Growth Accounting in Ireland, in: Bank of Portugal Economic Bulletin, March 2000, pp. 59-70.
20. With some caution, of course, as it measures production "per employee" rather than "per hour worked". The European Commission computes labour productivity measuring employment in terms of full time equivalents, but there is no data available at the regional level.,8 Brandenburg (GER), Saarland (GER), Sachsen (GER), Sachsen-Anhalt (GER), Thuringen (GER) and French Overseas Departments (FR) are excludedb ecause of non-availability of data.
21. Note that this does not necessarily imply that the dispersion of GVA per working age person has decreased. For a discussion, see M. Friedman: Do old fallacies ever die?, in: Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1992, pp. 2129-2132.
22. See, for example, G. Mankiw, D. Romer, D. Well: A contribution to the empirics of economic growth, in: Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107, No. 2, 1992, pp. 407-438.
23. This view is strongly associated with the Nobel prize winner, Douglas North. See, for example, D. North: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge (UK) 1990, Cambridge University Press. In the last few years, there has been a renewed interest on the role of institutions on economic growth.
24. Recent works pointing to an overriding role of the quality of institutions in regressions explaining economic growth include, for example, D. Rodrick, A. Subramanian, E Trebbi: The Primacy of Institutions over Geography and Integration in Economic Development, NBER Working Paper 9305, October 2002
25. and R. Hall, C. Jones: Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others?, in: The Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 114, No. 1, 1999, pp. 83-116.
26. J. D. Sachs, A. M. Warner: Fundamental sources of long-run growth, in: American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 1997, pp. 184-188.
27. M. Boldrin, E Canova: Inequality and convergence in Europe's regions: reconsidering European regional policies, in: Economic Policy, No. 32, 2001, pp. 207-253.