WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD MULTIPLY ITS MONEY: STIMULATING MEASURES IN THE ECONOMIC MONETARY UNION

Authors

  • Anouschka Groeneveld, PhD student Wageningen University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy, Wageningen
  • Wim Heijman, PhD Wageningen University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy, Wageningen

Keywords:

Multipliers, Regional Policy, Investment, Regions, Stimulating measures

Abstract

The aim of this article is to investigate in which sectors and countries the European Union should invest to diminish the economic gap between different member states. It answers the question at which sectors and regions the European regional policy should be directed. In an attempt to indicate which regions and sectors have favorable investment opportunities, multipliers are calculated for all but three countries of the Economic Monetary Union. The multipliers are calculated using a technique described by Jensen et al. (1979) and Heijman and Schipper (2010). The highest multipliers are found within the Construction sector. To provide policy recommendations we focus on countries with high multiplier values and high unemployment rates. If we assume that multiplier values and unemployment rates are important, then the European Union should spend most in Slovakia, Estonia, Italy, Greece, and Spain. The spendings in Estonia, Slovakia, and Greece would fall under the Cohesion Funds.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Bellak, C., Leibrecht, M., Stehrer, R. (2010): The role of public policy in closing foreign direct investment gaps: An empirical analysis, Empirica, vol. 37, no.1, pp. 19-46, available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10663-009-9107-6
2. Benvenuti, S. C., Marangoni, G. (1999): Infrastructure and performance of the Italian economic system, Economic Systems Research, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 439-455, available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09535319900000031
3. Carter, C. (2007): The politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
4. Domanski, B., Gwosdz, K. (2010): Multiplier effects in local and regional development, Quaestiones Geographicae, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 27-37, available at: http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/archives/2010/QG292_027-037_Domanski.pdf
5. European Commission (2011): Employment by economic activity, at NUTS levels 1 and 2 (1000) (1999-2009, NACE Rev. 1.1), consulted on May 14th 2011, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_code=LFST_R_LFE2EN1
6. European Commission (2009): ESA 95 Supply Use and Input Output tables, consulted on May 14th 2011, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/esa95_supply_use_input_tables/data/workbooks
7. European Commission (2008): The Cohesion Fund, consulted on June 9th 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/cf/index_en.htm
8. Francois, J. , Woerz, J. (2008): Producer Services, Manufacturing linkages and Trade, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 199-229, available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10842-008-0043-0
9. Heijman, W. J. M., Schipper (2010): Space and economics: An introduction to regional economics, Mansholt publication series, vol. 7, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
10.Hindriks, J., Myles, G. D. (2006): Intermediate Public Economics, Cambridge: MIT Press, United Kingdom.
11. Jensen, R. C., Mandeville, T. D., Karunaratne, N. D. (1979): Regional Economic Planning: Generation of regional input-output analysis, London, Groom Helm London, United Kingdom.
12.Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M. (2009): International Economics: Theory and Policy, Boston, Pearson International, United States.
13. Mohnen, P., Ten Raa, T. (2000): A general equilibrium analysis of the evolution of Canadian service productivity, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 491-506, available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X00000278
14. Mullen, J. K., Williams, M. (2005): Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Economic Performance, Kyklos, Vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 265-282, available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0023-5962.2005.00288.x/abstract;jsessionid=533DF45D076B32192AA35B91987095AA.f03t03
15. OLeary, M. B., Almond, B. A. (2009): The industry settings of leading organizational research: The role of economic and non-economic factors, Journal of Organizational behaviour, Vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 497-524, available at:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.562/abstract
16.Procher, V. (2011): Agglomeration effects and the location of FDI: evidence from French first-time movers, Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 295-312, available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00168-009-0349-9
17.Rim, M. H., Cho, S. S., Moon, C. G. (2005): Measuring Economic Externalities of IT and R&D, ETRI Journal, Vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 206-218, available at: http://etrij.etri.re.kr/Cyber/BrowseAbstract.jsp?vol=27&num=2&pg=206
18.Roberts, W. (2009): Eat this recession, Alternatives Journal, Vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 30-35, available at: http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/sustainable-living/eat-recession
19.Sharma, K., Bandara, Y. (2010): Trends, Patterns and Determinants of Australian Foreign Direct Investment, Journal of economic issues, Vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 661-676, available at: http://www.metapress.com/content/k45v1gw10k571491/?volume=44&spage=661&issn=0021-3624&issue=3&genre=article

Downloads

Published

2013-12-31

How to Cite

Groeneveld, A., & Heijman, W. (2013). WHERE THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD MULTIPLY ITS MONEY: STIMULATING MEASURES IN THE ECONOMIC MONETARY UNION. Economics of Agriculture, 60(4), 775–788. Retrieved from https://ea.bg.ac.rs/index.php/EA/article/view/418