Search

In this paper we study the impact of regulatory complexity, a measure of institutional quality, on the GDP, on per capita income and on the growth rate of the Italian regions. For comparative reasons we also use the duration of civil disputes as a further indicator of institutional quality used in the regressions as an alternative to the indicator of regulatory complexity. From the theoretical point of view, we use the approach of negative co‐ordination externalities, among the four sources of regulatory production that are at work at the same time. Our approach may be applied in all the countries with a multi‐level government system. Using the random effects and quantile regressions models we are able to quantify the effects of an improvement in institutional quality on the GDP and the growth rate, making a comparison between the results obtained using regulatory complexity or the duration of civil disputes as covariates. We also check for spatial dependence among variables. Econometric analysis supports the theoretical assumption that regulatory complexity is an impediment to the growth of regional GDP and per capita income. The main finding of our analysis is that a reduction in regulatory complexity would be more effective than a reduction in the duration of civil disputes in increasing the income and growth rate. This result could be useful for the policy‐maker because by reducing regulatory complexity we may obtain a considerable by‐product in the shorter duration of civil disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research and innovation policies have been increasingly ascribed to regions as a con- sequence of devolving power and resources from the national level to the local level. Local administrators have been empowered with new and challenging responsibilities but often lack the necessary instruments and knowledge to adequately evaluate the under- taken initiatives and to operate consistently with the European and national dimensions. In this respect impact assessment brings in a new metrics that is neither exclusively related to the scientific and/or economic value of the innovation results nor to a support function to other policies. Experts and/or ad hoc organisations are often appointed by local administrations with the task of describing the dimensions of such impact - qualifying (and quantifying) its descriptive parameters and identifying interested parties. So far this approach has not produced robust results as for the causality links generated, the additionality issue and the role of the local dimension, while the available tool-box is quite poor. This paper is intended to illustrate the results of a pilot experience carried out in the last few years in Trentino. The analysis takes into account the relations among policy makers, available tools, resources, and the role of the public administration and of professional evaluators. Conceptual and interpretative approaches and tools need further development, but the mayor weakness seems to come from the relationship between customer-and evaluators. A new market based on new rules, professional roles and shared behaviours is needed in order to address a correct evaluation pathway and to analyse policies and activities within a common frame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]