Search

In this paper we analyse the impact of financial liberalization and reforms on the banking performance in 17 countries from CEE for the period 2004–2008 using a two-stage empirical model that involves estimating bank performance in the first stage and assessing its determinants in the second one. From our analysis it results that banks from CEE countries with higher level of liberalization and openness are able to increase cost efficiency and eventually to offer cheaper services to clients. Banks from non-member EU countries are less cost efficient but experienced much higher total productivity growth level, and large sized banks are much more cost efficient than medium and small banks, while small sized banks show the highest growth in terms of productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we take a critical look at current European regional policies. First, we document the motivation for such policies, that is, the large income disparities across the regions of the EU15. Large disparities are certainly present. Second, we illustrate the various instruments adopted and discuss their underpinnings in established economic theories. Next, we look at available data, searching for three kinds of evidence: (1) if disparities are either growing or decreasing, we conclude they are neither; (2) which are the major factors explaining such disparities and, in particular, if they are the factors predicted by the economic models adopted by the Commission to justify current policies, we conclude this is most certainly not the case; (3) if there are clear signs that EU policies, as opposed to other social and economic factors, are actually reducing such disparities, we cannot find any clear sign of such desired impact. Our conclusion is that regional and structural policies serve mostly a redistributional purpose, motivated by the nature .of the political equilibria upon which the European Union is built. They have little relationship with fostering economic growth. This casts a serious doubt on their social value and, furthermore, strongly questions extending such policies to future members of the European Union. A successful EU enlargement, in our view, calls for an immediate and drastic revision of regional economic policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Standard economic growth models generally consider different factors of production such as land, capital, labour, technology and human capital. These are common in theoretical models and empirical applications but more evidence is still needed for their long-term regional evolution. Therefore, this paper traces the evolution of specific aspects of these factors in the European regions and cities by means of different proxies. The data have been collected and calculated from a wide range of diverse historical and spatial data bases. A particular feature is the definition of the European regions according to the NUTS classification by the European Union. Thus, the paper gives a rough outline of some of the most important long-term regional tendencies that should be taken into account in research directed to past and recent time periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-R&D innovation activities account for a significant portion of innovation efforts carried out across very heterogeneous economies in Europe. However, to incorporate them into economic models is not always straightforward. Moreover, relying only on R&D data does not capture well innovation in the services sector. To counter these problems, this paper builds an augmented macro-theoretical growth model where, besides R&D, non-R&D innovation activities play a key role as main drivers of TFP. The model is estimated for a sample of EU-26 countries over the period 2004–2008, showing that the distinction between R&D and non-R&D innovation activities is significant for a number of different issues. First, we find both R&D and non-R&D to be statistically significant and economic important in technological catch-up. Second, there is a differential sizable impact of R&D and non-R&D; the impact of R&D on TFP growth is found to be twice as big as that of non-R&D. And third, the two types of innovation cannot strictly been seen as complementary, at least for the case of countries with high R&D intensities or high non-R&D intensities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]