Search

Das Working Paper beleuchtet den Themenbereich ‚Mobilität und Verkehr‘ und arbeitet Herausforderungen für die Raumentwicklung der Großregion ab. Insbesondere legt es einen Fokus auf die Territoriale Verteilung der grenzüberschreitenden Arbeitnehmerströme und deren Abhängigkeit vom Auto innerhalb der Großregion sowie den Einfluss von EU Politik auf Herausforderungen des grenzüberschreitenden Verkehrs.

Der Beitrag befasst sich mit dem Ausbau des grenzüberschreitenden Verkehrs innerhalb der EU. Trotz jahrelanger Bestrebungen im Bereich des grenzüberschreitenden Verkehrs durch die Verkehrs- und Kohäsionspolitik bestehen nach wie vor in vielen Grenzregionen Herausforderungen in Bezug auf Verkehrsinfrastruktur und Öffentlichen Verkehr. Diese werden im ersten Teil des Beitrags beleuchtet. Danach werden die verkehrspolitischen Ziele und Instrumente auf EU-Ebene präsentiert, die anschließend anhand von Fallbeispielen im Grenzraum auf ihren Einfluss überprüft werden. Die EU-Politik und die Förderinstrumente sind wenig konkret und verbindlich, sodass in der nationalen Politik der Mitgliedsstaaten nach wie vor große Unterschiede herrschen. Wichtig für die Umsetzung sind ein starker politischer Wille und eine gesicherte Finanzierung. Verkehr ist eine wichtige Basis für andere Bereiche in der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit. Es sollte daher nachhaltig in dieses Schlüsselfeld investiert werden. This paper is concerned with the extension of cross-border transport within the EU. Despite the longstanding efforts of transport and cohesion policies to improve cross-border transport, many border regions still face challenges related to transport infrastructure and local public transportation. These are discussed in the first part of the paper. Transport policy goals and instruments on the EU level are then presented and their impact is assessed using case studies in the border area. EU policy and funding instruments are neither particularly concrete nor binding, so that there are still great variations between the national policies of member states. Implementation requires strong political will and secure finance. Transport is an important foundation for other fields of cross-border cooperation. Sustained investment in this key area is therefore necessary.

Das am 26. März 1995 in Kraft gesetzte Schengener Abkommen hat einen Europäischen Binnenraum der Personenfreizügigkeit geschaffen und damit ein beispielloses kontinentales Integrationsziel erreicht. Die Bedrohung durch globalen Terrorismus sowie ein starker Anstieg der Flüchtlingszahlen in Europa seit Sommer 2015 haben eine Grundsatzdebatte darüber hervorgerufen, inwieweit offene Binnengrenzen politisch und ökonomisch haltbar sind. Diese Studie adressiert drei Fragestellungen: Wie stark wird die Reisezeit durch Grenzkontrollen beeinträchtigt? Beeinflusst die Abschaffung der Grenzkontrollen durch das Schengener Abkommen den grenzüberschreitenden Handel in Waren und Dienstleistungen? Welche Wohlfahrtseffekte sind aufgrund einer Veränderung internationaler Handelsvolumina in Folge einer Wiedereinführung von Grenzkontrollen im Schengen-Raum zu erwarten? Die Studie findet, dass die Überwindung von Ländergrenzen innerhalb des Schengen-Raumes um etwa 20 Minuten schneller gelingt als zwischen zwei Ländern, von denen mindestens eines nicht dem Schengen-Raum angehört. Eine Wiedereinführung der Grenzkontrollen im Schengen-Raum würde die bilateralen Warenexporte je Grenzübertritt um 2,7% reduzieren; entspricht einem Zolläquivalent von 0,54%. Die bilateralen Dienstleistungsexporte je Grenzübertritt würden um 4,2% reduziert; entspricht einem Zolläquivalent von 0,82%. Die deutschen BIP Einbußen durch einen vollständigen Zusammenbruch des Schengen-Raumes lägen zwischen 4 und 11 Mrd. Euro pro Jahr. Die weitaus realistischere Wiedereinführung von Kontrollen an den Flüchtlingsrouten würde für Deutschland zu BIP Effekten zwischen -1 und -3 Mrd. Euro jährlich führen. Ähnliche Analysen wurden für Bayern, Österreich und die Europäische Union durchgeführt.

This paper examines financing mechanisms to support infrastructure development and connectivity in Northeast Asia - comprising the Northeastern People's Republic of China, Japan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and the Russian Far East. Although this subregion has developed the Greater Tumen Initiative, the extent of intergovernmental cooperation for cross-border infrastructure investment is not as strong as in other subregional cooperation programs in Asia, such as the Greater Mekong Subregion Program and the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program. Using various previously published estimates, this paper finds that the total infrastructure investment needs for the subregion excluding Japan and the Republic of Korea (in transport, energy, information and communication technology, and the environment) could be in the order of $63 billion per year over the next 10 years, and of this total governments in the subregion will have to mobilize external funding of $13 billion a year, focusing on national infrastructure projects in the DPRK and Mongolia and high-priority cross-border projects in Northeast Asia. The paper considers three options as a cooperative financing mechanism for the subregion: special and/or trust funds set up in the existing multilateral development banks (MDBs), a structured infrastructure investment fund supported by MDB(s), and a new subregional multilateral development bank. Then it suggests that the Northeast Asian governments may begin with setting up special and/or trust funds at the existing MDBs and move to creating an infrastructure investment fund, following the good example of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Infrastructure Fund, once sufficient confidence and trust is built and the DPRK returns to the international community. The paper recommends against the establishment of a new development bank in the subregion.

Regional corridors are popular components of regional cooperation initiatives and have been in use for several years. Yet discussion about development of these corridors tends to be relatively general in scope and difficult to pin down in terms of content and implications. This paper elaborates on a simple framework for regional corridors development in the context of regional cooperation, anchored on two dimensions of these corridors: the extent to which they are national or regional and the area of their utilization. The framework is subsequently applied to the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) regional cooperation program, yielding several implications for its future. The GMS program needs to redefine what constitutes a regional project and to formulate a regional master plan for further development of GMS regional corridors. The framework is also applied toward identifying an appropriate methodology for monitoring performance of regional corridors.

Creating the framework for cross-border infrastructure cooperation often requires the active role of a third party, an honest broker, to forge convergence of interests. It is often argued that deep European Union (EU)-style integration is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for successful cross-border infrastructural cooperation. The EU institutions, in particular the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB), have performed such a facilitating and enabling role, though not without encountering challenges along the way. However, this paper argues that the EU experience underscores the vital importance of national governments and good governance in the context of cross-border multinational infrastructure. Hence, the authors argue that deep EU-style integration is an enabling but not a strictly necessary condition for successful implementation of cross-border infrastructure projects. The authors take issue with the myth that transnational cross-border infrastructure cooperation is the result of supra-national decision-making at the EU level. For a particular cross-border infrastructure project to succeed requires tri-partite and multilateral initiatives. These may take the form of coordinators (akin to the European Coordinators for TEN-T projects) or special-purpose state-owned companies alongside the Asian (and/or other) Development Banks as co-owners. The second myth which this paper seeks to address is that the management of trans- national and cross-border infrastructure is primarily supra-national. Although additional co-financing may be sought from the European Community budget and/or the European Investment Bank, these resources always complement national budgetary allocations and private funding. Contingent liabilities always remain at the national and sub-national levels and never at the supra-national EU level. The implications for management of cross-border multinational infrastructure in Asia, where the framework for regional cooperation is not yet well articulated, are to some extent positive. Within the Asian context, the need for an honest broker can be fulfilled by multi-lateral institutions such as the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP). They can appoint coordinators drawing on the growing pool of top-level decision makers in Asia. Most importantly, these initiatives can be realized within the present-day context of Asia's shallow integration.

In this paper we critically review the relevant information and literature that can enhance the feasibility and the successful implementation of cross-border infrastructure projects. We provide detailed information concerning foreign direct investment in the major emerging regions: East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. We also discuss the theoretical and empirical literature which sheds light on the characteristics of transnational infrastructure projects, who should conduct them, and what determines their existence. The literature points to the importance of government involvement in transnational infrastructure projects as there are clear external benefits which will otherwise not be reaped. It also points to the importance of coordination for the success of the project. The Asian Development Bank is well placed to perform that role. Lastly, we provide six cases of cross-border infrastructure projects, two each from East Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. These cases illustrate the critical need for smooth coordination of the diverse groups of team players, top-level backing of the projects, as well as a thorough understanding of all the political and financial factors involved that can influence the success of these projects.

The member states of the European Union (EU) and the EU institutions have increasingly been using public-private partnerships (PPPs) to accelerate the development of (ambitious) trans-national infrastructure. This paper argues that in the EU (i) private sector partners remain risk-averse; and (ii) risk-pooling across a larger number of tax-payers tends to reduce the cost of risk to zero, making EU funds highly desirable and sought after for public infrastructure development. This paper argues that private equity has not been forthcoming to the extent that had been expected by those propagating this method of finance. In those instances where private non-publicly guaranteed resources have been used, the distribution of risks between public and private partners remained asymmetric, with public governmental bodies carrying the financial risks, which ultimately may become a contingent liability for the country's public finances. However, EU and European Investment Bank (EIB) public funding is used not simply because the risks are spread more widely, but rather because EU rules and regulations for using such funds lead to better preparation of projects and greater efficiency gains in project implementation and delivery.

Although the overall economic performance of economies in South Asia in recent years has been impressive, there is concern that an aging and increasingly inadequate infrastructure may limit the potential for further growth and economic development. A critical infrastructure component is the transportation network, and there are currently several transportation infrastructure projects in the South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC) region, connecting Nepal, eastern India, Bangladesh, and Bhutan. This paper uses computable general equilibrium (CGE) methods to address how these infrastructure developments might affect the broader economy in SASEC, and in particular impact on income distribution and poverty. The paper describes a new CGE model for South Asia, covering India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan, which incorporates modifications to household structure in order to capture the implications of reform for changes in intra-household income. The scenarios that are considered reflect proposed investments in land transport infrastructure in the SASEC region. These should result in reductions in the land transport component of international transport margins, which vary bilaterally by commodity. We found that all SASEC economies would benefit from the reductions in terms of aggregate welfare, with the largest gains accruing to India in absolute terms, but the largest relative gains to Nepal, followed by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka when the margin reduction is prorated to intra-South Asian trade rather than just SASEC. In terms of household level distribution, the picture was mixed, with clearly pro-poor outcomes in some countries, such as Nepal, but more ambiguous impacts in others. In terms of potential adjustment costs, examination of the extent of predicted structural changes suggests that these would be minor, although somewhat more significant for the smaller economies in the region.

In 2004 the Republic of Slovenia entered the European Union and, as a matter of principle, was guaranteed the four freedoms (free trans-national mobility of goods, services, capital and labour). From an economic viewpoint, this guarantee should provide the required institutional framework to maximise social benefits within the internal market. However, with respect to cross-border services a set of temporary regulations exists, all of which initially for two years and subsequently for further three years, were implemented to restrict the free movement of services partially in order to protect Austrian regions against labour market disadvantages. The restrictions were extended in 2009 for two additional years (until 2011). These temporary restrictions indicate the familiar trade-off between expected efficiency and welfare gains of a completely integrated common market in the medium and long run, and - as a result of intensified transnational business activities - potential socioeconomic losses for certain regions or economic sectors in the short run. Against this background, the paper asks for the economic usefulness of the afore-mentioned restrictions of cross-border service activities between Austria and Slovenia. Thereby, the question whether these (temporary) regulations should have been continued until 2011 or be abolished immediately is of particular importance. To be able to provide an answer to this question, the topic is analysed in four steps: First, the expected welfare effects of cross-border service restrictions will be outlined by discussing the impact of such regulations on the efficient allocation of resources as well as the pace of economic change. Therefore, theoretical and empirical insights concerning the economic effects of international trade with services will be considered. Secondly, the paper analyses the empirical situation of cross-border trade in goods and services between Austria and Slovenia in order to argue that Austria has a "double dividend" with respect to the existing regulatory system. In part three, the question is asked to what extend a complete liberalisation of cross-border services would affect Austrian regions economically, if one takes into account the geographically limited market radius of the currently regulated service industries. Finally, the status-quo analysis of the existing restrictions of cross-border services between Austria and Slovenia provides a background to derive policy recommendations.

This paper deals with the effects of cross-border transport infrastructure in the presence of agglomeration economies. Cross-border infrastructure is more likely to increase than to decrease inequalities between and within regions, and has not helped regional convergence in Europe. Under-investment due to spillovers, coordination failures, and the inadequacy of networks originally designed for national markets provide a role for supranational institutions. Hub-and-spoke networks tend to increase urban primacy while cross-border transport connections tend to reduce it. Improvements in transport and communication allow firms to separate innovation, management and production, increasing efficiency and urban interdependence.

While many studies have documented deviations from the Law of One Price in international settings, evidence is scarce on the extent to which consumers take advantage of price differentials and engage in cross border shopping. We use data from 287 Swedish municipalities to estimate how responsive alcohol sales are to foreign prices, and relate the sensitivity to the location's distance to the border. Typical results suggest that the elasticity with respect to the foreign price is around 0.4 in the border region; moving 200 (400) kilometers inland reduces it to 0.2 (0.1). Given that cross country price differences for alcohol and other products are often caused by taxes, our evidence has implications for the debate on tax competition/harmonization.

Auch in Deutschland gewinnen Bestrebungen an Boden, einzelne Verkehrsinfrastrukturprojekte privat finanzieren zu lassen. Am ehesten ist dies bei Brücken oder Tunneln möglich, da bei solchen Objekten meist nicht auf konkurrierende gebührenfreie Wege ausgewichen werden kann. Dies trifft besonders dort zu, wo eine Meerenge wie der Fehmarnbelt zwischen Deutschland und Dänemark zu überwinden ist. Vom Grundsatz her eignet sich eine landfeste Querung des Fehmarnbelt daher gut für eine private Finanzierung. Eine Fehmarnbelt-Querung würde das mit den bestehenden Querungen von Öresund und Großem Belt angelegte System landfester Verbindungen in der westlichen Ostsee vervollständigen. Da die Fehmarnbelt-Route die kürzeste Seestrecke zwischen Mitteleuropa und Skandinavien darstellt, erscheint der Bau einer festen Querung an dieser Stelle als folgerichtig. Dennoch kam eine von den Verkehrsministerien Deutschlands und Dänemarks veranlasste Studie zu dem Ergebnis, dass die im Straßenverkehr zu erwartenden Einnahmen aus Benutzungsgebühren für eine rein privatwirtschaftliche Finanzierung des Projekts zu gering seien und auch die potentiellen Einnahmen aus dem Eisenbahnbetrieb als nicht ausreichend anzusehen seien. Ohne erhebliche öffentliche Subventionen oder Garantien sei das Projekt daher nicht realisierbar. Genauere Verkehrsprognosen werden zeigen müssen, ob von dem Projekt eine ausreichende Umwegsrentabilität (höhere Steuereinnahmen als Folge projektbedingt zunehmender regionaler Wertschöpfung) erwartet werden kann, um die öffentliche Unterstützung zu rechtfertigen. Eine Entscheidung zugunsten des Projekts wird letztlich politischer Natur sein. In diesem Fall erscheint die Finanzierung über staatlich garantierte Kredite des Projektträgers am ehesten geeignet. Die beteiligten Regierungen sollten sich allerdings dessen bewusst sein, dass auch mit einer Garantielösung erhebliche Risiken für die öffentliche Hand verbunden sind. Das politische Entscheidungsproblem betrifft die Frage, wie weit sich die oft angesprochene Vision vom ökonomischen Zusammenwachsen Norddeutschlands mit Südschweden und der Öresundregion im Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung konkretisiert haben muss, damit eine Umwegsrentabilität festgestellt und die staatliche Unterstützung des Projekts gerechtfertigt werden kann. Für die Umwegsrentabilität dürfen nur die zusätzlich von der festen Querung ausgehenden Effekte auf das Wirtschaftsgeschehen berücksichtigt werden.

We are concerned with trade in transport services (not cabotage butrather international shipping, transport,and related logistical services) and the importance of competitionand market structure in the sector. Weexamine implications of liberalization for profits, trade, andnational gains from trade. Though past GATSmaritime negotiations involved the maritime nations, we also flaginterests of consuming nations(particularly poorer developing countries). We further illustrateissues raised in the analytical sectionthrough a computational example, to provide a rough sense of ordersof magnitude and the importance of theissues raised for basic gains from improved market access.

Das Logistik-Kompetenz-Zentrum spezialisiert sich auf den zukunftsträchtigen Bereich Logistik und Verkehr. Es soll der Region und dem Standort Bayern neue Impulse geben. Als weiteres wirtschaftliches Standbein neben Kurbetrieb und Tourismus kann das LKZ neue und qualifizierte Arbeitsplätze schaffen. Die enge Zusammenarbeit von Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft ermöglicht eine schnelle Umsetzung von Ideen in Markterfolge. Das Logistik-Kompetenz-Zentrum kann für Bayern somit europaweit Zukunftsmärkte erschliessen.

In November 1991, the Commission of the European Communities commissioned the Institut für Weltwirtschaft to carry out a report on ‘Taxation in Border Regions’. This study is a revised version of the report, which was submitted in 1993. The purpose of this study is to analyse the present pattern of cross-border activities, in particular cross-border shopping, cross-border commuting and cross-border movements of enterprises within the EU. Special attention is given to the extent that these activities are induced by differences in taxation between member countries. Furthermore, the study provides answers to the question of how cross-border activities might be affected by the European Single Market. Each cross-border activity is analysed in two border regions: cross-border shopping in the Danish-German border region (Sønderjylland, Südschleswig) and in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, the border region between Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands; cross-border commuting and cross-border movements of enterprises in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine and in the French-German border region Alsace-Baden.

The paper analyzes strategic commodity taxation in a model with trade in a single private good which is simultaneously imported by consumers of a high-tax region and exported by its producers. Conditions for the existence of a Nash equilibrium are given and an asymmetry is introduced through different preferences for public goods. Two tax coordination measures are discussed, a minimum tax rate and a coordinated increase in the costs of cross-border shopping. It is shown that tax coordination generally benefits the high-tax country while the low-tax region will gain only if the intensity of tax competition is high in the initial equilibrium or if governments are price-sensitive towards the effective marginal costs of public good supply.