EU Regional Policy Effectiveness and the Role …
35
University of Economics and Business and the WIFO. In this case, the analysis
was developed thanks to a database of firms put together by our partner for many
European countries for the Programming Period 2007–13.
An EU-wide analysis based on propensity score matching shows that the impact
of Cohesion Policy support to firms is highly impactful on the firms’ size (in terms
of GVA and employment), yet, while the impact on productivity is still significant,
it turns out to be much smaller. Going down to the individual countries, the analysis
shows important differences, in terms of magnitude and significance of the effects.
Finally, the analysis goes down to the regional NUTS2 level, showing that the
impacts of firm support are differentiated within countries as well and in different
ways in the different countries. It seems that, for some countries, the impact of firm
support depends on needs, i.e., is higher where regions lack complementary assets.
5 Territorial Capital and Regional Development
The framework of territorial capital can also be fruitfully applied to the explanation of
growth tout court. Following ten years of crisis with sluggish recovery, the research
group addressed the issue of resilience, which is an engineering concept which has
now been widely adopted in economics to show the capability of economies to react
to crises.
Different measures of resilience exist on a regional level, and these were analyzed by Fratesi and Perucca (2018) in view of dependence on the territorial capital
endowment of regions.
The analysis shows, first, that regions with different endowments of territorial
capital are differently resilient in quantitative terms because those with more territorial capital are also more resilient and, second, that the typologies of territorial
capital are relevant, because depending on the presence of one or the other, they are
also resilient in different ways (e.g., in terms of resistance or recovery). In particular,
different territorial capital assets have different effects, and those more closely linked
to resilience measures are those that have an intermediate level of materiality and/or
rivalry (see Fig. 1). The second result is the confirmation of the expectation that less
mobile factors of both a private and public nature are more linked to resilience, being
difficult to transfer from one region to the other.
The paper hence concludes that the structure of regions is an important determinant
of how they can afford periods of distress.
35
University of Economics and Business and the WIFO. In this case, the analysis
was developed thanks to a database of firms put together by our partner for many
European countries for the Programming Period 2007–13.
An EU-wide analysis based on propensity score matching shows that the impact
of Cohesion Policy support to firms is highly impactful on the firms’ size (in terms
of GVA and employment), yet, while the impact on productivity is still significant,
it turns out to be much smaller. Going down to the individual countries, the analysis
shows important differences, in terms of magnitude and significance of the effects.
Finally, the analysis goes down to the regional NUTS2 level, showing that the
impacts of firm support are differentiated within countries as well and in different
ways in the different countries. It seems that, for some countries, the impact of firm
support depends on needs, i.e., is higher where regions lack complementary assets.
5 Territorial Capital and Regional Development
The framework of territorial capital can also be fruitfully applied to the explanation of
growth tout court. Following ten years of crisis with sluggish recovery, the research
group addressed the issue of resilience, which is an engineering concept which has
now been widely adopted in economics to show the capability of economies to react
to crises.
Different measures of resilience exist on a regional level, and these were analyzed by Fratesi and Perucca (2018) in view of dependence on the territorial capital
endowment of regions.
The analysis shows, first, that regions with different endowments of territorial
capital are differently resilient in quantitative terms because those with more territorial capital are also more resilient and, second, that the typologies of territorial
capital are relevant, because depending on the presence of one or the other, they are
also resilient in different ways (e.g., in terms of resistance or recovery). In particular,
different territorial capital assets have different effects, and those more closely linked
to resilience measures are those that have an intermediate level of materiality and/or
rivalry (see Fig. 1). The second result is the confirmation of the expectation that less
mobile factors of both a private and public nature are more linked to resilience, being
difficult to transfer from one region to the other.
The paper hence concludes that the structure of regions is an important determinant
of how they can afford periods of distress.