1、 外文翻译 原文 Industrial growth, economic integration and structural change: evidence from the EU new member-states regions Material Source: springer Author: Dimitris Kallioras George Petrakos Abstract The article evaluates the pre-accession experience of new European Union member-states, coming from the
2、 former Eastern bloc, estimating an empirical model used to account for regionalindustrial employment growth in the early transition period, 19912000. The results obtained indicate the adverse impact of the economic integration dynamics and detect the interplay among structural characteristics and g
3、eographical coordinates that determines the relative winners. The findings of the article have important implications for both theory and policy. 1 Introduction The market-based process of economic integration, although it is perceived to generate higher levels of aggregate efficiency, can possibly
4、be associated with higher levels of inequality. In spatial terms, this is believed to lead to regional imbalances with less advanced regions possibly experiencing, in the integration process, weaker gains, or, even, net losses, by comparison with their more advanced counterparts. Such types of argum
5、ents are at variance with the neoclassical understanding for the operation of the spatial economy and contribute to an ongoing discussion among academics and politicians concerning the impact of integration on the growth potential of less advanced European Union (EU) regions. New EU member-states (N
6、MS), that were formerly planned economies of the Eastern bloc, provide a quasi laboratory environment for the examination of the spatial impact of the EU economic integration process. The experience of EU NMS is a unique situation, where relatively closed economic systems opened, almost at once, to
7、the world economy and, at the same time, market mechanisms replaced central planning. Thus, given that EU NMS are characterised as lagging-behind and structurally weak, understanding the factors behind their growth performance may provide valuable insight for both theory and policy, especially at a
8、time when the European project is facing a number of challenges and European structural and cohesion policies are under scrutiny. The article evaluates the pre-accession experience of EU NMS regions, with regard to changes and adjustments in their territorial structures and balances, in the early tr
9、ansition period, 19912000. The analysis focuses on industry, as this sector is the main diffusion channel of the integration dynamics due to its tradable character and due to the linkages that it retains with the other sectors of production. The main part of the analysis is based on employment data,
10、 derived from EURECO Database2, disaggregated at the NUTS III spatial level and the NACE two-digit structural level. Data limitations at the sectoral level restrict the analysis to Slovenia, Hungary, Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania. Nonetheless, the dataset includes regions with heterogeneous economic
11、, demographic, structural and geographic characteristics. The next section of the article provides a critical account of the literature concerning the impact of integration, structure and geography on regional growth. The third section reports key aspects of the EU NMS industrial experience at both
12、the national and the regional level. The fourth section develops and discusses an empirical regionalindustrial growth model for the EU NMS regions, while the final section of the article presents the conclusions. 2 Economic integration, industrial structure and regional growth: a survey of the liter
13、ature There is widespread scepticism in the less advanced EU regions regarding their ability to adjust to the requirements of the emerging European space. Imperfect competition is deemed to result in an uneven distribution of the benefits of economic integration, due to the inability of market to cr
14、eate conditions of optimum economic space. Such scepticism questions the neoclassical understanding for the operation of the economy. Proponents of the neoclassical theory (Solow 1956; Swan 1956; inter alia) argue that economic integration is a long-term process that eventually leads to a reduction
15、of regional inequalities, through the activation of three equilibrating mechanisms: declining marginal productivity of capital, interregional trade, and interregional factor movement. Other schools of thought, however, such as the endogenous growth theories (Romer 1986; Lucas 1988; inter alia) and t
16、he new economic geography (Krugman 1991; Fujita 1993; inter alia), claim that the costs and benefits of economic integration are unlikely to be distributed uniformly in space, stressing the role of policies in balancing growth patterns. Yet, the EU experience (Amiti 1997; Krieger-Boden 2000; Melachr
17、oinos 2002) does not seem to support the neoclassical claim. Core EU regions generate advantages related to agglomeration economies and increasing returns to scale (IRS) that lead to differential growth performance. Conversely, peripheral EU regions, facing higher transaction costs, host, mainly, ec
18、onomic activities associated with constant returns to scale (CRS). Engaged in an integration process with distant and more advanced partners, peripheral EU regions tend to develop inter-industry type of trade relations, typically specializing in labour-intensive or resource-intensive activities. Thi
19、s specialisation is the outcome of the inability of peripheral and less advanced regions to compete with their more advanced counterparts in the markets for capital-intensive and knowled ge-intensive economic activities (Brlhart and Elliott 1998). Even though it provides an alternative (and perhaps
20、the only feasible) route for the exploitation of the locally available skills, it is doubtful whether such a structural differentiation can produce long-term income convergence (Petrakos and Christodoulakis 2000). The level and the type of specialisation are, thus, essential parameters accounting fo
21、r regional growth. Integration allows for greater specialisation, enhancing inherent and acquired comparative advantages to be exploited more intensively (Weinhold and Rauch 1999). However, the positive impact of specialisation on growth might be weaker in regions that are not specialised in sectors
22、 associated with IRS (Paci and Usai 2000). Moreover, excessive specialisation might convert possible industry specific shocks into region-specific shocks, with overall negative effect on growth. Diversification, in contrast, might work as a safeguard as downturn movements in some sectors would not b
23、e as harmful to the local economy because human and other resources can be diverted to other existing and more secure alternatives (Acemoglu and Zilibotti 1997). Furthermore, emerging opportunities in cases of increasing demand in specific sectors may not go unexploited if even a small number of fir
24、ms are present in the region (Feldman 2000). Presumably, the trade-offs arising from this literature generate dilemmas and questions concerning the mix of policies that may promote growth and at the same time reduce regional inequalities in the EU (Morgenroth and Petrakos 2008). As excessive or incr
25、easing regional disparities may politically destabilise the EU, the role of regional policy becomes a significant and critical aspect of the integration process, largely bound to offset the effects of the other, market-driven, factors. Thus, the impact of economic integration on the EU regions depen
26、ds, to a large extent, on the balance, but also on the synergies, between market dynamics and policy interventions. 3 The industrial experience of new EU member-states regions in the early period of transition In the 1990s, the EU NMS have experienced processes of transition, from central planning t
27、o a freemarket economy, and integration, into the European economic space. The dynamics of these interacting processes have generated unprecedented pressures and have upset the spatial and structural bases of these countries (Petrakos and Kallioras 2007). This section provides a brief account of the
28、 pre-accession experience of the EU NMS regions by examining the impact of structural parameters on their spatial imbalances and development prospects. The EU NMS experienced a major decline in their gross domestic product (GDP) levels during the early transition period. Despite the partial reversal
29、 of this trend in the late 1990s, the EU NMS were still significantly behind not only the respective figures of the average EU-15 economy (i.e. the old EU member-states) but also their own earlier figures. The income gap with the old EU member-states was wide, indicating the emergence of an eastwest
30、 pattern of development in the enlarged EU. The situation was even worse concerning the Baltic countries and, especially, the Balkan countries, indicating the reproduction of the EU-15 core-periphery pattern of development in the EU NMS area (Brzeski and Colombatto 1999; Petrakos 2000; Petrakos et a
31、l. 2000). At the same time, regional inequalities have increased significantly in all EU NMS countries (Downes 1996; Rmisch 2003; Petrakos et al. 2004, 2006; Petrakos 2008). Capital and western border regions enjoyed a relatively better performance, especially in the Central European countries, whil
32、e the corresponding performance of perimetric regions or Eastern border regions had, in general, been worse (Petrakos 1996, 2001; Niebuhr and Stiller 2002; Niebuhr 2004). The new environment has significantly affected the economic structure of the EU NMS. Market forces and transition policies of ope
33、nness, privatisation and deregulation changed the old internal organisation of activities in ways that were often painful and forceful (Zysman and Schwartz 1998). The GDP and employment composition by production sectors has changed significantly during the 1990s (Petrakos 1997; Petrakos and Kalliora
34、s 2007). Overall, the shares of the primary and the secondary sector decreased in the majority of the EU NMS in favour of the shares of the tertiary sector of production. The greatest reduction was recorded in the secondary sector of production and especially in manufacturing. The recorded de-indust
35、rialisation in the EU NMS is the combined outcome of market forces and transition policies, which led to an abrupt exposure of poorly organized domestic activities to external competition (Landesman 1995; Landesman and Abel 1995; Gcs 2003). Overall, the process and the policies of transition in EU N
36、MS have led to a concentration of industrial activities in labour-intensive and resource-intensive sectors (Jackson and Petrakos 2001). The shares of capital-intensive sectors were reduced significantly, indicating a structural deviation from the corresponding pattern of the average EU-15 economy an
37、d the dominant pattern of the prosperous Western European economies (Sharma 1997). In this framework, the study of the regionalindustrial patterns may offer significant insight into the causes behind the unbalanced regional development of the EU NMS. The speed and the pattern of industrial change re
38、flects the adaptability Fig.1 Structural changes (CSC), in industrial employment terms, recorded in the EUNMS regions, period 19912000 of the EU NMS regions to the emerging economic conditions. In an effort to capture the level of structural changes that took place in the EU NMS regions during the p
39、eriod 19912000, a Coefficient of Structural Change (CSC), as proposed by Havlik (1995), is estimated. CSC correlates (CORREL) the shares (S) of each sector i (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) in the industrial activity of region r under consideration between an initial (base) year t and a final year t + k, with
40、 the formula Coefficient of structural change takes values in the interval 0, 1. Values close to 0(i.e. almost no correlation) indicate that significant structural changes have taken place during the period under consideration, whereas values close to 1 (i.e. almost perfect correlation) indicate tha
41、t almost no structural change have taken place. The estimation of CSC, in terms of industrial employment, reveals that each EU NMS region had a different reaction to the pressures of the emerging economic environment, experiencing its own level of structural adjustment (Fig. 1). While some regions h
42、ave undergone a more severe degree of structural change, some others have undergone only a modest change. The majority of the regions of the more advanced EU NMS under examination (Slovenia, Hungary and Estonia) tend to register lower levels of structural change, whereas the majority of the regions
43、of the less advanced EU NMS (Bulgaria and Romania) tend to register higher levels. A further assessment of the nature of the emerging structural patterns in the EUNMS regions is provided though the estimation of the index of dissimilarity of industrial structures (IDIS), proposed by Jackson and Petr
44、akos (2001). IDIS estimates the sum () of the square differences between the shares (S) of each sector i (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) in the industrial activity in region r under consideration and the respective shares in a benchmark economy b, in a given year t, under the formula IDIS takes values greater
45、 than (or equal to) 0. High values are associated with high levels of structural dissimilarity, whereas low values are associated with low levels of structural dissimilarity to a benchmark economy. Increasing values of IDIS diachronically indicate that the economies under comparison are becoming mor
46、e dissimilar, whereas decreasing values indicate that the corresponding economies are becoming more similar. In the cases of peripheral and less advanced economies, increasing structural dissimilarity is an indication of a negative (defensive) structural change, whereas decreasing structural dissimi
47、larity is an indication of a positive (offensive) structural change. Defensive structural changes can be perceived as Fig.2 Evolution of structural dissimilarity (IDIS) in industrial employment between the EUNMS regions and the average EU-15 economy, period 19912000 impulsive reactions to the condit
48、ions and requirements of an emerging economic environment, whereas offensive structural changes can be perceived as strategic choices (Jackson and Petrakos 2001). The estimation of IDIS in terms of industrial employment reveals that the majority of Bulgarian and Romanian regions have increased their
49、 dissimilarity from the benchmark average EU-15 economy during the period 19912000. This indicates that regions experiencing an inter-industry type of economic integration develop economic structures diverging from the dominant EU industrial structure and most likely experience a defensive structural change (Fig. 2). In contrast, the majority of Slovenian, Hungarian and Estonian regions converged to the average EU-15 industrial structure, experiencing offensive structural change, during the period 19912000. In their case, dissimilarity with the average EU-15 e
