|
This paper aims to understand the structural features of bargaining coalitions in the Doha Round of the WTO. We provide an empirical assessment of the preferences of each negotiating actor considering general economics indicators, development levels, structure of agricultural sectors and trade policies. Bargaining coalitions are analysed by grouping countries using a cluster analysis procedure. The clusters are compared with existing coalitions in order to assess their degree of internal homogeneity as well as their common interests. Such a comparison allows the identification of possible “defectors”, i.e. countries that according to their economic conditions and policies seem to be relatively less committed to the positions of the coalition they join. Empirical results confirm our research hypothesis:,clusters of structurally homogeneous countries well represent existing bargaining coalitions. In particular, the G-20 shows a high degree of internal coherence, which, in our framework, may provide a clue to the “sustainability” of this coalition and to its relevance in the Doha round negotiations. |
|
(with Valeria Costantini, Fabrizio De Filippis and Luca Salvatici) “Bargaining coalitions in the WTO agricultural negotiations” The World Economy, 30(5), 2007 |
|
Journal article |
|
The paper addresses the “spatial” structure of agriculture in Poland whose spatial development is analysed from the beginning of the transition towards a market economy up until the country’s forthcoming accession to the EU and the correlated implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (Cap). The paper analyses the social, political and economic forces behind the process of progressive differentiation in the regional structure of agriculture which have produced the existing disparities between the dynamic farming of the central and western areas and the semi-subsistence farming in the east. The analysis also explores the linkages between the spatial evolution of agriculture and the increasing disparities in terms of regional unemployment and development. In such a framework the Cap’s implementation by producing differential effects in relation to each region’s agricultural structure will lead to further polarisation of the spatial structure of agriculture and may exacerbate existing disparities. Therefore, the Cap’s contribution towards a balanced regional development depends upon its capacity to adapt itself to the needs of a comparatively backward agricultural system (with respect to that of the present fifteen members) and the specificity of its spatial structure. Consequently, it is of fundamental importance that sector intervention be complemented by an appropriate mix of rural development, regional and territorial policies . |
|
“The Agricultural Policy of the E.U. and its effects on the spatial structure of the agriculture of New Member States: the case of Poland”. QA/La Questione Agraria, 2004/1 |
|
This paper aims at analysing the regional policy of the European Union by assessing whether the actual distribution of funds to the regions undermines the principle of territorial concentration, i.e. one of the key preconditions for the success of the EU regional policy. The regional allocation of the funds may have been à priori distorted by either political equilibriums or inaccurate assumptions over the most cost-effective allocation of the funds thus yielding a poor correlation between expenditure and socio-economic disadvantage. In order to assess this potential bias in the allocation of the funds the geographical distribution of both sources of socio-economic disadvantage and the regional allocation of structural funds are compared, by means of a Heckman two-step selection model. The results show that the sources of disadvantage are more spatially concentrated than the funds devoted to compensating such disadvantage and uncover a weak association between structural disadvantage and EU funding. Consequently, structural policies could prove helpful to promote development in the EU’s lagging regions on condition that the necessary corrections are introduced in pertinent allocation mechanism in order to increase the geographical concentration of the funds and by more adequately earmarking the available resources to the most disadvantaged regions, which, according to the analysis, seem to have the best potential for convergence. |
|
“Undermining the principle of territorial concentration? EU regional policy and the socio-economic disadvantage of European regions” forthcoming in Regional Studies, 2008 Nome prodotto 1 |
|
Journal article |
|
This paper empirically analyses the long-term evolution of the world agro-food systems. Subsequent to comparative-historical analysis of the long-term trajectories, the hypothesis of “club convergence” in the structural features of the advanced economies’ agricultural systems is formally tested by means of some standard convergence analysis techniques. This process, where contrasted with the absence of convergence in the structural features of all other countries, highlights the progressive differentiation of the “club” of the advanced economies from the rest of the world’s agro-food systems. |
|
(with Guido Fabiani) “Globalizzazione e convergenza dei sistemi agro-alimentari delle economie industriali”, QA/Rivista dell’Associazione Rossi-Doria, 2, 2007 |
|
The United States and European Union differ significantly in terms of their innovative capacity: the former have been able to gain and maintain world leadership in innovation and technology while the latter continues to lag. Notwithstanding the magnitude of this innovation gap and the political emphasis placed upon it on both sides of the Atlantic, very little systematic comparative analysis has been carried out on its causes. The empirical literature has emphasized the structural differences between the two continents in the quantity and quality of the major ‘inputs’ to innovation: R&D investments and human capital. The very different spatial organization of innovative activities in the EU and the US—as suggested by a variety of contributions in the field of economic geography—could also influence innovative output. This article analyses and compares a wide set of territorial processes that influence innovation in Europe and the United States. The higher mobility of capital, population and knowledge in the US not only promotes the agglomeration of research activity in specific areas of the country but also enables a variety of territorial mechanisms to fully exploit local innovative activities and (informational) synergies. In the European Union, in contrast, imperfect market integration and institutional and cultural barriers across the continent prevent innovative agents from maximizing the benefits from external economies and localized interactions, but compensatory forms of geographical process may be emerging in concert with further European integration. |
|
(with Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and Michael Storper) “The territorial dynamics of innovation: a Europe-United States Comparative Analysis”, The Journal of Economic Geography, 7(6), 2007. |
|
In this paper, a formal model for the relationship between innovation and growth in European Union regions is developed drawing upon the theoretical contribution of the systems of innovation approach. The model combines the analytical approach of the regional growth models with the insights of the systemic approach. The cross-sectional analysis, covering all the Enlarged Europe (EU-25) regions (for which data are available), shows that regional innovative activities (for which a specific measure is developed) play a significant role in determining differential regional growth patterns. Furthermore, the model sheds light on how geographical accessibility and human capital accumulation, by shaping the regional system of innovation, interact (in a statistically significant way) with local innovative activities, thus allowing them to be more (or less) effectively translated into economic growth. The paper shows that an increase in innovative effort is not necessarily likely to produce the same effect in all EU-25 regions. Indeed, the empirical analysis suggests that in order to allow innovative efforts in peripheral regions to be as productive as in core areas, they need to be complemented by huge investments in human capital. |
|
“Innovation and regional growth in the enlarged Europe: the role of local innovative capabilities, peripherality and education.” Growth and Ch'ange, 36(4), Fall 2005 |
|
Book Chapters (Updated Dec 2007) |
|
The book |
|
The literature on regional systems of innovation has provided interesting insights into the role of institutional and socio-economic contextual factors for the production of economically successful innovation. This chapter aims at translating such insights into a quantitative framework by focusing upon the socioeconomic conditions that make some regions more prone to innovation than others. After a careful quantitative analysis of the regional systems of innovation of the EU-25 regions, a multiple regression analysis is conducted including measures for R&D investment and proxies for regional innovation systems in order to uncover the importance of both endogenous innovative efforts and socioeconomic conditions for the creation of economically productive innovation and regional growth. In addition the model includes, for each regions, proxies for the innovative efforts and socio-economic conditions of neighbouring areas thus assessing the potential location advantage determined by an “innovation prone” interconnected neighborhood. Our results show that while innovative output spills over into interconnected areas, the regional system of innovation benefits only the local economy. As a consequence, endogenous socioeconomic conditions are crucial for the successful translation of innovation into economic growth as the lack of an adequate system of innovation cannot be compensated by external factors |
|
(with Andrés Rodríguez-Pose) “Systems of innovation and regional growth in the EU: endogenous vs. external innovative efforts and socioeconomic conditions” forthcoming in Fratesi U. and Senn L. (eds) “Growth and Interconnected Territories, Springer-Verlag, 2008 |
|
Research Papers (Updated Sept 2008) |
|
This paper analyses the role of infrastructure endowment and investment in the genesis of regional growth in the European Union, by developing a model which assesses the economic effect of the existence and improvement of transport networks, in light of their capacity to stimulate growth by interacting with the process of innovation and the socio-institutional conditions of every territory. Furthermore, these dynamics are examined in a geographical perspective, explicitly accounting for the spatial interactions between different regions in the form of spillovers and network externalities. A multiple regression analysis is conducted for all regions of the EU25, including measures of infrastructure endowment and investment, R&D investment, proxies for regional innovation systems, and knowledge and socio-economic spillovers. The empirical results highlight the impact of infrastructural endowment on economic performance across European regions, but also the weak contribution of additional investment in infrastructure to economic growth. Regions with a good endowment of transport infrastructure and well connected to regions with similar good endowments tend to grow faster, but efforts to invest in infrastructure within a region or high levels of investment in neighbouring regions seem to leave especially peripheral regions more vulnerable to competition. The results also highlight that the positive impact of infrastructural endowment on growth tends to wane quickly and that it is weaker than that of other factors, such as the level of human capital of a region. |
|
(with Andrés Rodríguez-Pose) “Infrastructure endowment and investment as determinants of regional growth in the European Union”, European Investment Bank Papers, 13(2), 62-101, 2008 |
