It's all a load of Cannonballs in here! This is the virtual Arsenal pub where you can chat about anything except football. Be warned though, like any pub, the content may not always be suitable for everyone.
I reckon the main aim of Structural Policy is to decrease the regional disparities within the European Union.
In 2004 many new member countries joined the EU. This enlargement caused strong regional disparities within the Union. For this reason the distribution of the financial support by Structural Policy will undergo drastic changes.
I consider two main themes.
1 - Convergence of the current EU-member countries is empirically tested, for the period 1995-2002, and the effect of the Structural Funds in this context is identified.
Structural Funds seem to have had a positive impact and poorer countries (like Greece) seem to have caught up with the richer countries. The importance of the Structural Funds in this respect can therefore not be neglected.
2 - The problem of moral hazard and the substitution effect.
It may be expected that receivers of Structural Funds in some cases are not really eligible and may therefore use the Funds inefficiently.
First and preliminary results seem to indicate that the less clean countries (or as I measure it, more ‘corrupt’ countries) of the current EU-15 do not gain less economic growth from the Structural Funds. The hypothesis that Structural Funds contributed to less interregional disparities within the current 15 European countries cannot be rejected. This might mean the intended plans of channelling a big share of the Funds to the candidate countries in 2007-13 will probably contribute to higher economic growth in these countries.
See, just like I said in my previous post - it's bollocks!!!
I reckon the main aim of Structural Policy is to decrease the regional disparities within the European Union.
In 2004 many new member countries joined the EU. This enlargement caused strong regional disparities within the Union. For this reason the distribution of the financial support by Structural Policy will undergo drastic changes.
I consider two main themes.
1 - Convergence of the current EU-member countries is empirically tested, for the period 1995-2002, and the effect of the Structural Funds in this context is identified.
Structural Funds seem to have had a positive impact and poorer countries (like Greece) seem to have caught up with the richer countries. The importance of the Structural Funds in this respect can therefore not be neglected.
2 - The problem of moral hazard and the substitution effect.
It may be expected that receivers of Structural Funds in some cases are not really eligible and may therefore use the Funds inefficiently.
First and preliminary results seem to indicate that the less clean countries (or as I measure it, more ‘corrupt’ countries) of the current EU-15 do not gain less economic growth from the Structural Funds. The hypothesis that Structural Funds contributed to less interregional disparities within the current 15 European countries cannot be rejected. This might mean the intended plans of channelling a big share of the Funds to the candidate countries in 2007-13 will probably contribute to higher economic growth in these countries.
See, just like I said in my previous post - it's bollocks!!!
Don't blame me, I just copied and pasted a 2003 article by M Beugelsdijk!
I reckon the main aim of Structural Policy is to decrease the regional disparities within the European Union.
In 2004 many new member countries joined the EU. This enlargement caused strong regional disparities within the Union. For this reason the distribution of the financial support by Structural Policy will undergo drastic changes.
I consider two main themes.
1 - Convergence of the current EU-member countries is empirically tested, for the period 1995-2002, and the effect of the Structural Funds in this context is identified.
Structural Funds seem to have had a positive impact and poorer countries (like Greece) seem to have caught up with the richer countries. The importance of the Structural Funds in this respect can therefore not be neglected.
2 - The problem of moral hazard and the substitution effect.
It may be expected that receivers of Structural Funds in some cases are not really eligible and may therefore use the Funds inefficiently.
First and preliminary results seem to indicate that the less clean countries (or as I measure it, more ‘corrupt’ countries) of the current EU-15 do not gain less economic growth from the Structural Funds. The hypothesis that Structural Funds contributed to less interregional disparities within the current 15 European countries cannot be rejected. This might mean the intended plans of channelling a big share of the Funds to the candidate countries in 2007-13 will probably contribute to higher economic growth in these countries.
See, just like I said in my previous post - it's bollocks!!!
STALKER ALERT 
