The Gooner Forum

QuartzGooner wrote:

LDB wrote:10,000 words on EU structural policies

I really must say well done.

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.

I Hate Hleb wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:

LDB wrote:10,000 words on EU structural policies

I really must say well done.

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!!!

LDB wrote:Completed my under-grad dissertation today

Have a cyber-beer on me

QuartzGooner wrote:

I Hate Hleb wrote:

QuartzGooner wrote:

LDB wrote:10,000 words on EU structural policies

I really must say well done.

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!
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/3879.html

frankbutcher wrote:Well done son.

I did a Politics degree....

My dissertation was entitled - "A study of cultural imperialism in South-East Asian politics."

SamiS wrote:which Uni LDB?

LDB wrote:Completed my under-grad dissertation today

Have a cyber-beer on me

SamiS wrote:which Uni LDB?

LDB wrote:

SamiS wrote:which Uni LDB?

Portsmouth

marcengels wrote:

LDB wrote:

SamiS wrote:which Uni LDB?

Portsmouth

Championship university