Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Diversification (1)
- Euro method (2)
- GRAS method (2)
- National Accounts (1)
- Non-survey techniques (2)
- Strukturfonds (1)
- Strukturpolitik (1)
- Sustainable development (1)
- Updating supply and use tables (2)
Institute
Structural interventions of the Commission comprise expenditures for objective 1, objective 2 and objective 3. The three priority objectives of the Structural Funds are: • promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind (objective 1); • supporting the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties (objective 2); • supporting the adaptation and modernisation of policies and systems of education, training and employment. (objective 3). The purpose of this study is to quantify the economic impacts of objective 1 interventions of the Structural Funds for the period 2000 – 2006. The expenditures of the Structural Funds for objective 2 and objective 3, the Cohesion Fund, the Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession (ISPA) and loans which are granted by the European Investment Bank (EIB) are not included in the analysis. The study quantifies how much of expected development can be attributed to objective 1 expenditures for • Community interventions (Structural Funds), • public interventions (Structural Funds, national public interventions) and • total interventions (Structural Funds, national public interventions, private participation). The study uses the autumn 2001 forecast and medium-term projection of Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission in order to calculate a baseline for the impact assessment. Today, the forecast itself seems rather optimistic. However, this does not cause problems for the analysis in this report, because the objective is to estimate the impact of the structural funds. In other words the objective is to estimate, for example, the additional growth caused by the structural funds and not to forecast growth as such. Therefore, whether the forecast as such will materialise is of no consequence for the impact analysis in this study.
The main objective of this paper is to revisit the Euro method in a critical and constructive way.Wehave analysed some arguments against the Euro method published recently in the literature as well as some other relevant aspects of the SUT-Euro and SUT-RAS methods not covered before. Although not being the Euro method perfect, we believe that there is still space for the use of the Euro method in updating/regionalizing Supply and Use tables.
For decades now, exports and import have grown more rapidly than domestic production. This is a strong indication that, besides the rapid growth of foreign trade in final goods, trade in intermediates is becoming increasingly important. For this reason, an input-output ap-proach is more appropriate for any analysis of diversification than a traditional approach based purely on macroeconomic data.
This article analyses economic diversification in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries using data from input-output tables which are an integral part of the national accounts. We compare the performance of the GCC economies with that of a reference case, Norway, which is considered to have successfully diversified its economy despite having a large oil resource base. It also assesses these countries’ relative progress on sustainable development using a measure of the World Bank, adjusted net savings, which evaluates the true rate of savings in an economy after accounting for investments in physical and human capital, de-pletion of natural resources, and damage from environmental pollution.
The article concludes that GCC countries have, contrary to expectation, collectively per-formed relatively well on diversification, but their performance on sustainable development varies.
The main objective of this paper is to revisit Temursho’s (2020) article “On the Euro method” in a critical and constructive way. We have praised part of his work and at the same time, we have analysed some of his arguments against the Euro method and against the work published by Valderas-Jaramillo et al. (2019). Moreover, we have analysed some other relevant aspects of the SUT-Euro and SUT-RAS methods not covered in Temursho (2020). Temursho (2020) seems to conclude that no one should use the Euro method again because of its limitations and drawbacks. However, although not being the Euro method perfect, we are afraid that there is still space for the use of the Euro method in updating/regionalizing supply and use tables.