This paper looks at the European Union as a laboratory to study how ‘spatially targeted’ policies (i.e. the European Union Cohesion and Rural Development Policies) interact with sectoral ‘spatially blind’ policies (i.e. the Common Agricultural Policy), jointly shaping regional growth dynamics. The analysis of the drivers of regional growth shows that the European Union Cohesion Policy has a positive influence on economic growth in all regions. However, its impact is stronger in the most socio-economically advanced areas and is maximised when its expenditure is complemented by Rural Development and Common Agricultural Policy funds. The top-down funding of the Common Agricultural Policy seems to be able to concentrate some benefits in the most deprived areas of the Union. This suggests that bottom-up policies are not always the best approach to territorial cohesion. Top-down policies may – in some cases – be effective in order to channel resources to the most socio-economically deprived areas. Territorial cohesion requires the flexible integration and coordination of both bottom-up and top-down approaches.
AlstonJM (2007) Benefits and beneficiaries from U.S. Farm subsidies. AEI Agricultural Policy Series: The 2007 Farm Bill and Beyond, Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
2.
BahrC (2008) How does sub-national autonomy affect the effectiveness of structural funds?Kyklos61(1): 3–18.
3.
Barca F (2009) An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy. Independent Report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, the Commissioner for Regional Policy. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/barca_en.htm (accessed 22 June 2016).
4.
BarcaFMcCannPRodríguez-PoseA (2012) The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science52(1): 134–152.
5.
Bivand RS and Brundstad RJ (2003) Regional growth in western europe: an empirical exploration of interactions with agriculture and agricultural policy. In: Fingleton B (ed.) European Regional Growth. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
6.
Bouayad-agha S, Turpin N and Védrine L (2010) Fostering the potential endogenous development of European regions: A spatial dynamic panel data analysis of the Cohesion Policy on regional convergence over the period 1980-2005. In: TEPP Working Paper, 2010-17.
7.
BuchinskyM (1994) Changes in the U.S. wage structure 1963-1987: Application of quantile regression. Econometrica62: 405–458.
8.
Bureau JC and Mahé LP (2008) CAP reform beyond 2013: An idea for a longer view. Notre Europe, Studies and Research 64. Available at: www.notre-europe.eu (accessed 22 June 2016).
9.
CamagniRCapelloR (2011) Spatial effects of economic integration: a conceptualization from growth and location theories. In: JovanovicM (ed.) International Handbook of the Economics of IntegrationVol. II, Cheltenham: EE, pp. 148–168.
10.
CamagniRCapelloR (2013) Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change44(2): 355–389.
11.
CapelloRLenziC (2013) Territorial patterns of innovation and economic growth in European regions. Growth and Change44(2): 195–227.
12.
CappellenACastellacciFFagerbergJ (2003) The impact of EU regional support on growth and convergence in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies41(4): 621–644.
13.
Chernozhukov V and Hansen C (2004) The impact of 401(K) on savings: an instrumental quantile regression analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics 86(3): 735–751.
14.
CrescenziR (2005) Innovation and regional growth in the enlarged Europe: The role of local innovative capabilities, peripherality and education. Growth and Change36(4): 471–507.
15.
CrescenziR (2009) Undermining the principle of territorial concentration? EU regional policy and the socio-economic disadvantage of European regions. Regional Studies43(1): 111–133.
16.
CrescenziRRodríguez-PoseA (2009) Systems of innovation and regional growth in the EU: Endogenous vs. external innovative efforts and socioeconomic conditions. In: FratesiUSennL (eds) Growth and Innovation of Competitive Regions, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 167–192.
17.
CrescenziRRodríguez-PoseA (2011) Reconciling top-down and bottom-up development policies. Environment and Planning A43(4): 773–780.
18.
CrescenziRRodríguez-PoseA (2012) Infrastructure and regional growth in the European Union. Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell91(3): 487–513.
19.
CrescenziRDe FilippisF (2016) Cohesion policy and rural development. In: PiattoniSPolverariL (eds) Handbook of Cohesion Policy in the EU, Cheltenham: EE, pp. 325–338.
20.
CrescenziRDe FilippisFPierangeliF (2015) In tandem for cohesion? Synergies and conflicts between regional and agricultural policies of the European Union. Regional Studies49(4): 681–704.
21.
CrescenziRGiuaM (2017) Different approaches to the analysis of the EU Cohesion Policy. Leveraging complementarities for evidence-based policy learning. In: BachtlerJBerkowitzPHardySMuravskaT (eds) EU Cohesion Policy Reassessing performance and direction, Forthcoming Routledge.
22.
Dall’erba S, Guillain R and Le Gallo J (2007) Impact of structural funds on regional growth: How to reconsider a 7 year-old black-box. In: The University of Arizona, Discussion Papers, GRD 06-07.
23.
de FreitasMPereiraFTorresF (2003) Convergence among EU regions, 1990-2001. Quality of national institutions and “Objective 1” status. Intereconomics38: 270–275.
24.
DuhrSColombCNadinV (2010) European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation, London: Routledge.
25.
EderveenSde GrootHNahuisR (2006) Fertile soil for structural funds? A panel data analysis of the conditional effectiveness of European cohesion policy. Kyklos59: 17–42.
26.
EderveenSGorterJde MooijR (2002) Funds and Games. The Economics of European Cohesion Policy, The Hague: CPB.
27.
ESPON (2004) ESPON Project 2.1.3. The territorial impact of CAP and rural development policy. Final Report, August 2004.
28.
EspostiR (2007) Regional growth and policies in the European Union: Does the common agricultural policy have a counter-treatment effect?American Journal of Agricultural Economics89(1): 116–134.
29.
EspostiRBussolettiS (2008) Impact of “Objective 1” funds on regional growth convergence in the European Union: A panel-data approach. Regional Studies42(2): 159–173.
European Commission (2010) Europe 2020, A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020, Brussels.
32.
European Commission (2014) Investment for jobs and growth: Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities. Sixth report on economic and social cohesion, Brussels.
33.
European Commission (2015) European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) – Explore Our Data. Available at: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 22 June 2016).
34.
Giua M (2016) Spatial discontinuity for the impact assessment of the EU Regional Policy. The case of Italian Objective 1 regions. Journal of Regional Science (in press).
35.
HausmanJTaylorW (1981) Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica49: 1377–1398.
36.
KatoKGalvaoAMontes-RojasGV (2012) Asymptotics for panel quantile regression models with individual effects. Journal of Econometrics170(1): 76–91.
37.
KlinePMorettiE (2014) People, places, and public policy: Some simple welfare economics of local economic development programs. Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews6(1): 629–662, 608.
Mairate A (2006) The added value of European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies 40(2): 167–177.
40.
Manzella GP and Mendez C (2009) The turning points of EU Cohesion policy. Prepared for the Independent Report by Barca F., An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy.
41.
MartinRTylerP (2006) Evaluating the impact of the structural funds on “Objective 1” regions: An explanatory discussion. Regional Studies40(2): 201–210.
42.
Mohl P and Hagen T (2008) Does EU Cohesion Policy promote growth? Evidence from regional data and alternative econometric approaches. In: ZEW Discussion Paper, 08-086.
43.
Mohl P and Hagen T (2010) Econometric evaluation of EU Cohesion Policy – A survey. In: ZEW Discussion Paper, 09-052.
44.
MonastiriotisV (2014) Regional growth and national development: Transition in central and eastern Europe and the Regional Kuznets Curve in the East and the West. Spatial Economic Analysis9(2): 142–161.
45.
Montresor E, Pecci F and Pontarollo N (2011) Rural development policies at regional level in the enlarged EU. The impact on farm structures. In: Paper prepared for presentation at the 114th EAAE seminar ‘Structural Change in Agriculture’, Berlin, 15–16 April 2010.
46.
MorenoRPaciRUsaiS (2005a) Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in European regions. Environment and Planning A37: 1973–1812.
47.
MorenoRPaciRUsaiS (2005b) Geographical and sectoral clusters of innovation in Europe. Annals of Regional Science39: 715–739.
48.
Neumark D and Simpson H (2014) Place-based policies. In: NBER Working Papers 20049, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
49.
OECD (2009a) How Regions Grow. Paris.
50.
OECD (2009b) Regions Matter: Economic Recovery, Innovation and Sustainable Growth. Paris.
51.
OECD (2015) Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2015: OECD Countries and Emerging Economies. Paris.
52.
PaciRMarrocuE (2013) Knowledge assets and regional performance. Growth and Change44(2): 228–257.
53.
PetrakosGKalliorasDAnagnostouA (2011) Regional convergence and growth in Europe: Understanding patterns and determinants. European Urban and Regional Studies18: 375–391.
54.
PetrakosGRodríguez-PoseARovolisA (2005) Growth, integration, and regional disparities in the European Union. Environment and Planning A37: 1837–1855.
55.
Pike A, Rodríguez-Pose A and Tomaney J (2010) Handbook of Local and Regional Development. London: Routledge.
56.
Ponomareva M (2011) Quantile Regression for Panel Data Models with fixed effects and small T. Identification and Estimation. Working Paper, November 2011. Available at: http://www.niu.edu/ponomareva/QRPD-short.pdf.
57.
Powell D (2011) Unconditional quantile regression for exogenous or endogenous treatment variables. In: RAND Labor and Population working paper series, WR-824.
58.
Powell D and Wagner D (2011) The exporter productivity premium along the productivity distribution: Evidence from unconditional quantile regression with firm fixed effects. In: RAND Labor and Population Working Paper Series, WR-837.
59.
RamajoJMarquezMHewingsG (2008) Spatial heterogeneity and interregional spillovers in the European Union: Do cohesion policies encourage convergence across regions?European Economic Review52: 551–567.
60.
Rodríguez-PoseA (1999) Innovation prone and innovation averse societies: Economic performance in Europe. Growth and Change30(1): 75–105.
61.
Rodríguez-PoseACrescenziR (2008) R&D, spillovers, innovation systems and the genesis of regional growth in Europe. Regional Studies42(1): 51–67.
62.
Rodríguez-PoseAFratesiU (2004) Between development and social policies: The impact of structural funds in “Objective 1” regions. Regional Studies38(1): 97–114.
63.
Saraceno E (2002) Rural development policies and the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. In: Paper prepared for the 10th EAAE Congress, Zaragoza, 28–31 August 2002.
64.
Shucksmith M, Thomson K and Roberts D (2005) The CAP and the Regions: The Territorial Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy. Wallingford: CAB International Publishing.
65.
SoukiazisEAntunesM (2006) Two speed regional convergence in Portugal and the importance of structural funds on growth. Ekonomia9(2): 222–241.
66.
WooldridgeJM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
