Articles covered in this summary:
1. Globalisation has marginalised many regions in the rich world. (2017, October 21). The
Economist.
2. European Commission. (2021). Eighth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion.
European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/cohesion-
report/
3. Frenken, K., & Hoekman, J. (2006). Convergence in an enlarged Europe: The role of network
cities. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 97(3), 321–326.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2006.00523.x
4. Annoni, P., & Dijkstra, L. (2019). The European Regional Competitiveness Index 2019.
Publications Office of the European Union.
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/working-papers/2019/
the-european-regional-competitiveness-index-2019
5. Bristow, G. (2005). Everyone’s a “Winner”: Problematising the Discourse of Regional
Competitiveness. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(3), 285–304.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbh063
6. Thissen, M., de Graaff, T., & van Oort, F. (2016). Competitive network positions in trade and
structural economic growth: A geographically weighted regression analysis for European
regions. Papers in Regional Science, 95(1), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12224
7. van Schendelen, M. P. C. M. (2013). The art of lobbying the EU: More Machiavelli in Brussels
(Fourth, fully updated and revised edition). Amsterdam University Press.
8. Darvas, Z., Mazza, J., & Midoes, C. (2019). How to improve European Union cohesion policy
for the next decade (No. 8). Bruegel Policy Contribution.
9. Mion, G., & Ponattu, D. (2019). Estimating economic benefits of the Single Market for
European countries and regions [Policy Paper]. Bertelsmann Stiftung.
http://aei.pitt.edu/102495/
10. Hanegraaff, M., & Berkhout, J. (2018). More business as usual? Explaining business bias
across issues and institutions in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1492006
11. Weckroth, M., & Moisio, S. (2020). Territorial Cohesion of What and Why? The Challenge of
Spatial Justice for EU’s Cohesion Policy. Social Inclusion, 8(4), 183–193.
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i4.3241
,Contents
Globalisation has marginalised many regions in the rich world. (2017, October 21). The Economist....5
Regional disparities.............................................................................................................................5
Co-location and clustering..................................................................................................................5
Reasons for these disparities..............................................................................................................5
Help?..................................................................................................................................................6
European Commission. (2021). Eighth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. European
Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/cohesion-report/..........................8
Cohesion in the European Union has improved, but gaps remain......................................................8
Drivers of regional growth tend to boost cohesion............................................................................9
New opportunities for growth, but risks of new disparities.............................................................11
Challenges for cohesion policy.........................................................................................................11
Frenken, K., & Hoekman, J. (2006). Convergence in an enlarged Europe: The role of network cities.
Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 97(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9663.2006.00523.x...............................................................................................................................13
Introduction......................................................................................................................................13
Hypotheses.......................................................................................................................................13
Results..............................................................................................................................................13
Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................14
Annoni, P., & Dijkstra, L. (2019). The European Regional Competitiveness Index 2019. Publications
Office of the European Union.
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/working-papers/2019/the-
european-regional-competitiveness-index-2019..................................................................................15
Introduction......................................................................................................................................15
Key findings of RCI 2019...................................................................................................................15
Capital/metropolitan regions still leading the way.......................................................................15
Wide and stable gaps....................................................................................................................15
Anna Karenina’s recipe for competitiveness.................................................................................15
What has improved and what has remained unchanged.................................................................16
A stable framework and methodology.........................................................................................16
Improvements and adjustments...................................................................................................16
Remarkable relationships.................................................................................................................17
Low regional competitiveness translates into higher income inequality......................................17
Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................17
Bristow, G. (2005). Everyone’s a “Winner”: Problematising the Discourse of Regional
Competitiveness. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbh063
..............................................................................................................................................................18
, Introduction: the regional competitiveness hegemony....................................................................18
The discourse of regional competitiveness.......................................................................................18
Competitiveness as microeconomic productivity.........................................................................18
Competitiveness as regional macroeconomic performance.........................................................19
The policy discourse of regional competitiveness........................................................................19
Problematizing regional competitiveness: critical questions............................................................20
The political economy of regional competitiveness..........................................................................23
Thissen, M., de Graaff, T., & van Oort, F. (2016). Competitive network positions in trade and
structural economic growth: A geographically weighted regression analysis for European regions.
Papers in Regional Science, 95(1), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12224...............................25
Abstract............................................................................................................................................25
Introduction......................................................................................................................................25
Revealed competition and structural economic growth...................................................................26
Revealed competition...................................................................................................................26
Value/added regional growth decomposition..............................................................................27
Demarcating our estimation strategy of regional economic growth............................................27
Conclusion and discussion................................................................................................................27
van Schendelen, M. P. C. M. (2013). The art of lobbying the EU: More Machiavelli in Brussels (Fourth,
fully updated and revised edition). Amsterdam University Press.........................................................29
The predecessors of arena analysis & arena analysis: going window-out........................................29
Describing the arena.........................................................................................................................30
Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................30
Issues............................................................................................................................................30
Time..............................................................................................................................................30
Boundaries....................................................................................................................................31
Darvas, Z., Mazza, J., & Midoes, C. (2019). How to improve European Union cohesion policy for the
next decade (No. 8). Bruegel Policy Contribution.................................................................................32
Executive summary...........................................................................................................................32
Introduction......................................................................................................................................32
What does the literature say about the effects of cohesion policy?.................................................32
Our empirical approach....................................................................................................................33
Learning form the project characteristics that could produce the best results................................33
Insights from interviews...................................................................................................................34
European value added..................................................................................................................34
Different attitudes to EU and national funds................................................................................35
The performance framework........................................................................................................35
Factors determining the success of cohesion policy.....................................................................35
, Thematic areas.............................................................................................................................36
Synergies with other EU and national policies having a regional character..................................36
Need for strategic focus................................................................................................................36
The implications for cohesion policy reform....................................................................................36
Mion, G., & Ponattu, D. (2019). Estimating economic benefits of the Single Market for European
countries and regions [Policy Paper]. Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://aei.pitt.edu/102495/...................39
Abstract............................................................................................................................................39
Introduction......................................................................................................................................39
Results..............................................................................................................................................40
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................40
Hanegraaff, M., & Berkhout, J. (2018). More business as usual? Explaining business bias across issues
and institutions in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1492006..............................................................................42
Abstract............................................................................................................................................42
Introduction......................................................................................................................................42
Institutions and bias in interest communities...................................................................................42
Issues and bias in interest communities...........................................................................................43
Discussion.........................................................................................................................................44
Weckroth, M., & Moisio, S. (2020). Territorial Cohesion of What and Why? The Challenge of Spatial
Justice for EU’s Cohesion Policy. Social Inclusion, 8(4), 183–193.
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i4.3241.................................................................................................45
Abstract............................................................................................................................................45
Introduction......................................................................................................................................45
Analyzing territorial cohesion policy.................................................................................................45
The territorial cohesion of what? The change in the meaning of territorial cohesion......................45
Why territorial cohesion? The changing justification for territorial cohesion as regional policy......46
Concluding remarks..........................................................................................................................47
,Globalisation has marginalised many regions in
the rich world. (2017, October 21). The
Economist.
The forces that drive regional disparities are built into the mechanisms of globalization, which makes
them hard to resist. It is true that globalization could stall or go in reverse. But even if globalization
were to stop in its tracks, the regions it has weakened would not magically improve.
Regional disparities
Economists once thought that, over time, inequalities between both regions and countries would
naturally even out. Rich places with more money than investment opportunities would sink money
into poorer ones with untapped potential; technological know-how would spread through
economies. For much of the 20th century there was evidence to back this up.
Lagging industrialized countries grew much faster than the richest ones in the decades after
the second world war. At the same time, as geographical differences dwindled within and
between industrialized economies, the gap between those economies and the rest of the
world widened. In the 1990s, regional inequality within rich countries increased. Poorer
economies began catching up with richer ones. This was a predictable result of political and
technological change – one that governments in the rich world largely ignored and that their
advisers, and economists in general, made too little effort to point out. When countries with
lots of low-wage workers began trading with richer economies, pay for similarly skilled
workers converges. Those in poor economies grow richer while in rich countries workers get
poorer. The effects are felt more in some places than others, and not only because the sort
of people who lose out to trade tend to live in similar places. Globalization did direct damage
to many local and regional economies because of the way those regions work.
Co-location and clustering
Firms – particularly manufacturers (but not limited to!) – often do better when they are close
together. Such a cluster attracts workers. A cluster of firms and workers in the same sector leads to
new ideas being spawned and spread. The size of such clusters depends on the size of the economy.
Open a national economy to a world’s worth of trade and the scale changes. A larger, more
integrated market enables production at more efficient scale and increased global output. As a
consequence, consumers gain access to cheaper and better goods and services. Producers in less
fortunate regions either have to up their game, specialize, move or go under. While production
becomes more geographically concentrated, this does not imply that trade is a zero-sum game. Cities
and industries can also prosper in smaller clusters and economies if they are very talented and
provide a lot of jobs.
Reasons for these disparities
There are several reasons why the poorer regions of rich economies did not adjust as well to the
winners-takes-more geography of globalization:
1. Technology seems to be moving from place to place less easily than it used to. Superstar
firms have developed more and more complex technologies than before. They can only (at
, least easier) share this information and cooperate with equivalent firms in other countries as
they are both on the same level, causing less good firms to fall behind even more.
2. Diffusion of technology from top firms in one country to ‘worse’ firms in the same country
has slowed down. The more the best firms focus on a global market, the slower productivity-
improving techniques and technologies spread locally. These ‘superstar’ firms disable the
presence of various places home to businesses within the same industry, causing domestic
investment to be lower. Additionally, less ‘good’ firms are neither willing nor able to adopt
the best technology.
3. In the most successful developing countries, people are more willing to move to new centers
of progress. On the other hand, people in the rich world are less and less able and willing to
move to thriving places than in the past.
- The pull exerted by successful places is offset by policies that restrict population growth
and that were not imposed before. Stringent planning rulers, and homeowners who
prefer low-density living, limit new building in rich cities, making housing unaffordable.
Often, high housing costs more than offset the pay increase.
- At the same time, the push to leave failing places has weakened. The growth of the
welfare state1 limits the chances that declining cities will disappear. Today, government
benefits and pension payments spare people the horrible choice between moving or
penury.
- Furthermore, public employees face strong incentives to stay put as authorities are
afraid of a brain drain.
- The ageing population also has an effect on this matter. Grown-up children may need to
care for ailing parents. For these and other reasons, many working-age adults are finding
it harder to move far from their parents than previous generations.
Help?
Help – either to make it easier to set up in a successful place, or to leave a failing one – would be a
boon to many, especially the young, skilled, and ambitious. By making them more productive, it
would probably boost GDP. But it could make life harder still for the least mobile members of society.
- Subsidies and tax incentives to promote the relocation of companies to less fortunate
areas often do not have the desired effect (such as creating less jobs than needed).
o ‘Enterprise zones’, which typically use tax incentives and hiring subsidies to
encourage businesses into areas of concentrated poverty and joblessness, do
little good (such as failing to create employment in targeted areas).
Studies on such incentives find increases in employment and wages that
are modest at best.
o An analysis of the effects of EU structural funds (money invested in poorer
regions to promote convergence) finds that such spending appears to boost local
output and reduce unemployment, but not necessarily in a sustainable way.
When the fundings disappear, the gains are also lost. (this means that it would
require continuous investment -> dependability)
1
A welfare state is a form of government in which the state (or a well-established network of social
institutions) protects and promotes the economic and social well-being of its citizens, based upon the principles
of equal opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and the public responsibility for citizens unable to avail
themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. https://www.britannica.com/topic/welfare-state
