An Agenda for a Growing Europe

Sapir, André; Aghion, Philippe; Bertola, Giuseppe; Hellwig, Martin; Pisani-Ferry, Jean; Rosati, Dariusz; Viñals, José; Wallace, Helen; Buti, Marco; Nava, Mario; Smith, Peter M.

doi:10.1093/0199271488.001.0001

Cited by 271 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

143

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A strategy favoring the highest returns on investments on core and 'champion' areas, in order to achieve the highest aggregate growth rates and obtain highest fiscal revenues on which redistributive policies can rely, has often been conceptualized as the most appropriate, especially in periods of general crisis [10] [14]. The opposed strategy, oriented towards support to lagging regions, was traditionally advocated mainly for social equity and cohesion goals, but more recently also on the ground of its contribution to growth, when competitiveness of these regions is taken up as its main target [15] That modern spatial development policies should be designed so as to maximize the collective returns to public investments is a right and shared idea.…”

Section: Competitiveness Vs Cohesion: a Traditional And Possibly Outmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rationale and Design of EU Cohesion Policies in a Period of Crisis

Camagni

Capello

2014

AEF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The aim of the paper is to reflect on the justifications and design of cohesion policies in a period of deep economic recession. In particular, the paper tackles two important topics. The first topic deals with the justification for structural policies like cohesion policies in a period of economic downturn, since they look less urgent and appropriate than short term demand policies. In this case, cohesion policies are called to rebalance the effects that the ongoing crisis has on the convergence trends of the last two decades. The second topic relates to the most appropriate design that cohesion policies should have. The message that the paper provides from a conceptual point of view, corroborated by empirical results, is that the winning strategy is neither to focus on champions, calling for competitiveness, nor on lagging areas, in favor of cohesion; policies targeted to each regions' needs are the right policies, able to enlarge and embrace all possible excellences. This strategy demonstrates that the traditional trade-off between efficiency and equity goals may be overcome.

show abstract

Section: Competitiveness Vs Cohesion: a Traditional And Possibly Outmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rationale and Design of EU Cohesion Policies in a Period of Crisis

Camagni

Capello

2014

AEF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aspiration of policy makers in Europe, encapsulated in the Sapir Report (Year? ), to shift to innovative, knowledge based capitalism dominated by high skilled workers may be undermined by the export of more sophisticated knowledge intensive functions that were assumed to be embedded in clusters in the metropolitan regions of the core (Sapir et al, 2003;Sapir Group, 2005).…”

Section: Policy Related Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upgrading Local Economies in Central and Eastern Europe? The Role of Business Service Foreign Direct Investment in the Knowledge Economy

Hardy

Micek

Capik

2011

European Planning Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…US antitrust policy has also played a strong role in facilitating the vertical disintegration of new industries and the competitive entry of new firms. As shown in many recent reports, despite a similar permissive regulation on R&D cooperation, competition policy in Europe has historically emphasised competition between incumbent firms, but paid little attention to entry (Sapir et al, 2004;Aghion, 2006). For example, the EU or European national administrations did not pay much attention to the regulation of the market for R&D services and accepted the competitive entry of academic bodies without considering the possible negative impact of it on the innovation system.…”

Section: The Influence Of Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural changes in industrial R&D in Europe and the US: towards a new model?

Foray

Lhuillery

2010

Sci. and Pub. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyse the structural changes that have characterised the organisation of industrial R&D over the last 25 years. Taking Mowery's work (Industrial and Corporate Change, 2009, 18(1), 1-50) on the US as a starting point, we reconsider the different aspects of structural change he examined, discuss their impact and the overall logic underlying them. We then examine Europe to discover to what extent these structural changes have occurred in recent years. While a certain structural evolution is perceptible, it is not on the same scale as that analysed for the US. Finally, we consider the extent to which the new structures are more or less 'efficient' than previous ones. We conclude with the implications for R&D and innovation policy implications. HIS PAPER ANALYSES THE structural changes that have characterised the organisation of industrial R&D over the last 25 years. Taking Mowery's work (2009) concerning the case of the US as a starting point, we reconsider the different aspects of structural change examined by him, discuss their impact and attempt to bring to light the overall logic of these transformations. According to Mowery, the fundamental reorganisation of R&D, as developed during the last 30 years in the US, is particularly characterised by more complex forms of industrial structures (vertical disintegration) in which a new sector occupies an important place (firms specialising in R&D and innovation 'services') and by the larger role played by market transactions in the coordination of innovative activities. The intensive use of intellectual property (IP) and licence agreements is the logical completion of this development, something that is occurring especially in the new high-tech industries.We then examine the case of Europe to discover to what extent these same structural changes have occurred. While a certain structural evolution is perceptible, it is not on the same scale as that analysed for the US. We try to understand why this is so by identifying the effects of industrial specialisation in particular. Europe's difficulty in achieving a leading position in the new high-tech industries is closely linked with the weakness of structural change, although the direction of causality is obviously difficult to determine.Finally, we ask ourselves to what extent the new structures are more or less 'efficient' than previous ones. In this respect we note that these new structures, in which the technology market is a powerful incentive mechanism facilitating the coordination of activities, still have significant inefficiencies, which in actual fact stem from the functioning of this market. We conclude with R&D and innovation policy implications, which in our opinion logically derive from this analysis, in general and for Europe in particular. Structural changes in industrial R&D in the US: 1980-2005The structural changes that industrial R&D has undergone over the last 25 years are considerable. We draw heavily on Mowery's work to identify the main aspects of these changes. We then try to identify some coher...

show abstract

An Agenda for a Growing Europe

Cited by 271 publications

References 38 publications

Rationale and Design of EU Cohesion Policies in a Period of Crisis

Rationale and Design of EU Cohesion Policies in a Period of Crisis

Upgrading Local Economies in Central and Eastern Europe? The Role of Business Service Foreign Direct Investment in the Knowledge Economy

Structural changes in industrial R&D in Europe and the US: towards a new model?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About