Heterogeneity of growth in the west Balkans and emerging Europe: A dynamic panel data model approach

Josifidis, Kosta; Dragutinović-Mitrović, Radmila; Ivancev, Olgica

doi:10.2298/pan1202157j

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, most of the empirical studies apply the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) indicators as a variable to account for institutions quality and transition progress. In this cluster of studies, we can distinguish some of the earliest and prominent studies by de Melo et al (1996), Sahay et al (1999), and Sachs (2001) alongside with some recent empirical works of Nath (2009), Josifidis et al (2012), Melnyk et al (2014). However, it is widely accepted that EBRD proxies assess merely reforms in the area of infrastructure and financing, hence, they do not wholly meet the requirements to be indicators of institutional quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

International trade and foreign direct investment as growth stimulators in transition economies: does the impact of institutional factors matter?

Tsitouras

Koulakiotis

Makris

et al. 2017

Investment Management and Financial Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper develops a general production function framework, augmented with two institutional variables namely bureaucracy and corruption on 28 transition economies over the period 2000-2015. The authors use various econometric specifications and apply both the Fixed Effects, as well as the advanced system Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) panel data techniques. Empirical findings suggest that the impact of openness in terms of foreign direct investment and international trade is advantageous to all the economies of the panel. Furthermore, the findings indicate that classical growth determinants, such as labor and physical capital, have the expected positive contribution, while macroeconomic instability has a negative effect on real economic activity. Regarding the impact of the two institutional variables, corruption, and bureaucracy, the authors retrieve more influential results, as their impact appears to be diametrically opposite between the former Soviet Union states and the rest of European transition economics.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

International trade and foreign direct investment as growth stimulators in transition economies: does the impact of institutional factors matter?

Tsitouras

Koulakiotis

Makris

et al. 2017

Investment Management and Financial Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The economic growth and development of most SEE countries has depended on international capital inflows and on the pace of industrial and social transformation (Babanassis 2003;Iwasaki, Tokunaga 2014). In addition, Josifidis et al (2012) find that economic growth is determined by macroeconomic stabilisation and structural reforms, but also by foreign direct investment and economic integrations within emerging European countries.…”

Section: Background To the Economic Development Of The Selected Southmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative analysis of development in Southeast European countries

Jednak

Kragulj

Bulajić

2015

Technological and Economic Development of Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. There are different kinds of indicators which measure levels of development. The use of varying methods could alter the ranking of a particular country. In this paper, Southeast European countries are ranked according to the World Bank, the UNDP and the I-distance method. The aim of the paper is to provide a comparison between the ranking results obtained with those methods for the period 2007-2012. The principal objective of the study is the ranking of SEE countries using the I-distance technique -a multivariate statistical method for ranking entities -and to discover whether this method gives a better ranking of countries than income per capita and the HDI. To answer this question, similar variables of economic development are used within the research methods. Due to the observed period, some government finance variables are also included. Despite certain limitations, such as lack of data for SEE countries, the results show that the ranks of countries are highly similar regardless of the method used. Nevertheless, there are some differences in the countries' rankings in some years: there are small differences from year to year both in terms of HDI and GNI per capita. However, the I-distance method shows greater differences between countries.

show abstract

“…In explaining the growth determinants, Kosta Josifidis, Radmila Dragutinović Mitrović, and Olgica Ivančev (2012) focus on financial, trade and economic integration among the Western Balkan and Emerging European economies in the period 1997-2009. Their findings suggest that EU membership benefits to the emerging economies compared with the Western Balkan economies, especially through an important determinant such as foreign direct investments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of growth: Evidence from ten central and Eastern European countries during 1993-2008

Silaghi

Alexa

2015

Panoeconomicus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper carries out a growth accounting exercise for the 10 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries that are part of the European Union over the period 1993-2008. We estimate the capital share (?) from a Cobb-Douglas production function in an intensive form, by employing panel data techniques. The Hausman and Chi-Square tests indicate that a Cross- Section Random Effects with Period Fixed Effects model best suits our data. Based on this model, we find a capital share between 0.45 and 0.83, higher than the usual 0.3-0.4 used in growth accounting literature. When we take into consideration the quality of labour force the estimated capital share slightly decreases, but still remains high, in a range between 0.39 and 0.79. Our growth accounting results reveal that, on average, capital per worker accumulation is the main engine of growth in CEE, followed by the contribution of total factor productivity (TFP). However, when dividing by sub-periods, we found that the contribution of TFP cannot be neglected since during 1997-2004 it proved to be the main engine of growth in some CEE countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania and Romania). Some policy implications are offered based on our results.

show abstract

Heterogeneity of growth in the west Balkans and emerging Europe: A dynamic panel data model approach

Cited by 13 publications

References 41 publications

International trade and foreign direct investment as growth stimulators in transition economies: does the impact of institutional factors matter?

International trade and foreign direct investment as growth stimulators in transition economies: does the impact of institutional factors matter?

A comparative analysis of development in Southeast European countries

Sources of growth: Evidence from ten central and Eastern European countries during 1993-2008

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About