1 / 8

YES 2011 DUBROVNIK,JUNE 28,2011

YES 2011 DUBROVNIK,JUNE 28,2011. MUSTRA & SKRABEC “Regional Inequalities in the EU and the Role of Institutions COMMENTS by Oleh Havrylyshyn. MAIN CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER. A BOLD ATTEMPT TO TEST HYP.: BETTER INSTITUTIONS WILL CLOSE REGIONAL GAPS,HELP ACHIEVE EU COHESION GOAL

manchu
Download Presentation

YES 2011 DUBROVNIK,JUNE 28,2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. YES 2011DUBROVNIK,JUNE 28,2011 MUSTRA & SKRABEC “Regional Inequalities in the EU and the Role of Institutions COMMENTS by Oleh Havrylyshyn

  2. MAIN CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER • A BOLD ATTEMPT TO TEST HYP.: BETTER INSTITUTIONS WILL CLOSE REGIONAL GAPS,HELP ACHIEVE EU COHESION GOAL • NOVEL: USES WB GOVERNANCE DATA • EMPIRICAL RESULTS : INDIRECT TEST OF HYP.- FINDING THAT COUNTRIES WITH BETTER GOVERNANCE HAVE LESS REGIONAL INEQUALITY

  3. MAIN CONCERNS TO ADDRESS • ACTUAL TEST IS NECESSARILY INDIRECT GIVEN NO REG.INST.DATA : OK , BUT THEN MORE CAUTIOUS INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS • PERIOD COVERAGE MAY BE TOO SHORT FOR PHENOMENA THAT ARE LONG-TERM INST. IMPROVEMENT; INC.CATCH-UP • GIVEN ABOVE PROBLEMS, NEED TO DO MUCH MORE ROBUSTNESS TESTS

  4. TEST IS INDIRECT • I ASSUME REG. DATA AVAIL. For INC, SF- BUT NOT FOR INSTITUTIONAL INDICATORS? • THEN,OBVIUOSLY TEST CANNOT BE DIRECT, AND SEEMS SENSIBLE TO SPECIFY SPECIFICATION THAT REGIONAL INEQUALITY IN COUNTRY X LESS WITH BETTER INSTITUTIONS PLUS OTHER CONTROL VARIABLES? OR IS IT THE SAME ? • THIS IS OK BUT NEEDS JUSTIFICATION, POSSIBLE DIFF.SPECIFICATIONS.

  5. INDIRECT TEST NEEDS MORE DERIVED THEORIZING • UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DOES INCOME NARROWING IN A COUNTRY NECESSARILY MEAN COHESION? i.e. if mezzogiorno catches up 10 pts. to lombardia, but Italy grows far more slowly than Netherlands …then what?? • ARE THERE POSSIBLE PROXIES BY REGION OF INST.? DATA, OR ECONOMETRIC ESTIMATE?

  6. PERIOD MAYBE TOO SHORT? • INST.LIT CLEAR THAT EFFECTS TAKE MANY YEARS, DECADES ( North suggests centuries) • INCOME CATCH-UP ARITHMETIC ALSO POINTS TO LONG PERIODS FOR CATCH-UP: e.g: Port.1896 inc.= 45% EUAV 2006=65 (not easy to know how much was due to INST. catch-up, or new markets, or regional funds.) • VERY REMINISCENT OF PROBLEM WITH EMPIRICS OF INST SUCH AS Rodrik Subramanian,Trebbi:-their finding that institutions rule uses effectively very long-run sample (today’s GDP is cumulated effect of decades, centuries- and the institutions maybe effect as much as cause.

  7. MORE ROBUSTNESS TESTS ? • ADVANTAGE OF EXERCISE: DATA SAMPLE IS QUITE LARGE (at least 84, Tab. 2 suggests much more depending on specification) • YOU DO LIMITED ROBUSTNESS , FOR INDIVIDUAL WGI VAR’S—SURELY CAN DO MUCH MORE” • QUESTIONS THAT COULD BE ASKED: • Diff. between old , new members? • Can more effort get data for other members? • Why VA, ROL,CC signif. but not GE? Last may be best measure of using SF efficiently • Do other INST indicators give similar results: Doing Business, Heritage oundation , Fraser Inst, TI

  8. POSSIBLE ROBUSTNESS TESTS TO CONSIDER • ONLY OLD MEMBERS;ONLY NEW MEMBERS; • CROSS-SECTION FOR FIRST AND LAST YEAR - THIS WOULD MEAN USE ONLY THE “I” , AND NOT ALL CONTROL VARS. • DIFFERENT MEASURES OF INST • LEAVE OUT OPENNES MEASURE : [X+M] RATIOS, EVEN ADJUSTED MAY BE IRRELEVANT HERE—TRADE RESTRICTIVENESS EQUAL FOR ALL EU • etc.

More Related