Regional disparities, absorption capacity and Structural Fund payments: A case study of the Czech Republic

Open access

Abstract

The intention of this paper is to provide empirical evidence on how the factors of socio-economic disadvantage and absorption capacity influence the spatial distribution of Structural Fund (SF) payments among the Czech Republic’s micro-regions during the 2007–2013 programming period. The empirical results indicate that agglomeration economies, innovation and entrepreneurship are associated with higher SF absorption capacity and higher SF payments, challenging the tendency for socio-economically disadvantaged regions to converge. SF absorption capacity measured especially by the number of project applications submitted for SF financing and by the average SF budget per project application, is a crucial concept in order to understand the relationship between within-country regional disparities and SF interventions.

References

  • Anselin L., Bera A.K., Florax R.J., Yoon M.J., 1996. Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Regional Science and Urban Economics 26(1): 77–104.

  • Artelaris P., Kallioras D., Petrakos G., 2010. Regional inequalities and convergence clubs in the European Union new member-states. Eastern Journal of European Studies 1(1): 113–133.

  • Baláž V., 2007. Regional polarization under transition: The case of Slovakia. European Planning Studies 15(5): 587–602.

  • Barro R.J., Sala-I-Martin X., 1992. Convergence. Journal of Political Economy 100(2): 223–251.

  • Becattini G., 1978. The development of light industry in Tuscany. Economic Notes 3(2): 107–122.

  • Blažek J., Macešková M., 2010. Regional analysis of public capital expenditure: To which regions are public capital expenditure channelled – to “rich” or to “poor” ones? Regional Studies 44(6): 679–696.

  • Blažek J., Netrdová P., 2012. Aktuální tendence lokální diferenciace vybraných socioekonomických jevů v Česku: směřuje vývoj k větší mozaikovosti prostorového uspořádání? (Contemporary tendencies of the development of spatial pattern on the local level in Czechia: Towards higher fragmentation of the spatial pattern?). Geografie 117(3): 266–288.

  • Boldrin M., Canova F., 2001. Inequality and convergence in Europe’s regions: Reconsidering European regional policies. Economic Policy 16(32): 207–253.

  • Cace C., Cace S., Iova C., Nicolaescu V., 2009. Absorption capacity of the structural funds. Integrating perspectives. Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială 27: 7–28.

  • Camaioni B., Esposti R., Lobianco A., Pagliacci F., Sotte F., 2013. How rural is the EU RDP? An analysis through spatial fund allocation. Bio-based and Applied Economics 2(3): 277–300.

  • Churski P., 2005. Problem areas in Poland in terms of the objectives of the European Union’s regional policy. European Planning Studies 13(1): 45–72.

  • Crescenzi R., 2009. Undermining the principle of concentration? European Union regional policy and the socio-economic disadvantage of European regions. Regional Studies 43(1): 111–133.

  • Crescenzi R., De Fillipis F., Pierangeli F., 2015. In tandem for cohesion? Synergies and conflicts between regional and agricultural policies of the European Union. Regional Studies 49(4): 681–704.

  • Czyż T., Hauke J., 2011. Evolution of regional disparities in Poland. Quaestiones Geographicae 30(2): 35–48.

  • De Propris L., 2007. Reconciling cohesion and competitiveness through EU cluster policies? Policy Studies 28(4): 327–345.

  • Dellmuth L.M., Stoffel M.F., 2012. Distributive politics and intergovernmental transfers: The local allocation of European Union structural funds. European Union Politics 13(3): 413–433.

  • Duran M., 2014. The absorption capacity of Turkey for its use of the European Union pre-accession assistance. Bogazici Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences 28(1): 69–93.

  • Enflo K., Hjertstrand P., 2009. Relative sources of European regional productivity convergence: A bootstrap frontier approach. Regional Studies 43(4): 643–659.

  • Esposti R., Bussoletti S., 2008. Impact of Objective 1 funds on regional growth convergence in the European Union: A panel-data approach. Regional Studies 42(2): 159–173.

  • Ezcurra R., 2009. Does income polarization affect economic growth? The case of the European regions. Regional Studies 43(2): 267–285.

  • Fischer M.M., Stirböck C., 2006. Pan-European regional income growth and club-convergence. The Annals of Regional Science, 40(4): 693–721.

  • Fratesi U., 2008. Regional policy from a supra-regional perspective. The Annals of Regional Science 42(3): 681–703.

  • Fujita M., Krugman P., 2004. The new economic geography: Past, present and the future. Papers in Regional Science 83(1): 139–164.

  • Geppert K., Stephan A., 2008. Regional disparities in the European Union: Convergence and agglomeration. Papers in Regional Science 87(2): 193–217.

  • Hudson R., 2007. Regions and regional uneven development forever? Some reflective comments upon theory and practice. Regional Studies 41(9): 1149–1160.

  • Iatu C., Alupului C., 2011. Structural funds’ absorption in Romania: Factor analysis of NUTS 3 level. Transformations in Business & Economics 10(2b): 612–630.

  • Jaliu D., Radulescu C., 2013. Six years in managing structural funds in Romania. Lessons learned. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Science 9(38): 79–95.

  • Jurevičienė D., Pileckaitė J., 2013. The impact of EU structural fund support and problems of its absorption. Business, Management and Education 11(1): 1–18.

  • Kaufmann A., Wagner P., 2005. EU regional policy and the stimulation of innovation: The role of the European Regional Development Fund in the Objective 1 Region Burgenland. European Planning Studies 13(4): 581–599.

  • Klímová V., Žítek V., 2015. Inovační paradox v Česku: Ekonomická teorie a politická realita. Politická ekonomie 63(2): 147–166.

  • Krugman P., 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy 99(3): 483–499.

  • Lambrinidis M., Psycharis Y., Rovolis A., 2005. Regional allocation of public infrastructure investment: The case of Greece. Regional Studies 39(9): 1231–1244.

  • Lolos S.E.G., 2009. The effect of EU structural funds on regional growth, assessing the evidence from Greece, 1990–2005. Economic Change Restructuring 42(3): 211–228.

  • Lošťák M., Hudečková H., 2010. Preliminary impacts of the LEADER+ approach in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics 56(6): 249–265.

  • Maillat D., 1998. Innovative milieu and new generations of regional policies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 10(1): 1–16.

  • Martín C., Sanz I., 2003. Real convergence and European integration: The experience of the less developed EU members. Empirica 30(3): 205–236.

  • Milio S., 2007. Can administrative capacity explain differences in regional performances? Evidence from structural funds implementation in Southern Italy. Regional Studies, 41(4): 429–442.

  • Modranka E., 2015. Spatial dependencies in the absorption of funds from Regional Operational Programmes on NUTS 3 regional level in Poland. Journal of Economics & Management 19(1): 108–122.

  • Moulaert F., Mehmood A., 2010. Analysing regional development and policy: A structural-realist approach. Regional Studies 44(1): 103–118.

  • Novák J., Netrdová P., 2011. Prostorové vzorce sociálně-ekonomické diferenciace obcí v České republice (Spatial patterns of socioeconomic differentiation in the Czech Republic at the level of municipalities). Czech Sociological Review 47(4): 717–744.

  • Novosák J., Hájek O., Smékalová L., Nekolová J., Škarka M., 2015. Territorial cohesion and the geography of EU Cohesion Policy funding in the Czech Republic. Transformations in Business & Economics 14(3C): 42–59.

  • Novosák J., Hájek O., Horváth P., Nekolová J., 2017. Structural Funding and intrastate regional disparities in post-communist countries. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 13(51): 53–69.

  • Parr J.B., 1999. Growth-pole strategies in regional economic planning: A retrospective view. Part 1. Origins and advocacy. Urban Studies 36(7): 1195–1215.

  • Pawlicz A., 2014. Selected determinants of absorption of EU – tourism-related projects. The case of counties in West Pomerania and Lubuskie, Poland. Service Management 12: 61–69.

  • Popescu A.S., 2015. The absorption capacity of European funds – concepts. Annals-Economy Series 18(3): 119–125.

  • Porter M.E., 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard business review 68(2): 73–93.

  • Puga D., 2002. European regional policies in light of recent location theories. Journal of Economic Geography 2(4): 373–406.

  • Pugicerver-Peňalver M.C., 2007. The impact of structural funds policy on European regions’ growth. A theoretical and empirical approach. The European Journal of Comparative Economics 4(2): 179–208.

  • Schraff D., 2014. Buying turnout or rewarding loyalists? Electoral mobilization and EU structural funding in the German Länder. European Union Politics 15(2): 277–288.

  • Simmie J., Carpenter J., 2008. Towards an evolutionary and endogenous growth theory explanation of why regional and urban economies in England are diverging. Planning, Practice & Research 23(1): 101–124.

  • Smetkowski M., 2013. Regional disparities in Central and Eastern European countries: Trends, drivers and prospects. Europe-Asia Studies 65(8): 1529–1554.

  • Tatar M., 2010. Estonian local government absorption capacity of European Union structural funds. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture 11(2): 202–226.

  • Tödling F., Trippl M., 2005. One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy 34(8): 1203–1219.

  • Tosun J., 2014. Absorption of regional funds: A comparative analysis. Journal of Common Market Studies 52(2): 371–387.

  • Václavík J., 2015. Indirect support of research and development in the Czech Republic. Scientia et Societas 11(2): 110–125.

  • Zaman G., Georgescu G., 2009. Structural fund absorption: A new challenge for Romania? Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting 10(1): 136–154.

Quaestiones Geographicae

The Journal of Adam Mickiewicz University

Journal Information


CiteScore 2016: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.258
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.359

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 18 18 18
PDF Downloads 5 5 5