Investment, Financial Markets, New Economy Dynamics and Growth in Transition Countries
Albrecht Kauffmann, P. J. J. Welfens
Economic Opening Up and Growth in Russia: Finance, Trade, Market Institutions, and Energy,
2004
Abstract
The transition to a market economy in the former CMEA area is more than a decade old and one can clearly distinguish a group of relatively fast growing countries — including Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia — and a majority of slowly growing economies, including Russia and the Ukraine. Initial problems of transition were natural in the sense that systemic transition to a market economy has effectively destroyed part of the existing capital stock that was no longer profitable under the new relative prices imported from world markets; and there was a transitory inflationary push as low state-administered prices were replaced by higher market equilibrium prices. Indeed, systemic transformation in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have brought serious transitory inflation problems and a massive transition recession; negative growth rates have continued over many years in some countries, including Russia and the Ukraine, where output growth was negative throughout the 1990s (except for Russia, which recorded slight growth in 1997). For political and economic reasons the economic performance of Russia is of particular relevance for the success of the overall transition process. If Russia would face stagnation and instability, this would undermine political and economic stability in the whole of Europe and prospects for integrating Russia into the world economy.
Read article
Telekommunikatsionny sektor, vneshnyaya torgovlya i ekonomicheski rost: gravitatsionnaya model' i empiricheski analis dlya Vostochnoy Evropy i Rossii
Albrecht Kauffmann
Infrastruktura, investitsii i ekonomicheskaya integratsiya: Perspektivy Vostochnoy Evropy i Rossii,
2004
Abstract
Read article
EU Accession Countries’ Specialisation Patterns in Foreign Trade and Domestic Production - What can we infer for catch-up prospects?
Johannes Stephan
IWH Discussion Papers,
No. 184,
2003
Abstract
This paper supplements prior analysis on ‘patterns and prospects’ (Stephan, 2003) in which prospects for the speed of future productivity growth were assessed by looking at the specialisation patterns in domestic production. This analysis adds the foreign trade sphere to the results generated in the prior analysis. The refined results are broadly in line with the results from the original analysis, indicating the robustness of our methods applied in either analysis. The most prominent results pertain to Slovenia and the Slovak Republic. Those two countries appear to be best suited for swift productivity catch-up from the viewpoint of sectoral specialisation. Poland and Estonia exhibit the lowest potentials. Only for the case of Poland would results suggest bleak prospects.
Read article
Evolving Structural Patterns in the Enlarging European Division of Labour: Sectoral and Branch Specialisation and the Potentials for Closing the Productivity Gap
Johannes Stephan
IWH-Sonderhefte,
No. 5,
2003
Abstract
This report summarises the results generated in empirical analysis within a larger EU 5th FP RTD-project on the determinants of productivity gaps between the current EU-15 and accession states in Central East Europe. The focus of research in this part of the project is on sectoral specialisation patterns emerging as a result of intensifying integration between the current EU and a selection of six newly acceding economies, namely Estonia, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary and Slovenia. The research-leading question is concerned with the role played by the respective specialisation patterns for (i) the explanation of observed productivity gaps and for (ii) the projection of future potentials of productivity growth in Central East Europe.
For the aggregated level, analysis determines the share of national productivity gaps accountable to acceding countries’ particular sectoral patterns, and their role for aggregate productivity growth: in Poland, the Slovak Republic and Hungary, sectoral shares of national productivity gaps are considerable and might evolve into a ‘barrier’ to productivity catch-up.Moreover, past productivity growth was dominated by a downward adjustment in employment rather than structural change. With the industrial sector of manufacturing having been identified as the main source of national productivity gaps and growth, the subsequent analysis focuses on the role of industrial specialisation patterns and develops an empirical model to project future productivity growth potentials. Each chapter closes with some policy conclusions.
Read article
Differences between German regions with respect to growth factors: a comparison based on a cluster analysis
Franz Kronthaler
Wirtschaft im Wandel,
No. 13,
2003
Abstract
Der Beitrag untersucht vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussion über die Neuordnung der deutschen und europäischen Regionalpolitik, welche Unterschiede in der Ausstattung mit Wachstumsfaktoren zwischen den deutschen Regionen bestehen. Auf der Grundlage einer Clusteranalyse wurden die deutschen Regionen zehn Clustern, die jeweils durch unterschiedliche Ausstattungsmerkmale charakterisiert sind, zugeordnet. Dabei zeigt sich, dass kein Cluster auftritt, in dem sich sowohl west- als auch ostdeutsche Regionen befinden. Bei einer näheren Betrachtung der Cluster, die sich aus ostdeutschen Regionen zusammensetzen, deutet sich an, dass ein Großteil dieser Regionen erst über eine unterdurchschnittliche Ausstattung mit den meisten Wachstumsfaktoren verfügt. Teilweise ähnliche Ausstattungsmerkmale zeigen sich aber auch bei zahlreichen nord- und westdeutschen Regionen. Demgegenüber zeigt sich bei einer kleinen Gruppe von ostdeutschen Regionen, insbesondere bei den Regionen mit bedeutenden Agglomerationen, bereits eine günstigere Ausstattung bei vielen Wachstumsfaktoren. Aber im Vergleich zum gesamtdeutschen Durchschnitt gibt es auch in diesen Regionen noch verschiedene Schwächen.
Read article
A Study of the Competitiveness of Regions based on a Cluster Analysis: The Example of East Germany
Franz Kronthaler
IWH Discussion Papers,
No. 179,
2003
Abstract
This paper examines whether some East German regions have already achieved the same economic capability as the regions in West Germany, so that they are on a competitive basis with the West German regions and are able to reach the same economic level in the long run. If this is not the case, it is important to know more about the reasons for the economic weakness of the East German regions twelve years after unification.
The study is based on a cluster analysis. Criteria for the cluster formation are several economic indicators, which provide information about the economic capability of regions. The choice of the indicators is based on a review of results of the theoretical and empirical literature on the new growth theory and new economic geography.
The results show that most of the East German regions have not yet reached the economic capability and competitiveness of their West German counterparts so that they - from the viewpoint of the new growth theory and the new economic geography - are not in the position to reach the same economic level. According to these theories economic disadvantages are most notably the consequences of less technical progress, a lack of entrepreneurship and fewer business concentration. Under these points it is especially noteworthy that young well educated people leave these East German regions so that human capital might will turn into a bottle-neck in the near future. Only a few regions in East Germany - those with important agglomerations - are comparable to West German regions that are characterised by average capability and competitiveness, but not to those with above average economic capability and competitiveness. Even those more advanced East German regions still suffer from a slower technical progress.
There are important policy implications based on these results: regional policy in East Germany was not able to assist raising all regions to a sufficient level of competitiveness. It may be more effective to concentrate the regional policy efforts on a selection of important agglomerations. This has also strong implications for the EU regional policy assuming that the accession countries will have similar problems in catching up to the economic level of the EU as have the East German regions.
Read article
Standardised Latin and Medieval Economic Growth
Ulrich Blum, Leonard Dudley
European Review of Economic History,
2003
Abstract
Read article
The Exchange Rate of the Rouble and its Impact on Stability and Growth in Russia
Hubert Gabrisch
Success and Failures of Transition – the Russian Agriculture between Fall and Resurrection,
2003
Abstract
Read article
Commentary - Is flat growth a consequence of reunification?
Rüdiger Pohl
Wirtschaft im Wandel,
No. 8,
2003
Abstract
Das vereinigte Deutschland weist ein deutlich geringeres Wirtschaftswachstum auf als das Frühere Bundesgebiet vor der Vereinigung. Lag die Wachstumsrate 1970 bis 1991 bei durchschnittlich 2,4%, beträgt sie seit der Vereinigung nur noch durchschnittlich 1,1%. Auch im internationalen Vergleich ist Deutschland beim Wachstum deutlich abgeschlagen. Tatsächlich ist das vereinigte Deutschland auch 2002 – also 12 Jahre nach der Vereinigung – noch immer rechnerisch „ärmer“ als das Frühere Bundesgebiet am Vorabend der Vereinigung. Das reale Bruttoinlandsprodukt je Einwohner liegt im Jahr 2002 mit 24 100 Euro nach wie vor unter dem Wert von 24 300 Euro, den das Frühere Bundesgebiet 1991 erzielt hatte.
Read article
On the presence of important growth factors in German regions along the border with Poland
Gerhard Heimpold
Wirtschaft im Wandel,
No. 7,
2003
Abstract
Die deutschen Regionen entlang der Grenze zu Polen gelten als wirtschaftlich schwach. Über deren künftige wirtschaftliche Entwicklung besteht – nicht zuletzt angesichts der bevorstehenden EU-Osterweiterung – große Unsicherheit. Vor diesem Hintergrund versucht der Beitrag, mehr Licht in die Debatte über die Zukunft der Grenzregionen zu bringen. Die Untersuchungsergebnisse zeigen zweierlei. Erstens ist der Grenzraum kein homogener Raum. Einzelne Teilräume weisen durchaus Stärken auf: die Universitätsstädte – erwartungsgemäß – beim Humankapital und beim Dienstleistungsbesatz. Andere Kreise zeichnen sich durch einen hohen Industriebeschäftigtenanteil und durch überdurchschnittliche Industrieinvestitionen aus. Zweitens sind zwar die Grenzregionen bei der Ausstattung mit wichtigen Wachstumsdeterminanten im Durchschnitt etwas schlechter als Ostdeutschland als Ganzes gestellt. Dies trifft aber auch auf viele andere strukturschwache Regionen in Ostdeutschland zu. Gravierender als die intra-ostdeutschen Unterschiede fallen die Unterschiede im Vergleich zu den alten Ländern aus.
Read article
