1 / 25

Pre-Congress Symposium XIIth EAAE Congress Gent, 26-29 August, 2008 EU PROJECT TERA     

FINAL CONFERENCE Territory and rural development in six European countries. Pre-Congress Symposium XIIth EAAE Congress Gent, 26-29 August, 2008 EU PROJECT TERA     . Main Findings of the TERA Project Demetris Psaltopoulos University of Patras.

shima
Télécharger la présentation

Pre-Congress Symposium XIIth EAAE Congress Gent, 26-29 August, 2008 EU PROJECT TERA     

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. FINAL CONFERENCE Territory and rural development in six European countries Pre-Congress Symposium XIIth EAAE CongressGent, 26-29 August, 2008EU PROJECTTERA     

  2. Main Findings of the TERA Project Demetris Psaltopoulos University of Patras EU PROJECTTERA (CT 2005-006469) [T]erritorial aspects of [E]nterprise developmentin [R]emote Rural [A]reas     

  3. Introduction • Afternoon Session of the Symposium: • model design, • data collection • model construction • Next presentation by Prof. Kola: • interpretation of results • link to territorial factors • policy implications and recommendations

  4. Introduction • Aim of this presentation: To present an overview of the main findings of the TERA modeling work. • Results of the three modeling approaches: • CGE Models (bi-regional; rural/urban) • NEG model (“No Taxation without Infrastructure” paper by Marattin) • New-NEG model (multi-region multi-sector model of inter-regional trade by Mion) • Comparison of these results

  5. Common CGE Simulation Scenarios • Labour and Migration: +/- 10% in labour supply; +20% unskilled labour; -20% skilled labour • Changes in Trade: +1% in the price of all exports/imports; +10% in the export price of agriculture; +10% in the price of hotels and restaurants; +10% in the export price of most important manufactured commodities • Agricultural Policy: -30% of coupled subsidies; full decoupling; 100% transfer of Pillar 1 subsidies into Pillar 2 (Axis 3); 20% modulation – 80% SFP • Transport Infrastructure: +20% in the productivity of the transport sector; -20% in transportation costs

  6. Labour and Migration • Basic Analysis • +10% in labour supply: increase in GDP (4.6% Greece to 8% Italy) • -10% in labour supply: similar negative GDP effects • Rural GDP effects: +2% (Greek area) to +9% (Italian area) • Urban GDP effects: +5% to + 8% • Increase in labour supply: wage reduction (2-15% skilled labour; 2-13% unskilled labour)

  7. Labour and Migration • -20% skilled labour • Considerable losses in output (-5% Greece/Finland to –13% Czech area) • Reduction in tax revenue • Urban areas and secondary sectors worst hit • Increase in skilled labour wages • +20% unskilled labour • Income gains (+1% Czech area to +5.8% Finland) • Decrease in unskilled labour wages • Very small effects on producer and consumer prices • Change in skilled labour results into higher GDP effects compared to changes in unskilled labour

  8. Changes in Trade • Basic Analysis • +1% in world export prices: small effect on GDP (-0.4% Finland to +1.7% Czech area); increase in regional exports (+1% Greece to +11% Scotland) • +1% in world import prices: small negative effects on regional income; reduction of private consumption (-0.34% Italy to -6.55% Czech area) and imports (-0.8% Greece to -21% Scotland) • Wages: Increase when export prices rise – decrease when import prices rise

  9. Changes in Trade • +10% in world export price of “agriculture” • Considerable rural/urban differences (much larger rural GDP effects) • Positive GDP effects (except Finland), especially for the primary sector • Large shift in factor incomes/rents towards agricultural sectors of the study areas • +10% in the world export price of “hotels and restaurants” • Very small GDP impacts • Possibly explained by the “Dutch-disease” literature

  10. Agricultural Policy • -30% in coupled agricultural support • Marginal negative effects on GDP (-0.004% Italy to -0.8% Latvia) with the exception of the Finnish area (slight gains) • GDP losses concentrate in rural areas • Marginally positive effects on urban GDP: increases in allocative efficiency • Losses in rural unskilled jobs (mostly primary sector) • Very marginal effects on consumer prices; agricultural products prices increase much higher than changes in non-farm products prices • Decline in household consumption (especially agricultural households)

  11. Agricultural Policy • Full Decoupling • Higher negative GDP impacts compared to SC1, due to significant negative projections for the primary sector (-1% Greek area to -28.6% Czech area) • Rural economies affected more negatively and urban economies more positively compared to SC1 • Pillar 2 • Mixed impacts: Higher negative impacts (compared to SC1 and SC2) for Italian, Scottish and Greek areas; more positive impacts for the Latvian, Italian and Czech areas • Main loser is the rural primary sector but rural manufacturing and services rather gain • Positive urban impacts, especially for the secondary sector

  12. Transport Infrastructure • Increase in the productivity of the transport sector • Short-run: gains in (especially urban) GDP (+1% Italy to +3.6% Latvia); tertiary sector benefits most • Long-run: Higher (compared to S-R) total impacts in the Italian, Scottish and Latvian areas, lower (still positive) in the rest • Long-run benefits directed towards rural parts of the study areas • Increase in both indirect taxes and income tax earnings • S-R: Marginal increase in the prices of all commodities; decrease in the price of transport (-3.5% Scotland to -20.2% Greece). Notably higher price increases in the L-R

  13. Transport Infrastructure • Decrease in transportation costs • Short-run: Very marginal re-distribution of economic activity; losses for secondary sectors • Long-run: Marginal gains for Scotland and Greece; marginal gains elsewhere • Benefits for unskilled rural labour and skilled urban labour • Marginal increase in commodity prices; decrease in the price of transport • Short-run: Increase in household consumption; higher long-run effects • Benefits directed towards urban parts of the study areas

  14. Some Additional Region-Specific CGE Simulations Aim: To explore region-specific issues raised in the context of interviews with local stakeholders and policy makers (WP7: TF and structural policies; policy implications and recommendations) Here we (indicatively) present the results of the following 4 region-specific simulations: • Investment (Italian area): +10% investment in innovative sectors + 10% skilled labour demand for urban manufacturing • Soft Modulation (Scottish area): Pillar 2 spending not only in Construction (as in SC4), but split between Construction, Education, Business Services and Public Administration • -10% on employers social security payments (Finnish area) • +30% in land prices and rents of the rural part of the study region (Greek area)

  15. Investment Simulation (Italy) • + 10% in innovative investment • Very slight decline in domestic activity (-0.02%), household consumption (-0.20%) and imports (-0.04%) • Very marginal increase in exports • + 10% in skilled labour demand • Notable positive effects: +1.7% GDP; +1.5% HHS Consumption; +2.4% Exports; +0.72% Imports • Important to note here that an equivalent increase in investment in Construction generates positive impacts for the Italian area

  16. Soft Modulation Simulation (Scotland) • GDP losses marginally lower than “Hard Modulation” (-0.15% compared to -0.19%); losses remain for the rural area (-0.63% to -0.64%), but the urban area gains (+0.17% to -0.11%) • Further decline in private consumption (-1% to -0.2%) and exports (-0.41% to -0.34%) • Gain in investment (+3.39% to -0.39%) • Wages of skilled workers fall by less than in HM, but the decrease in the wages of unskilled workers almost doubles • The decline in urban rents is reversed • The large fall in the value of agricultural land persists

  17. Cut in Employers’ SSP Simulation (Finland) • Small increase in investment, private consumption, exports and imports • Very marginal decline of GDP, but benefits for the secondary sector • Positive impact on demand for blue-collar workers; negative for demand for white-collar workers • Marginal decrease of factor incomes • Increase in the income of working households – decrease for other households

  18. Rural Land Prices Simulation (Greece) • Notable GDP decline (-0.36%), especially for rural area (-5.3%), rural primary (-9.4%) and secondary (-4.2%) sectors • Slight decline in urban GDP (-0.13%) • Decline in private consumption and exports • Highly negative effects for rural skilled and unskilled employment: Indicatively unskilled rural jobs in the primary & secondary sectors decrease by 8%; rural skilled jobs by almost 6% • Marginal gains for urban jobs • Significant increase in the price of primary goods (+6.25%) • Household income declines, especially for rural and (mostly) agricultural households

  19. NEG model (Marattin) • Tax rate simulation • +2% / +4% in the urban region tax rate • +2% / +4% in the rural region tax rate • Main findings • Increase in urban tax rates decreases production differentials especially in Latvia, Greece and Italy • The economy is less hit if the initial tax rate is high • Real wage differentials increase (taxes finance infrastructure development which in turn, promotes economic activity concentration) • Increasing rural tax rates increases production differential (i.e. the periphery is hit) • Real wage differentials decrease very marginally

  20. NEG model (Marattin) • Labour force simulation • +5%/+15% in the urban area labour force (third region / rural region) • +5% / +15% in the rural area labour force (third region) • Main findings • Increase in urban LF increases production differentials • In the case of outside-migration, effects are higher where the rural region is large in size (IT, SC, FI) • The bigger the periphery, the greater the increase of production differentials in favour of the urban region • Production differentials decrease if the labour force of the rural region increases (especially if the periphery is bigger) • Real wage differentials increase if the urban labour force increases and vice-versa

  21. New-NEG model (Mion) • Inter-regional trade simulation (rural area + 5 adjacent areas) • Inter-regional trade barriers reduced by 5% (further trade integration) • Main findings • Notable gains in average productivity (4.8% Greece – 0.5% UK) • Significant gains for rural areas in Czech Republic, Scotland, Finland; smaller gains for Greece, none for Italian and Latvian areas • Adjacent urban areas have little to gain • Gains vary substantially across sectors

  22. New-NEG model (Mion) • Population increase simulation (rural area + 5 adjacent areas) • Population increases by 5% in the area where the study area is located • Main findings • Remote rural record sizeable gains if population and market size increase. • Impacts do not display a significant industry heterogeneity • For East Highlands, Plain Po and Latgale an increase in local market size is more beneficial than market integration

  23. Last, but not least…. • Three different approaches have been used to analyse rural development and the role of policy in remote rural regions of Europe • Our findings would be clearer and more robust if results from different approaches lead to the same direction • Labour Simulations • An increase in labour supply clearly benefits the study regions (according to results from all 3 approaches); there are considerable positive effects on economic growth • The direction of immigration is a key issue • Also, the New-NEG approach shows considerable gains in productivity

  24. Last, but not least…. • Infrastructure Simulations • CGE (increase in transport sector productivity; decline in transportation costs); NEG (impact of taxation utilized to build infrastructure); New-NEG (reduction in trade costs) • Results are mixed and much less univocal than those related to the migration simulations • In some cases (e.g. Italy), the New-NEG approach indicates no gains from trade integration; this rather contradicts the direction of the CGE and NEG findings • In other cases (e.g. Scotland, Greece), results suggest regional benefits in terms of productivity (New-NEG) or GDP (CGE); on the other hand, NEG results show a significantly positive correlation between urban-tax increase and real wage differentials

  25. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

More Related