INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF INTERREGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONVERGENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION: INTERDISCIPLINARY METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH DEVELOPMENT

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

PDF
Published: Jul 31, 2019
https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-2-80-85

  Oleg Kuklin

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6904-3496

  Mykhailo Kryvoruchko

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6150-864X

Abstract

Relevance. The problem of interregional convergence within EU-countries has been of great interest among scholars. Such an interest is explained by the fact that joining the European Union may cause deepening interregional disparities among EU-members. As a result, there is a need to develop a model of interregional convergence in socio-economic development that would help countries to face the challenges of regional development during the process of European integration. The multidimensional nature of issues relating to interregional disparities implies the usage of an institutional approach that allows an analysis combining economic and non-economic factors. The purpose of this paper is to develop an interdisciplinary methodological approach to the analysis of interregional socio-economic convergence in the context of European integration from the institutional perspective. Methodological basis. Valuable and very interesting studies along this research line have been undertaken by a number of scholars who have used different methodological approaches that include neoclassical analysis, “core-periphery” theory, institutionalism, “resource abundance curse” phenomenon. The outcomes of their studies serve as a solid ground for in-depth research on interregional convergence that allows analysing this phenomenon from different perspectives. However, the issues regarding the regional dimension of institutional influence on the socio-economic development in the context of European integration have not been thoroughly covered in the economic studies. Results. Based on analysis of theoretical and empirical studies in the areas of interregional disparities and institutional economics, the interdisciplinary methodological approach has been developed, which implies reaching the following objectives: 1) to analyse interregional disparities in EU-members within the framework of neo-classical growth theory, 2) to examine regional dynamics using methodology of “core-periphery” theory (“New Economic Geography”); 3) to research the presence of “resource abundance curse” phenomenon in the regional development in the EU-countries; 4) to examine the institutional dimension of interregional disparities; 5) to analyse position papers on the EU Cohesion Policy implementation to outline the institutional challenges of the latter. Therefore, the research output allows developing an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of the institutional aspect of socio-economic convergence that combines a quantitative (empirical) and qualitative analysis.

How to Cite

Kuklin, O., & Kryvoruchko, M. (2019). INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF INTERREGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONVERGENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION: INTERDISCIPLINARY METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH DEVELOPMENT. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 5(2), 80-85. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-2-80-85
Article views: 515 | PDF Downloads: 269

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

European integration, interregional socio-economic convergence, institutional dimension of interregional disparities, neo-classical convergence analysis, New Economic Geography, resource abundance curse, the EU Cohesion Policy

References

Anders, A. (2001). Building Capitalism: Lessons of the Postcommunist Experience – Washington, DC, Policy Brief, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Bachtler, J., Mendez, C., Wishlade, F. (2016). Evolution or Revolution? Exploring New Ideas for Cohesion Policy 2020+. Glasgow, University of Strathclyde, European Policies Research Center, EoRPA Paper 16/4.

Barro, R., Sala-i-Martin, X. (1991). Convergence across States and Regions. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 107–182.

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

Bevan, A., Estrin, S., Meger, K. (2004). Foreign Investment Location and Institutional Development in Transition Economies. International Business Review, 13(1), 43–64.

Bode, E., Mutl, J. (2010). Testing Nonlinear New Economic Geography Models. Institute for Advanced Studies, Economics Series 253.

Bosker, M., Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., Schramm, M. (2010). Adding Geography to the New Economic Geography: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Empirics. Journal of Economic Geography, 61, 793–823.

Black, B., Tarassova, A. (2003). Institutional Reforms in Transition: a Case Study of Russia. Supreme Court Economic Review, vol. 10, The Rule of Law, Freedom, and Prosperity, 211–278.

Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., Schramm, M. (2006). Putting New Economic Geography to the Test: Free-Ness of Trade and Agglomeration in the EU Regions. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36, 613–635.

Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

Coase, R. (1937). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.

Dudek, C. M. (2014). The History and Challenges of Cohesion Policies. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series, 14(2) [Working Paper].

European Commission (2017). Improving Institutions – Luxemburg, Publications of the European Union, Seventh Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion.

Gwarthey, J., Holcombe, R., Lawson, R. (2004). Economic Freedom, Institutional Quality, and Cross-Country Differences in Income and Growth. Cato Journal, 24, 205–233.

Havrylyshyn, O., van Rooden, R. (2000). Institutions Matter in Transition, but So Do Policies. IMF Working Paper № 0070.

Knack, S., Keefer, P. (1995). Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross-Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures. Economics and Politics, 7(3), 207–227.

Kolstad, I. (2007). The Resource Curse: Which Institutions Matter? Chr. Michelson Institute Working Paper WR2007:2.

Kreppel, A. (2002). The European Parliament and the Supranational Party System: A Study of Institutional Development – Cambridge University Press (Studies in Comparative Politics).

Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.

Kryvoruchko, M. Yu. (2016a). Teoretyko-metodologhichni zasady instytucionaljnoji modeli mizhreghionaljnoji konverghenciji socialjno-ekonomichnogho rozvytku v umovakh jevrointeghraciji [Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of the Institutional Model of Interregional Convergence in Socio-Economic Development in the Context of European Integration]. Molodyj vchenyj, 1(28), 84–87. (in Ukrainian)

Kryvoruchko, M. (2016b). Interregional Convergence and Divergence in the Resource-Oriented and Innovation-Driven Economies: Evidence from Ukraine and South Korea. International Journal of Economics and Society, 2(5), 53–60.

Kryvoruchko, M. (2015a). Doslidzhennja mizhreghionaljnoji konverghenciji v rivni zhyttja naselennja Ukrajiny [A Study on the Interregional Convergence in the Living Standards of the Population of Ukraine]. Aktualjni problemy ekonomiky, 8(170), 302–307. (in Ukrainian)

Kryvoruchko, M. Yu. (2015b). Resursna orijentovanistj eksportu ta importu jak faktor socialjno-ekonomichnogho rozvytku reghioniv Ukrajiny [Resource-Oriented Exports and Imports as a Factor of the Socio-Economic Development of the Regions of Ukraine]. Biznes Inform, 9, 112–122. (in Ukrainian)

Kryvoruchko, M. (2015c). Institutional Influence on the Interregional Disparities in the Socio-Economic Development in Ukraine. International Journal of Economics and Society, 1(1), 10–13.

Kryvoruchko, M. Yu. (2015d). Analiz mizhreghionaljnoji dyferenciaciji socialjno-ekonomichnogho rozvytku v Ukrajini v ramkakh «Novoji ekonomichnoji gheoghrafiji» [Analysis of the Interregional Disparities of the Socio-Economic Development in Ukraine within Framework of the «New Economic Geography»]. Biznes Inform, 3, 50–55. (in Ukrainian)

Lane, P., Tornell, A. (1998). Voracity and Growth – Harvard Institute for International Development, Development Discussion Paper № 654.

Madeline, H., Kreppel, A., Plechanova, B., Verdun, A. (eds.) (2015). Decision Making in the EU before and after the Lisbon Treaty – London and New York, Routledge Press.

Mehlum, H., Moene, K., Torvik, R. (2006). Institutions and the Resource Curse. The Economic Journal, 116, 1–20.

Mendez, C., Bachtler, J. (2015). Permanent Revolution in Cohesion Policy: Restarting the Reform Debat. EoRPA Paper 15/4, paper prepared for the 36th meeting of the EoRPA Regional Policies Research Consortium at Ross Priory, Loch Lomonside, 4-6 October 2015.

North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance – Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, J., Torvik, R., Verdier, T. (2006). Political Foundations of the Resource Curse. Journal of Development Economics, 79, 447–468.

Solow, R. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.

Swan, T. (1956). Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation. Economic Record, 32, 334–361.

Tiffin, A. (2006). Ukraine: The Cost of Weak Institutions. IMF Working Paper № 06/167.

Issue
Vol. 5 No. 2 (2019): Baltic Journal of Economic Studies