EFFICIENCY VERSUS EQUALITY IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY: THE CASE OF ROMANIA

Authors

  • Raluca Irina CLIPA Department of Economics and International Relations, Al. I. Cuza University of Iasi, Romania
  • Ionel BOSTAN Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, Romania
  • Flavian CLIPA Romanian Court of Accounts

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/06

Keywords:

agglomeration, clusters, trade-off theory, regional policy

Abstract

Researchers in the field of regional economy but also geographers have long been concerned about the problems caused by uneven regional development and how it can be reduced by appropriate regional policies. Recently, however, the traditional argument of regional policy to reduce the spatial concentration of economic activity in certain regions, in order to achieve economic efficiency and social justice at national level was questioned. The controversy is the fact that regional imbalance, i.e. spatial agglomeration or concentration of economic activity and workers in certanin regions, can be effective for the entire nation’s economic performance, generating growth. It follows that policies which seek to reduce regional economic disparities can be ineffective nationwide. This causes a compromise (“trade-off”) of political intervention, between maximizing national growth and minimizing regional inequalities. This idea has attracted the attention and interest of researchers and practitioners, and the success in empirical testing does go beyond the stage of idea, theory came to be known as the “trade-off” of regional policy. The theory holds that regional imbalance expresssed by concentrating economic activity and workers in certain particular regions, may be beneficial for national economic performance, generating growth. The paper aims to examine the new “trade-off” theory in Romania, investigating to what extent clusters supported by the industrial policy of the past two decades have led to national economic growth, but at the same time, increased regional inequalities. The authors aim to analyze the spatial concentration of economic activity in Romania and the competitiveness of the eight Romanian development regions (NUTS 2) in terms of clusters’ performance and correlate the results with national growth and inequality. The period chosen for the study (8 years, between 2006 and 2013) is significant for the proposed analisys, because it overlaps the development in Romania of industrial competitive clusters supporting policy. The analysis uses data from the Eurostat database, Romanian Cluster Association, Regional Competitiveness Index 2013 and maping clustering studies in Romania. Research limitations are related to the availability of statistical data on the performance of Romanian clusters.

References

Annoni, P., & Dijkstra, L. (2013). EU Regional Competitiveness Index, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, European Comission, [Online], Available: http://ec.europa.eu/ regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/6th_report/rci_2013_report_final.pdf [20 Nov 2015].

Baldwin, R., Forslid, R., Martin, P., Ottaviano, G.I.P., Robert-Nicoud, F. (2003). Economic Geography and Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Baldwin, R., & Martin, P. (2004). Agglomeration and regional growth. In V. Henderson, J.F. Thisse (eds), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.

Bere, R.C., Bucerzan Precup, I., Silvestru, C.I. (2015). On Growth Poles from EU Countries in The Framework of Europe 2020, Procedia Economics and Finance 23, pp. 920 - 925.

Bostan, I., Clipa, R.I., Clipa F. (2016). Institutional perspective to business localization. Knowledge Horizons - Economics, 8(2), pp. 100-104.

Boulescu, M., Ispir, O., & Dascalu, D. (2009). Uniunea Europeana. Institutii, buget, audit, Editura Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti.

Clipa, R.I. (2016). Economiile de aglomerare si competitivitatea regionala Iasi: Editura Universitatii Alexandru Ioan Cuza.

Clipa, R.I., Ifrim, M. (2016). Measuring regional competitiveness. The case of Romania. The Annals of University of Oradea. Economic Sciences, 1, pp. 103-111.

Clipa, R.I., Pohoaţă, I., Clipa, F. (2011), The New Economic Geography: After Two Golden Decades. Annals of DAAAM for 2011 & Proceedings of the 22nd International DAAAM Symposium, pp. 1391-1392.

Clipa, R.I., Pohoata, I., Clipa, F. (2012). The new economic geography and regional policy in Romania, Theoretical and Applied Economics, XIX, 8(573), pp. 5-18.

Dall'erba, S., Hewings, G.J.D. (2003). European regional development policies: the trade-off between efficiency-equity revisited. Discussion Paper 03-T-2, Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois.

Dascalu, D.E., Turlea, E., Nicolae, F. (2009). Internal Audit Quality-A Key Element For The Management Decision, Osterreichish-Rumanischer Akademischer Verein Papers, Issue 39, [Online], Available: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/sphedp/2009_039.html

Eurostat regional yearbook 2014: Focus on regional competitiveness, [Online], Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5786493/KS-HA-14-001-15-EN.PDF/1eb41aab-981f-472f-a354-3b57bf2ff96e?version=1.0 [17 Jan 2016].

Feldman, M.P. (1993). An examination of the geography of innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(3), 451-470.

Florida, R. (2009). Whose Your City? How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life. Basic Books, New York.

Gardiner, G., Martin, G., Tyler, P. (2010). Does spatial agglomeration increase national growth? some evidence from Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, pp. 1-28.

Glaeser, E.L. (2008). Cities, Agglomeration and Spatial Equilibrium. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Henderson, J.V. (2005). Urbanization and growth. In P. Aghion, S. N. Durlauf (eds), Handbook of Economic Growth, vol IB: 1543-1591, Elsevier, North Holland.

Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45, pp. 1-28.

Lackenbauer, J., Meyer, D. (2006), Regional policies and the equity efficiency trade-off: towards a sequenced timing of cohesion policy. Acta Economica, 56, pp. 249-277.

Martin, P. (1999), Public policies, regional inequalities and growth, Journal of Public Policies, 73, pp. 85-105.

Martin, R. L. (2008), National Growth versus spatial equality? A cautionary note on the new trade-off thinking in regional policy discours, Regional Science, Policy and Practice, 1, pp. 3-13.

Okun, A. M. (1975), Equality and Efficiency: The Great Trade-off, Washington DC, The Bookings Institute.

Pascariu, G. C., Tiganasu , R. (2017), Integration, Growth and Core-Periphery Pattern in EU's Economy: Theoretical Framework and Empirical Evidences, in Gabriela Carmen Pascariu, Maria Adelaide Pedrosa Da Silva Duarte (ed.) Core-Periphery Patterns Across the European Union, pp. 23 - 85.

Puga, D. (1999), The Rise and Fall of Regional Inequalities, European Economic Review, 43, pp. 303-334.

Williamson, J. G. (1965), Regional inequality and the process of national development, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13, pp. 1-84.

World Bank Annual Report (2009), [Online], Available: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTAR2009/Resources/6223977-1252950831873/AR09_Complete.pdf [12.12.2017].

Downloads

Published

2017-12-21

How to Cite

CLIPA, R. I., BOSTAN, I., & CLIPA, F. (2017). EFFICIENCY VERSUS EQUALITY IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY: THE CASE OF ROMANIA. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, 4(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/06