Politická ekonomie 2019, 67(2):113-132 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.1238

Strukturální fondy a znevýhodnění regionů: veřejní a neveřejní příjemci podpory

Oldřich Hájek1, Jiří Novosák2, Radek Jurčík3, Daniela Spiesová4, Jana Novosáková1
1 Newton College
2 Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zlíně, Fakulta managementu a ekonomiky
3 Mendelova univerzita v Brně, Provozně ekonomická fakulta
4 Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze, Provozně ekonomická fakulta

Structural Funding and Disadvantage of Regions: Public and Non-Public Beneficiaries

Considering the differences between public and non-public beneficiaries, the main aim of this paper is to evaluate the relationship between the disadvantage of Czech regions and the spatial distribution of EU structural funds in the programming period 2007–2013. The empirical results reveal negative and significant influence of socioeconomic disadvantage of regions on the amount of structural funds obtained by public beneficiaries. On the contrary, agglomeration economies are the statistically significant determinant of the amount of structural funds obtained by non-public beneficiaries. These conclusions are related to different absorption capacity of regions, regarding the number and size of projects. Overall, structural funds do not compensate for the disadvantage of regions, neither for public nor for non-public beneficiaries.

Keywords: structural funds, regional disparities, cohesion policy, public beneficiaries, non-public beneficiaries, coherence of policies, Czech Republic
JEL classification: O18, O22, R12, R58

Received: January 24, 2018; Accepted: December 12, 2018; Published: February 1, 2019  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hájek, O., Novosák, J., Jurčík, R., Spiesová, D., & Novosáková, J. (2019). Structural Funding and Disadvantage of Regions: Public and Non-Public Beneficiaries. Politická ekonomie67(2), 113-132. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.1238
Download citation

References

  1. Anselin, L., Rey, S. (2014). Modern Spatial Econometrics in Practice: A Guide to GeoDa, GeoDaSpace and PySAL. Chicago: GeoDa Press. ISBN 0986342106.
  2. 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.
  3. Banerjee, B., Jarmuzek, M. (2010). Economic Growth and Regional Disparities in the Slovak Republic. Comparative Economics Studies, 52(3), 379-403, https://doi.org/10.1057/ces.2010.13 Go to original source...
  4. Barjak, F. (2001). Regional Disparities in Transition Economies: a Typology for East Germany and Poland. Post-Communist Economies, 13(3), 289-311, https://doi.org/10.1080/14631370120074849 Go to original source...
  5. Blažek, J., Macešková, M. (2010). Regional Analysis of Public Capital Expenditure: to which Regions is Public Capital Expenditure Channelled - to 'Rich' or to 'Poor' Ones? Regional Studies, 44(6), 679-696, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903002713 Go to original source...
  6. Blažek, J., Netrdová, P. (2012). Aktuální tendence lokální diferenciace vybraných socioekonomických jevů v Česku: směřuje vývoj k větší mozaikovosti prostorového uspořádání? Geografie, 117(3), 266-288. Go to original source...
  7. Camaioni, B. et al. (2013). How rural is the EU RDP? An Analysis through Spatial Fund Allocation. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 2(3), 277-300, https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-13092 Go to original source...
  8. Costello, A. B., Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9, https://doi.org/10.1.1.110.9154
  9. 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, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400801932276 Go to original source...
  10. 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, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.946401 Go to original source...
  11. Czyz, T., Hauke, J. (2011). Evolution of Regional Disparities in Poland. Quaestiones Geographicae, 30(2), 35-48, https://doi.org/10.2478/v10117-011-0016-y Go to original source...
  12. Dellmuth, L. M. (2011). The Cash Divide: the Allocation of European Union Regional Grants. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), 1016-1033, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.599972 Go to original source...
  13. 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, https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116512440511 Go to original source...
  14. Ezcurra, R., Pascual, P., Rapún, M. (2007). The Dynamics of Regional Disparities in Central and Eastern Europe during Transition. European Planning Studies, 15(10), 1397-1421, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310701550850 Go to original source...
  15. Hájek, O. et al. (2017). Absorpční kapacita strukturálních fondů (2007-2013): typologie českých mikroregionů. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice - Series D, 24(1), 28-38.
  16. Iatu, C., Alupului, C. (2011). Structural Funds' Absorption in Romania: Factor Analysis of NUTS 3 Level. Transformations in Business & Economics, 10(2b), 612-630.
  17. Kelejian, H. H., Prucha, I. R. (2010). Specification and Estimation of Spatial Autoregressive Models with Autoregressive and Heteroskedastic Disturbances. Journal of Econometrics, 157(1), 53-67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.10.025 Go to original source...
  18. Kemmerling, A., Bodenstein, T. (2006). Partisan Politics in Regional Redistribution. Do Parties Affect the Distribution of EU Structural Funds across Regions? European Union Politics, 7(3), 373-392, https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116506066264 Go to original source...
  19. Maier, K., Franke, D. (2015). Trendy prostorové sociálně-ekonomické polarizace v Česku 2001-2011. Czech Sociological Review, 51(1), 89-123, https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2015.51.1.155 Go to original source...
  20. Novák, J., Netrdová, P. (2011). Prostorové vzorce sociálně-ekonomické diferenciace obcí v České republice. Czech Sociological Review, 47(4), 717-744. Go to original source...
  21. Novosák, J. et al. (2015). Territorial Cohesion and the Geography of EU Cohesion Policy Funding in the Czech Republic. Transformations in Business & Economics, 14(3), 42-59.
  22. Novosák, J. et al. (2017). Structural Funding and Intrastate Regional Disparities in Post-communist Countries. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 51E, 53-69, https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.51E.4 Go to original source...
  23. Pfleger, D., Langenstein, T., Užík, M. (2017). Explanatory Power of Implied and Historical Betas in Comparison. International Journal of Public Administration, Management and Economic Development, 2(1), 8-30.
  24. Pohlodka, O. (2016). Vliv redistribučních procesů na ekonomický růst: případová studie států EU. Scientia et Societas, 12(1), 32-43.
  25. Popescu, A.S. (2015). The Absorption Capacity of European Funds - Concepts. Annals-Economy Series, 18(3), 119-125.
  26. Smetkowski, M. (2013). Regional Disparities in Central and Eastern European Countries: Trends, Drivers and Prospects. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(8), 1529-1554, https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2013.833038 Go to original source...
  27. Svetliková, S. (2018). Public Policy and Non-Profit Sector. in Taranu, A., ed., Development, Democracy and Society in the Contemporary World. Bologna: Filodiritto Publisher, pp. 350-355. ISBN 978-88-85813-08-3.
  28. Tatar, M. (2010). Estonian Local Government Absorption Capacity of European Union structural Funds. Halduskultuur - Administrative Culture, 11(2), 202-226.
  29. Tosun, J. (2014). Absorption of Regional Funds: a Comparative Analysis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(2), 371-387, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12088 Go to original source...
  30. Žítek, V., Klímová, V. (2016). Peripheral Innovation Systems in the Czech Republic at the Level of the NUTS3 Regions. Agricultural Economics, 62(6), 260-268, https://doi.org/10.17221/170/2015 Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.