This chapter is devoted to the investigation of spatial spillover effects of the regional unemployment in Germany. Due to historical reasons, the differences between eastern and western regions of Germany persist over time. We explore the differences in the determinants of the regional unemployment as well as the differences in spatial effects by estimating spatial models. We use panel data for 407 out of 413 German regions (using the NUTS III regional structure) for 2001 through 2009. In order to account for possible spatial interactions between regions, we use a spatial weighting matrix of inverse distances. We estimate static and dynamic models by the maximum likelihood estimation approach, developed by Anselin (Spatial econometrics: Methods and models, Berlin: Springer, 1988) specifically for spatial models and elaborated by Lee and Yu (Journal of Econometrics, 154, 165-185, 2010a; Regional Science and Urban Economics, 40, 255-271, 2010b). We reveal that the unemployment in western regions is more of disequilibrium nature, while the unemployment in eastern regions is more of equilibrium nature. Using System GMM approach, we estimate the extended specification of the dynamic model and find that the unemployment in eastern regions affects both the unemployment in western and eastern regions of Germany, whereas the unemployment in western regions has an impact only on other western regions. Keywords Germany • Regional unemployment • Spatial panel data analysis JEL classification C21, C23, R1 IntroductionThere exist numerous macroeconomic approaches which explain the severity of unemployment at the national level. However, disparities in unemployment are not only observed among the countries but also among the regions within the same country. Treating unemployment on a more detailed level might lead to more reliable results. Moreover, the reduction of unemployment diversities between regions leads to desirable outcomes such as higher national product and lower inflation (Taylor 1996). The country benefits from more equal regional unemployment rates also because the reduction of disparities "lessens the adverse effect related to geographical concentrations of high unemployment and counteracts the downward spiral effect of economically depressed regions" (Elhorst 2003). Therefore, the issue of persistent regional inequalities between the local labor markets is widely investigated (e.g., Boeri 2000;Overman and Puga 2002;Bornhorst and Commander 2006;Huber 2007;Ferragina and Pastore 2008) as well as the issue of regional unemployment rates (see among others Bornhorst and Commander 2006;Newell and Pastore 2006;Jurajda and Terrell 2009;Marelli et al. 2012).Decisions of labor market participants are not restricted by regional borders. Those in search of jobs also consider possibilities to move to other regions. On the other hand, firms' decisions on the location are dependent on situations in local labor markets. Bronars and Jansen (1987) established that a one-period shock in the local labor market has an imp...

Семерикова Елена Вячеславовна -магистр экономики, аспирант, стажер-исследователь ла-боратории теории рынков и пространственной экономики. Национальный исследователь-ский университет Высшая школа экономики, ул. Шаболовка, 26, Москва, Россия, 119049. E-mail: lena.sem7@mail.ru.Демидова Ольга Анатольевна -кандидат физико-математических наук, доцент. Националь-ный исследовательский университет Высшая школа экономики, ул. Шаболовка, 26, Мо-сква, Россия, 119049. E-mail: demidova@hse.ru.В работе анализируется региональная безработица в России и Германии в 2005-2010 гг. и во-просы, связанные с поиском верной спецификации используемых для ее анализа простран-ственных эконометрических моделей. Анализ на основе реальных данных по 75 россий-ским и 370 немецким регионам показал, что для Германии выбор взвешивающей матрицы оказывает более значимое влияние на оценки параметров, чем для России. Кроме того, был предложен алгоритм выбора между пространственными матрицами и продемонстрировано применение этого алгоритма на симулированных данных по России. Было выявлено, что 1) отклонение результатов от истинных при неверной спецификации возрастает по мере увеличения степени пространственной зависимости между регионами, 2) для России ма-трица обратных расстояний является более предпочтительной, чем граничная матрица.Пространственное эконометрическое моделирование, взвешивающая матрица, региональная безработица, регионы, Россия, Германия.

No abstract

Given the current conditions of intensifying sanctions, scarcity of resources and the start of a structural transformation of the Russian economy, the task of a reassessment of the efficiency of existing tools of economic policy, so that these tools can be realigned, becomes vital. In this publication, we study the influence of intergovernmental budget transfers, subsidies in particular, on regional economic growth in Russia. We perform the analysis on the full sample of relevant Russian regions and on three subsamples of regions, differing in the degrees of regional budgets’ reliance on transfers. Additionally, we divide regions into two groups, based on the shares of natural resources extraction in their economies. Our analysis shows that increases in the shares of incoming transfers in regional budgets are followed by increases in the rates of growth of GRP per capita – however, this works only for regions with a medium degree of transfer reliance. Such regions having high shares of employment in extraction intensifies the positive effect of transfers. Increases in subsidies to regional budgets are also followed by faster growth – but only in regions with a medium to high reliance on incoming transfers; for regions with a low reliance on transfers the effect of subsidies is insignificant. Among the control variables we use, the share of capital investment in GRP and the share of employed with a higher education also correspond to higher rates of economic growth, but again – only for regions with a medium degree of reliance on incoming transfers. Using the spatial Durbin model, we control for spatial effects between regions. Overall, our analysis shows that the system of intergovernmental transfers currently in place in Russia promotes growth only for regions with a medium level of reliance on transfers

No abstract