The Regional Development Trap in Europe

Diemer, Andreas; Iammarino, Simona; Rodríguez‐Pose, Andrés; Storper, Michael

doi:10.1080/00130095.2022.2080655

Cited by 80 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, access to jobs (Rothstein, 2019) and consequently migration to places where jobs are available (Buscha et al, 2021;Sprung-Keyser et al, 2022) have been associated with better chances of upward mobility. In Europe, different regions face dramatically different growth profiles, with some struggling to uphold and improve prosperity for their residents (Diemer et al, 2022;Vigna, 2023).…”

Section: Local Labor Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in Europe

Granström¹,

Engzell²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do opportunities for intergenerational mobility depend on the place where you live? We address this question using European Social Survey data, studying the association in occupational rank and social class between parents and children, and how it varies by region. Both ways of measuring occupational mobility produce similar results but there is a clear distinction between upward mobility, largely driven by structural change, and relative mobility which is thought to closer reflect (in)equality of opportunity. Capital regions are hubs of absolute upward, but not always relative, mobility. Absolute upward mobility is correlated with a range of human capital, labor market, demographic, and socio-spatial characteristics. By contrast, the only robust predictor of relative mobility is income differences between social classes. More inequality entails less mobility, and this relationship holds within countries.

show abstract

Section: Local Labor Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in Europe

Granström¹,

Engzell²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On this regard, a key policy implication is the need to finetune the articulation between EU research and technological development, innovation and industrial policies to develop a framework which overcomes the dual focus on providing financial aid to a catching-up periphery, on the one hand, and propelling a selfreinforcing core, on the other (Diemer et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A taxonomy of European innovation clubs

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper provides a novel, empirically grounded map of innovation ‘clubs’ in the EU, based on a unique analysis of micro-aggregated, country-level data. Using exploratory factor analysis we articulate innovation variables in a taxonomy of four ‘latent’ innovation theories: Network-Innovation-System, Kaldorian, New-Growth-Theory, and Schumpeterian. We then characterise clusters of countries (‘clubs’), based on their performance against this taxonomy, and design a new map of EU innovation clubs. We identify an articulated map of EU innovation hierarchy beyond the rather well-known ‘core-periphery’ structure, and interpret how some of the peripheries are functional to the ‘consolidated core’ of innovative countries, raising an issue of long-term sustainability of such hierarchies. We also find that even the most innovative clusters show concerning weaknesses. The strongest cluster in terms of its innovation system does not seem to exploit its full potential and lags behind with respect to radical product innovations. Instead, the leading cluster in terms of radical product innovations is strongly dependent on external innovative activity, is focused on scale-intensive sectors, and has a fairly weak innovation system. The periphery of small countries that show a healthy network structure, do so because they mainly include supplier-dominated firms, reliant on innovation inputs from the core. We offer some reflections on innovation policy within a broader view of EU cohesion.

show abstract

“…Since 2010, the lowest development category has narrowed, but an increasing share of the population lives in regions with a GDP per capita between 60% and 80% of the national average level . This indicates a kind of middleincome trap, as there seems to be a lack of endogenous development factors that could boost our non-core areas out of this level (Diemer et al 2022, Lux 2021. The biggest changes are in the categories around the national average, and the share of these categories is decreasing .…”

Section: The Evolution Of Per Capita Gdp In a Regional Breakdown Duri...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of Regional Economic Growth in Hungary before and during the Pandemic Crisis

Zsibók

2022

Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2010s saw a gradual improvement in economic growth in Hungary, which was noticeable in all regions. In this research, we examine the post-crisis economic development trends in a NUTS 3 level disaggregation in the context of the dependent market economy model. The research uses descriptive and multivariate statistical analysis to shed light on the main regional trends. Notable changes occurred mainly in the top and middle performing counties in terms of output, while the bottom of the ranking was characterized by stagnation. Territorial disparities have temporarily narrowed, but there has been no significant catching up of lagging regions.

show abstract

The Regional Development Trap in Europe

Cited by 80 publications

References 49 publications

The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in Europe

The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in Europe

A taxonomy of European innovation clubs

Drivers of Regional Economic Growth in Hungary before and during the Pandemic Crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About