Department of Economic and Social Science

Introduzione: l'approccio metodologico 1 A livello di UE, nell'ultima decade numerose regioni rurali hanno mostrato un notevole dinamismo soprattutto dal punto di vista occupazionale (Esposti et al., 1999); analoghi risultati sono emersi nei recenti studi OCSE sulle regioni rurali e nei vari contributi sulla dinamica delle aree rurali degli Stati Uniti. Negli USA (Henry e Drabenstott, 1996; Bernat, 1997) e in molti altri paesi OCSE (Bollman e Bryden, 1997; OECD, 1994 e 1996) numerose aree rurali mostrano crescita sia demografica che occupazionale come conseguenza della propria specifica capacità di trasformare i presunti svantaggi in vantaggi competitivi rispetto alle aree urbane. Si tratta di capire che cosa consente a queste aree, tradizionalmente considerate svantaggiate e gerarchicamente dipendenti, di sviluppare dinamiche di crescita e in che cosa, di contro, simili regioni rurali, con però opposte performance occupazionali, vengono meno. L'idea è dunque quella del confronto rurale-rurale oltre che rurale-urbano o regionale-nazionale; un confronto tra territori e relative strutture interne. Si tratta di comprendere, infine, quali sono le politiche capaci di

The paper proposes an evolutionary reading of rural development referred to cases of rapid industrial growth, where a strong concentration process has involved the main urban centres and the successful industrial districts. This territorial development pattern has gradually extinguished rural society and its institutional basis, creating a clear separation between new central and peripheral areas. The consequent effects on local economy and social dynamics reveal the long-term risks raised in terms of development sustainability. An empirical study of two Italian provinces is also carried out to show how this framework can be helpful in interpreting real historical patterns.

The paper deals with the relation between the local development in the region of Marche (Italy) and the Balkan regions with especial attention given to Albania. Rural development based upon specialised industrial districts has reached a mature stage in many Italian regions. In many cases, cheap labour seeking strategy is becoming the prevalent outcome. Although the forms of delocalisation and Foreign Directed Investments (FDI) can be many, the case of the provinces of Marche and the Albanian districts provide evidence that low labour cost must be accompanied with a local network of entrepreneurs and stable institutions. Difficulties on this ground make delocalisation to Albania still an individual strategy rather than a whole system re-organisation.

Although representing less than 20% of total CAP expenditure, the Rural Development Policy (RDP) 2007-2013 is supposed to support rural areas which are facing new challenges. Currently, many EU rural areas are experiencing major transformations and the traditional urban-rural divide seems outdated (OECD, 2006). Going beyond dichotomous definitions and approaches, the paper applies at EU NUTS 3 level a new composite and comprehensive measure of rurality and peripherality (the PeripheRurality Indicator, PRI): the higher this index, the more rural and peripheral a given region is. Within a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) approach, this indicator takes into account both conventional socioeconomic indicators and the relevant geographical characteristics of the region. On the basis of this analysis, the paper also puts forward a clusterisation of NUTS 3 regions across Europe and assesses the correlation between the RDP expenditure intensity, the PRI and the different regional clusters. This analysis is aimed at assessing the coherence of RDP fund allocation with the real characteristics of EU rural space.

Rural areas still play a major role within the EU, as Europe is still a fairly rural continent. Moreover, EU rural areas are going through greater challenges and major transformations. After the Eastern enlargements of the EU (in 2004 and 2007), they are getting more and more heterogeneous, in terms of their main socioeconomic features as well as of agricultural activities. According to this increasing heterogeneity, the traditional urban-rural divide can be now considered almost outdated (OECD, 2006). Indeed, a multidimensional approach is crucial in order to catch all the different features affecting trends and development of rural areas. For example, central rural regions in Continental countries sharply differ from more peripheral rural areas still facing major development issues. This research has highlighted the main dimensions affecting EU rural areas. First, some considerations on the main drivers of EU territorial development have been analysed. Then, throughout cluster analysis, specific typologies of EU rural areas have been identified. According to this classification, clear territorial patterns emerge. Actually, clusters of more central and more accessible regions are quite different from those clusters composed by more peripheral and lagging behind regions. Thus, geography still affects deeply both the economic performance of regions and their main socio-demographic trends (both in urban and rural areas). Moreover, by computing a comprehensive PeripheRurality (PR) Index, the existence of a more complex geography at the EU scale emerges. National approaches to rural and peripheral areas should be substituted by broader approaches, encompassing all the different territorial level of the analysis. Contribution to the Project This report aims at summarising the main features of EU rural areas, by linking together both an economic perspective and a more geographical one. It sheds lights on the different typologies of EU rural areas, by suggesting the existence of a new geography across Europe.

In this task, research is mostly finalised to analyse how EU policies have been distributed across space. Here, the main focus is on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) expenditure. The same territorial detail adopted in previous tasks is used (i.e., NUTS 3 level). By analysing CAP expenditure at such a territorial disaggregation level, this work has specifically concentrated on rural, agricultural and environmental policies. Actually, specific CAP measures are directly aimed at tackling those issues. CAP also accounts for a large share of overall EU funds, and it represents one of major drivers of EU spatial development. The methodology of analysis is based on the reconstruction of allocation of EU funds across EU-27 NUTS 3 regions. First, an exploratory analysis of the spatial allocation of CAP expenditure across Europe is assessed. Spatial allocation of CAP expenditure is considered by disentangling specific measures as well (e.g., Pillar One and Pillar Two expenditure, Direct Payment and Market Intervention Measures, Pillar Two's Axes…). Both absolute expenditure levels and expenditure intensity are computed here. Then, through a simple statistical analysis, the correlation between CAP expenditure at NUTS 3 level and regional features, in terms of both rurality and agricultural activity, is assessed. Contribution to the Project Assessing distribution and role of EU policies, by focusing on spatial allocation of CAP expenditure at NUTS 3 level.

This paper aims to assess the distribution of overall Gross Domestic Product and employment effects produced by Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments across the European Union space. It is empirically investigated how policy funds redistribute their effects among regions with different levels of rurality and economic development according to their degree and form of integration. This analysis is performed by constructing and applying a multiregional Input-Output model at a very high level of geographical disaggregation (NUTS 3 level). Alternative allocation of funds across regions (policy scenarios) are considered in order to assess redistributive impacts of possible CAP reforms. Results show that the impacts generated by the CAP across space do not only depend on the initial allocation of funds but also on intersectoral and interregional linkages. This evidence implies that even a radical reallocation of funds, though it may contribute to reducing regional imbalances, is less redistributive than expected. Keywords Common agricultural policy Á Multiregional I-O model Á Urban-rural relationships Á Balanced territorial development JEL Classification C67 Á D57 Á O18 Á Q18 Á R15

A major objective of this study is to analyse the evolutionary patterns of regional linkages and disparities across the EU space, especially those related to rural and peripheral/remote regions. In particular, this report assesses the economy-wide effects, in terms of GDP and employment, induced, at the European level, by the 2007-2011 CAP payments and by the possible future scenarios concerning the next programming period (2014-2020). A multiregional closed I-O approach applied at a NUTS-3 level is adopted. Particular attention focuses on the (re-) distributive effects produced by spatial and sectoral relationships. In defining regional policy, the knowledge of spillover effects is particularly strategic in that it can assist policy makers in better calibrating allocation of funds among regions and evaluating distribution of final policy effects more correctly. With reference to the next programming period, three main scenarios are analysed. Two are based on different and extreme s...

The paper presents a dynamic model for the analysis of the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) strategy. In a context of increasing globalisation, both intersectoral and international technology spill-ins may greatly affect the NARS design, and this paper proposes an analytical framework for its study when major spill-ins are present. These spill-ins are calculated by applying the Yale Technology Concordance (YTC) methodology. A VAR/VEC model is then specified to detect empirically, given the calculated spill-ins, what NARS design prevails in a dynamic framework. The model is estimated for the Italian agriculture data and provides evidence of close dependency on external R&D sources. * I wish to thank Renato Balducci, Pierpaolo Pierani, Franco Sotte and Alessandro Sterlacchini for their useful suggestions.

Although RDP 2007-2013 expenditures represent less than 20% of total CAP expenditures, this policy is supposed to support rural areas in facing new challenges. Actually, EU rural areas are going through major transformations. Due to the very different development processes that rural areas have lately undertaken, the urban-rural divide is now almost outdated (OECD, 2006): rural regions in central EU regions can benefit from the improvements in transportation systems and in ICT, in touristic flows and in the development of SME systems (ESPON, 2005); conversely, more peripheral rural areas still face major development issues (e.g., depopulation and land abandonment). According to this framework, the paper first computes a comprehensive index of rural-peripherality (RP index) based on major rural features. The higher this index is, the more rural and peripheral a given region is. On this basis, the paper then provides taxonomy of rural areas across Europe. Methodology follows a multivariate statistical approach: principal component analysis and cluster analysis are applied to the NUTS 3 regions in the EU-27. Although this type of analysis is not new in literature this work takes into account both socioeconomic indicators and other relevant geographical characteristics, such as land use, potential accessibility, geographical distance from major EU cities. Moving from this regional taxonomy, the paper then assesses existing correlations between the intensity of Rural Development Policy expenditures (expressed per unit of agricultural land, per unit of labour force, per agricultural gross value added) and different profiles of rural-peripherality, According to these results, the analysis can help in better defining the consistency of the EU policy-makers' decisions with the real characteristics of EU rural areas.

This paper is aimed at assessing distribution of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) expenditure through the European Union (EU) space. Firstly, spatial distribution of past CAP expenditure is analysed, specifically 2007-2011 payments. Both overall expenditure and disentangled measures are investigated; major territorial patterns through the EU-27 are highlighted as well. Secondly, spatial distribution of future expenditure, according to latest 2014-2020 CAP reform, is analysed. In particular, we assess re-distributional effects connected with spatial spillovers that are due to regional economic integration. Assessment is made through the adoption of a multiregional I-O model. The analysis is carried out at a very high level of disaggregation, i.e. NUTS 3 level throughout the EU-27. Furthermore, a specific focus is devoted to rural-urban relationships.

This paper is aimed at assessing distribution of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) expenditure through the European Union (EU) space. Firstly, spatial distribution of past CAP expenditure is analysed, specifically 2007-2011 payments. Both overall expenditure and disentangled measures are investigated; major territorial patterns through the EU-27 are highlighted as well. Secondly, spatial distribution of future expenditure, according to latest 2014-2020 CAP reform, is analysed. In particular, we assess re-distributional effects connected with spatial spillovers that are due to regional economic integration. Assessment is made through the adoption of a multiregional I-O model. The analysis is carried out at a very high level of disaggregation, i.e. NUTS 3 level throughout the EU-27. Furthermore, a specific focus is devoted to rural-urban relationships.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the most important EU Policy in terms of total expenditure. Nevertheless, its impact on EU-27 regions is rather uneven: actually, some regions have historically received a larger support than others. Territorial imbalances, however, represent only part of the story. The CAP comprises a wide range of agricultural and rural measures, from agricultural market interventions to agro-environmental payments and rural development measures. Due to their underlying objectives, expenditures from different CAP Pillars are allocated according to different territorial patterns at local level. In this paper, CAP real expenditures for years 2007-2011 are analysed at EU-27 NUTS 3 level, by considering expenditure intensity per hectare of utilised agricultural area (UAA). Several CAP expenditure typologies (Direct Payments, Market Intervention Measures and RDP's Axes, i.e., Axis 1, Axis 2 and Axis 3) are considered. Their spatial allocation highlights diffe...