Philipp Mohl – författare

Philipp Mohl evaluates the macroeconomic effects of EU Cohesion Policy with the help of empirical methods. His findings indicate that in particular the part of EU Cohesion Policy which is spent for the poorest regions (the so-called Objective 1 funding) has a positive and statistically significant impact on economic growth. Moreover, the employment effects of EU Cohesion Policy seem to be conditional on the educational attainment, i.e., in particular regions with a high share of high-skilled population tend to benefit from EU funds. Finally, the author does not find evidence that EU funds significantly increase public investment in the EU countries, which points to a crowding out of national investment. Overall, the gained insights contribute to a more profound understanding of the macroeconomic effects of EU Cohesion Policy, which is essential to design an effective and efficient EU spending system.

Philipp Mohl evaluates the macroeconomic effects of EU Cohesion Policy with the help of empirical methods. His findings indicate that in particular the part of EU Cohesion Policy which is spent for the poorest regions (the so-called Objective 1 funding) has a positive and statistically significant impact on economic growth. Moreover, the employment effects of EU Cohesion Policy seem to be conditional on the educational attainment, i.e., in particular regions with a high share of high-skilled population tend to benefit from EU funds. Finally, the author does not find evidence that EU funds significantly increase public investment in the EU countries, which points to a crowding out of national investment. Overall, the gained insights contribute to a more profound understanding of the macroeconomic effects of EU Cohesion Policy, which is essential to design an effective and efficient EU spending system.

The general review of the European Union’s budget scheduled for the years 2008 and 2009 offers a unique opportunity for reflections. Explicitly this review is “without taboos” so that also substantive changes can and should be debated. Without doubt much better budgetary systems can be imagined compared to the status quo of the EU budget which is the outcome of a path-dependent process and where many details are only understandable by taking account of the historical context of past decisions. However, even if much better systems could be designed in theory, each reform suggestion, in the end, must pass the reality check of fi- ing unanimous support from all 27 member countries. This restriction heavily l- its the universe of available reform options. Faced with that difficulty the ZEW project team embarked on the adventure to think about possible reform options for the future EU own resource system. This volume documents the conclusions. At first sight our reform suggestion may - pear to be of a rather piecemeal nature since we recommend a reform model with strong ties to the status quo. Nevertheless, we are convinced that our seemingly minor changes will set the budget on a path towards a more rational European budget which, in the end, will create leeway for financing European policies with a true European value added. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the German Federal Min- try of Finance in conducting this study.