Sebastian Dullien, Ekaterina Jürgens, Sebastian Watzka
Chapter 3, by Sebastian Dullien, Ekaterina Jürgens and Sebastian Watzka, reports on German debates about public investment. As with France, underinvestment by the public sector over the past two decades has led to a severe deterioration of the public capital stock. Moreover, demographic change, decarbonization and digitalization pose significant challenges for the German economy which imply additional public investment needs. A detailed sector-by-sector overview of investment requirements concludes that investment requirements add up to at least €450 bn over the next decade. Through a macroeconomic simulation, it is shown that a debt-financed increase of public expenditure of this magnitude would be compatible with keeping the debt-to-GDP-ratio below 60% and would have a positive impact on potential growth.
{"title":"3. Public Investment in Germany","authors":"Sebastian Dullien, Ekaterina Jürgens, Sebastian Watzka","doi":"10.11647/obp.0222.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0222.03","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 3, by Sebastian Dullien, Ekaterina Jürgens and Sebastian Watzka, reports on German debates about public investment. As with France, underinvestment by the public sector over the past two decades has led to a severe deterioration of the public capital stock. Moreover, demographic change, decarbonization and digitalization pose significant challenges for the German economy which imply additional public investment needs. A detailed sector-by-sector overview of investment requirements concludes that investment requirements add up to at least €450 bn over the next decade. Through a macroeconomic simulation, it is shown that a debt-financed increase of public expenditure of this magnitude would be compatible with keeping the debt-to-GDP-ratio below 60% and would have a positive impact on potential growth.","PeriodicalId":381769,"journal":{"name":"A European Public Investment Outlook","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131845875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chapter 4, by Floriana Cerniglia and Federica Rossi, addresses the case of Italy. They start from the premise that this country, over the last decade, has experienced the worst economic crisis, which has had a huge impact on the already weak public finance conditions. Italy had to implement extraordinary actions to contain and reduce its public debt. Public investments have been curtailed the most, with respect to other functional areas of expenditure. The chapter provides an overview of major trends in public capital expenditure, including local and national public companies, which in Italy are significant contributors to public investment. The chapter considers also the breakdown of public investment by levels of government. Since the reform of the Italian Constitution in 2001, the interactions between levels of government in Italy have become increasingly challenging. Coordination issues between the central government and sub-national governments in running current and capital expenditures as well as the financing of local expenditures (both current and capital) remain unsolved problems, which most obviously impact the time required to make an investment. Moreover, Italy’s regional divide remains large, and sadly, it continues to grow. The issue of having shares of public investments in North-Central Italy and the Mezzogiorno, that proportionally reflect the population in those areas, has been a serious political concern these last years. Finally, the chapter discusses some legislative and bureaucratic factors that keep investments in Italy from taking off and hinder the transformation of resources into actual construction sites. The authors conclude by an assessment of some policy prescriptions for the relaunch of Italian public investment.
{"title":"4. Public Investment Trends across Levels of Government in Italy","authors":"Floriana Cerniglia, Federica Rossi","doi":"10.11647/obp.0222.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0222.04","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4, by Floriana Cerniglia and Federica Rossi, addresses the case of Italy. They start from the premise that this country, over the last decade, has experienced the worst economic crisis, which has had a huge impact on the already weak public finance conditions. Italy had to implement extraordinary actions to contain and reduce its public debt. Public investments have been curtailed the most, with respect to other functional areas of expenditure. The chapter provides an overview of major trends in public capital expenditure, including local and national public companies, which in Italy are significant contributors to public investment. The chapter considers also the breakdown of public investment by levels of government. Since the reform of the Italian Constitution in 2001, the interactions between levels of government in Italy have become increasingly challenging. Coordination issues between the central government and sub-national governments in running current and capital expenditures as well as the financing of local expenditures (both current and capital) remain unsolved problems, which most obviously impact the time required to make an investment. Moreover, Italy’s regional divide remains large, and sadly, it continues to grow. The issue of having shares of public investments in North-Central Italy and the Mezzogiorno, that proportionally reflect the population in those areas, has been a serious political concern these last years. Finally, the chapter discusses some legislative and bureaucratic factors that keep investments in Italy from taking off and hinder the transformation of resources into actual construction sites. The authors conclude by an assessment of some policy prescriptions for the relaunch of Italian public investment.","PeriodicalId":381769,"journal":{"name":"A European Public Investment Outlook","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115709522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anton Hemerijck, Mariana Mazzucato and Edoardo Reviglio, in chapter 7, offer an original perspective: the most competitive economies in the EU spend more on social policy and public services than the less successful ones. However, the twenty-first century knowledge economies are ageing societies and require European welfare states to focus as much — if not more — on ex-ante social investment capacitation than on ex-post social security compensation. The growing needs for social services will require new and updated social infrastructure. According to a report on social infrastructure in Europe coordinated by former President of the European Commission Romano Prodi in 2018, the minimal gap is estimated at €100–150 bn per annum and represents a total gap of over 1.5 tn in 2018–2030. Long-term, flexible and efficient investment in education, health and affordable housing is considered essential for the economic growth of the EU, the well-being of its people and a successful move towards upward convergence in the EU. But how do we finance the great new needs with such a pressure on public finances? The chapter suggests innovative financial solutions using institutional and community resources to lower to cost of funding of social infrastructure. One such solution is the creation of a large European Fund for Social Infrastructure, owned by State Investment Banks (SIBs) and institutional long-term investors, which would fund its operations by issuing a European Social Bond. In this endeavour, a central role must be played by the EIB and by State Investment Banks. The authors discuss the potential role of these “mission-oriented” SIBs in social innovation by changing their mission. They should not simply “compensate market failures” but also become institutions that “shape the market” and become major providers of sustainable long-term and patient finance to deliver public value.
Anton hemerijack、Mariana Mazzucato和Edoardo Reviglio在第7章中提出了一个新颖的观点:欧盟中最具竞争力的经济体在社会政策和公共服务方面的支出高于不太成功的经济体。然而，21世纪的知识经济是一个老龄化社会，要求欧洲福利国家对事前社会投资能力的关注，即使不是更多，也要与事前社会保障补偿同等重视。对社会服务日益增长的需求将需要新的和更新的社会基础设施。根据欧盟委员会前主席罗马诺·普罗迪于2018年协调的一份关于欧洲社会基础设施的报告，估计每年的最小缺口为1000亿至1500亿欧元，2018 - 2030年的总缺口将超过1.5万亿欧元。人们认为，在教育、卫生和负担得起的住房方面进行长期、灵活和有效的投资，对欧盟的经济增长、欧盟人民的福祉以及欧盟向上层趋同的成功迈进至关重要。但是，在公共财政承受如此大压力的情况下，我们如何为巨大的新需求提供资金呢?本章提出了利用机构和社区资源来降低社会基础设施融资成本的创新金融解决方案。其中一个解决方案是建立一个大型的欧洲社会基础设施基金，由国家投资银行(SIBs)和机构长期投资者拥有，通过发行欧洲社会债券为其运营提供资金。在这一努力中，欧洲投资银行和国家投资银行必须发挥核心作用。作者通过改变使命，讨论了这些“使命导向”的sib在社会创新中的潜在作用。它们不应只是“弥补市场失灵”，还应成为“塑造市场”的机构，并成为可持续的长期和耐心融资的主要提供者，以创造公共价值。
{"title":"7. Social Investment and Infrastructure","authors":"A. Hemerijck, M. Mazzucato, E. Reviglio","doi":"10.11647/obp.0222.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0222.07","url":null,"abstract":"Anton Hemerijck, Mariana Mazzucato and Edoardo Reviglio, in chapter 7, offer an original perspective: the most competitive economies in the EU spend more on social policy and public services than the less successful ones. However, the twenty-first century knowledge economies are ageing societies and require European welfare states to focus as much — if not more — on ex-ante social investment capacitation than on ex-post social security compensation. The growing needs for social services will require new and updated social infrastructure. According to a report on social infrastructure in Europe coordinated by former President of the European Commission Romano Prodi in 2018, the minimal gap is estimated at €100–150 bn per annum and represents a total gap of over 1.5 tn in 2018–2030. Long-term, flexible and efficient investment in education, health and affordable housing is considered essential for the economic growth of the EU, the well-being of its people and a successful move towards upward convergence in the EU. But how do we finance the great new needs with such a pressure on public finances? The chapter suggests innovative financial solutions using institutional and community resources to lower to cost of funding of social infrastructure. One such solution is the creation of a large European Fund for Social Infrastructure, owned by State Investment Banks (SIBs) and institutional long-term investors, which would fund its operations by issuing a European Social Bond. In this endeavour, a central role must be played by the EIB and by State Investment Banks. The authors discuss the potential role of these “mission-oriented” SIBs in social innovation by changing their mission. They should not simply “compensate market failures” but also become institutions that “shape the market” and become major providers of sustainable long-term and patient finance to deliver public value.","PeriodicalId":381769,"journal":{"name":"A European Public Investment Outlook","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128468428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chapter 6, by Daniela Palma, Alberto Silvani and Alessandra Maria Stilo, analyses the role of research and innovation as key drivers of economic growth, and as an object of renewed concern in the European policy agenda. In this regard, however, special attention has been paid to the role played by public funding with respect to the now more than ever complex evolution of technological innovation and the need for the productive structure to be supported to continuously capture the potential of new technologies. Starting from a well-established ground of most recent analyses carried out on main R&D indicators by major institutional organizations, the authors present a work aimed at bringing out the nature of “system infrastructure” of European research activity, calling for the need to assess to what extent the resources dedicated to R&D and the relative spending modes are able to turn into an effective development lever, starting from the structural characteristics of the entire research and innovation system. They claim that, in order to overcome the existing differential between EU countries in research and innovation performances, rebalancing public funding, while orienting intervention towards common initiatives, is not enough. The implementation of a new course of public investment research policies should instead envisage a renewed orientation of the strategies consistent with the new course of missions/objectives formulated at the European level and, at the same time, point to a coordination with policies aimed at increasing the innovative potential of the economic system, in relation to the characteristics of the productive specialization of each country.
{"title":"6. In Search of a Strategy for Public Investment in Research and Innovation","authors":"D. Palma, A. Silvani, Alessandra Maria Stilo","doi":"10.11647/obp.0222.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0222.06","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 6, by Daniela Palma, Alberto Silvani and Alessandra Maria Stilo, analyses the role of research and innovation as key drivers of economic growth, and as an object of renewed concern in the European policy agenda. In this regard, however, special attention has been paid to the role played by public funding with respect to the now more than ever complex evolution of technological innovation and the need for the productive structure to be supported to continuously capture the potential of new technologies. Starting from a well-established ground of most recent analyses carried out on main R&D indicators by major institutional organizations, the authors present a work aimed at bringing out the nature of “system infrastructure” of European research activity, calling for the need to assess to what extent the resources dedicated to R&D and the relative spending modes are able to turn into an effective development lever, starting from the structural characteristics of the entire research and innovation system. They claim that, in order to overcome the existing differential between EU countries in research and innovation performances, rebalancing public funding, while orienting intervention towards common initiatives, is not enough. The implementation of a new course of public investment research policies should instead envisage a renewed orientation of the strategies consistent with the new course of missions/objectives formulated at the European level and, at the same time, point to a coordination with policies aimed at increasing the innovative potential of the economic system, in relation to the characteristics of the productive specialization of each country.","PeriodicalId":381769,"journal":{"name":"A European Public Investment Outlook","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116658968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Paolo Costa, Hercules Haralambides and Roberto Roson, in chapter 8, look back at the genesis — in Europe — of the transnational transport infrastructure which has long coincided with the Ten-T network, developed — sometimes as a weak Keynesian stimulus — as a tool for strengthening the cohesiveness and economic efficiency of the internal market. Following the enlargement of the EU, Ten-T has been evolving from 1996 to 2013, and has been encouraging modal shifts from road and air to rail, inland navigation and short-sea shipping, in order to achieve higher environmental sustainability and combat climate change. However, during these notable efforts, little attention has been paid to the external dimension of European connectivity. Along with addressing a number of technical disruptions affecting transport and its infrastructure, the new wave of Ten-T revision — due by December 2023 — must depart from what has thus far been an introverted view of Europe as a single market (something that has often penalized European competitiveness) to an extroverted orientation of the Union as a key player in a global market. The growing economic centrality of Asia since China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO); China’s strong interest in the Mediterranean Basin as the “super-hub” that connects four continents; and the eastward shift of the European economic barycentre: all of these developments indicate possible solutions for addressing the “geographical obsolescence” of the current Ten-T. In parallel, innovation-driven disruption of the worldwide maritime freight transport network and its infrastructure necessitates the streamlining of port nodes and rail networks around the world, in a way that at the same time addresses efficiently the current “technological obsolescence” of big parts of European infrastructure, predominantly of ports. The authors argue that new Ten-T network evolving into a Twn-T (Trans-Global) one ought to no longer be the product solely of European decisions: dovetailing Ten-T with China’s “Belt and Road Initiative — BRI” will not only be unavoidable but also, rather, a most welcome development.
{"title":"8. From Trans-European (Ten-T) to Trans-Global (Twn-T) Transport Infrastructure Networks. A Conceptual Framework","authors":"Paolo Costa, H. Haralambides, R. Roson","doi":"10.11647/obp.0222.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0222.08","url":null,"abstract":"Paolo Costa, Hercules Haralambides and Roberto Roson, in chapter 8, look back at the genesis — in Europe — of the transnational transport infrastructure which has long coincided with the Ten-T network, developed — sometimes as a weak Keynesian stimulus — as a tool for strengthening the cohesiveness and economic efficiency of the internal market. Following the enlargement of the EU, Ten-T has been evolving from 1996 to 2013, and has been encouraging modal shifts from road and air to rail, inland navigation and short-sea shipping, in order to achieve higher environmental sustainability and combat climate change. However, during these notable efforts, little attention has been paid to the external dimension of European connectivity. Along with addressing a number of technical disruptions affecting transport and its infrastructure, the new wave of Ten-T revision — due by December 2023 — must depart from what has thus far been an introverted view of Europe as a single market (something that has often penalized European competitiveness) to an extroverted orientation of the Union as a key player in a global market. The growing economic centrality of Asia since China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO); China’s strong interest in the Mediterranean Basin as the “super-hub” that connects four continents; and the eastward shift of the European economic barycentre: all of these developments indicate possible solutions for addressing the “geographical obsolescence” of the current Ten-T. In parallel, innovation-driven disruption of the worldwide maritime freight transport network and its infrastructure necessitates the streamlining of port nodes and rail networks around the world, in a way that at the same time addresses efficiently the current “technological obsolescence” of big parts of European infrastructure, predominantly of ports. The authors argue that new Ten-T network evolving into a Twn-T (Trans-Global) one ought to no longer be the product solely of European decisions: dovetailing Ten-T with China’s “Belt and Road Initiative — BRI” will not only be unavoidable but also, rather, a most welcome development.","PeriodicalId":381769,"journal":{"name":"A European Public Investment Outlook","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121928310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As mentioned, the Cohesion Policy is the EU’s main investment policy and — in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis — the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund became the major sources of finance for investment in many countries. Francesco Prota, Gianfranco Viesti and Mauro Bux, in chapter 10, review how this policy has evolved over time in terms of financial size and geographical coverage. Firstly, in the programming period 2000–2006, the centre of gravity in Structural Funds allocation shifted from the Southern regions too the Eastern regions of Europe. What is interesting is that, looking at the expenditure composition by types, ‘transport infrastructure’ and ‘environmental infrastructure’ are the main expenditure items. The investments in transport infrastructure financed by the Cohesion Policy have changed the accessibility of EU regions. In particular, many regions in Eastern Europe have significantly benefitted from the Cohesion Policy financed transport infrastructure investments in terms of improved accessibility. Also, as result of the 2008 crisis, the Cohesion Policy has been the major source of finance for public investment for many Member States of the European Union. In 2015–2017 it represents around 14% of the total; this figure is larger than 50% in some small Central and Eastern European countries, in Portugal and Croatia; larger than 40% in Poland; larger than 30% in most of the other Central and Eastern European countries. In the EU-15, the figure is lower in most Member States (7% for Spain, 4.4% for Italy and 2.5 % for Germany). However, it has reached 20% of total capital expenditures in Convergence regions in Spain, 15% in Italy and 10% in Germany.
{"title":"10. Contemplative Studies of the 'Natural' World","authors":"F. Prota, G. Viesti, M. Bux","doi":"10.11647/obp.0222.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0222.10","url":null,"abstract":"As mentioned, the Cohesion Policy is the EU’s main investment policy and — in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis — the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund became the major sources of finance for investment in many countries. Francesco Prota, Gianfranco Viesti and Mauro Bux, in chapter 10, review how this policy has evolved over time in terms of financial size and geographical coverage. Firstly, in the programming period 2000–2006, the centre of gravity in Structural Funds allocation shifted from the Southern regions too the Eastern regions of Europe. What is interesting is that, looking at the expenditure composition by types, ‘transport infrastructure’ and ‘environmental infrastructure’ are the main expenditure items. The investments in transport infrastructure financed by the Cohesion Policy have changed the accessibility of EU regions. In particular, many regions in Eastern Europe have significantly benefitted from the Cohesion Policy financed transport infrastructure investments in terms of improved accessibility. Also, as result of the 2008 crisis, the Cohesion Policy has been the major source of finance for public investment for many Member States of the European Union. In 2015–2017 it represents around 14% of the total; this figure is larger than 50% in some small Central and Eastern European countries, in Portugal and Croatia; larger than 40% in Poland; larger than 30% in most of the other Central and Eastern European countries. In the EU-15, the figure is lower in most Member States (7% for Spain, 4.4% for Italy and 2.5 % for Germany). However, it has reached 20% of total capital expenditures in Convergence regions in Spain, 15% in Italy and 10% in Germany.","PeriodicalId":381769,"journal":{"name":"A European Public Investment Outlook","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114027895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：