Does the Cohesion Policy Have the Same Influence on Growth Everywhere? A Geographically Weighted Regression Approach in Central and Eastern Europe

References

• Ali, K., Partridge, M. D., and Olfert, M. R. 2007. Can geographically weighted regressions improve regional analysis and policy making? International Regional Science Review 30 (3): 300–29. doi:10.1177/0160017607301609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anselin, L. 1988. Lagrange multiplier test diagnostics for spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. Geographical Analysis 20 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1988.tb00159.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbia, G., Battisti, M., and Di Vaio, G. 2010. Institutions and geography: Empirical test of spatial growth models for European regions. Economic Modelling 27 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2009.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aristei, D., and Perugini, C. 2012. Inequality and reforms in transition countries. Economic Systems 36 (1): 2–10. doi:10.1016/j.ecosys.2011.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artelaris, P. 2014. Local versus regime convergence regression models: A comparison of two approaches. GeoJournal 80 (2): 263–77. doi:10.1007/s10708-014-9551-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artelaris, P., Kallioras, D., and Petrakos, G. 2010. Regional inequalities and convergence clubs in the European Union new member-states. Eastern Journal of European Studies 1 (1): 113–32.
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., 2013. Smart specialisation—Old wine in new bottles or new wine in old bottles? ERSA Conference Paper ersa13p476. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: European Regional Science Association.
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., Moodysson, J., and Tödtling, F. 2011. Constructing regional advantage: Towards state-of-the-art regional innovation system policies in Europe? European Planning Studies 19 (7): 1133–39. doi:10.1080/09654313.2011.573127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avdikos, V., and Chardas, A. 2015. European Union cohesion policy post 2014: More (place-based and conditional) growth—Less redistribution and cohesion. Territory, Politics, Governance 4 (1): 97–117. doi:10.1080/21622671.2014.992460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachtler, J., Berkowitz, P., Hardy, S., and Muravska, T., eds. 2017. EU cohesion policy: Reassessing performance and directions. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler, J., and Gorzelak, G. 2007. Reforming EU cohesion policy: A reappraisal of the performance of the structural funds. Policy Studies 28 (4): 309–26. doi:10.1080/01442870701640682.
   Google Scholar
• Barca, F. 2009. An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy. A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Barca, F., McCann, P., and Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2012. The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science 52 (1): 134–52. doi:10.1111/jors.2012.52.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barro, R. J. 1991. Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (2): 407–43. doi:10.2307/2937943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barro, R. J., and Sala-I-Martin, X. 1995. Economic growth theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Baslé, M. 2006. Strengths and weaknesses of European Union policy evaluation methods: Ex-post evaluation of Objective 2, 1994–99. Regional Studies 40 (2): 225–35. doi:10.1080/00343400600600595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, G. S. 1964. Human capital theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, S. O. Egger, P. H., and Von Ehrlich, M. (2010). Going NUTS: The effect of EU structural funds on regional performance. Journal of Public Economics 94 (9-10): 578–590.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2012. Too much of a good thing? On the growth effects of the EU’s regional policy. European Economic Review 56 (4): 648–68. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2013. Absorptive capacity and the growth and investment effects of regional transfers: A regression discontinuity design with heterogeneous treatment effects. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (4): 29–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2018. Effects of EU regional policy: 1989–2013. Regional Science and Urban Economics 69 (March): 143–52. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2017.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benner, M. 2014. From smart specialisation to smart experimentation. German Journal of Economic Geography 58 (1): 33–49.
   Google Scholar
• Billé, A. G., Benedetti, R., and Postiglione, P. 2017. A two-step approach to account for unobserved spatial heterogeneity. Spatial Economic Analysis 12 (4): 452–71. doi:10.1080/17421772.2017.1286373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bivand, R., and Brunstad, R. 2005. Further explorations of interactions between agricultural policy and regional growth in Western Europe—Approaches to nonstationarity in spatial econometrics. Amsterdam: European Regional Science Association Congress.
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. 2014. Constructing regional advantage and smart specialisation: Comparison of two European policy concepts. Scienze Regionali 1:51–68. doi:10.3280/SCRE2014-001004.
   Google Scholar
• Bosker, M., and Garretsen, H. 2008. Economic development and the geography of institutions. Journal of Economic Geography 9 (3): 295–328. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbn047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouayad-Agha, S., Turpin, N., and Védrine, L. 2013. Fostering the development of European regions: A spatial dynamic panel data analysis of the impact of cohesion policy. Regional Studies 47 (9): 1573–93. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.628930.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdin, S. 2015. National and regional trajectories of convergence and economic integration in Central and Eastern Europe. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 38 (1/3): 55–63.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, J., and Untiedt, G. 2007. Do economic models tell us anything useful about cohesion policy impacts? GEFRA Working Paper 3. Münster, Germany: GEFRA. http://www.gefra-muenster.de/downloads/doc/GEFRA-WP-3-2007.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsdon, C., Fotheringham, A. S., and Charlton, M. E. 1996. Geographically weighted regression: A method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis 28 (4): 281–98. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1996.tb00936.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camagni, R. 2002. On the concept of territorial competitiveness: Sound or misleading? Urban Studies 39 (13): 2395–411. doi:10.1080/0042098022000027022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2008. Regional competitiveness: Towards a concept of territorial capital. In Modelling regional scenarios for the enlarged Europe: European competitiveness and global strategies, ed. R. Capello, R. P. Camagni, B. Chizzolini, and U. Fratesi, 33–47. Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Camagni, R., and Capello, R. 2013. Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change 44 (2): 355–89. doi:10.1111/grow.2013.44.issue-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2015. Rationale and design of EU cohesion policies in a period of crisis. Regional Science Policy and Practice 7 (1): 25–47. doi:10.1111/rsp3.12047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capello, R. 2009. Space, growth and development. In Handbook of regional growth and development theories, ed. R. Capello and P. Nijkamp, 33–52. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Capello, R., and Nijkamp, P., eds. 2009. Handbook of regional growth and development theories. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, S. A., Cosci, S., and Mirra, L. 2012. Income dynamics in an enlarged Europe: The role of capital regions. Annals of Regional Science 48 (3): 663–93. doi:10.1007/s00168-010-0400-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charron, N. 2016. Explaining the allocation of regional structural funds: The conditional effect of governance and self-rule. European Union Politics 17 (4): 638–59. doi:10.1177/1465116516658135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., and Lapuente, V. 2014. Regional governance matters: Quality of government within European Union member states. Regional Studies 48 (1): 68–90. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.770141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charron, N., Lapuente, V., and Dijkstra, L. 2012. Regional governance matters: A study on regional variation in quality of government within the EU. Regional Studies 48 (1): 68–90. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.770141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crescenzi, R. 2005. Innovation and regional growth in the enlarged Europe: The role of local innovative capabilities, peripherality, and education. Growth and Change 36 (4): 471–507. doi:10.1111/grow.2005.36.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crescenzi, R., Fratesi, U., and Monastiriotis, V. 2017. The EU cohesion policy and the factors conditioning success and failure: Evidence from 15 regions. Regions Magazine 305 (1): 4–7. doi:10.1080/13673882.2017.11868994.
   Google Scholar
• Crescenzi, R., and Giua, M. 2016. Leveraging complementarities for evidence-based policy learning. In EU cohesion policy: Reassessing performance and directions, ed. J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, and T. Muravska, 21–32. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2018. One or many cohesion policies of the European Union? On the diverging impacts of cohesion policy across member states. Paper 230. London: Spatial Economics Research Centre, London School of Economics. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/analysis/sercdp0230_rdd_eu.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Crescenzi, R., and Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2011. Innovation and regional growth in the European Union. Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2012. Infrastructure and regional growth in the European Union. Papers in Regional Science 91 (3): 487–513. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00439.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crescenzi, R., Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Storper, M. 2007. The territorial dynamics of innovation: A Europe-United States comparative analysis. Journal of Economic Geography 7 (6): 673–709. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbm030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dall’Erba, S., and Fang, F. 2017. Meta-analysis of the impact of European Union structural funds on regional growth. Regional Studies 51 (6): 822–32. doi:10.1080/00343404.2015.1100285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dall’Erba, S., Guillain, R., and Le Gallo, J. 2009. Impact of structural funds on regional growth: How to reconsider a nine year-old black box. Région et Développement 30:77–99.
   Google Scholar
• Dall’Erba, S., and Le Gallo, J. 2008. Regional convergence and the impact of European structural funds over 1989–1999: A spatial econometric analysis. Papers in Regional Science 87 (2): 219–44. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2008.00184.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Bo, C. F., and Sirtori, E. 2016. Additionality and regional public finance–evidence from Italy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34 (5): 855–78. doi:10.1177/0263774X15614682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, L., Garcilazo, E., and McCann, P. 2013. The economic performance of European cities and city regions: Myths and realities. European Planning Studies 21 (3): 334–54. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.716245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2015. The effects of the global financial crisis on European regions and cities. Journal of Economic Geography 15 (5): 935–49. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbv032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, L., and Poelman, H. 2008. Remote rural regions: How proximity to a city influences the performance of rural regions. European Union Regional Focus 1. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/focus/2008_01_rural.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dunford, M., and Smith, A. 2000. Catching up or falling behind? Economic performance and regional trajectories in the “New Europe.” Economic Geography 76 (2): 169–95. doi:10.2307/144552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durlauf, S. N., Jonhson, P. A., and Temple, J. R. W. 2005. Growth econometrics. In Handbook of economic growth, ed. P. Aghion and S. N. Durlauf, 555–77. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Eckey, H. F., Kosfeld, R., and Türck, M. 2007. Regional convergence in Germany: A geographically weighted regression approach. Spatial Economic Analysis 2 (1): 45–64. doi:10.1080/17421770701251905.
   Google Scholar
• Ederveen, S., Groot, H. L., and Nahuis, R. 2006. Fertile soil for structural funds? A panel data analysis of the conditional effectiveness of European cohesion policy. Kyklos: Jahrbuch des Instituts fur Geschichte der Medizin an der Universitat Leipzig 59 (1): 17–42. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2006.00318.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, R. A., and Jacoby, W. 2014. Eastern enlargement ten years on: Transcending the East–West divide? Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1111/jcms.12089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertur, C., and Le Gallo, J. 2009. Regional growth and convergence: Heterogeneous reaction versus interaction in spatial econometric approaches. In Handbook of regional growth and development theories, ed. R. Capello and P. Nijkamp, 374–88. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2010. Regional policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020. COM 2010–533. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/smart_growth/comm2010_553_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2014. Investment for jobs and growth: Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities. Sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2014/6th-report-on-economic-social-and-territorial-cohesion.
   Google Scholar
• Ezcurra, R., Pascual, P., and Rapún, M. 2007. The dynamics of regional disparities in Central and Eastern Europe during transition. European Planning Studies 15 (10): 1397–421. doi:10.1080/09654310701550850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faggian, A., and McCann, P. 2010. Human capital and regional development. In Handbook of regional growth and development theories, ed. R. Capello and P. Nijkamp, 133–51. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Farole, T., Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Storper, M. 2011. Cohesion policy in the European Union: Growth, geography, institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies 49 (5): 1089–111. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02161.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foray, D., David, P., and Hall, B. 2009. Smart specialisation: The concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Briefings 9:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2011. Smart specialisation: From academic idea to political instrument, the surprising destiny of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation. MTEI Working Paper 2011-001. Lausanne, Switzerland: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL).
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., and Van Ark, B. 2007. Smart specialisation in a truly integrated research area is the key to attracting more R&D to Europe. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief 1:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Fotheringham, A. S. 2009. Geographically weighted regression. In The Sage handbook of spatial analysis, ed. A. S. Fotheringham and P. Rogerson, 243–53. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Fotheringham, A. S., and Brunsdon, C. 1999. Local forms of spatial analysis. Geographical Analysis 31 (4): 340–58. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1999.tb00989.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotheringham, A. S., Brunsdon, C., and Charlton, M. E. 2002. Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships, Chichester, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Fotheringham, A. S., Charlton, M. E., and Brunsdon, C. 2001. Spatial variations in school performance: A local analysis using geographically weighted regression. Geographical and Environmental Modelling 5 (1): 43–66. doi:10.1080/13615930120032617.
   Google Scholar
• Fratesi, U., and Perucca, G. 2014. Territorial capital and the effectiveness of cohesion policies: An assessment for CEE regions. Investigaciones Regionales 29:165–91.
   Google Scholar
• Gagliardi, L., and Percoco, M. 2017. The impact of European cohesion policy in urban and rural regions. Regional Studies 51 (6): 857–68. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1179384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geppert, K., and Stephan, A. 2008. Regional disparities in the European Union: Convergence and agglomeration. Papers in Regional Science 87 (2): 193–217. doi:10.1111/pirs.2008.87.issue-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giua, M. 2017. Spatial discontinuity for the impact assessment of the EU regional policy: The case of Italian Objective 1 regions. Journal of Regional Science 57 (1): 109–31. doi:10.1111/jors.2017.57.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaeser, E. L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., and Shleifer, A. 2004. Do institutions cause growth? Journal of Economic Growth 9 (3): 271–303. doi:10.1023/B:JOEG.0000038933.16398.ed.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorzelak, G. 2017. Cohesion policy and regional development. In EU cohesion policy: Reassessing performance and directions, ed. J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, and T. Muravska, 33–54. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gorzelak, G., Maier, G., and Petrakos, G., eds. 2013. Integration and transition in Europe: The economic geography of interaction. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gripaios, P., Bishop, P., Hart, T., and McVittie, E. 2008. Analysing the impact of Objective 1 funding in Europe: A review. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26 (3): 499–524. doi:10.1068/c64m.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagen, T., and Mohl, P. 2011. Econometric evaluation of EU cohesion policy: A survey. In International handbook on the economics of integration, ed. M. N. Jovanovic, 324–43. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y., and Leung, Y. 2002. Analysing regional industrialisation in Jiangsu province using geographically weighted regression. Journal of Geographical Systems 4 (2): 233–49. doi:10.1007/s101090200081.
   Google Scholar
• Krugman, P. 1996. Urban concentration: The role of increasing returns and transport costs. International Regional Science Review 19 (1–2): 5–30. doi:10.1177/016001769601900202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagendijk, A. 2011. Regional innovation policy between theory and practice. In Handbook of regional innovation and growth, ed. P. Cooke, B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D. Schwartz, and F. Todtling, 597–608. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Le Gallo, J., Dall’Erba, S., and Guillain, R. 2011. The local versus global dilemma of the effects of structural funds. Growth and Change 42 (4): 466–90. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.2011.00564.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi, R. 2005. Cohesion policy in the European Union: The building of Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Leung, Y., Mei, C. L., and Zhang, W. X. 2000. Testing for spatial autocorrelation among the residuals of the geographically weighted regression. Environment and Planning A 32 (5): 871–90. doi:10.1068/a32117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas, R. E. Jr. 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 22 (1): 3–42. doi:10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mankiv, N. G., Romer, D., and Weil, D. N. 1992. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2): 407–37. doi:10.2307/2118477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, P., and Ottaviano, G. I. 2001. Growth and agglomeration. International Economic Review 42 (4): 947–68. doi:10.1111/1468-2354.00141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, P. 2016. The Regional and urban policy of the European Union: Cohesion, results-orientation and smart specialisation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P., and Ortega-Argilés, R. 2013. Redesigning and reforming European regional policy: The reasons, the logic, and the outcomes. International Regional Science Review 36 (3): 424–45. doi:10.1177/0160017612463234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2015. Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies 49 (8): 1291–302. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.799769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ———. 2016. Smart specialisation: Insights from the EU experience and implications for other economies. Investigaciones Regionals 36:279–93.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P., and Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2011. Why and when development policy should be place-based. OECD Regional Outlook 2011. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/oecd-regional-outlook-2011_9789264120983-en#page5.
   Google Scholar
• Medve-Bálint, G. 2017. Funds for the wealthy and the politically loyal? How EU funds may contribute to increasing regional disparities in East Central Europe. In EU cohesion policy: Reassessing performance and directions, ed. J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, and T. Muravska, 220–40. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Meloche, J. P., and Shearmur, R. 2010. Emploi dans le secteur public et croissance économique régionale au Canada: Quelques limites inhérentes aux régressions spatiales [Public sector employment and regional economic growth in Canada: Some limitations of spatial regressions]. Canadian Journal of Regional Science 33 (1): 101–14.
   Google Scholar
• Mohl, P., and Hagen, T. 2010. Do EU structural funds promote regional growth? New evidence from various panel data approaches. Regional Science and Urban Economics 40 (5): 353–65. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molle, W. 2007. European cohesion policy, London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Monastiriotis, V. 2014. Regional growth and national development: Transition in Central and Eastern Europe and the regional Kuznets curve in the East and the West. Spatial Economic Analysis 9 (2): 142–61. doi:10.1080/17421772.2014.891156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakaya, T. 2014. Semiparametric geographically weighted generalised linear modelling: The concept and implementation using GWR4. In Geocomputation: A practical primer, ed. C. Brunsdon and A. Singleton, 1–5. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Neumark, D., and Simpson, H. 2015. Place-based policies. In Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol. 5A, ed. G. Duranton, V. Henderson, and W. Strange, 1197–287. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2009. Regions matter: Economic recovery, innovation and sustainable growth. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2011. Building resilient regions for stronger economies. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2012. Promoting growth in all regions: Lessons from across the OECD. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Pellegrini, G., Terribile, F., Tarola, O., Muccigrosso, T., and Busillo, F. 2013. Measuring the effects of European regional policy on economic growth: A regression discontinuity approach. Papers in Regional Science 92 (1): 217–33. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00459.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Percoco, M. 2017. Impact of European cohesion policy on regional growth: Does local economic structure matter? Regional Studies 51 (6): 833–43. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1213382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrakos, G. 2000. The spatial impact of East-West integration in Europe. In Integration and transition in Europe: The economic geography of interaction, ed. G. Gorzelak, G. Maier, and G. Petrakos, 38–68. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2012. Integration, spatial dynamics and regional policy dilemmas in the European Union. University of Thessaly, Discussion Paper Series 18 (2): 27–40.
   Google Scholar
• Petrakos, G., Kallioras, D., and Anagnostou, A. 2007. A generalized model of regional economic growth in the European Union. Working Paper DYNREG 12. Dublin, Ireland: Economic and Social Research Institute. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23528906_A_Generalized_Model_of_Regional_Economic_Growth_in_the_European_Union.
   Google Scholar
• ———. 2011. Regional growth and convergence in Europe: Understanding patterns and determinants. European Urban and Regional Studies 18 (4): 375–91. doi:10.1177/0969776411407809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pieńkowski, J., and Berkowitz, P. 2017. Econometric assessments of cohesion policy growth effects. How to make them more relevant for policymakers? In EU cohesion policy: Reassessing performance and directions, ed. J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, and T. Muravska, 55–68. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pinho, C., Varum, C., and Antunes, M. 2015. Structural funds and European regional growth: Comparison of effects among different programming periods. European Planning Studies 23 (7): 1302–26. doi:10.1080/09654313.2014.928674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. Competitive Intelligence Review 1 (1): 14. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6386.
   Google Scholar
• Postiglione, P., Andreano, M. S., and Benedetti, R. 2013. Using constrained optimization for the identification of convergence clubs. Computational Economics 42 (2): 151–74. doi:10.1007/s10614-012-9325-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramajo, J., Marquez, M. A., Hewings, G. J., and Salinas, M. M. 2008. Spatial heterogeneity and interregional spillovers in the European Union: Do cohesion policies encourage convergence across regions? European Economic Review 52 (3): 551–67. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Fratesi, U. 2004. Between development and social policies: The impact of European structural funds in Objective 1 regions. Regional Studies 38 (1): 97–113. doi:10.1080/00343400310001632226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2013. Do institutions matter for regional development? Regional Studies 47 (7): 1034–47. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.748978.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Di Cataldo, M. 2015. Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 15 (4): 673–706. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbu023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Garcilazo, E. 2015. Quality of government and the returns of investment: Examining the impact of cohesion expenditure in European regions. Regional Studies 49 (8): 1274–90. doi:10.1080/00343404.2015.1007933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Ketterer, T. 2018. Institutional change and the development of lagging regions in Europe regions. GSU Paper 1806. Atlanta: International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., and Trebbi, F. 2004. Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Eeconomic Growth 9 (2): 131–65. doi:10.1023/B:JOEG.0000031425.72248.85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassi, M. 2010. OLS and GWR approaches to agricultural convergence in the EU-15. International Advances in Economic Research 16 (1): 96–108. doi:10.1007/s11294-009-9246-3.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, R. M. 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1): 65–94. doi:10.2307/1884513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotiriou, A., and Tsiapa, M. 2015. The asymmetric influence of structural funds on regional growth in Greece. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33 (4): 863–81. doi:10.1177/0263774X15603905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thissen, M., Van Oort, F., Diodato, D., and Ruijs, A. 2013. Regional competitiveness and smart specialization in Europe: Place-based development in international economic networks. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Tobler, W. R. 1970. A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography 46 (1): 234–40. doi:10.2307/143141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varga, A. 2017. Place-based, spatially blind, or both? Challenges in estimating the impacts of modern development policies: The case of the GMR policy impact modeling approach. International Regional Science Review 40 (1): 12–37. doi:10.1177/0160017615571587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waller, L. A., Zhu, L., Gotway, C. A., Gorman, D. M., and Gruenewald, P. J. 2007. Quantifying geographic variations in associations between alcohol distribution and violence: A comparison of geographically weighted regression and spatially varying coefficient models. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 21 (5): 573–88. doi:10.1007/s00477-007-0139-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yildirim, J., Öcal, N., and Özyildirim, S. 2009. Income inequality and economic convergence in Turkey: A spatial effect analysis. International Regional Science Review 32 (2): 221–54. doi:10.1177/0160017608331250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar