Modernization of Employment Structures Enhancing Socioeconomic Cohesion in the European Union Countries

• Autorzy: Magdalena Cyrek
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study investigates the relative efficiency of the 28 EU countries when transforming employment in four different sectors into socioeconomic cohesion. It evaluates the cohesive effects from modernization processes into a service and knowledge-based economy basing on the most recent data (generally describing the 2015 year). Results for the economies are derived from the usage of DEA method assuming non-radial transformations in an input-oriented model (CCR- NR). Socioeconomic cohesion is researched in its two dimensions: wealth distribution and social networks. Thus, a classical area of research on efficiency with productive results is browsed into a social field. It is of special importance in the post-crisis period when economic divergence, growing social tensions as well as strong diversification in public social support within the EU countries is observed. The main findings support the view that modern changes in employment structures are favourable for socioeconomic cohesion, as the highest efficiency is typical for knowledge-intensive services and consecutively for less knowledge-intensive services. The poorest results are gained in low and medium- low technology manufacturing and just a little better - in high and medium-high technology manufacturing. The study provides some arguments into the discussion about de- and reindustrialization. We have found that the EU policy enhancing cohesiveness should mainly support the processes of KIS development as well as human capital creation and its economic engagement. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Employment structure; Cohesion policy; Socioeconomic cohesion; Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

PL

Struktura zatrudnienia; Polityka spójności; Spójność społeczno-ekonomiczna; Metoda DEA (analiza obwiedni danych)

• Czasopismo: Journal of International Studies
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 10
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 189--205

Twórcy

autor

Magdalena Cyrek

• University of Rzeszów, Poland

Bibliografia

• Andrews, R. (2014). Coordinating for Cohesion: The Contribution of Public Management to the Cohesiveness of Society. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(4), 705-721. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576370408.
• Antonelli, C., & Fassio, C. (2016). Globalization and the Knowledge-Driven Economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 30(1), 3-14. doi:10.1177/0891242415617239.
• Badunenko, O., & Romero&Avila, D. (2010). Productivity Growth across Industries and Regions: A Production&Frontier Approach Applied to the Spanish Case. Retrieved 09/10/2016 from http://www .alde.es/fotosbd/120620151100331636.pdf.
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1979). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European journal of operational research, 3(4), 339.
• Clark, C. (1940). The Conditions of Economic Progress. London, Macmillan and Co. Ltd.
• De Backer, K., Desnoyers-James, I., & Moussiegt, L. (2015). 'Manufacturing or Services - That is (not) the Question: The Role of Manufacturing and Services in OECD Economies. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 19, OECD Publishing, doi:10.1787/5js64ks09dmn-en.
• De Serres, A., Scarpetta, S., & De la Maisonneuve, C. (2002). Sectoral Shifts in Europe and the United States: How They Affect Aggregate Labour Shares and the Properties of Wage Equations. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 326, OECD Publishing, doi:10.1787/763626062738.
• Dekker, K., & Bolt, G. (2005). Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: Differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban studies, 42(13), 2447-2470. doi:10.1080/00420980500380360.
• Diewert, W . E. (2015). Decompositions of productivity growth into sectoral effects. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 43(3), 367-387. doi: 10.1007/s11123-014-0392-0.
• Drucker, J. (2014). An evaluation of competitive industrial structure and regional manufacturing employment change. Retrieved 09/10/2016 from http://works.bepress.com/jdrucker/11.
• Eurostat, Employment in technology and knowledge-intensive sectors at the national level, by sex (from 2008 onwards, NACE Rev. 2) [htec_emp_nat2]. Retrieved 18/12/2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
• Eurostat, Inequality of income distribution - Income quintile share ratio [tsdsc260]. Retrieved 09/02/2017 from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
• Eurostat, Percentage of the population rating their satisfaction as high, medium or low by domain, sex, age and educational attainment level [ilc_pw05]. Retrieved 06/11/2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
• Eurostat, Population on 1 January by age and sex [demo_pjan]. Retrieved 18/12/2016 from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
• Fisher, A.B.G. (1935). The Clash of Progress and Security. London, McMillan.
• Fourastié, J. (1949). Le Grand Espoir du XXe siècle. Progrès technique, progrès économique, progrès social. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.
• Ghani, E., & Kharas, H. (2010). The Service Revolution. Economic Premise, 14, May.
• Ghani, E., Goswami, A. G., & Kharas, H. (2012). Service with a Smile. Economic Premise, 96, 1-6.
• Guzik, B. (2009). Podstawowe modele DEA w badaniu efektywności gospodarczej i społecznej. Poznań, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu.
• Hoyman, M., McCall, J., Paarlberg, L., & Brennan, J. (2016). Considering the Role of Social Capital for Economic Development Outcomes in US Counties. Economic Development Quarterly, 30(4), 342-357. doi:10.1177/0891242416659135.
• Hulse, K., & Stone, W. (2007). Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion: a cross cultural comparison. Policy Studies, 28(2), 109-128. doi 10.1080/01442870701309049.
• Kaasa, A. (2016). Social Capital, Institutional Quality and Productivity: Evidence from European Regions. Economics & Sociology, 9(4), 11-26. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-4/1.
• Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban studies, 37(5-6), 995-1017.
• Kemeny, T., & Storper, M. (2015). Is specialization good for regional economic development?. Regional Studies, 49(6), 1003-1018. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.899691.
• Kleer, J. (2012). Kulturowe uwarunkowania modernizacji [in:] Gospodarka Polski 1990-2011. Tom 3. Droga do spójności społeczno-ekonomicznej, ed. M.G. Woźniak, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 103-125.
• Kohl, H. (2015). Convergence and divergence-10 years since EU enlargement. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 21(3), 285-311. doi: 10.1177/1024258915585939.
• Kosiel, M.W. (2012). Spójność społeczna - definicje, uwarunkowania, wskaźniki i strategie w Unii Europejskiej oraz Ameryce Łacińskiej. Ameryka Łacińska, 1 (75), pp. 26-42.
• Roman, K. (2012). Przyczyny nierówności technologicznych w polskich województwach w latach 1998-2008. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, 1(47), 43-68.
• Kucera, D., & Roncolato, L. (2014). Structure Matters: Sectoral Drivers of Growth and the Labour Productivity-Employment Relationship. Beyond Macroeconomic Stability: Structural Transformation and Inclusive Development, 133.
• Kuznets, S., & Murphy, J. T. (1966). Modern economic growth: Rate, structure, and spread (Vol. 2). New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Lechevalier, S. (2015). Globalization and labor market outcomes: de-industrialization, job security, and wage inequalities-introduction by guest editor. Review of World Economics, 151(3), 405-408. doi:10.1007/s10290-015-0222-0.
• Loayza, N., & Raddatz, C. E. (2006). The composition of growth matters for poverty alleviation (Vol. 4077). World Bank Publications.
• Loktieva, I. (2016). Approaches to Empirical Analysis of Social Exclusion: International Comparison. Economics & Sociology, 9(2), 148-157. doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-2/10.
• Margaritis, D., Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2007). Productivity, convergence and policy: a study of OECD countries and industries. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 28(1-2), 87-105. doi:10.1007/s11123-007-0044-8.
• Maudos, J., Pastor, J. M., & Serrano, L. (2000). Efficiency and productive specialization: An application to the Spanish regions. Regional Studies, 34(9), 829-842.
• McCann, Ph., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2011). Smart Specialisation, Regional Growth and Applications to EU Cohesion Policy. Economic Geography Working Paper, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen.
• Mucha-Leszko, B. (2016). Polityka społeczna jako instrument spójności Unii Europejskiej. Nierówności społeczne a wzrost gospodarczy, 3(47), 193-204. doi:10.15584/nsawg.2016.3.14.
• Nitkiewicz, T., Pachura, P., & Reid, N. (2014). An appraisal of regional intellectual capital performance using Data Envelopment Analysis. Applied Geography, 53, 246-257. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.011.
• O'Leary, E. (2006). The Role of Structural Change in Productivity Convergence Among EU Regions. Retrieved 17/02/2017 from https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/academic/economics/documents/research/wp07-02.pdf.
• O'Leary, E., & Webber, D. J. (2015). The role of structural change in European regional productivity growth. Regional Studies, 49(9), 1548-1560.
• Paunov, C. (2013). Innovation and inclusive development: a discussion of the main policy issues. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2013(1), 0_1. doi:10.1787/5k4dd1rvsnjj-en.
• Peneder, M., Kaniovski, S., & Dachs, B. (2001). What Follows Tertiarisation? Structural Change and the Role of Knowledge-Based Services. WIFO Working Papers, No. 146.
• Perroux, F. (1955). Note sur la nation de pôle de criossance. Ekonomie Appliquée, no. 1 and 2.
• Sassi, M. (2011). Convergence across the EU regions: Economic composition and structural transformation. International Advances in Economic Research, 17(1), 101-115. doi:10.1007/s11294-010-9286-8.
• Thanassoulis, E., & Dyson, R. G. (1992). Estimating preferred target input-output levels using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 56(1), 80-97.
• Wojnar, K. (2011). Wpływ polityki spójności na spójność społeczną polskich miast-wnioski z badań ewaluacyjnych. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, (numer specjalny/special issue), 67-83.
• Wolman, H., Stokan, E., & Wial, H. (2015). Manufacturing Job Loss in US Deindustrialized Regions-Its Consequences and Implications for the Future: Examining the Conventional Wisdom. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(2), 102-112. doi:10.1177/0891242414566865.
• Wolman, H., Wial, H., & Hill, E. (2015). Introduction to Focus Issue on Deindustrialization, Manufacturing Job Loss, and Economic Development Policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(2), 99-101. doi:10.1177/0891242414567055.
• Woźniak, M.G. (2012a). Oblicza modernizacji [in:] Gospodarka Polski 1990-2011. Tom 3. Droga do spójności społeczno-ekonomicznej, ed. M.G. Woźniak, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 73-101.
• Woźniak, M.G. (2012b). Teoretyczne i praktyczne kwestie budowy spójności społeczno-ekonomicznej dla gospodarki innowacyjnej [in:] Gospodarka Polski 1990-2011. Tom 3. Droga do spójności społeczno-ekonomicznej, ed. M.G. Woźniak, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 13-54.
• Zhu, J. (1996). Data envelopment analysis with preference structure. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47(1), 136-150.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-3/14