Krinichanskii K.V.South Ural State University – National Research University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation kkrin@ya.ru
Importance The article discusses the methods of assessing the relationship between structural policy and economic growth; it shows the peculiarities of different methods and assesses their ability to uncover the nature of the impact of structural reforms on macroeconomic indicators. Objectives The article aims to disclose the methodological peculiarities of approaches to the assessment of the relationship of structural policy and economic growth, and the opportunities arising for the practical application. Methods For the study, we used a comparative analysis of research approaches. Results We reveal the features, advantages and disadvantages of regression and partial equilibrium models used to assess the impact of structural change, the impact of structural reforms on macroeconomic variables. Conclusions We conclude that Single Equation Models are the most common approach to the assessment of structural change. Partial Equilibrium Models are an important tool for evaluating the effectiveness of structural reforms in certain sectors and areas.
Dreger C., Artís M., Moreno R., Ramos R., Suriñach J.Study on the Feasibility of a Tool to Measure the Macroeconomic Impact of Structural Reforms. Brussels, Belgium, European Commission Economic Papers, 2007, no. 272, 105 p.
Griffith R., Harrison R. The Link Between Product Market Reform and Macro-Economic Performance. Brussels, Belgium, European Commission Economic Papers, 2004, no. 209, 153 p.
Cincera M., Galgau O.Impact of Market Entry and Exit on EU Productivity and Growth Performance. Brussels, Belgium, European Commission Economic Papers, 2005, no. 222, 122 p.
Scarpetta S., Hemmings P., Tressel T., Woo J.The Role of Policy and Institutions for Productivity and Firm Dynamics: Evidence from Micro and Industry Data. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 2002, no. 329, 63 p. doi: 10.1787/18151973
Aghion P., Burgess R., Redding S., Zilibotti F. Entry and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Microlevel Panel Data. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 265–276.
Aghion P., Blundell R., Griffith R., Howitt P., Prantl S. The Effects of Entry on Incumbent Innovation and Productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2009, vol. 91, iss. 1, pp. 20–32.
Audretsch D.B.Innovation and Industry Evolution. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1995, 205 p.
Baldwin J., Gorecki P.The Dynamics of Industrial Competition: A North American Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 466 p.
Dejardin M. Linking Net Entry to Regional Economic Growth. Small Business Economics, 2011, vol. 36, iss. 4, pp. 443–460. doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9255-x
Djankov S., La Porta R., Lopes de Silanes F., Schleifer A. The Regulation of Entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2002, vol. 117, pp. 1–37.
Klepper S. Entry, Exit, Growth and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle. The American Economic Review, 1996, vol. 86, iss. 3, pp. 562–583.
Geroski P.A. What Do We Know About Entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1995, vol. 13, iss. 4, pp. 421–440. doi: 10.1016/0167-7187(95)00498-X
Nicoletti G., Scarpetta S. Regulation, Productivity and Growth: OECD Evidence. Economic Policy, 2003, vol. 18, iss. 36, pp. 9–72. doi: 10.1787/078677503357
Aghion P., Bloom N., Blundell R., Griffith R., Howitt P. Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005, vol. 120, iss. 2, pp. 701–728. doi: 10.3386/w9269
Francois J.F., Hall K.H.Partial Equilibrium Modelling. In: Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis. J.F. Francois and K.A. Reinert, eds. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 122–156.
Roningen V.O. Multi-Market, Multi-Region Partial Equilibrium Modeling. In: Applied Methods for Trade Policy Analysis. J.F. Francois and K.A. Reinert, eds. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 231–257.
Westhoff P.C., Fabiosa J.F., Beghin J.C., Meyers W.H. Challenges in Modeling the Effects of Trade Agreements on the Agricultural Sector. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2004, vol. 36, iss. 2, pp. 383–393. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800026663
Jammes O., Olarreaga M. Explaining SMART and GSIM. Washington DC, The World Bank, 2005, 14 p.
Brenton P., Saborowski C., Staritz C., von Uexkull E.Assessing the Adjustment Implications of Trade Policy Changes Using the Tariff Reform Impact Simulation Tool (TRIST). World Trade Review, 2011, vol. 10, iss. 2, pp. 249–276. doi: 10.1017/S1474745610000509
Fontagné L., Laborde D., Mitaritonna C.An Impact Study of the Economic Partnership Agreements in the Six ACP Regions. Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE), 2011, vol. 20, iss. 2, pp. 179–216. doi: 10.1093/jae/ejq037
Idrisova V.V. Teoreticheskie voprosy primeneniya netarifnykh mer regulirovaniya vo vneshnei torgovle [Theoretical issues of use of non-tariff regulation measures in foreign trade]. Moscow, Gaidar Institute Publ., 2011, 152 p.
Nickell S., Layard R.Labor Market Institutions and Economic Performance. Handbook of Labor Economics, 1999, vol. 3, part C, pp. 3029–3084. doi: 10.1016/S1573-4463(99)30037-7
Blanchard O., Giavazzi F.Macroeconomic Effects of Regulation and Deregulation in Goods and Labor Markets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2003, vol. 118, iss. 3, pp. 879–907. doi: 10.1162/00335530360698450
Bandt O., Vigna O.The Macroeconomic Impact of Structural Reforms. Banque de France. Quarterly Selection of Articles, 2008, no. 11, pp. 5–32.
