Advertisement

Spatial Effects of European Transport Policy: a CGE Approach

  • Johannes Bröcker
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

While transport policy had no high priority on the agenda of the European Community until the mid eighties, an increasing activity in this field has been witnessed during the last 15 years. After the European Court had sentenced the commission of having failed in promoting the common market in transport, the commission started to develop a common transport policy (CTP). The most important milestones are:
  • Deregulation of trucking.

  • Railway deregulation by separating infrastructure management and operation and guaranteeing non-discriminatory access to infrastructure.

  • Deregulation of civil aviation, though still incomplete: fair competition in airport charging, slot regulation and computer reservation is yet to be brought about.

  • Promoting interconnection and interoperability between nationally fragmented systems as well as between different modes.

  • Applying progressively the principle of charging for marginal social costs not yet fully reflected in private transport costs.

  • Developing Trans-European Transport-Networks (TEN-T). In the Maastricht treaty which became effective in 19932 a new title has been introduced, with Article 129b (now Article 154) assigning the obligation to the union administration to contribute to the establishment of trans-European networks in transport, telecommunication and energy. Following this prescription, a master-plan for transport infrastructure has been set up including a priority list of projects in the present community area as well as a system of corridors and priority areas for central and eastern Europe.

Keywords

Transport Cost Spatial Effect Trade Flow Transport Policy Candidate Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso, W. 1978. “A Theory of Movement.” In N.M. Hansen, ed. Human Settlement Systems. Cambridge, MA., Ballinger. pp. 195–212.Google Scholar
  2. Bröcker, J. 1989. “How to eliminate certain defects of the potential formula.” Environment and Planning A, 21, 817–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bröcker, J. 1998a. “How would an EU-membership of the Visgrád countries affect Europe’s economic geography.” Annals of Regional Science, 32, 91–114. Erratum, 34, 469–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bröcker, J. 1998b. “Measuring Accessibility in a General Equilibrium Framework.” In A. Reggiani, ed. Accessibility, Trade and Locational Behaviour. Aldershot, Ashgate. pp. 41–59.Google Scholar
  5. Bröcker, J. 1998c. Spatial effects of new transport links: preliminary results from a spatial computable general equilibrium analysis. Diskussionsbeiträge aus dem Institut für Wirtschaft und Verkehr, Technische Universität Dresden, Nr. 4/98.Google Scholar
  6. Bröcker, J. and H. Rohweder. 1990. “Barriers to International Trade: Methods of Measurement and Empirical Evidence.” The Annals of Regional Science, 4, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bundesamt für Statistik der Schweiz. (nd). http://www.admin.ch/bfs.Google Scholar
  8. Bundesminister für Verkehr. 1993. Gesamtwirtschaftliche Bewertung von Verkehrswegeinvestitionen. Schriftenreihe des BMV, Heft 72, Bonn.Google Scholar
  9. Europäische Kommission. 1995. REGIO-Regionaldatenbank, Beschreibung des Inhalts. Luxemburg, Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission and TINA Secretariat. 1999. Draft Final Report. CD-ROM, Vienna, TINA Secretariat.Google Scholar
  11. EUROSTAT. 1997. Europa ohne Grenzen. Nr. 10. Beilage: Schlüsselzahlen.Google Scholar
  12. Glowny Urzad Statystyczny. 1996. Rocznyk Statystyczny 1996. Warszawa.Google Scholar
  13. Hallet, M. 1997. “National and Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe: Implications for EU Structural Assistance European Commission.” Economic Papers, 120. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Brussels.Google Scholar
  14. Helliwell, J.F. 1998. How Much Do National Borders Matter? Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 1999. Gross Domestic Product. Unpublished data, Library and Documentation Service, Budapest.Google Scholar
  16. International Monetary Fund. 1997. Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook 1997. Washington, D.C., IMF.Google Scholar
  17. Judge, G.G., R.C. Hill, W.E. Griffiths, H. Lütkepohl and T.-C. Lee. 1988. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Leitham, S., J. Downing, A. Martino and D. Fiorello. 1999. “European Transport Forecasts for 2020: The STREAMS Model Results.” http://fpiv.meap.co.uk/fpiv/streams3.htm.Google Scholar
  19. Martins, J.O., S. Scarpetta and D. Pilat. 1996. “Mark-up ratios in manufacturing industries: estimates for 14 OECD countries.” OECD Working Papers, Vol. IV, Economic Department Working Papers. No. 162, Paris, OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfähler, W., U. Hofmann and W. Bönte. 1996. “Does extra public infrastructure capital matter?” Finanzarchiv, N.F., 53, 68–112.Google Scholar
  21. Rietveld, P. and F. Bruinsma. 1998. Is Transport Infrastructure Effective? Transport Infrastructure and Accessibility: Impacts on the Space Economy, Advances in Spatial Science, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Statistisches Bundesamt (nd). Länderbericht, several editions. Metzler und Poeschel, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  23. Statistisk Sentralbyrå Norwegen. (nd). http://www.ssb.no.
  24. Vickerman, R., K. Spiekermann and M. Wegener. 1999. “Accessibility and economic development in Europe. Regional Studies,” 33, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weber, J. 1987. Logistikkostenrechnung. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weltbank. 1996. Vom Plan zum Markt: Weltentwicklungsbericht 1996. UNO-Verlag, Bonn.Google Scholar
  27. White, H. 1980. “A heteroskedastic-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test of heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica, 48, 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Bröcker
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Regional ResearchUniversity of KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations