Salem, Massachusetts, 1851 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Map of the city of Salem, Mass. from an actual survey by H. Mc.Intyre, Cl. engr. ; H.E.B. Taylor, assistant. It was published by Henry Mc.Intyre in 1851. Scale [ca. 1:3,048].The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System, Mainland Zone (in Feet) (Fipszone 2001). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, railroads and stations, drainage, public buildings, schools, industry locations (e.g. mills, factories, etc.), private buildings with names of property owners, town boundaries, cemeteries, wharves and docks, and more. Relief shown by hachures. Includes also 7 views of town buildings and residences.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

Newton, Massachusetts, 1855 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Map of the town of Newton, Middlesex County, Mass., surveyed by order of the town by H.F. Walling, Sup. of the state map; assistant engineers F.S. Belden, N. Smith, Jr. It was published by Lith of Sarony & Co. in 1855. Scale [1:12,900]. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System, Mainland Zone (in Feet) (Fipszone 2001). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, railroads and stations, drainage, public buildings, schools, industry locations (e.g. mills, factories, etc.), selected private buildings with names of property owners, town boundaries, cemeteries, and more. Relief shown by hachures. Includes insets: West Newton -- Newton Corner.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

North Carolina, 1808 (Image 1 of 3) (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: To David Stone and Peter Brown, Esq. : this first actual survey of the state of North Carolina taken by the subscribers is respectfully dedicated by their humble servants, Jona. Price and John Strother ; engraved by W. H. Harrison. It was printed by C.P. Harrison in 1808. Scale [ca. 1:506,880]. This layer is image 1 of 3 total images of the three sheet source map, representing the western portion of the map.The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the North Carolina State Plane NAD 1983 coordinate system (in Feet) (Fipszone 3200). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, drainage, canals, cities and towns, selected public buildings (churches, inns), industry locations (e.g. mills, mines, etc.), selected private buildings with names of property owners, state and county boundaries, shoreline features, and more. Relief shown pictorially and by hachures.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

North Carolina, 1808 (Image 2 of 3) (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: To David Stone and Peter Brown, Esq. : this first actual survey of the state of North Carolina taken by the subscribers is respectfully dedicated by their humble servants, Jona. Price and John Strother ; engraved by W. H. Harrison. It was printed by C.P. Harrison in 1808. Scale [ca. 1:506,880]. This layer is image 2 of 3 total images of the three sheet source map, representing the central portion of the map.The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the North Carolina State Plane NAD 1983 coordinate system (in Feet) (Fipszone 3200). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, drainage, canals, cities and towns, selected public buildings (churches, inns), industry locations (e.g. mills, mines, etc.), selected private buildings with names of property owners, state and county boundaries, shoreline features, and more. Relief shown pictorially and by hachures.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

North Carolina, 1808 (Image 3 of 3) (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: To David Stone and Peter Brown, Esq. : this first actual survey of the state of North Carolina taken by the subscribers is respectfully dedicated by their humble servants, Jona. Price and John Strother ; engraved by W. H. Harrison. It was printed by C.P. Harrison in 1808. Scale [ca. 1:506,880]. This layer is image 3 of 3 total images of the three sheet source map, representing the eastern portion of the map.The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the North Carolina State Plane NAD 1983 coordinate system (in Feet) (Fipszone 3200). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, drainage, canals, cities and towns, selected public buildings (churches, inns), industry locations (e.g. mills, mines, etc.), selected private buildings with names of property owners, state and county boundaries, shoreline features, and more. Relief shown pictorially and by hachures.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

Dover, Rollinsford, & Somersworth, New Hampshire, 1851 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Map of the towns of Dover, Somersworth and Rollingford, Strafford County, New Hampshire, from original surveys under the direction of H. F. Walling, chief engineer ; John Hanson, assistant engineer. It was published in 1851. Scale [ca. 1:14,000].The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the New Hampshire State Plane NAD 1983 coordinate system (in Feet) (Fipszone 2800). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, railroads, drainage, public buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, industry locations (e.g. mills, factories, mines, etc.), private buildings with names of property owners, town district boundaries, and more. Relief shown by hachures. Includes 7 vignettes and cadastral insets of 3 villages: Dover, Great Falls, and Salmon Falls.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, 1848 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Map of East Bridgewater, Mass., surveyed by M. Bates, Jr., 1848. It was published by J.H. Bufford's Lithography in 1848. Scale [1:19,800]. Covers also portions of Whitman and Brockton, Massachusetts. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System, Mainland Zone (in Feet) (Fipszone 2001). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, railroads, drainage, public buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, industry locations (e.g. mills, factories, mines, etc.), private buildings with names of property owners, town and district boundaries and more. Relief is shown by hachures.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

Duxbury, Massachusetts, 1833 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Map of Duxbury, Mass., surveyed by John Ford, Jr. It was published by Pendleton's Lithogy. in 1833. Scale [ca. 1:19,799]. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System, Mainland Zone (in Feet) (Fipszone 2001). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, drainage, public buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, industry locations (e.g. mills, factories, mines, etc.), private buildings with names of property owners, town boundaries and more. Relief shown by shading.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

Newbury, West Newbury, & Newburyport, Massachusetts, 1830 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Map of the original town of Newbury, now divided into Newbury, Newburyport, and West Newbury, surveyed & drawn by Philan[de]r Anderson for Moses Petangell in 1830. It was published by Pendleton's Lithography in 1830. Scale [1:19,800]. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System, Mainland Zone (in Feet) (Fipszone 2001). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, drainage, public buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, industry locations (e.g. mills, factories, mines, etc.), private buildings with names of property owners, town boundaries and more. Relief shown by shading.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

Framingham, Massachusetts, 1832 (Raster Image)

This layer is a georeferenced raster image of the historic paper map entitled: Map of Framingham : from actual surveys taken by Jonas Clayes & Warren Nixon in the years 1830 and 1831, drawn by Warren Nixon. It was published by Pendleton's Lithography in 1832. Scale [19,800]. Covers also a portion of Ashland, Massachusetts. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Massachusetts State Plane Coordinate System, Mainland Zone (in Feet) (Fipszone 2001). All map collar and inset information is also available as part of the raster image, including any inset maps, profiles, statistical tables, directories, text, illustrations, index maps, legends, or other information associated with the principal map. This map shows features such as roads, drainage, public buildings, schools, churches, cemeteries, industry locations (e.g. mills, factories, mines, etc.), private buildings with names of property owners, town boundaries and more. Relief shown by shading.This layer is part of a selection of digitally scanned and georeferenced historic maps from the Harvard Map Collection. These maps typically portray both natural and manmade features. The selection represents a range of originators, ground condition dates, scales, and map purposes.

Portugal. In economics, we call it conflict of interest! CEPS Commentary, 12 April 2013

Faced with limited options for coming up with the funds needed to pay off the next instalment on its bailout loan, Portugal is advised in this Commentary by economist Leonor Coutinho to trim the number of public sector employees, in combination with an increase in public sector working hours, among the lowest in Europe. In her view, these measures will have the best long-term implications both in terms of fiscal sustainability and of labour productivity, and may finally allow the country to resume the catching-up process that has been stalled since the start of EMU.

The Asset Quality Review and Capital Needs: Why re-capitalise banks with public money? CEPS Policy Brief No. 311, 19 December 2013

It is generally assumed that any capital needs discovered by the Asset Quality Review the ECB is scheduled to finish by the end of 2014 should be filled by public funding (= fiscal backstop). This assumption is wrong, however. Banks that do not have enough capital should be asked to obtain it from the market; or be restructured using the procedures and rules recently agreed. The Directorate-General for Competition at the European Commission should be particularly vigilant to ensure that no further state aid flows to an already oversized European banking system. The case for a public backstop was strong when the entire euro area banking system was under stress, but this is no longer the case. Banks with a viable business model can find capital; those without should be closed because any public-sector re-capitalisation would likely mean throwing good money after bad.

Mutual recognition in goods and services: an economic perspective. Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 2/2002

Mutual recognition is a remarkable innovation facilitating economic intercourse across borders. In the EU's internal goods market it has been helpful in tackling or avoiding the remaining obstacles, namely, regulatory barriers between Member States. However, there is a curious paradox. Despite the almost universal acclaim of the great merits of mutual recognition the principle has, in and by itself, contributed only modestly to the actual realisation of free movement in the single market. It is also surprising that economists have not or hardly underpinned their widespread appreciation for the principle by providing rigorous analysis which could substantiate the case for mutual recognition for policy makers. Business in Europe has shown a sense of disenc hantment with the principle because of the many costs and uncertainties in its application in actual practice. The purpose of the present paper is to provide the economic and strategic arguments for employing mutual recognition much more systematically in the single market for goods and services. The strategic and the "welfare" gains are analysed and adetailed exposition of the fairly high information , transaction and compliance costs is provided. The information costs derive from the fact that mutual recognition remains a distant abstraction for day-to-day business life. Understandably, verifying the "equivalence" of objectives of health and safety between Member States is perceived as difficult and uncertain. This sentiment is exacerbated by the complications of interpreting the equivalence of "effects". In actual practice, these abstractions are expected to override clear and specific national product or services rules, which local inspectors or traders may find problematic without guidance. The paper enumerates several other costs including, inter alia, the absence of sectoral rule books and the next-to-prohibitive costs of monitoring of the application of the principle. The basic problems in applying mutual recognition in the entire array of services are inspected, showing why the principle can only be used in a limited number of services markets and even there it may contribute only modestly to genuine free movement and competitive exposure. A special section is devoted to a range of practical illustrations of the difficulties business experiences when relying on mutual recognition. Finally, the corollary of mutual recognition - regulatory competition - is discussed in terms of a cost/benefits analysis compared to what is often said to be the alternative , that is "harmonisation" , in EU parlance the "new approach" to approximation. The conclusion is that the manifold benefits of mutual recognition for Europe are too great to allow the present ambiguities to continue. The Union needs much more pro-active approaches to reduce the costs of mutual recognition as well as permanent monitoring structures for its application to services (analogous to those already successfully functioning in goods markets). Above all, what is required is a "mutual recognition culture" so that the EU can better enjoy the fruits of its own regulatory ingenuity.

The Economics of EU Railway Reform. Bruges European Economic Policy (BEEP) Briefing 8/2004

The EU began railway reform in earnest around the turn of the century. Two ‘railway packages’ have meanwhile been adopted amounting to a series of directives and a third package has been proposed. A range of complementary initiatives has been undertaken or is underway. This BEEP Briefing inspects the main economic aspects of EU rail reform. After highlighting the dramatic loss of market share of rail since the 1960s, the case for reform is argued to rest on three arguments: the need for greater competitiveness of rail, promoting the (market driven) diversion of road haulage to rail as a step towards sustainable mobility in Europe, and an end to the disproportional claims on public budgets of Member States. The core of the paper deals respectively with market failures in rail and in the internal market for rail services; the complex economic issues underlying vertical separation (unbundling) and pricing options; and the methods, potential and problems of introducing competition in rail freight and in passenger services. Market failures in the rail sector are several (natural monopoly, economies of density, safety and asymmetries of information), exacerbated by no less than 7 technical and legal barriers precluding the practical operation of an internal rail market. The EU choice to opt for vertical unbundling (with benefits similar in nature as in other network industries e.g. preventing opaque cross-subsidisation and greater cost revelation) risks the emergence of considerable coordination costs. The adoption of marginal cost pricing is problematic on economic grounds (drawbacks include arbitrary cost allocation rules in the presence of large economies of scope and relatively large common costs; a non-optimal incentive system, holding back the growth of freight services; possibly anti-competitive effects of two-part tariffs). Without further detailed harmonisation, it may also lead to many different systems in Member States, causing even greater distortions. Insofar as freight could develop into a competitive market, a combination of Ramsey pricing (given the incentive for service providers to keep market share) and price ceilings based on stand-alone costs might be superior in terms of competition, market growth and regulatory oversight. The incipient cooperative approach for path coordination and allocation is welcome but likely to be seriously insufficient. The arguments to introduce competition, notably in freight, are valuable and many e.g. optimal cross-border services, quality differentiation as well as general quality improvement, larger scale for cost recovery and a decrease of rent seeking. Nevertheless, it is not correct to argue for the introduction of competition in rail tout court. It depends on the size of the market and on removing a host of barriers; it requires careful PSO definition and costing; also, coordination failures ought to be pre-empted. On the other hand, reform and competition cannot and should not be assessed in a static perspective. Conduct and cost structures will change with reform. Infrastructure and investment in technology are known to generate enormous potential for cost savings, especially when coupled with the EU interoperability programme. All this dynamism may well help to induce entry and further enlarge the (net) welfare gains from EU railway reform. The paper ends with a few pointers for the way forward in EU rail reform.

The Economics of Subsidies for R&D: The Intrinsic Difficulty of Determining Optimum Subsidies and Implications for Reform of EU State Aid Rules on R&D. Bruges European Economic Research (BEER) Papers 26/February 2013

The European Commission is reforming state aid rules. An important element of the reform is to prevent the granting of excessive subsidies. This paper shows that the determination of the optimum subsidy for research is difficult. What appears to be the socially optimum level of research effort depends on the benchmark of comparison and whether this benchmark is the situation before subsidies or the situation after subsidies. In the presence of asymmetric information, policy makers should induce firms to reveal their true costs and should grant subsidies to the relatively more efficient firms by allocating subsidies not on a first-come-first- serve basis but through a competitive process. However, competitive selection of subsidy recipients is not a panacea as it may not be possible to be effectively used in all cases and for all research programmes. This is because in principle public subsidies should support those programmes with the largest value for society, rather than with the lowest costs. Although this paper focuses on R&D, its findings are relevant to any subsidy whose aim is to remedy market failure caused by positive externalities.