Overcoming the “European Paradox”: The role of Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) in translating R&D investments into economic and employment growth

The emergence of the so-called “European Paradox” shows that R&D investment is not maximally effective and that increasing the scale of public R&D expenditures is not sufficient to generate employment and sustained economic growth. Increasing Governmental R&D Investment is far from being a “panacea” for stagnant growth. It is worth noting that Government R&D Investment does not have a statistically significant impact on employment, indicating the need to assess the trade-offs of policies that could lead to significant increases in government expenditure. Surprisingly, Governmental R&D Employment does not contribute to “mass-market” employment, despite its quite important role in reducing Youth-Unemployment. Despite the negative side-effects of Governmental R&D Employment on both GVA and GDP, University R&D Employment appears to have a quite important role in reducing Unemployment, especially Youth-Unemployment, while it also does not have a downside in terms of economic growth. Technological Capacity enhancement is the most effective instrument for reducing Unemployment and is a policy without any downside regarding sustainable economical development. In terms of wider policy implications, the results reinforce the idea that European Commission Research and Innovation policies must be restructured, shifting from a transnational framework to a more localised, measurable and operational approach.

An economic appraisal of the wealth-health gradient

In this study we aim to investigate the health discrepancies arising from unequal economic status, known as the “wealth-health gradient”. Our sample comprises 47,163 individuals from 14 European countries in the SHARE Wave 4 (2011), representing the population aged 50 and older. Through a cross-sectional OLS regression model, we have tested the impact of country-level indicators to infer their effect on personal health and on the magnitude of the gradient. The results find that private expenditure yields, on average, a higher, but fast decreasing, health benefit than public expenditure; and that income inequality is irrelevant for reducing health inequalities.