Journals / Journal of Research in Economics / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 2

THE UNSPENT RESERVE: STRUCTURAL CHANGE POTENTIAL, REALLOCATION, AND REGIONAL PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN EUROPE

Aras Yolusever(İSTANBUL KÜLTÜR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9810-2571
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Reserve estimates computed on a four-branch classification are roughly a third of those computed on ten branches, so coarse sectoral data systematically hide the potential they are used to measure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Structural change raises aggregate labour productivity when workers move from branches in which they are less productive to branches in which they are more productive.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using Eurostat regional accounts for 231 NUTS 2 regions in 26 countries over 2000–2022, we show that the reserve is large, highly unequal and only partly spent.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Reserve estimates computed on a four-branch classification are roughly a third of those computed on ten branches, so coarse sectoral data systematically hide the potential they are used to measure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000–2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Reallocation Reserve · Structural Change · Regional Productivity

Abstract

Structural change raises aggregate labour productivity when workers move from branches in which they are less productive to branches in which they are more productive. How much of that gain remains available to a region at a given moment has never been measured directly. This paper defines and computes the reallocation reserve: the proportional productivity gain a region would obtain by adopting the employment composition of the European frontier while holding its own branch productivity levels fixed. Using Eurostat regional accounts for 231 NUTS 2 regions in 26 countries over 2000–2022, we show that the reserve is large, highly unequal and only partly spent. Its unweighted mean falls from 35.4 to 19.0 per cent, but the median region ends the period with a reserve of 10.4 per cent, and the median ratio of realised reallocation to the reserve available in 2000 is 0.18. The reserve measured in one period predicts realised reallocation in the next, with a coefficient of 0.049 (standard error 0.008) on five-year windows conditional on country by window fixed effects, and it survives an out-of-sample test on the final window. A corollary follows for convergence: within countries, reallocation is the only component of productivity growth that converges, and once the reserve is controlled for, initial income carries no further information about it. Reserve estimates computed on a four-branch classification are roughly a third of those computed on ten branches, so coarse sectoral data systematically hide the potential they are used to measure.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yolusever, A. (2026). THE UNSPENT RESERVE: STRUCTURAL CHANGE POTENTIAL, REALLOCATION, AND REGIONAL PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN EUROPE. Journal of Research in Economics, Volume: 10 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.29228/JORE.60

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (27)

  1. Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 385–406.
  2. Barca, F., McCann, P. & Rodríguez-Pose, A., (2012). The case for regional development intervention: place- based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152.
  3. Barro, R. J. & Sala-i-Martin, X. (1992). Convergence. Journal of Political Economy, 100(2), 223–251.
  4. Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis. American Economic Review, 57(3), 415–426.
  5. Becker, S. O., Egger, P. H. & von Ehrlich, M. (2010). Going NUTS: the effect of EU Structural Funds on regional performance. Journal of Public Economics, 94(9–10), 578–590.
  6. Beugelsdijk, S., Klasing, M. J. & Milionis, P. (2018). Regional economic development in Europe: the role of total factor productivity. Regional Studies, 52(4), 461–476.
  7. Boldrin, M. & Canova, F. (2001). Inequality and convergence in Europe’s regions: reconsidering European regional policies. Economic Policy, 16(32), 206–253.
  8. Campos, N. F., Coricelli, F. & Moretti, L. (2019). Institutional integration and economic growth in Europe. Journal of Monetary Economics, 103 88–104.
  9. de Vries, G. J., Timmer, M. P. & de Vries, K. (2015). Structural transformation in Africa: static gains, dynamic losses. Journal of Development Studies, 51(6), 674–688.
  10. Dijkstra, L., Garcilazo, E. & McCann, P. (2015). The effects of the global financial crisis on European regions and cities. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(5), 935–949.
  11. Eurostat. (2026). Regional economic accounts (nama_10r) and national accounts (nama_10) databases. Retrieved August 27, 2026, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database
  12. Fagerberg, J. (2000). Technological progress, structural change and productivity growth: a comparative study. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11(4), 393–411.
  13. Filiztekin, A. (1998). Convergence across industries and provinces in Turkey. Koç University Working Paper, No. 1998/08, İstanbul.
  14. Gezici, F. & Hewings, G. J. D. (2007). Spatial analysis of regional inequalities in Turkey. European Planning Studies, 15(3), 383–403.
  15. Herrendorf, B., Rogerson, R., & Valentinyi, Á. (2014). Growth and structural transformation. In P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of economic growth (Vol. 2, pp. 855–941). Elsevier.
  16. Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A. & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: evidence, theory and policy implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298.
  17. Jorgenson, D. W. & Timmer, M. P. (2011). Structural change in advanced nations: a new set of stylised facts. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 113(1), 1–29.
  18. Kutan, A. M. & Yigit, T. M. (2007). European integration, productivity growth and real convergence. European Economic Review, 51(6), 1370–1395.
  19. McMillan, M. S. & Rodrik, D. (2011). Globalization, structural change and productivity growth. NBER Working Paper, No. 17143, Cambridge, MA.
  20. McMillan, M., Rodrik, D. & Verduzco-Gallo, Í. (2014). Globalization, structural change, and productivity growth, with an update on Africa. World Development, 63, 11–32.
  21. Melitz, M. J. & Polanec, S. (2015). Dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity decomposition with entry and exit. RAND Journal of Economics, 46(2), 362–375.
  22. The Unspent Reserve: Structural Change Potential, Reallocation, and Regional Productivity Growth in Europe Paci, R. & Pigliaru, F. (1999). Is dualism still a source of convergence in Europe? Applied Economics, 31(11), 1423–1436.
  23. Rodríguez-Pose, A. & Fratesi, U. (2004). Between development and social policies: the impact of European Structural Funds in Objective 1 regions. Regional Studies, 38(1), 97–113.
  24. Szirmai, A. (2012). Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing countries, 1950–2005. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(4),406–420.
  25. Timmer, M. P. & de Vries, G. J. (2009). Structural change and growth accelerations in Asia and Latin America: a new sectoral data set. Cliometrica, 3(2), 165–190.
  26. Timmer, M. P. & Szirmai, A. (2000). Productivity growth in Asian manufacturing: the structural bonus hypothesis examined. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11(4), 371–392.
  27. Szirmai, A. (2012). Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing countries, 1950–2005. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23(4),406–420.