nep-ger New Economics Papers
on German Papers
Issue of 2009‒04‒05
three papers chosen by
Roberto Cruccolini
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat Munchen

  1. Compliance der Compliance: Elektronische Analyseverfahren personenbezogener Daten zur Prävention und Aufdeckung geschäftsschädigender Handlungen in Unternehmen. By Albers, Felicitas G.
  2. Ist die Globalisierung fit für das soziale Europa? By Tausch, Arno
  3. Einige quantitative Überlegungen zum EU-Budget By Tausch, Arno

  1. By: Albers, Felicitas G. (Department of Economics of the Duesseldorf University of Applied Sciences)
    Abstract: Within the framework of an effective and efficient compliance audit, the corporate governance is responsible for protection against fraud. Computer assisted analytic procedures, such as data screening, data mining and so on, have to meet the standards of data protection and workers co-determination. The paper considers the so-called "data scandal" of Deutsche Bahn AG in 2009 and its perception by the German public.
    Keywords: digital analysis, digital rights, forensic accounting, fraud, compliance audit
    JEL: M21
    Date: 2009–03
  2. By: Tausch, Arno
    Abstract: This analysis first of all shows with the latest empirical regional and other statistics of the OECD the true dimension of the Lisbon gap between Europe and the Western overseas democracies. The neo-liberal politicy consensus in Europe always assumed that the continuation of neo-liberal globalization is a "precondition" of a successful European "Lisbon Strategy". A recent Centre for European Policy Studies even asked: “Is Social Europe Fit for Globalisation?” We turn this question around and ask ourselves: is globalization fit for social Europe? It is now obvious, not only at the level of the 27 nationally organized member countries of the EU that the validity of such a strategy is highly dubious. The Fifth interim report on economic and social cohesion (dated June 2008) by the European Commission COM (2008) 371, 18 june 2008, still makes very far-reaching and sometimes very bold statements about the causes of regional convergence in Europe. It speaks about the continued strong growth in poorer regions, it maintains that growth in the regions concentrated in knowledge-intensive sectors, especially financial and business services; trade, transport and communication; high and medium-high tech manufacturing. High-tech manufacturing is highlighted as the one manufacturing sector where the EU retains a competitive advantage. Critical globalization-oriented, quantitative social scientists, particularly in the United States, have maintained for a long time and all along in leading journals of social science that - following the economic theory of monopolistic competition in the tradition of Baran, Kalecki, Rothschild and Sweezy - there seems to be a confirmation of the darker and more negative aspects of the opening up of markets for goods, capital, labor and services, especially by transnational corporations. We analyzed to this effect regional development (economic growth, regional Lisbon performance, unemployment rates and employment rates of older workers) in the entire EU-27, using the freely available Inforegio database of the EU-Commission. Applying a newly constructed 5-point scale of the penetration of European regions by international capital (share of employment for transnational capital in the region per total employment in the region), derived from published Inforegio maps on the issue, the following, multivariate relationships of regional development in Europe hold: 1. There is a "perverse" effect of the regional divergence, mainly implying that rich regions are growing rapidly and poorer regions more slowly 2. The penetration of a region by foreign capital is indeed a significant blockade for all four used indicators 3. Higher education is an essential means to ensure the Lisbon objectives 4. A good demographic growth rate is essential for the achievement of regional development goals
    Keywords: F15 – Economic integration; F5 - International Relations and International Political Economy; R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, and Changes; R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity
    JEL: F15 F5 R12 R11
    Date: 2009–03–24
  3. By: Tausch, Arno
    Abstract: The present analysis deals with the relationship of the EU budget and its resources with the Lisbon process. The EU Commission speaks for many years about a lack of transparency in financial relations between Member States and the EU. It even says that the current system fulfils very well the criteria of sufficiency and stability, but clearly not the criterion of visibility and simplicity, and not the criterion of a balanced allocation of economic resources in the EU. The fundamental question is then: how effective are all those billions paid out by the Commission for the Lisbon process in the individual Member States? The "net contributors" • Finland • Denmark • Austria • Belgium • Sweden • Italy • Great Britain • Netherlands • France • Germany already paid a sum total of over 73 billion Euros [€ 73452.5] over the time period of 2003 to 2007, in return states such as Spain, Greece, Portugal, Poland and Ireland cumulated over the period, far more than € 5 billion, with Spain (27.0 billion €), Greece (16.5 billion €), and Portugal (11.3 € billion) being the largest recipients. Although it is true that in the EU-27 countries with a low purchasing power receive more than rich countries, redistribution is relatively weak, and especially many semi-rich states - such as Greece - will continue to receive large sums from the EU budget. Clearly, this is a very huge revenue problem. We apply regression analysis to measure this “revenue problem”: Rich countries above the regression line of “pure distributive justice”, based on purchasing power per capita • Luxembourg • Ireland Rich states below the regression line • Netherlands • Germany • France • Italy • Sweden • Belgium • Denmark • Finland • Great Britain Poor countries above the regression line • Poland • Bulgaria • Hungary • Latvia • Portugal • Malta • Lithuania • Greece Poor states below the regression line • Romania • Czech Republic • Slovenia • Slovak Republic Our analysis shows that over time the weight of the "revenue problem" shifted to the East of our continent. Net inflows should ideally have been used to lift poor countries out of poverty. We estimated the convergence performance and its efficiency with a simple multiple regression model [wealth increase in relation to the wealth level in the previous period (non-linear effects are allowed) and the net financial position in the previous period]. Our calculations show that 1. certainly net transfers enabled the convergence of purchasing power in Europe, but 2. there were substantial deviations of the convergence process 3. over time imbalances seem even to have strengthened The south of Europe, especially Portugal, Italy, and Hungary and Bulgaria do not succeed, and the Lisbon efficiency of the EU financial resources decreased in particular in Denmark, Great Britain, Hungary, Romania and Greece over time. Greece is seen as a specially problematic case because it is the highest net payments recipient during the last years. Our analysis is supplemented by considerations about how funds from the EU budget should be available for the convergence of poorer EU countries. There seems to be a "constancy of subsidies” even long after the reasons for the subsidy long ceased to exist. Ireland, for instance still received massive inflows for many years even after it became one of the richest EU countries. In our estimation equation, we allow for the fact that rich countries may grow faster than very poor countries. Our quantitative analysis shows in any case that with the "big bang" enlargement in May 2004 a first good start towards more convergence and regional redistribution of the resources of the EU budget was made, but that the good performance quickly dissipated again an net transfers again suffered an efficiency loss. The EU-27 returned to the old tendency that the very rich countries grow faster than the poorer countries. Overall, therefore, our findings suggest that convergence funding is far from sufficient to achieve a real convergence in living conditions in Europe. There is also a current "perverse correlation” between corruption and net inflows. Poor states in the Union would do well to carry out consistent anti-corruption policies if they want adequate funding to reduce poverty.
    Keywords: Economic integration; International Relations and International Political Economy
    JEL: F15 F5
    Date: 2009–03–24

This nep-ger issue is ©2009 by Roberto Cruccolini. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.