Seismic Risk
Earthquakes in North-Western Europe
Although seismic hazard in North-Western European countries like Belgium, Germany and the UK is lower than in countries as Italy, Greece and France, significant seismic events can occur and their direct effects on the building stock as well as the associated socio-economical impact could be important. This particular risk must therefore be carefully considered. An optimal balance between the effective risk and the cost of preventive measures has to be found.
This book contains contributions presented at the international colloquium "Seismic Risk 2008 – Earthquakes in North-Western Europe" organised in Liège on 11 and 12 September 2008 by the Belgian Seismic Group (BeSeiG). This colloquium provided a very interesting opportunity for seismologists, engineers and architects to discuss the specific problems in regions characterised by low to moderate seismic risks.
For more information on VAT and other payment methods, see "Specifications
- Publisher
- Presses universitaires de Liège
- Author
- T. Camelbeeck, G. Degrande, H. Degee, A. Sabbe,
- Collection
- Sciences appliquées (Ulg)
- Language
- French
- Publisher Category
- Applied Sciences
- BISAC Subject Heading
- SCI000000 SCIENCE
- Onix Audience Codes
- 06 Professional and scholarly
- CLIL (Version 2013-2019)
- 3051 SCIENCES FONDAMENTALES
- Title First Published
- 01 January 2008
- Type of Work
- Monograph
Paperback
- Publication Date
- 13 December 2012
- ISBN-13
- 9782864249184
- Extent
- Main content page count : 247
- Code
- DUC202754001
- Dimensions
- 14 x 21.5 x 1.3 cm
- Weight
- 317 grams
- List Price
- 15.20 €
- ONIX XML
- Version 2.1, Version 3
Google Book Preview
Write a commentary
Contents
1 General Introduction 1
2 May free capital mobility before accession be unfavorable for admission to the EU? 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 EU Accession and TFP growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 The Model without Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.1 The Benchmark Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2 After Accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.3 Exogenous Labor Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.4 Exogoneous Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 The Model with Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.1 The Benchmark Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4.2 After Accession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5 Policy Implications for Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.6 Variants of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.6.1 Model with capitalists and workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.6.2 Different Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.8 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.8.1 Proof of Proposition 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.8.2 Proof of Proposition 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.8.3 Proof of Proposition 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 Worthy Transfers? A Dynamic Analysis of Turkey's Accession to the European Union 31
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2 The Benchmark Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2.1 The Optimal Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.2 Equilibrium Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.3 Worthy Transfers? The Dynamic Impact of a TFP Increase in Turkey . . . . . 37
3.3.1 Calibration and Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.3.2 Comments on Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.3 Capital Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.4 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.4 The TFP-convergence Hypothesis . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4 Capital Account Liberalization: The Case of Turkey 57
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2 Effects of Capital Account Liberalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.1 Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3.2 Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3.3 Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4 Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4.1 Calibration of the Household and Production Parameters . . . . . . . 65
4.4.2 Exogenous Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.5 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.5.1 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
CONTENTS v
4.5.2 Welfare Gain? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.5.3 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.7 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75