The Local Economic Impact of Universities: An International Comparative Analysis

Abstract

Nowadays the realization that certain economic units, universities or other objects have impact on the economy of their region comes more and more into prominence. A growing demand appears to generate more precise studies regarding the quantification of economic impact of these entities. The topic of the examination of economic impact is especially interesting and exciting when we can compare regions with different level of development, but with the presence of an internationally successful university. The local economic impact of a large tertiary education institution such as a university is an issue which has attracted considerable attention in literature. Different methods used in literature make results hardly comparable, we use the same method to investigate universities in different countries: in the lack of regional input-output matrices a multiplier based approach for first and second missions (education and research), while an application of Jongbloed's indicator set for third mission. Generally, there are four substantial problems. First, the definition of impact, second, measuring and estimating first-round expenditures and avoiding double-counting, third, estimating the correct value of the multiplier, fourth, the quantification of the third mission activities. The economic impact study has become a standard tool used by Western universities to persuade state legislatures of the importance of expenditures on higher education. As economic impact studies become a political tool in the review of education, conservative assumptions and methods should be used to promote objectivity in the research process. The goal of our study is to unravel the effects and impact of the University of Szeged (Hungary) and the University of Lorraine (France) regarding their local economy. The topic is quite unique, as the NUTS2 regions in which the examined universities are located in a lagging behind region compared to national average, but per capita GDP is 3.6 higher in Lorraine. On the other hand these universities have the institutional ranking around the 500 th place as published on the Academic Ranking of World Universities and employers of about 7000 employees. The socioeconomic welfare of the region supposedly depends on the university in Hungary, nevertheless the same amplitude in France. The goal of the study is to attempt the quantification of this presumption. As our results show, the impact per student is in the same magnitude in both countries, however third mission is much more implemented in France. The reasons of this difference can be found in historical facts and in different level of economic development.

Full text

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
The Local Economic Impact of Universities: An International Comparative Analysis
Balázs Kotosz, PhD1
Marie-France Gaunard-Anderson, PhD2
Miklós Lukovics, PhD3
Abstract
Nowadays the realization that certain economic units, universities or other objects have impact
on the economy of their region comes more and more into prominence. A growing demand appears to
generate more precise studies regarding the quantification of economic impact of these entities. The
topic of the examination of economic impact is especially interesting and exciting when we can
compare regions with different level of development, but with the presence of an internationally
successful university. The local economic impact of a large tertiary education institution such as a
university is an issue which has attracted considerable attention in literature. Different methods used
in literature make results hardly comparable, we use the same method to investigate universities in
different countries: in the lack of regional input-output matrices a multiplier based approach for first
and second missions (education and research), while an application of Jongbloed’s indicator set for
third mission. Generally, there are four substantial problems. First, the definition of impact, second,
measuring and estimating first-round expenditures and avoiding double-counting, third, estimating the
correct value of the multiplier, fourth, the quantification of the third mission activities.
The economic impact study has become a standard tool used by Western universities to
persuade state legislatures of the importance of expenditures on higher education. As economic
impact studies become a political tool in the review of education, conservative assumptions and
methods should be used to promote objectivity in the research process.
The goal of our study is to unravel the effects and impact of the University of Szeged (Hungary)
and the University of Lorraine (France) regarding their local economy. The topic is quite unique, as
the NUTS2 regions in which the examined universities are located in a lagging behind region
compared to national average, but per capita GDP is 3.6 higher in Lorraine. On the other hand these
universities have the institutional ranking around the 500th place as published on the Academic
Ranking of World Universities and employers of about 7000 employees. The socio-economic welfare
of the region supposedly depends on the university in Hungary, nevertheless the same amplitude in
France. The goal of the study is to attempt the quantification of this presumption.
As our results show, the impact per student is in the same magnitude in both countries, however
third mission is much more implemented in France. The reasons of this difference can be found in
historical facts and in different level of economic development.
Keywords
local impact, university, Hungary, France

1UniversityofSzeged,H‐6722Szeged,Kálváriasgt.1.Hungary,kotosz@eco.u‐szeged.hu
2UniversityofLorraine,57045Metz,IledeSaulcy,France,marie‐france.gaunard@univ‐lorraine.fr
3UniversityofSzeged,H‐6722Szeged,Kálváriasgt.1.Hungary,miki@eco.u‐szeged.hu

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays the realization that certain economic units, universities or other objects have
impact on the economy of their region comes more and more into prominence. A growing
demand appears to generate more precise studies regarding the quantification of economic
impact of these entities. The topic of the examination of economic impact is especially
interesting and exciting when we can compare regions with different level of development,
but with the presence of an internationally successful university.
The roles of universities are also changing in time. As Wissema (2009) suggested, there
are three generations of universities, while Pawlowski (2009) already mentioned fourth
generation universities. The characteristics of these universities are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of first, second, third and fourth generation universities
Aspect
First
generation
universities
Second
generation
universities
Third generation
universities Fourth generation universities
Goal Education Education and
research
Education, research,
and utilization of
knowledge
Education, research, R+D+I,
utilization of knowledge, and
proactive economic
development
Role Protection of
truth
The cognition of
nature
Creation of added
value
Local economic accelerator,
strategy determination
Output Professionals Professionals
and scientists
Professionals,
scientists, and
entrepreneurs
Professionals, scientists,
entrepreneurs, and competitive
local economy
Language Latin National English Multilingual (national and
English)
Management Chancellor Part-time
scientists
Professional
management
Professional management and
local experts
Source: Based on Lukovics-Zuti, 2013; Lukovics-Zuti, 2014; Zuti-Lukovics, 2014
The local economic impact of a large tertiary education institution such as a university
is an issue which has attracted considerable attention in literature. Different methods used in
literature make results hardly comparable, we use the same method to investigate universities
in different countries: in the lack of regional input-output matrices a multiplier based
approach for first and second missions (education and research).
The structure of the paper is the following. In the first part, we take a theoretical
overview of the impacts of universities. In the second part, we focus on measurement
methods, solutions and problems. The empirical evidence for the two universities are shown
in part 3, followed by a conclusion including a summary of open questions.
THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
The local economic impact of a large tertiary education institution such as a university
is an issue which has attracted considerable attention in literature. Beck et al (1995, 246)
define economic impact as „the difference between existing economic activity in a region
given the presence of the institution and the level that would have been present if the
institution did not exist.”

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
Florax (1992) and with modifications Garrido-Iserte and Gallo-Rivera (2010) showed
that the regional and local effects of a university can be observed in many fields beyond
economy
Dusek (2003) sorts the impact into input and output side effects (with students on both
sides, see Table 2 and 3). He highlights the role of budget links as an important (economic)
factor; the main financial source of the university is the government budget. These
classifications are not far from the Segarra I Basco (2003) model, who divided backward and
forward effects. Among the forward effect localization factors (instead of attractiveness) he
also mentions foreign investment and high-tech companies (that are typical actors of
technopolis type clusters).
Table 2. Regional/local impacts of universities on the input side
Actor Changes
Households
+ income
+ employment
+ consumption
Local authority + tax base
+ services
Business + volume of business
Source: After Dusek (2003)
Table 3. Regional/local impacts of universities on the output side
Factor Changes
Human capital
+ qualification
+ new firms
+ migration
Knowledge + university-business relations
+ extensive use of resources
Attractiveness
+ location choice of households
and firms
+ cultural and social possibilities
Business + research and development,
exhibitions
Source: After Dusek-Kovács (2009)
Huggins and Cook (1997) transferred the keywords into drivers and outcomes, and in
their approach, one cannot find hard measures on the driver side, while hardly have soft
outcomes.
Brown and Heaney (1997) concluded that the input size effects may be better measured
than output side effects, while the third mission of universities, the knowledge transfer has
mainly social impacts. Notwithstanding, Beck et al (1995) argues that social (human capital)
factors must be heeded, unless the major part of impacts would not be incorporated.
Pellenbarg (2005) modified the table of Lambooy to achieve a complete list of
economic impacts (see Table 4). However, this classification is a wide mixture of impacts of
the three main missions of universities (education, research and university-enterprise
cooperation).

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
Table 4. Regional/local economic impacts of universities
Economic impacts of a university Example
Employment at the university Number of university jobs and related
institutions
University income State contributions, fees, benefits arising
from entrepreneur activity, etc.
University expenditure Purchase of goods and services by the
university
Income and expenditures of the
university employees
Wages and salaries, social security costs
Effects on the job market Qualified job provision effect upon
productivity; flexible working supply of
the students
Generation of business Companies created by university students
and employees, with or without
employment knowledge and technology
Knowledge marketing The sale of knowledge in a variety of
ways: from ideas, courses and patents
Source: Pellenbarg (2005)
Lengyel (2008) gives a more complex system on economic “effects”, including many
elements of the previous literature in a well-structured figure.
Garrido-Iserte and Gallo-Rivera (2010) also attached importance to the separation of
short and long term effects, and constructed a matrix of impacts with subjective and objective
long-term impacts on knowledge.
Brown and Heaney (1997) compare two approaches of the computation: the skill-based
approach and the economic-based approach. These approaches are close to the logic of the
knowledge and expenditures based classification.
Johnson (1994) argues to divide local and non-local (it is better a choice on which
territorial level we identify impacts), direct and indirect impacts, but he also attends to various
negative impacts of universities and to the necessity of a net approach (i.e. individuals could
spend more, if the government did not tax them to be able to pay the expenditures of
universities). The question of gross or net impact can be analyzed from many starting point.
Generally, gross impact is easier to define and compute, as such questions arise that in the
lack of the university what and where the staff would work, where students would pursuit
their studies (if at all), how large the difference of knowledge in the local economy would be
or what would be the difference of house prices. The higher is the analyzed territory, the less
is the difference between gross and net impact.
The classification of impacts from the point of view that how directly the impact is
related to the activity of the university is widely varied in the literature. We can find twofold,
threefold, and fourfold classifications. In a larger classification, over direct and indirect
impacts, we have induced impacts (Koophaus, 2008), while in the fourfold version, one can
also find catalytic impacts (for these impacts see Lukovics-Dusek (2014a) and Lukovics-

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
Dusek (2014b) for university-related research, or Dusek-Lukovics (2011) for business
service). The modified version of these classifications stands for universities as:
 direct impact: output, income and workplaces created on-site owing to the investments
and operation of the university,
 indirect impact: income and employment generated in the companies providing inputs
for the university,
 induced impact: income and employment generated with the multiplier impact owing to
spending the incomes,
 catalytic impact: productivity growth achieved through the operation of the university,
the income and employment created through the companies settling because of the
university and the spending of the visitors arriving because of the university.
The contradictory and sometimes misleading mélange of the impacts can be well shown
by juxtaposing those of the Garrido-Yserte–Gallo-Rivera (2010) and the French school
represented by Gagnol-Héraud (2001) and Baslé-Le Boulch (1999).
In this confusion, we would recommend to use induced impact to all effects that are
generated by the multiplication process. In the Lukovics-Dusek classification, the separation
of direct and indirect impacts is artificial (practically, we separate personal expenses from
purchase of assets and investment, its cause can be the local analysis: on-site created income
is always local – nevertheless not necessary locally spent). The catalytic impact of Lukovics-
Dusek, the indirect impact of Gagnol-Héraud and the induced impact of Garrido-Yserte–
Gallo-Rivera have almost the same content. While it not widespread in the literature, the
catalytic expression better describe the content of this category than indirect or induced
(induced seems to be the worst choice).
METHODOLOGY
The main methodological possibilities are the use of input/output matrix based models
or the Keynesian multiplier model family. As up-to-date local or at least regional level
input/output matrices are not available, we could not use the first type of models. The use of
input/output models are typical in the USA where such matrices are accessible in state level.
The simplicity of the multiplier method makes it so popular, as a relatively narrow scale of
data is necessary. In our comparison, we will follow a version of regional multiplier model.
The method we applied in Figure 3 and 4 is modification of Caffrey – Isaacs (1971) and
Bridge (2005) models, we can also call as a simplified ACE model in the terminology of
Garrido-Yserte–Gallo-Rivera.
The territorial scope of our analysis was local. In Szeged, the university is dominantly
in the city (with one small faculty out of the city), in France we had the possibility for the
survey only in Metz, and so a regional estimation of the impact of one campus would not be
meaningful. Using a larger territorial scope would increase the absolute gross impact, but per
capita or per GDP impact may be smaller.
Whenever it was possible, we used data for 2014.
In our paper, we followed the computations made in our earlier works (see Kotosz,
2013 or Zuti-Lukovics, 2015), using the same methodology, model and primary research

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
agenda, so our results are fully comparable. The methodological background of the two-step
estimation is described in Bleaney et al (1992) and Felsenstein (1997).
The multiplication effect is the function of the following factors:
– Personal income tax rate (average rate) [t]
– Value added tax (average rate) [n]
– Marginal propensity to consume [c]
– Local consumption proportion of students [d]
– Local consumption proportion of employees [e]
– Local consumption proportion of the college [b]
– Local consumption proportion of the local economy [f]
Armstrong-Taylor (2000) and Lengyel-Rechnitzer (2004) supposed a fix amount of
spending of visitors and an equivalent local consumption proportion of students, employees
and the college. Instead of the latest, we applied a two-step estimation, so different
proportions could be used. Thereby the formula of the multiplier is:
 
1
111
f
ct n
Expenditure data of the universities can be reached from public information. In the case
of multi-campus institutions, allocation of expenditures by campus has been based on our
estimation (when expenditures cannot be definitely allocated, we used keys related to relevant
activities: number of students, number of academic/non-academic staff, area). We supposed
an additional income of 20% of employees. Estimation of visitors’ expenditures is based on
conferences and other events attracting visitors.
To map expenditures of students, we asked them to fill in a questionnaire (in 2014 in
Szeged, and in 2015 in Metz). This element was based on a representative sample, we
multiplied the sample mean by the number of students enrolled at the university/campus.
To estimate the locally true consumption function, we can follow two different ways.
From one part, we can use national statistics, as by empirical evidence (see Árvai-Menczel
2001, Vidor 2005) local and national functions are not significantly different. From the other
part, local sample surveys can also serve as starting point. Our computations also showed that
cross-sectional and time series data give largely different results, between 0.45 and 0.7 in both
countries While Dusek (2003) found a high marginal propensity to consume in his survey of
students (over 0.7), our results in Hungary are mostly below 0.5, while in France around 0.5.
As a consensus, we used 0.6.
Due to the lack of reliable geographical knowledge of students, we preferred to choose
the local level as the city where the university is located (Szeged and Metz). By extending the
geographical area, higher rates a local consumption data is taken, increase is not proportional
with distance.
The local consumption proportion of students varied around 70-80% based on our
survey data (in accordance with previous data). This number is always higher than the rate of
local students, which is around 30-40%. In our estimations, we used the value of 0.7 in Metz,
and 0.8 in Szeged, as the results of the surveys.
Estimation of employees’ local consumption proportion is one of the most problematic
point of the process, as in neither cities we had not right to ask employees by a questionnaire
similar to students’ one. As a result of the suburbanization process, we supposed that local

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
consumption proportion is lower than students’, we used 75% in Szeged, but only 60% in
Metz.
Local consumption proportion of the university is typically restricted by national law.
Well-known estimation problems arises with the limitation of local level (see e.g. Székely
2013), but this question is beyond the goals of the paper. We analysed the official documents
of the universities and estimated these impacts by separating local and non-local items. We
used a 70% value for Szeged and 80% for Metz.
For the average tax rates, we used recent estimations of the Hungarian National Bank
for Hungary, and Ministry of Finance data for France. While VAT rates are similar (16% in
France, and 20% in Hungary), NUTS3 level average personal income tax rate is only 6% in
Lorraine, while the national statistics of Hungary was 20.1% (for methodology, see Benczúr-
Kátay 2010). This difference can be explained by inclusion of social security contributions.
Generally, in scientific papers on impact studies, there are only theoretical comparisons
of previously applied methods, but we cannot find international comparative studies where
invariable method has been used. Even with deficiencies, we can internationally compare the
impact of the analyzed universities.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND RESULTS
Even if the theoretical background is not unanimous, but well-known, estimation
methods are wrought and discussed (see Siegfried et al, 2006 for a general comparison), and
many international empirical example can be found in the literature (Armstrong 1993,
Blackwell et al 2002, Bleaney et al 1992, Bridge 2005, Brownigg 1973, Caroll-Smith 2006,
Cooke 1970, Huggins and Cooke 1997, Jabalameli et al 2010, Lewis 1988, Love and
McNicoll 1988, Ohme 2003,Pellenbarg 2005, Robert-Cooke 1997, Simha 2005, Tavoletti
2007), until 2010 only one finished case study was known for Hungary, the case of the
University of Győr (Széchenyi István University) (Dusek-Kovács, 2009). Some steps were
also made in Pécs (Mezei, 2005), but this research has not reached the level of having at least
one numerical result. An intensive phase of research started after 2010, the first results have
been published in Kotosz (2012) and Kotosz (2013) for small colleges and in Zuti-Lukovics
(2015) for the University of Szeged. In Dusek-Lukovics (2014) we can also find an example
impact study of a research-oriented object.
In France, three scientific impacts studies are known, for the case of Strasbourg
(Gagnol-Héraud, 2001), for Rennes (Baslé-Le Boulch, 1996), and for the University of
Littoral (Mille, 2004). These papers can handle only partially the questions, without an
expressed amount of euros (francs) as impact (except for Baslé-Le Boulch, 1999) where
multiplier effects are also determined.
The higher education system in the two countries are similar in the sense that originally
they are based on state-owned/state-financed universities, complemented by smaller private
schools where education is more accentuated than research. As a soviet heritage in Hungary,
an independent academic research center network survived. In France, research centers are
integrated in the universities, often creating a matrix system of education and research.
Education divisions may run under different names (faculties, education and research units,

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
institutes). While in the Hungarian system, faculty positions are also divided to be lecturers
and researchers, France academic staff members are lecturer-researchers.
The higher education in Hungary went through determining changes in the 1990s,
which on the whole had an impact on the entire Hungarian society. Since the regime change
the number of students has risen significantly, has nearly quadrupled. This tendency was
noticeable both in the OECD and in the EU countries. However, in Hungary after the
2005/2006 academic year a decrease can be perceptible regarding the number of students. On
the basis of data of 2008 we lag behind all the examined OECD countries, concerning the
number of state-funded students per one million inhabitants. While this datum in Hungary
was 21 324 heads until in Germany 24 639 heads and in Norway 38 409 heads (Harsányi-
Vincze 2012). Since 2011 in Hungary the administration of higher education’s institutions has
transformed appreciably, and with this the organizational and administrational autonomy of
the institutions, too. First, the appointment of rectors and economic directors was become the
authority of the ministry, after that, budget commissioners were ordered to the institutions. In
2014 chancellery system was implemented.
The French higher education system had not realize such shocks, and the number of
students has a growing trend with more than 2,400 thousand students in 2014.
The University of Szeged was founded in 1872, and has about 30,000 students and 12
faculties. After various historic events, in 2000 it unifies almost all faculties working in the
city. The Faculty of Medicine integrates a clinical center (hospital) with activities that cannot
be separated (financially) from the university. Szeged has around 170,000 inhabitants, in a
region which is among the 20 poorest regions of the European Union (measured in per capita
GDP).
The first university in Metz was founded in 1970 based on smaller higher education
institutions already existing in the city. In 2012, the universities of the Lorraine region have
been unified to create the University of Lorraine which is the second largest university of
France (by the number of students). The university has more than 50,000 students, 13,000 of
them located in Metz where 6 faculties can be recognized. As our research concerns only the
city of Metz, university budget items had to be divided by keys. The city of Metz has about
120,000 inhabitants, in a region less developed than the French average (but over the EU
average).
The main findings of our research for Szeged and Metz can be summarized in Figure 3
and Figure 4, respectively.

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of Universities: An International Comparative
Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in Transitional
Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.



Figure 3: Cash-flow à Szeged
External economy*
Visitors**
University expenses
Staff costs
(30125 M HUF)
Material type and
operating costs and
investment (37440 M
HUF)
Fellowships, and other
grants (2844 M HUF)
Staff
(23678 M HUF)
Students
(10512 M HUF)
Primary production and
income effect
Cash‐
f
lowinlocaleconom
y
Mone
y
out
f
low
*Non‐localeconom
y

**Ex
p
enseso
f
visitors
Local economy
University incomes
Government (56620 M HUF)
Operation income (14612 M
HUF)
non-profit
institutions
charity
(terminal) fees
adventure income
abroad assistance
capital income
other
1000 M HUF
Total impact
Production: 97235 M HUF
Income: 67930 M HUF
Regional multiplier
(1,315)
Primary effect

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of Universities: An International Comparative
Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in Transitional
Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.



Figure 4: Cash-flow à Metz
External economy*
Visitors**
Primary production and
income effect
Cash‐
f
lowinlocaleconom
y
Mone
y
out
f
low
*Non‐localeconom
y

**Ex
p
enseso
f
visitors
Local economy
1000 M HUF
Primary effect
University expenses
Staff costs
(90 M EUR)
Material type and
operating costs and
investment (33 M EUR)
Fellowships, and other
grants (1 M EUR)
Staff
(52 M EUR)
Students
(5 M EUR)
University incomes
Government (112 M EUR)
Operation income (11 M EUR)
non-profit
institutions
charity
(terminal) fees
adventure income
abroad assistance
capital income
other
Total impact
Production: 140 M EUR
Income: 119 M EUR
Regional multiplier
(1,496)

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
CONCLUSION
The total impact per student is in the range of 15-50 thousand euros in the USA, in the
range of 10-20 thousand euros in Western Europe, while between 5 and 10 thousand euros in
Eastern Europe by benchmark studies. The result of 10.800 EUR in our target cities can be
explained by the fact that the University of Szeged has a clinical center where medication
activities requires expenditures in the order of education and – out of clinical – research of the
whole university.
In the percentage of the regional GDP, the impact in the USA is generally in the range
of 0.1-3.0%, while in Europe only 0.02-0.10%. Our results of 4% in Szeged and 0.02% in
Metz are extremities. The first can be explained by the clinical center, while the second would
be higher, if we consider the whole University of Lorraine (around 0.1%).
It is important to see that direct and multiplied (induced) income impact of these
universities are in the order of the sum of money invested by different levels of governments.
Thereby their third mission activities and/or catalytic impacts are crucial in their
local/regional added value. It is proven by Varga (2001) that agglomeration matters, the
impact of third mission activities is larger in large universities than it could be explained by
their relative size.
REFERENCES
1. Armstrong, H. W. (1993). The local income and employment impact of Lancaster
University. Urban Studies, 30, pp.1653-1668.
2. Armstrong, H. W., Taylor, J. (2000). Regional Economics and Policy. Oxford: Blackwell
3. Árvay, Zs., Menczel, P. (2001), A magyar háztartások megtakarításai 1995 és 2000
között. Közgazdasági Szemle, 47, pp. 93-113.
4. Baslé, M., Le Boulch, J-L. (1999) L’impact économique de l’enseignement supérieur et
de la recherche publique sur une agglomération de Rennes. Revue d’Economie
Régionale & Urbaine, 1, pp. 115-134.
5. Beck, R., Elliott, D., Meisel, J., Wagner, M. (1995). Economic impact studies of regional
public colleges and universities. Growth and Change, pp. 245-260.
6. Benczúr, P. –Kátay, G. 2010, Adóreformok hatása a magyar gazdaságra egy általános
egyensúlyi modellben.
http://media.coauthors.net/konferencia/conferences/3/benczur_katay.pdf (accessed
24.03.2011)
7. Blackwell, M., Cobb, S., Weinberg, D. (2002). The Economic Impact of Educational
Institutions: Issues and Methodology. Economic Development Quarterly, 16(1), pp.
88-95.
8. Bleaney, M. F., Binks, M. R., Greenaway, D., Reed, G., Whynes, D. K. (1992). What
does a university add to its local economy? Applied Economics, 24, pp. 305-311.
9. Bridge, M. (2005). Higher education economic impact studies: accurate measures of
economic impact? Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 2, pp. 37-47.
10. Brown, K. H., Heaney, M. T. (1997). A Note on Measuring the Economic Impact of
Institutions of Higher Education. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), pp. 229-240.
11. Brownigg, M. (1973). The economic impact of a new university. Scottish Journal of
Political Economy, 20, pp. 123-129.

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
12. Caffrey, J., Isaacs, HH. (1971). Estimating the impact of a College or University on the
Local Economy. American Council on Education, Washington.
13. Caroll, M. C., Smith, B. W. (2006). Estimating the Economic Impact of Universities: The
Case of Bowling Green State University. The Industrial Geographer, 3(2) pp. 1-12.
14. Cooke, E. (1970). Analysing university student contribution to the economic base of the
community. Annals of Regional Science, 4, pp. 146-153.
15. Dusek, T. (2003). A felsőoktatás lokális termelésre és jövedelmekre gyakorolt hatása. In
Rechnitzer, J., Hardi T. (eds): A Széchenyi István Egyetem hatása a régió fejlődésére.
Győr: Széchenyi István Egyetem Gazdaság- és Társadalomtudományi Intézet, pp.
60-71.
16. Dusek, T., Kovács, N. (2009). A Széchenyi István Egyetem hatása a helyi
munkaerőpiacra. A Virtuális Intézet Közép-Európa Kutatására VIKEK Évkönyve, II.
Régiók a Kárpát-medencén innen és túl konferencia tanulmányai, pp. 69-73.
17. Dusek, T. – Lukovics, M. (2011). Analysis of the economic impact of the Budapest
Airport on the local economy. 58th Annual North American Meetings of the
Regional Science Association International (RSAI). Miami, Florida, USA
18. Dusek T. – Lukovics M. (2014). Az ELI és az ELI Science Park gazdasági
hatásvizsgálata. Területi statisztika, 5, pp. 1-18
19. Felsenstein, D. (1995). Dealing with induced migration in university impact studies.
Research in Higher Education. 36, pp. 457-472.
20. Florax, R. (1992). The university: a regional booster? England: Avebury.
21. Gagnol, L., Héraud, J-A. (2001). Impact économique régional d’un pôle universitaire :
application au cas strasbourgeois. Revue d’Economie Régionale & Urbaine, 2001
(4), pp. 581-604.
22. Garrido-Iserte, R., Gallo-Rivera, M. T. (2010). The impact of the university upon local
economy: three methods to estimate demand-side effects. Annals of Regional
Science, 44, pp. 39-67.
23. Harsányi, G., Vincze, S. (2012). A magyar felsőoktatás néhány jellemzője nemzetközi
tükörben. Pénzügyi Szemle, 2012 (2) pp. 226-245.
24. Huggins, R. - Cooke, P. (1997). The economic impact of Cardiff University: innovation,
learning and job generation. GeoJournal. 41 (4), pp. 325–337.
25. Jabalameli, F., Ahrari, M., Khandan, M. (2010). The Economic Impact of University of
Tehran on the Tehran District Economy. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4)
pp. 643-652.
26. Johnson, T. M. (1994). Estimating the Economic Impact of a College or University on a
Nonlocal Economy. PhD dissertation, Texas: Texas Tech University.
27. Jongbloed, B. (2008). Indicators for mapping university-regional interactions. Paper for
the ENID-PRIME Indicators Conference in Oslo, 26-28 May 2008.
28. Klophaus, R. (2008). The impact of additional passengers on airport employment: The
case of German airports. Airport Management, 2, pp. 265-274.
29. Kotosz, B. (2012). Felsőoktatási intézmények regionális multiplikátor hatása. Jelenkori
társadalmi és gazdasági folyamatok. VII/1-2, 7.
30. Kotosz, B. (2013). Local Economic Impact of Universities. Analecta Technica
Szegedinensia, 2013(1-2), pp. 22-26.
31. Lengyel I. (2008). „Távolság versus közelség” dilemma az ipari-egyetemi kapcsolatokon
alapuló tudasalapú helyi gazdaságfejlesztésben. In: A gazdasági környezet és a

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
vállalati stratégiák. A IX. Ipar- es Vállalatgazdasági Konferencia előadásai. Szeged,
pp. 551-562.
32. Lengyel, I., Rechnitzer, J. (2004). Regionális gazdaságtan. Budapest-Pécs: Dialóg-
Campus.
33. Lewis, J. A. (1988). Assessing the effect of the polytechnic, Wolverhampton, on the local
community. Urban Studies, 25, pp. 25-31.
34. Love, J. H., McNicoll, I. H. (1988). The regional economic impact of overseas students in
the UK: A case study of three Scottish universities. Regional Studies, 22, pp. 11-18.
35. Lukovics M. – Dusek T. (2014a). Economic Impact Analysis of the ELI R&D
Infrastructure and Science Park. Journal Mittelforum and Next Europe, 1, pp. 72-85
36. Lukovics, M. – Dusek, T. (2014b). The Economic Impact of the ELI R&D Infrastructure
and Science Park in the Szeged sub-region. Diverse Regions: Building Resilient
Communities and Territories. Regional Studies Association Annual International
Conference 2014, Izmir, Turkey
37. Lukovics, M. – Zuti, B. (2013): Successful universities towards the improvement of
regional competitiveness: „Fourth Generation” universities. Paper presented at the
“European Regional Science Association (ERSA) 53th Congress „Regional
Integration: Europe, the Mediterranean and the World economy” 53th Congress of
the European Regional Science Association, Palermo, Italy.
38. Lukovics M. – Zuti B. (2014). Egyetemek a régiók versenyképességének javításáért:
„negyedik generációs” egyetemek? Tér és Társadalom, 4, pp. 77-96.
39. Mezei, K. (2005). A Pécsi Tudományegyetem hatása a város gazdaságára. A magyar
városok kulturális gazdasága. Budapest: MTA Társadalomkutató Központ.
40. Mille, M. (2004). Université, externalités de connaissance et développement local :
l’expérience d’une université nouvelle. Politiques et gestion de l’enseignement
supérieur. 16 (3), pp. 89-113.
41. Ohme, A. M. (2003). The Economic Impact of a University on Its Community and State
Examining Trends Four Years Later. University of Delaware, mimeo.
42. Pellenbarg, P. H. (2005). How to Calculate the Impact of University on the Regional
Economy. Paper presented to the Conference on Knowledge and Regional Economic
Development, Barcelona, 9-11 June 2005.
43. Pawlowski, K. (2009). The ‘fourth generation university’ as a creator of the local and
regional development. Higher Education in Europe, 1, pp. 51-64.
44. Robert, H., Cooke, P. (1997). The economic impact of Cardiff University: innovation,
learning and job generation. GeoJournal, 41(4) pp. 325-337.
45. Segarra i Blasco, A. (2004). La universitat com a instrument de dinamització
socioconómica del territori. Coneixement i Societat, 03, pp. 78-101.
46. Siegfried, J. J., Sanderson, A. R., McHenry, P. (2006). The Economic Impact of Colleges
and Universities. Vanderbuilt University Working Paper No 06-W12.
47. Simha, O. R. (2005). The Economic Impact of Eight Research Universities on the Boston
Region. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, pp. 269-278.
48. Székely, A. (2013), Regionális multiplikáció a szegedi Árkád példáján, in Rechnitzer, J.,
Somlyódiné P. E., Kovács, G. (eds): A hely szelleme – a területi fejlesztések lokális
dimenziói. Széchenyi István Egyetem, Győr. ISBN 978-615-5391-10-1. pp. 565-573.
49. Tavoletti, E. (2007). Assessing the Regional Economic Impact of Higher Education
Institutions: An Application to the University of Cardiff. Transition Studies Review,
14(3), pp. 507-522.

Kotosz; B. – Gaunard-Anderson, M-F: - Lukovics, M. (2015): The Local Economic Impact of
Universities: An International Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at The Fourth
International Conference in Researching Economic Development and Entrepreneurship in
Transitional Economies. Graz (Austria), 22-24 October 2015.
50. Varga, A. (2001). Universities and Regional Economic Development: Does
Agglomeration Matter? In Johannson, B., Karlsson, C. & Stough, R. (eds) Theories
of Endogenous Regional Growth, Springer, Berlin.
51. Vidor A. (2005). A megtakarítás-ösztönzők hatása: magyarországi tapasztalatok. PM
Kutatási Füzetek, http://www2.pm.gov.hu/ retrieved October 13, 2010.
52. Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university. Managing the university
in transition. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
53. Zuti, B. – Lukovics, M. (2014). „Fourth Generation” Universities and Regional
Development. In Hamm, R. – Kopper, J. (eds.): Higher Education Institutions and
Regional Development. Mönchengladbach, pp. 14-31
54. Zuti B. – Lukovics M. (2015): How to Measure the Local Economic Impact of the
Universities’ Third Mission Activities? In Nijkamp, P. – Kourtit, K. - Buček, M. –
Hudec, O. (eds): 5th Central European Conference in Regional Science. Technical
University of Košice, Košice, pp. 1209 – 1215