Economists frequently speak of structural reforms and structural effects.
For example, Manmohan Singh (1992):
The economic crisis was used as an opportunity to implement basic structural reforms in the areas of industrial policy, trade policy, tax policy, public sector management and the financial system.
Donald Walker (1984):
money plays a central role as a means of payment, and its presence in the economy has structural effects.
What purpose does the adjective structural serve in the above sentences? What difference would it have made if the word were deleted or replaced by non-structural?
Are there mere reforms and effects that differ from structural reforms and structural effects? Are there non-structural reforms and non-structural effects?
Is the word structural just a fairly vague term with a connotation similar to fundamental or important?