Regional Science Policy and Practice Keynote Lecture The new - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
regional science policy and practice keynote lecture
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Regional Science Policy and Practice Keynote Lecture The new - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 28, 2023 197 likes •729 views

Regional Science Policy and Practice Keynote Lecture The new landscape of regional inequalities in the European Union in the aftermath of economic crisis: analysis and policy challenges for the programming period post-2020 Professor Ioannis

slide-1
SLIDE 1

The new landscape of regional inequalities in the European Union in the aftermath of economic crisis: analysis and policy challenges for the programming period post-2020

Professor Ioannis (Yannis) Psycharis, Director, Regional Development Institute Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences Athens, Greece

Regional Science Policy and Practice Keynote Lecture

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Aim and goals

Aim

  • The aim of this presentation is to present the regional inequalities in Europe

in the aftermath of economic crisis

  • to discuss why regional inequalities is an important issue for the prospects

and functioning of the European Union

  • to provide a policy debate on trends and challenges that the European Union

faces after the economic crisis

Approach

  • Provide some basic stylized facts that could facilitate dialogue and discussion

about the future prospects of European integration

  • Make use of descriptive statistics and thematic cartography in order to

visualize the finding and make the evidence more accessible

  • Emphasize on the policy formulation, policy outcomes and future prospects
  • f cohesion policy

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Regional inequalities

Why regional inequalities is an important issue for Europe?

Regional inequalities is a key feature of European integration even form the Treaty of Rome.

  • ‘Inequality’ has been placed at the forefront of policy debates (OECD 2015,

In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, Picketty 2014)

  • Regional inequality determines the development potential and the well

being for different areas and large number of people across Europe

  • The geography of inequality is related with the geography of discontent,

unrest, populism and political attitudes towards integration of the EU (A. Rodriguez-Pose 2017; Ph. McCann 2017)

  • Regional inequalities call for different policy responses. The identification

and the underlying dynamics of inequality call for a differentiated policy interventions in order to correspond to specific problems and needs

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Methodological issues

Regional inequalities in the EU have been studied from different angles and for different sub-sets of geographical areas.

  • In this research EU has been divided into three groups of countries: North-West,

South and Central-East EU countries

  • This analysis proceeds by analyzing / goes deeper into separate countries and

regions

  • Specific analysis has been placed at the role of Capital Regions and Metropolitan

areas

  • Analysis employs predominately descriptive statistics and thematic cartography

and is based on EU statistical data that have been retrieved from official Eurostat statistical data sources

  • Changes in the definition of NUTS II regions in some countries call for cautious

interpretations and comparisons

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • I. Tracing the changes in the development map of the EU

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Tracing development paths in the EU-28 by group of countries

The long term level of economic development of the EU during the period 2000-2017 has

  • increased. Economic crisis in 2008 had been a catalyst for the development map of

Europe for both the disruption in the growth rate but also for the differentiated impacts to different groups of countries.

  • Northern EU countries enjoyed per capita level of economic development well above

the EU average throughout the period 2000-2017. However, after the great recession in the year 2008 the level of economic development of Northern countries reveal slow growth/recovery rates

  • Southern EU countries before the economic crisis revealed level of economic

development lower to the North EU ones but above EU average. However, after the years 2009 the level of economic development of the Southern EU countries has declined steadily and dropped below the EU average.

  • Central East EU countries have the lowest among the three groups level of economic
  • development. However, they show steady and rapid increase throughout the period

2000-2017. Economic crisis has a short term impact on this trend. The level of economic development still remains below the EU average. Summing up, it could be stated that new geographies of development have been emerged in the EU in recent years. Inequalities between North and South have been increased. A North-South divide is reemerging. East EU countries as a group have followed a steadily converging with the EU development path. This new geography of development is still progressing.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in purchasing power standards (PPS)

EU EU-28, Groups, 2000-2017

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

7

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

GDP pc as % of EU28 GDP pc in PPS

EU-28 North South Central-East

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017 Gaussian kernel estimation

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

8

Decriptives Decriptives 2000 2000 2008 2008 2017 2017 mean 19.252 25.295 28.740 sd 9.334 11.670 14.084 median 19.100 24.200 26.500 min 3.600 7.000 9.300 max 106.600 147.500 188.000 range 103.000 140.500 178.700 skew 3,10 4,40 5,50 kurtosis 26,15 41,52 56,55 Se 556,80 696,20 840,20

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Going into more detail by analyzing group of countries and regions:

2000, 2008, 2017

Boxplots and Kernel density estimations provide additional insights to the development map of the EU.

  • For the East EU countries, the majority of regions remains below the EU average. However,

‘long tails’ in the upper part chart reveal that there are some outliers cities which show level

  • f economic development well above the EU average. These are the metropolitan areas and

the capital regions.

  • North EU countries have also ‘long tails’ in the upper part of the distribution. These are the

Metropolitan regions.

  • Southern EU countries have lost ground in terms of the level of economic development.

However, regional inequalities are smaller while there is absence in the dominance of Metropolitan areas comparing to the other two group of regions: the North and the South

  • Looking the box plots with separate countries it is striking the decrease in the level of

economic development for the Southern EU countries and also some important losses in Northern EU countries such as in France and in the UK Summing up, it could be stated that the development of East EU countries has been accomplished with further polarization of economic geography between the capital regions and the rest regions of each country. Metropolitan regions are also outliers in the North. However, this observation doesn’t apply to the same extent for the Southern regions.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS

Groups, (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017 Gaussian kernel estimation

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

10

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS

Groups (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017 Boxplots

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

11

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS

Groups & countries= (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017 Boxplots

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

12

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Mapping regional development in EU for the years 2000, 2008, 2017

These trends can be better portrait by thematic mapping. There are some important

  • bservations:
  • The number of regions above the EU average is shrinking over time. Polarization in

levels of economic development.

  • The geography of development is restricted/shrunk in the corridor that crosses the EU

from Sweden to Northern Italy.

  • Increase in metropolitan development in the East and enhancement of development

gaps between the Metropolitan regions and the rest of the country.

  • French and UK constitute case studies that attract our attention. ‘Île-de-France’ is an
  • utlier in the France’s development map. The same applies to ‘Inner London’ for the
  • UK. See also Scotland among regions with level of economic development above the

EU average.

  • The synthetic map which constitutes a transition matrix summarizes which regions

have lost ground between 2000 and 2017 and which regions have been upgraded. Specific attention is required to the regions of France and the UK. Summing up, it could be stated that the development map of EU has been most polarized. Even regions belonging to countries of the EU core have downgraded substantially with France and UK being representative examples.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPSNUTS 2 regions

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

14

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2008

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

15

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPSNUTS 2 regions

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2017

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

16

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Mapping of transition in Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000 2000-2017

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

17

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Analysis of changes in the development map of the EU

Transition probability matrixes show the possibility a region to move to another “state”- class. Analysis has applied for the regions belonging to different groups

  • f EU countries.
  • The regions in the EU North with high probability to move are those in the lowest class
  • r those in the middle classes groups of the climax.
  • The regions in the EU South that have the highest possibility to move (downgraded)

belong to the upper class. Regions belonging to the 25-50 class are difficult to move.

  • The regions in the EU East that have the highest possibility to move are those in the

lowest class or in the middle position in the climax.

Summing up, the probability is differentiated according to the group of country. The differentiated results question the fitness and the effectiveness of policies.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000 2000-2017, EU-28 28

2017> 2000 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+ 0-25

71,88%

28,13% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 25-50 0,00% 93,89% 6,11% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 50-75 0,00% 0,94% 94,36% 4,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 75-90 0,00% 0,00% 5,56% 89,92% 4,52% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 90-100 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 12,18% 81,30% 6,35% 0,17% 0,00% 0,00% 100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,21% 80,52% 8,28% 0,00% 0,00% 110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 10,84% 84,73% 4,43% 0,00% 125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 7,00% 89,39% 3,61% 150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,31% 94,69% Half-life 42,1 S 86,7%

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000 2000-2017, North

2017> 2000 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+ 0-25 87,50% 12,50% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 25-50 0,00% 100,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 50-75 0,00% 0,78% 92,19% 7,03% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 75-90 0,00% 0,00% 2,66% 92,01% 5,33% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 90-100 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% 81,14% 6,36% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,32% 80,71% 7,97% 0,00% 0,00% 110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,43% 84,62% 3,96% 0,00% 125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,26% 90,79% 3,95% 150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 4,38% 95,63% Half-life 637,1 periods S 89,4%

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000 2000-2017, South

2017> 2000 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+ 0-25 25-50 100,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 50-75 1,23% 94,17% 4,60% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 75-90 0,00% 10,27% 87,45% 2,28% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 90-100 0,00% 0,00% 12,15% 84,11% 3,74% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,63% 81,40% 6,98% 0,00% 0,00% 110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 9,79% 86,71% 3,50% 0,00% 125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 13,76% 85,32% 0,92% 150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 38,46% 61,54% Half-life 94,4 S 85,1%

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS

(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000 2000-2017, Central-East

2017> 2000 0-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+ 0-25 66,67% 33,33% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 25-50 0,00% 93,67% 6,33% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 50-75 0,00% 0,76% 95,21% 4,03% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 75-90 0,00% 0,00% 16,22% 75,68% 8,11% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 90-100 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,00% 70,00% 20,00% 5,00% 0,00% 0,00% 100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,88% 70,59% 23,53% 0,00% 0,00% 110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 63,64% 36,36% 0,00% 125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 90,00% 10,00% 150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 100,00% Half-life 76,2 S 80,6%

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • II. Analyzing the evolution
  • f regional inequalities in the EU

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Regional inequalities in the EU-28 28

We present two measures of regional inequality:

  • Theil index
  • Coefficient of Variation (CV) weighted by population

Regional inequalities in the EU were decreasing until 2008, however, after the economic crisis regional inequalities are widening . Regional inequalities are:

  • The highest but decreasing in East EU countries
  • High and increasing in Northern countries
  • Relatively lower and after a period of decreasing started increasing again
  • Higher within states than between states / Metropolitan regions is one of the

reasons for this observation

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Theil index for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS,

EU member states and NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

25

0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Theil/countries

T [between countries] T [between regions-within countries] T [between regions-EU28]

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Theil index for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS by group

Groups, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

26

0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10 0,12 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Theil/groups

T [between groups] T [between regions-within countries] T [between regions-EU28] T [between regions-within north] T [between regions-within south] T [between regions-within central-east]

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS

Groups, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

27

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 EU28 North South Central-East

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS, weighted by population

Groups, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

28

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 EU28 North South Central-East

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS, weighted by population

EU member states, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2015 2015

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

29

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

Croatia [2] Denmark [5] Austria [9] Netherlands [12] Slovenia [2] Portugal [7] Finland [5] Germany [38] Sweden [8] Spain [19] Poland [16] Italy [21] Greece [13] Belgium [11] France [27] Ireland [2] Hungary [7] Bulgaria [6] Czech Republic [8] Romania [8] Slovakia [4] United Kingdom [39] EU28 [269]

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Taking a step further by analyzing the influence of Metropolitan areas

We then procced by tracing the development path by group of regions taking into consideration the Metropolitan level. This analysis provides some additional insights to the development map of the EU.

  • Metropolitan regions enjoy higher level of economic development for the EU and the

three groups of EU countries.

  • Furthermore, in Northern EU countries the distance between metropolitan regions and

the rest of the country is increasing. The same applies to the Central and East EU countries.

  • Metropolitan regions enjoy higher level of economic development than the rest of the

country in the EU south. However, they keep relatively stable distance across time.

  • Capital city regions and metropolitan regions contribute to more than 60% on average

to the GDP in the EU countries. Summing up, it could be stated that new geographies of development have been emerged within different groups of countries. In the Northern and Eastern EU countries inequalities between metropolitan regions and the rest of the country is increasing. Metropolises are the drivers of new type of regional inequality in wealth and prosperity. This trend is also progressing rapidly especially to the East EU countries.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS

Groups/typologies, 2000-2015

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

31

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp) 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 East - Other metropolital region East - Capital city Metropolital region East - Total North-west - Other metropolital region North-west - Capital city Metropolital region North-west - Total South - Other metropolital region South - Capital city Metropolital region South - Total EU - 28

slide-32
SLIDE 32

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Slovakia Slovenia Croatia Italy Latvia Finland Belgium Portugal Romania Greece Lithuania Austria Netherlands Poland Hungary Bulgaria Estonia Sweden Czech Republic United Kingdom Spain Germany Denmark France Ireland Malta Cyprus Luxembourg EU28

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Share of metropolitan regions in gross domestic product (GDP) in PPS

EU member states 2000 2000-2015, (%) , Capital City region | Other Metropolitan Regions

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

32

Source: Eurostat (met_10r_3gdp)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Case study:

The evolution of regional development in the CEE countries

This part of the presentation has made an attempt to present the level and the evolution of regional development in the CEE countries of the EU during the period 2000-2016, focusing on the role of metropolitan regions. The analysis has provided some interesting results. 1) the CEE countries are lagging behind in terms of economic development compared with the EU average, however, there is important trend towards convergence. 2) metropolitan regions seem to be the outliers in the level of economic development since they enjoy levels of economic development well above the EU average. These trends reflect the changing landscape of regional inequality in the development map of the European Union. These changes call for the differentiation of regional policies. The CEE countries require well-tailored policies in order to achieved balanced development between regions, urban areas and the other regions in each country. Summing up it could be stated that this new form of inequality requires different methods of analysis and adjustments to policy.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

33

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Shares (%) of Metro regions in national GDP

CEE EU member states, 2016

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

34

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)

slide-35
SLIDE 35

GDP per capita at regional and metropolitan level

CEE EU member states, NUTS 2 regions, 2016

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

35

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)

slide-36
SLIDE 36

GDP at Metro-Regions as share (%) of national GDP

CE EU member states, NUTS 2 regions, 2016

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

36

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)

slide-37
SLIDE 37
  • III. Geographical aspects of sectoral specialization,

manufacturing activity and trade balance within the EU

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Geographical aspects of manufacturing and trade in the EU-28 context

  • Industry decreased steadily until 2010, a reversal trend has been observed

during the last decade

  • East EU countries show higher levels of Manufacturing activity outside the

Metropolitan areas

  • Trade balance reflects the productivity gaps between the North, South and

East EU countries

  • There are some important differences regarding the trade patterns within EU

and the rest of the World

  • Sectoral specialization has impacted on trade

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Gross value added (GVA) in Manufacturing sector as % of the total GVA

Groups/typologies, 2000-2015

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

39

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 East - Other metropolital region East - Capital city Metropolital region East - Total North-west - Other metropolital region North-west - Capital city Metropolital region North-west - Total South - Other metropolital region South - Capital city Metropolital region South - Total EU - 28 Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Gross value added (GVA) in Manufacturing sector as % of the total GVA

EU members states, 2000-2015

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

40

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Cyprus Luxembourg Malta Greece United Kingdom France Netherlands Latvia Portugal Spain Denmark Belgium Croatia Sweden Bulgaria Italy Estonia Finland Austria Lithuania Poland Slovakia Romania Germany Slovenia Hungary Czech Republic Ireland EU28

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_3gva)

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Merchandise trade balance (% of GDP) in the Eurozone

EU members states, 2015

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

41

  • 35
  • 30
  • 25
  • 20
  • 15
  • 10
  • 5

5 10 15 20 Ireland Netherlands Germany Belgium Slovenia Italy Slovak Republic Finland Austria Spain France Lithuania Portugal Estonia Latvia Luxembourg Greece Cyprus Malta

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Trade Balance (+/-) as % % percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)

EU member states, 2002-2016

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

42

  • 30%-25%-20%-15%-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Ireland Czech Republic Netherlands Germany Hungary Slovenia Belgium Denmark Italy Slovakia Poland Sweden Finland Austria Spain France Bulgaria Lithuania Romania Portugal Latvia Estonia United Kingdom Luxembourg Greece Croatia Cyprus Malta EU28

2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

  • 30%-25%-20%-15%-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

IE CZ NL DE HU SI BE DK IT SK PL SE FI AT ES FR BG LT RO PT LV EE UK LU EL HR CY MT EU28

  • 30%-25%-20%-15%-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

IE CZ NL DE HU SI BE DK IT SK PL SE FI AT ES FR BG LT RO PT LV EE UK LU EL HR CY MT EU28

EU28 Extra-EU28 World

Source: Eurostat (teiet210)

slide-43
SLIDE 43
  • IV. EU Budget, cohesion policy and redistribution

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

43

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Cohesion policy and redistribution

Financing EU Budget

  • Net contributors in the EU Budget are the more developed countries in the EU

North

  • Ret recipients are the less well off regions and countries in the EU lagging

behind regions and territories

  • The cost of financing the EU Budget is relatively small for the net contributors
  • The gains of the recipient countries are very high
  • Trade is favoring the more completive and more well off countries in the EU
  • The cost of redistribution can be counterbalanced by the gains through trade
  • While net contribution in the EU Budget reflects the financial cost for

European integration, the surplus trade balance reflects the economic gains from the European integration. This creates benefits for all and constitutes the dynamic balance between loses and gains in the process of European integration.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

44

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Net contributions as % percentage of GNI 2000-2015

EU member states

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

45

  • 1,0
  • 0,5

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0

Lithuania Bulgaria Hungary Latvia Estonia Greece Poland Romania Portugal Slovakia Malta Czech Rep. Slovenia Ireland Spain Croatia Cyprus Finland UK Italy Austria France Denmark Luxembourg Belgium Sweden Germany Netherlands Source:https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Example of Evolution of public investment spending in Greece

2000 2000-2012

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

46

Περιφερειακές ανισότητες, περιφερειακή ανάπτυξη και μητροπολιτικές περιφέρειες 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PI pc, euro/inh. PI, billion euros

40 60 80 100 120 140 160

PI pc, 2008=100

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0

% of GDP

slide-47
SLIDE 47
  • V. Conclusions and policy proposals

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

47

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Conclusions: a synopsis (1)

  • After the economic crisis a new development map in the EU has been

emerged.

  • Inequalities between North and South have been increased.
  • A new dualism in the level of economic development between North and South has

been emerged.

  • Central East EU countries are converging to the EU average.
  • However, this achievement has been accomplished/achieved with the cost of

increasing internal inequalities especially between metropolitan areas and the rest regions of these counties.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

48

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Conclusions: a synopsis (2)

  • High gaps between the metropolitan regions and the rest of the regions has

been observed in many Northern countries.

  • France and the UK constitute representatives examples of this trend.
  • The most prosperous regions of the EU have been reduced to a much narrower

development corridor from Sweden to Northern Italy.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

49

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Discussion and policy considerations (1)

  • Different types of regions require different sets of policies.
  • Specific attention is required for Metropolitan areas.
  • Trade patterns show high intensity of flows within EU.
  • Financing cohesion policy should take into consideration budgetary costs vis-a-

sis gains from trade and higher integration.

  • Golden Rule for balanced budget should be re-examined in favour of fiscal

space for public investment.

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

50

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Discussion and policy considerations (2)

  • Support investments in human capital, green projects, digital solutions and

improvements in the quality of government.

  • Implementation of development policies to promote employment and

reducing inequality.

  • More active involvement of development banks, support/utilize European

Invest Bank projects

  • New programming period should promote more targeted policies with a good

balance between place specific and people specific priorities.

  • The new programming period should target on higher consolidation and

implementation of development policies, with more fiscal space for public

  • investment. The consensus over a new development plan for Europe could be

an option for stabilization and higher integration

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

51

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Thank you for your attention! psycharis@panteion.gr

9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects

52