View
214
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The role of international organisations in understanding globaliThe role of international organisations in understanding globalisationsation
OECD Territorial Indicators and OECD Territorial Indicators and Regions at a GlanceRegions at a Glance
Vincenzo SpieziaVincenzo SpieziaHead, Territorial Statistics and IndicatorsHead, Territorial Statistics and Indicators
SCORUSSCORUS
25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research
Wroclaw, Poland 30 August Wroclaw, Poland 30 August -- 1 September 20061 September 2006
VincenzoVincenzo SpieziaSpieziaHead, Territorial Statistics and IndicatorsHead, Territorial Statistics and Indicators
SCORUSSCORUS
25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research
Wroclaw, Poland 30 August Wroclaw, Poland 30 August -- 1 September 20061 September 2006
The role of international organisations in understanding globaliThe role of international organisations in understanding globalisationsation
Presentation :Presentation :
1.1. Regional Policies at OECDRegional Policies at OECD
2.2. Implications of GlobalisationImplications of Globalisation
3.3. Statistics for policyStatistics for policy--makingmaking
Regional Development Policy at OECDRegional Development Policy at OECD
Territorial Development Policy Territorial Development Policy CommitteeCommitteeAim:Aim:toto enhance regional competitivenessenhance regional competitivenessPolicy focus, supported by three Policy focus, supported by three Working Parties:Working Parties:•• Urban Policy Working PartyUrban Policy Working Party•• Rural Policy Working PartyRural Policy Working Party•• Territorial Indicators WP (WPTI)Territorial Indicators WP (WPTI)
Regional Development Policy at OECDRegional Development Policy at OECD
Working Party on Territorial Indicators Working Party on Territorial Indicators
(WPTI)(WPTI)
•• Secretariat and Head of TI Unit at OECDSecretariat and Head of TI Unit at OECD
VincenzoVincenzo SpieziaSpiezia
•• ChairChair
Dev Virdee (ONS, UK)Dev Virdee (ONS, UK)
Statistical focus:Statistical focus:
to benchmark the policy debateto benchmark the policy debate
Regional Development Policy at OECDRegional Development Policy at OECD
3 Pillars3 Pillars
1. Regions as actors of national 1. Regions as actors of national
growthgrowth
2. Making the best of local assets2. Making the best of local assets
3. Competing on the basis of 3. Competing on the basis of
regional wellregional well--beingbeing
FFactors of national growth actors of national growth are are strongly localised in strongly localised in a smalla small number of regionsnumber of regions
⇓⇓Promoting national growth requirePromoting national growth requiress improving improving
the use of these factors within regionsthe use of these factors within regions
⇓⇓Regional PoliciesRegional Policies
GLOBALISATION
1. 1. Regions as the actors of national growthRegions as the actors of national growth
OECD Regions at a GlanceOECD Regions at a Glance
Geographic ConcentrationGeographic Concentration of:of:
•• ResourcesResources (GDP, Active Population, Industries, R&D, (GDP, Active Population, Industries, R&D,
Skills, etc.)Skills, etc.)
•• Unused AssetsUnused Assets (Unemployment)(Unemployment)
Regional Contribution to National GrowthRegional Contribution to National Growth in:in:
•• PopulationPopulation
•• GDPGDP
•• EmploymentEmployment
•• Labour ForceLabour Force
about 40% of national GDP
GDP share of the 10% regions with the highest concentration of GDP 2001
39%37%
55%45%45%
25%53%
27%38%
33%22%
40%43%
42%39%
38%44%
38%35%
38%44%
33%25%
41%19%
46%35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
United States TL2United Kingdom
Turkey Sweden
Spain Slovak Republic
Portugal Poland
OECD averageNorway
Netherlands Mexico TL2
Korea Japan
Italy Ireland
Hungary Greece
Germany France Finland
Denmark Czech Republic
Canada TL2Belgium Austria
Australia TL2
more than 50% of national patents
Patents share of the 10% regions with the highest concentration of patents 2001
65%
46%
51%
65%
56%
43%
54%
37%
49%
73%
83%
54%
58%
56%
46%
52%
65%
41%
44%
21%
45%79%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
United States
United Kingdom
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Poland TL2
OECD average
Norway
Netherlands
Korea
Japan
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Canada TL2
Belgium
Austria
Australia
In OECD, 10% of regions account forIn OECD, 10% of regions account for……
Employment growth varies significantly among OECD countries…
…but differences in employment growth are even larger among regions
1 .9 %0 .5 %
1 .2 %2 .4 %
-0 .9 %0 .7 %
2 .1 %1 .8 %
0 .3 %0 .3 %
1 .2 %5 .8 %
1 .3 %-0 .2 %
0 .7 %2 .5 %2 .6 %
1 .1 %1 .4 %1 .4 %
-1 .1 %3 .0 %
-0 .9 %4 .6 %
1 .4 %1 .0 %
0 .3 %1 .3 %
1 .6 %
-4 .0 % -2 .0 % 0 .0 % 2 .0 % 4 .0 % 6 .0 % 8 .0 %
A u s tra liaA u s tr ia
B e lg iu mC a n a d a
C z e c h R e p u b licD e n m a rk
F in la n dF ra n c e
G e rm a n yG re e c e
H u n g a ryIre la n d
Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a
M e x ic oN e th e rla n d s
N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y
O E C D a v e ra g eP o la n d
P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic
S p a inS w e d e n
S w itz e rla n dT u rk e y
U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s
A v e ra g e a n n u a l e m p lo y m e n t g ro w th ra te (1 9 9 6 -2 0 0 1 )
-1 %0 %
1 %-3 %-3 %
0 %-1 %
-1 %-2 %
-3 %1 %
4 %-1 %-1 %
-5 %-2 %
2 %-1 %
-1 %-6 %-6 %
-1 %-3 %
-1 %-1 %
-2 %
-2 %
5 %1 %
3 %7 %
0 %2 %
4 %5 %
2 %2 %2 %
9 %4 %
1 %3 %
1 3 %6 %
7 %2 %
1 4 %3 %
3 %1 %
7 %3 %
8 %6 %
1 4 %6 %
-3 %
-1 %
-1 0 % -5 % 0 % 5 % 1 0 % 1 5 %
A u s tra liaA u s tr ia
B e lg iu mC a n a d a
C z e c h R e p u b licD e n m a rk
F in la n dF ra n c e
G e rm a n yG re e c e
H u n g a ryIre la n d
Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a
M e x ic oN e th e r la n d s
N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y
O E C DP o la n d
P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic
S p a inS w e d e n
S w itz e r la n dT u rk e y
U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s
V a ria t io n o f re g io n a l e m p lo y m e n t g ro w th (1 9 9 6 -2 0 0 1 )
100%
80%
27%
100%
94%
64%
31%
100%
53%
81%
100%
43%
69%
69%
28%
93%
22%
100%
55%
100%
51%
93%
39%
0% 50% 100% 1
Austra lia
Canada
C zech R epublic
Fin land
France
G erm any
G reece
Ita ly
Japan
Korea
M exico
New Zealand
Norway
O EC D average
Poland
Portugal
S lovak Republic
Spain
Sw eden
Sw itzerland
Turkey
U nited K ingdom
U nited States
Proportion of total job losses due to 10% of regions w ith largest em ploym ent decrease
7 5 %5 5 %
1 7 %7 6 %
3 4 %5 6 %
4 1 %4 4 %
9 2 %3 9 %
3 2 %4 0 %
1 0 0 %7 9 %
5 3 %2 3 %
4 9 %5 3 %
5 6 %9 9 %
5 0 %9 1 %
4 3 %5 9 %
3 4 %6 9 %
4 5 %6 4 %
0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 2 0 %
A u s tra liaA u s tr ia
B e lg iu mC a n a d a
D e n m a rkF in la n dF ra n c e
G e rm a n yG re e c e
H u n g a ryIre la n d
Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a
M e x ic oN e th e rla n d s
N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y
O E C D a v e ra g eP o la n d
P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic
S p a inS w e d e n
S w itz e rla n dT u rk e y
U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s
P ro p o rtio n o f n a tio n a l e m p lo y m e n t c re a tio n d u e to 1 0 % o f re g io n s w ith la rg e s t e m p lo y m e n t in c re a s e
56% of employment creation 69 % of job losses
In OECD, 10% of regions account forIn OECD, 10% of regions account for……
6 2 %4 1 %
2 6 %5 5 %
2 8 %2 2 %
2 6 %3 4 %3 4 %
4 8 %2 6 %
5 7 %2 5 %
4 8 %3 6 %
3 8 %5 7 %
2 5 %3 8 %
2 3 %3 7 %
2 0 %4 7 %
1 9 %3 9 %
3 6 %3 1 %
4 8 %3 3 %
5 0 %
0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 %
A u s tra liaA u s tr ia
B e lg iu mC a n a d a
C z e c h R e p u b licD e n m a rk
F in la n dF ra n c e
G e rm a n yG re e c e
H u n g a ryIc e la n dIre la n d
Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a
M e x ic oN e th e r la n d s
N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y
O E C D a v e ra g eP o la n d
P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic
S p a inS w e d e n
S w itz e r la n dT u rk e y
U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s
U n e m p lo y m e n t s h a re o f th e 1 0 % re g io n s w ith th e h ig h e s t c o n c e n tra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t
In OECD, 10% of regions account for 37% of In OECD, 10% of regions account for 37% of total unemploymenttotal unemployment
Enhancing competitiveness
Better use of local assets
Identifying unused assets
Regional Benchmarking
2. 2. Making the best of local assetsMaking the best of local assets
GLOBALISATION
MethodologyMethodology
Compare regions against a Compare regions against a
common benchmarkcommon benchmark
3 Benchmarks3 Benchmarks::
1.1.National AveragesNational Averages
2.2.OECD AverageOECD Average
3.3.Regional Type (Urban / Rural)Regional Type (Urban / Rural)
2. 2. Making the best of local assetsMaking the best of local assets
GDP per capita
Average Labour Productivity
Employment rate
Commuting rate
Activity rate
What explains regional differencesin GDP per capita?
Number of regions by main determinant of regional economic performances in selected OECD member countries
CountryHigh
PerformanceSpecialis-
ation ProductivityEmploy-
ment rate Commuting AgeActivity
rateLow
PerformanceSpecialis-
ation ProductivityEmploy-
ment rate Commuting AgeActivity
rate
Total
Australia 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 8Austria 10 0 4 0 5 0 1 25 0 12 0 10 0 3 35Belgium 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 6 0 3 0 0 11
Czech Rep. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 12 1 0 0 0 14Denmark 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 0 7 0 5 0 0 15Finland 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 17 0 9 1 1 0 6 20France 13 0 4 0 8 0 1 83 2 59 0 13 0 9 96
Germany 12 0 10 1 0 0 1 37 1 21 1 0 0 14 49Hungary 4 0 2 0 1 0 1 15 0 0 0 13 0 2 19Ireland 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 8
Italy 55 4 12 10 2 0 27 48 0 19 9 9 0 11 103Japan 6 0 3 0 2 0 1 41 15 19 0 5 0 2 # 47Korea 8 n.a. 7 0 1 n.a. 0 8 n.a. 6 1 n.a 1 16
Netherlands 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 0 12Norway 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 17 1 13 0 2 0 1 19Poland 10 2 8 0 0 0 0 34 17 3 4 0 0 10 44Spain 18 0 9 7 0 0 2 34 1 15 7 0 0 11 52
Sweden 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 18 0 7 1 3 0 7 21UK 44 0 13 1 19 0 11 89 0 32 1 41 0 15 133US 88 0 53 0 0 0 35 677 13 616 1 0 0 47 765
n.a. = not available.Source: IDENTIFYING THE DETERMINANTS OF REGIONAL PERFORMANCE (GOV/TDPC/TI(2002)1/REV1)
BENCHMARKING
OECD Regions at a GlanceOECD Regions at a GlanceRegional DisparitiesRegional Disparities in:in:
–– GDP per capitaGDP per capita–– LabourLabour ProductivityProductivity–– Unemployment RatesUnemployment Rates–– AgeAge–– Activity RatesActivity Rates
Factors of Regional CompetitivenessFactors of Regional Competitiveness::—— LabourLabour ProductivityProductivity—— Industry SpecialisationIndustry Specialisation—— Employment RatesEmployment Rates—— CommutingCommuting—— AgeAge—— Activity RatesActivity Rates
Differences in GDP per capita due to productivity: Europe TL3Percentage difference from national GDP per capita 2001
The OECD Regional TypologyThe OECD Regional Typology
OECD Regional TypologyOECD Regional Typology3 criteria:3 criteria:
1.1. Population densityPopulation density::
a community is rural if density < 150 inhabitantsa community is rural if density < 150 inhabitants
< (500 in Japan)< (500 in Japan)
2.2. % of population in rural communities% of population in rural communities::
> 50%> 50% ⇒⇒ Predominantly Rural (PR)Predominantly Rural (PR)< 15 %< 15 % ⇒⇒ Predominantly Urban (PU)Predominantly Urban (PU)Between 50 and 15 % Between 50 and 15 % ⇒⇒ Intermediate (IN)Intermediate (IN)
3.3. Urban centreUrban centre::
> 200K> 200K Rural Rural ⇒⇒ IntermediateIntermediate> 500K> 500K IntermediateIntermediate ⇒⇒ UrbanUrban
51%
51%
53%
54%
57%
Employment rate
Activity rate
Commuting
Specialisation
Age
Productivity 60%
How much is explained by the Typology ?How much is explained by the Typology ?
3. 3. Competing on Competing on the basis of the basis of regional wellregional well--beingbeing
WellWell--beingbeing ⇒⇒ CompetitivenessCompetitiveness
WWellell--being being == AttractivenessAttractiveness
WWellell--being being >> EconomicsEconomics
GLOBALISATION
OECD Regions at a GlanceOECD Regions at a GlanceIndicators of wellIndicators of well--beingbeing
—— AccessibilityAccessibility—— Home ownershipHome ownership—— EducationEducation—— Health statusHealth status—— Health resourcesHealth resources—— Crime against the personsCrime against the persons—— Crime against the propertyCrime against the property—— Fatal car accidentFatal car accident—— Stock of private vehiclesStock of private vehicles
308
1511
33
920
92
204
1114
33
216
108
423
42
251
334
0 10 20 30 40
United StatesUnited Kingdom
TurkeySwitzerland
SwedenSpain
PortugalPoland TL2
OECDNorway
New ZealandNetherlandsMexico TL2
KoreaJapan
ItalyIrelandIceland
HungaryGreece
GermanyFranceFinland
DenmarkCzech Rep
CanadaBelgiumAustria
Australia
AccessibilityAccessibility
Time to reach the
closest centre (range)
Education: student enrolment in tertiary education(students per 100 people)
0.130.43
0.250.23
0.880.230.25
0.430.140.14
0.260.33
0.250.38
0.310.490.48
0.370.22
0.390.52
0.340.65
0.220.32
0.0 0.5 1.0
United StatesTurkey
SwedenSpain
Slovak RepublicPortugal
PolandOECD Average
NorwayNetherlands
MexicoKoreaJapan
ItalyIceland
HungaryGreece
GermanyFranceFinland
DenmarkCanadaBelgiumAustria
Australia
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
United StatesTurkey
SwedenSpain
Slovak RepPortugal
PolandOECD Average
NorwayNetherlands
MexicoKoreaJapanItaly
IcelandHungary
GreeceGermany
FranceFinland
DenmarkCanada
BelgiumAustria
Australia
Coefficient of variation
Rural, urban &
intermediate(country=1)
Safety: reported criminal offences against property(per 1000 people)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
United StatesUnited Kingdom
TurkeySwitzerland
SwedenSpain
Slovak RepOECD Average
NorwayPortugal
PolandNew Zealand
NetherlandsMexico
KoreaJapanItaly
IcelandHungary
GreeceGermany
FranceCzech Rep
CanadaBelgium
AustriaAustralia
Rural, urban &
intermediate(country=1)
Health: age-adjusted mortality rate
Highest and lowest mortality
(country=1)
0.680.900.97
0.860.900.920.95
0.680.910.98
0.830.920.970.930.910.930.900.890.970.960.920.940.910.96
2.101.16
1.081.13
1.031.11
1.052.10
1.071.03
1.231.15
1.031.051.041.051.15
1.261.041.051.08
1.811.111.07
1.68
0.75
United StatesUnited Kingdom
SwedenSpain
Slovak RepPoland
PortugalOECD Average
NorwayNetherlands
MexicoKoreaJapan
IcelandHungary
GreeceGermany
FranceFinland
DenmarkCzech Rep
CanadaBelgiumAustria
Australia
Application of OECD Methods to UKApplication of OECD Methods to UK
Analysing differences inAnalysing differences inRegional Economic PerformanceRegional Economic Performanceby Daniela New and Dev Virdeeby Daniela New and Dev Virdee
UK regional disparities in economic UK regional disparities in economic performance are significant…performance are significant…
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East M idlands
West M idlands
East o f England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per head
UK average
GVA – Gross Value Added – measure or economic activity
.. but how different depends on the criteria we .. but how different depends on the criteria we use to measure “performance”…..use to measure “performance”…..
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East M idlands
West M idlands
East o f England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per head GVA per job
(UK average)
GVA GVA per hourper hour worked, the preferred measure of worked, the preferred measure of productivity, shows smaller gap between regionsproductivity, shows smaller gap between regions
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East M idlands
West M idlands
East o f England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per head GVA per job GVA per hour w orked
(UK average)
Explaining the differences:Explaining the differences:
UK average-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per hour w orked
(UK average)
Explanatory factors: Hours worked Explanatory factors: Hours worked per jobper job
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job
(UK average)
Hours worked
Explanatory factors: Explanatory factors: Employment/Labour ForceEmployment/Labour Force
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per hour w orked Hours w orked per job employment rate
(UK average)
Employment rate
Explanatory factorsExplanatory factors-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job employment rate commuting rate
(UK average)
Commuting rate
Explanatory factors: Labour Explanatory factors: Labour Force/PopulationForce/Population
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job employment rate commuting rate activity rate
(UK average)
Activity rate
Explanatory factorsExplanatory factors
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
North East
North West
Yorkshire and The Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job employment rate commuting rate activity rate other factors
Other factors
(UK average)
Main findingsMain findingsThe perception of relative regional performance can The perception of relative regional performance can change depending on the measure of productivity change depending on the measure of productivity that is chosen that is chosen
Differences within regions can be as important as Differences within regions can be as important as differences between regionsdifferences between regions
Several factors explain the gap between regions: in Several factors explain the gap between regions: in the North East, all working in one directionthe North East, all working in one direction
East of England and South East East of England and South East -- good exploitation good exploitation of geographical location, skills, innovation, transport of geographical location, skills, innovation, transport and infrastructureand infrastructure
Further InformationFurther Information
OECD Regions at a Glance 2005OECD Regions at a Glance 2005
www.oecd.orgwww.oecd.org
vincenzo.spiezia@oecd.orgvincenzo.spiezia@oecd.org
Recommended