INTERNAL SEMINAR: LIEGE 2010

SGPTDESecondary Cities:

Performance, Policies and ProspectsProfessor Michael Parkinson CBE

Answer 5 Questions

1.WHO ARE WE?

2. WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO?

3. HOW ARE WE DOING IT?

4. WHAT WILL WE PRODUCE?

5. HOW WELL ARE WE DOING?

1. Who Are We?

Partners

•EIUA lead – Parkinson, Meegan, Evans, Jones, Karecha

• MRI Budapest – Ivan Tosics, Antal Gertheis, Andrea Tonko

• University of Tampere – Markku Sotarauta, Olli Ruokolainen

Advisers

• University College London – Sir Peter Hall

• University of Paris - Christian Lefevre

1. Who Are We?

Our ethos - connecting research to policy makers

Related work

•Competitive European Cities•COMPETE project•URBAN Evaluation•State of European Cities•Urban Audit•Urbanisation and Functions of Cities•URBACT•State of the English Cities•Credit Crunch, Recession & Cities

2. What Are We Trying To Do?

Our analytical approach:

•Relationship territory, governance, economy in challenged world•Institutional & evolutionary •Policy & politics not only markets matter•National factors, policies matter to cities•But so do local in multi scalar world•Cities path dependent but room for manoeuvre•Hard & soft factors matter•Competiveness, cohesion, environment crucial •Key drivers territorial performance – innovation, human capital

connectivity, place quality, governance capacity•Policies – explicit & implicit - for these crucial

2. What Are We Trying to Do?

Explore common assertions:

•Economic & institutional deconcentration lead more territorially balanced economic development Europe.

•Relationship capital & secondaries win-win, not zero sum

• More secondaries perform better, national and European economies better

• National policies for secondaries crucial – competition, cohesion, environment

• Leadership & governance matters - cities path dependent but room for manoeuvre

• Territory & place matters more not less globalised economy

2. What Are We Trying To Do?

Specifically assess

•Secondaries’ actual & potential contribution to more balanced European territorial development

• Performance on critical success factors – innovation, human capital, connectivity, place quality, strategic capacity

• Policy impact & implications – European, national, regional

• Territorial prospects secondaries – European, national, regional

2. What Are We Trying to Do?

Reflecting policy concerns Cohesion Report & DG Regio

•Secondaries are larger non-capital cities which make major contribution to national performance – positive or negative

•What performance secondaries, what gap with capitals, what direction of change?

• What policy debate member states - how gap & urban hierarchy seen, competitiveness or cohesion, explicit or implicit, any concern territorial impact?

• What effect debate on national policy secondaries - greater targeting, increased capacity & skills, more powers & resources, fewer constraints?

2. What Are We Trying to Do?

Answers

•Which kind secondaries punching weight nationally & Europe, how and why?

•Who doing what to help?

•What works?

•What impact & implications crisis?

•Who does what better, different in future?

3. How Are We Doing It?

• Qualitative & quantitative, breadth & depth

Triangulate

• Research & policy literature – performance, policies, prospects

• Quantitative data 124 secondaries, 30 capitals

• Interviews - European, national policy makers, private sector

• E-questionnaire – ESPON family, policy makers, researchers, EUROCITIES, Core Cities, URBACT, EUKN

• 9 detailed case studies

How Did We Select Secondaries?

• Key principles• Nothing’s perfect – always over bounding, under bounding, data gaps • Not let best drive out good• Balance economic significance with territorial representation• Views Monitoring Committee• Common sense!• Best fit policy agenda

• So we• Began with 255 DG Regio/OECD agreed Metro Regions• Accepted all in 22 countries population under 15 m• 8 larger countries all up to 2/3 of urban population• Compared LUZ population, excluded few wildly over bounded• Added few just excluded by pop threshold on basis MC judgement• All countries get 1 secondary even if OECD/DG Regio not defined

124 SECONDARY & 30 CAPITAL CITIES

COUNTRY CITIES COUNTRY CITIES COUNTRY CITIES COUNTRY CITIES COUNTRY CITIES

Austria Vienna France (cont.) Lens - Liévin Hungary (cont.) Gyor Poland (cont.) Gdansk Switzerland (cont.) Geneva Linz Bordeaux Ireland Dublin Wroclaw Bern Graz Rouen Cork Lodz Lausanne Salzburg Nantes Italy Rome Poznan Basel Innsbruck Grenoble Milan Kielce UK London Belgium Brussels Toulouse Naples Wloclawek Manchester Antwerp Strasbourg Turin Bydgoszcz Birmingham Liege Metz Bari Szczecin Bradford-Leeds Gent Nice Palermo Lublin Glasgow Charleroi Toulon Brescia Portugal Lisbon Sheffield Bulgaria Sofia Montpellier Catania Porto Liverpool Plovdiv Rennes Salerno Romania Bucharest Newcastle u Tyne Varna Germany Berlin Florence Iasi Nottingham Croatia Zagreb Düsseldorf-Ruhrgebiet Bologna Craiova Cardiff Split Frankfurt am Main Genoa Constanta Bristol Cyprus Nicosia Hamburg Latvia Riga Cluj-Napoca Leicester Czech Republic Prague Köln-Bonn Daugavpils Timisoara Edinburgh Ostrava Stuttgart Lithuania Vilnius Slovakia Bratislava Belfast Brno Munich Kaunas Kosice Plzen Bielefeld Klaipeda Slovenia Ljubljana Hradec Kralove - Pardubice Hannover Luxembourg Luxembourg Maribor Denmark Copenhagen Nuremberg Malta Valletta Spain Madrid Aarhus Bremen Netherlands Randstad North Barcelona Aalborg Mannheim Randstad South Valencia Odense Leipzig Eindhoven Seville Estonia Tallinn Dresden Arnhem Malaga Tartu Chemnitz Heerlen Murcia Finland Helsinki Greece Athens Enschede Bilbao Tampere Thessalonica Norway Oslo Cádiz Turku Hungary Budapest Bergen Coruña France Paris Debrecen Stavanger Sweden Stockholm Lille Miskolc Poland Warsaw Gothenburg Marseille Szeged Katowice-Zory Malmo Lyon Pecs Krakow Switzerland Zurich

Current Indicators Secondaries & Capitals:

•Population (1995-2007)•Total GDP (1995-2007)•GDP per capita (1995-2007)•Total employment (1998-2007)•Employment by sector (1998-2007)•High level of education (2008)•Employment rate (2008)•Unemployment rates (1999-2008)•Patent applications (2006-7)•Potential accessibility air (2001 & 2006)•Potential accessibility road (2001 & 2006)•Potential accessibility rail (2001 & 2006)•Potential accessibility multi-modal (2001 & 2006)•Net migration rates (2007)

How Selected Case Study Cities?

Mix - size, economic performance, national governance, territorial role location

• North Europe• Tampere - Finland

• West Europe• Cork - Ireland• Leeds – UK • Lyon - France

• Central Europe• Munich- Germany

• South Europe• Barcelona - Spain• Turin - Italy

• East, Central East and South Central Europe• Katowice - Poland• Timisoara - Romania

Purpose Case Study

• Places where key factors collide - test key hypotheses• Specific but generic • Powerful narrative – own story but wider significance • Relationships & contribution regional, national, European territory• Performance drivers - innovation, skills, connectivity, place quality,

governance• Relationship capital, rest national urban system• Impact explicit ,implicit national/regional policies • Future territorial, economic prospects• Key policy messages - local, regional, national, European

Methodology Case Studies

•Academic policy literature on city

•Existing economic plus additional local data within and across city- deprivation, life expectancy, earnings, crime, health, education, housing costs quality, transport, environment

• Economic development governance infrastructure - finance, public bodies, networks, collaborative agencies, universities

• Analysis key strategies and policies

• Interviews elected officials, civil servants, researchers, community groups, private sector, media.

• Interviews national partners

4. What Will We Produce?

Big picture for policy makers

• Accessible short report - key policy messages role secondaries & balanced territorial development Europe

More detailed picture for researchers

• Literature review

• Extensive quantitative data analysis, maps & tables

• Case study reports

• Questionnaire results

5. How Well Are We Doing?

•So far, so good – interest & support policy makers

•Inception report well received

•Literature mixed – quality, territory, focus - but developing

• Data analysis - much progress made

• Case studies – great support, methodology agreed, literature scoped, initial visits soon

• Questionnaire – great interest, piloted, already circulated 150 researchers policy makers, more to come

5. How Well Are We Doing?

SOME INITIAL CONTEXT

RELATIONSHIPS CAPITALS AND SECONDARIES

Top Secondary Outperforms Capital:Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Ireland

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 5-20%:Spain, UK, Netherlands, France

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 20-30%:Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Portugal

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 30-45%:Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 50-65%: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia