Territorial Structure: a comparative perspective (WP2.2.2)

Van Hamme Gilles, Kathy PainIGEAT-ULB

Internal Meeting october

2/25

Objectives

Objective 2: to analyse the impacts of territorial structures on European performances

How can territorial policy improve European competitiveness? For example, should we invest mainly in the global cities to improve Europe’s position in the world?

This means concretely: - To assess the contemporary urban structure in Europe, including the role

of gateways. More precisely, to assess the position of European cities in the global networks in a comparative perspective;

- To assess the internal mobility in the European space (people, goods and capital)

- To assess the territorial inequalities of Europe in a comparative and long term perspective.

3/25

1. European Urban structure in a comparative perspective

1 - Elaboration of a database of all cities with more than 500000 inhabitants which include: Population (1990-2007), GDP (six sectors 1995-2006), airflows and Fortune indicators (2005)

2 – Databases and analyses will be completed with original data coming from Flows and Networks’ WP (2.3). This should include GAWC (2000,2004, 2008), port gateways, financial data (cross-listings and real estates), airflows (1990-1999-2008-2010), Fortune,..

3 – The analysis should privilege the dynamic aspects since I guess we understand sufficiently well why urban structure is more concentrated in USA. Main questions relate to the dynamics of concentration (metropolitanization? At which scale? National- macro-regional - global) of:

- population; - GDP; - High level services;- Air and port networks.

4/25

Basic resultsTable 1. Population of major cities in US and Europe in 2006

Europe (ESPON space) USA Share of Share of

Rank of the cities

Total the cities population

The whole population

Total the cities

population The whole population

1 to 5 41 012 300 17% 8% 52 818 471 27% 18% 1 to10 61 055 900 25% 12% 78 639 292 40% 27% 1 to 20 87 813 300 37% 17% 112 803 829 58% 38% 1 to 50 139 554 600 58% 28% 160 919 486 83% 54%

Source: FOCI, Urban Audit, US Census Bureau Map 1. Population of cities (functional areas) with more than 500000 inhabitants in US and ESPON space, 2006

5/25

Basic results : airflows (2)

6/25

The GAWC data to assess Urban network dynamics in a comparative perspective

- Years: 2000, 2004, (first half) 2008

- Business services: Finance/banking, legal, accounting, advertising, consultancy

- Measurement: Size and functions of offices in each city

- Offices are scored from 0 (no office in a city) to 5 (headquarters functions)

2000 + 2004: 315 cities worldwide and 100 global firms2008: 526 cities worldwide and 175 global firms

7/25

Global ‘top 12’ - GNC 2000-8

‘Top 12’ - 2000 ‘Top 12’ -2008

1. LON 100.002. NY 97.103. HK 73.084. TOKYO 70.645. PARIS 69.726. SINGAPORE 66.617. CHICAGO 61.188. MILAN 60.449. MADRID 59.2310. LOS ANG 58.7511. SYDNEY 58.0612. FRANKFURT 57.53

1. NY 100.002. LON 99.323. HK 83.414. PARIS 79.685. SINGAPORE 76.156. TOKYO 73.627. SYDNEY 70.938. SHANGHAI 69.069. MILAN 69.0510. BEIJING 67.6511. MADRID 65.9512. MOSCOW 64.85

- NY and LON are now near equivalent - All US cities bar New York drop out of top rankings- Cities linking to the WCN from the semi-periphery increase their WCN

connectivity, e.g. Shanghai, Beijing, Moscow- Half the top 20 global service centres are now in the Asia Pacific region

8/25

NY – America’s exceptional C21st city

8

9/25

Territorial morphology versusglobal function/connectivity

9

10/25

Regional inequalities: a long term and comparative perspective

1. The importance of scale

2. Data from Eurostat (1980 onwards) and from IGEAT since 1960 (non homogenous divisions). Esatern Europe can only be included after 1995.

Data of Bureau of Economic Analysis allow a very long term perspective

3. Indicators and analyses- standard deviation of GDP per capita at different scales (national, NUTS2,

NUTS3)- Convergence measures of GDP per capita at different scales: - Comparison between GDP and incomes in order to assess spatial

redistribution of revenues at the NUTS2 level.

11/25

Question and discussion

1. Territorial structures and competitiveness (for the whole Europe and its components). What evidences from the project?

2. CoordinationHow to make concretely the connection between WP2.3 and this urban

structure assessment (port, airports, financial, real estate…)? - Complete a database- And then?

3. What determinants of the role of cities as nodes (centralities) in global spaces of flows?

To what extent does population size matter?Determinants of city high-level global service functions?Significance of corporate HQ functions?Role of transportation hubs/corridors?