Transcript Presentation title - Brussels Metropolitan

Metropolitan Brussels
2010 and beyond
Brussels Attractiveness Symposium
December 9th 2010
Martin Eichler
Senior Economist and Member of the Executive Board
Content
 Metro Brussels and the 2008/2009 crisis
 Metro Brussels structural performance
 Brussels and demography
 Brussels’ attractiveness


2
Attractiveness: in the long run a deciding factor for regional success
The attractiveness of Brussels revised
Regional definitions
Norrbotte ns lä n
Metro Brussels and the benchmarking regions
Vä s te rbotte ns lä n
Vä s te rnorrla nds lä n
J ä m tla nds lä n
Metro Brussels
Sample of benchmarking regions
Gä v le borgs lä n
Da la rna s lä n
Upps a la lä n
Vä s tm a nla nds lä n
Vä rm la nds lä n
Stokholm
Stoc k holm s lä n
Öre bro lä n
Söde rm a nla nds lä n
Edinburgh
Ös te rgötla nds lä n
Vä s tra Göta la nds lä n
Gotla nds lä n
J önk öpings lä n
Ka lm a r lä n
Halle-Vilvoorde
Brussels Capital Region
(Brussels C.R.)
Ha lla nds lä n
Kronobe rgs lä n
Ble k inge lä n
Sk å ne lä n
Randstad
London
Dublin
Berlin
Vl aam s G ew est
Brabant Walloon
Metro Brussels
Frankfurt
Br ussel - Hoof dst ad
Regi on Wal l onne
Luxembourg
Vienna
Paris
Zurich
Note
 All regions in this presentation
are metropolitan regions
if not stated otherwise
 MEAV: Metropolitan Average
(European)
Source
3
BAKBASEL
Lyon
Madrid
Milan
Metro Brussels and the 2008/2009 crisis
 How did Brussels perform during the 2008/2009 economic turmoil
compared to other metropolitan regions?
 What are the factors driving this performance?
 Which conclusions can be drawn for the future?
4
Real GDP growth
Different impact of the crises on metropolitan regions
5%
2008
4%
2009
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-5%
-6%
Note
Source
5
M
ila
n
bl
in
Du
m
ol
St
oc
kh
nd
on
t
Lo
fu
r
h
In % p.a. (at constant prices and PPP), sorted according to growth 2007-2009
BAKBASEL
Fr
an
k
ric
Zu
gh
in
b
ur
V
Ed
M
EA
na
Vi
en
st
ad
rid
Ra
nd
M
ad
Pa
ri s
bo
M
ur
et
g
ro
Br
us
se
ls
lin
Lu
xe
m
Be
r
Ly
on
-7%
Ag
ri c
u
Ex ltur
tra e
Te
ct
io
xt
n
ile
Pa
F
&
o
pe
clo od
r,
th
pr
in
in
g
t.
W
&
o
pu o d
bl
ish
Ot
.
Fu
h. Ru
no bb Ch els
n- er em
m & ic
et p al
al la
M
lic st
e
Co ch
m ics
in
m an
er
pu i c
al
te al e
M
rs
ng e
El & o ine tal
Pr ect ffic eri
ec ric e ng
isi & eq
Tr on ele uip
an &
c .
s p op tro
Ot or tic nic
he t e al
r m qu in
s
a n i pm .
uf e n
ac
tu t
ri
U t ng
C
Tr on ilit
ad st ie
e ru s
an cti
d on
Re
To pair
u
Co Tr rism
a
m
m ns p
un o r
ica t
Bu
t
No s in F ion
n- e s i na
n
m s
ar se ce
ke rv
t s ice
er s
vic
es
Industries react differently on crisis
Slump in economic activities 2009 vs. 2005-2007
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
Note
Source
6
Aggregate economy
-20%
-25%
-30%
-35%
Growth of GVA, in % p.a., 2009 minus average 2005-2007, in Western Europe (WE17)
BAKBASEL
Different industry structures in regions
Regions are differently exposed to the economic downturn
0%
0%
Non-market services
Metro Brussels
-5%
Growth of GVA
Growth of GVA
-10%
-15%
-10%
Stuttgart
Trade and repair
Construction
Finance
Business Services
Construction
-5%
Non-market
services
Business Services
Finance
-15%
-20%
-20%
Transport equipment
Computers & office equip.
Computers & office equip.
-25%
-25%
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
-30%
-6%
0%
-30%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
Share of GVA
8%
10%
12%
14%
-4%
8%
Business Services
Finance
-10%
-15%
-20%
Transport equipment
Transport equipment
Computers & office equip.
-25%
-25%
Mechanical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
-30%
-30%
-5%
0%
5%
Share of GVA
7
6%
London
Construction
Growth of GVA
Growth of GVA
Construction
Business Services
Finance
-20%
Source
4%
-5%
Electric & electronic
Note
2%
Share of GVA
Non-market
services
Turku
-15%
-10%
0%
0%
Non-market
services
-5%
-10%
-2%
10%
15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
Share of GVA
x-axis: derivation of share of GVA of industry in regions economy from Western Europe share
y-axis: Growth of GVA, in % p.a., average 2009/2010 minus average 2005-2007, in Western Europe (WE17)
BAKBASEL
15%
20%
25%
Real GDP development 2007 to 2009
Metro Brussels did fairly well
110
105
Paris
London
Berlin
Frankfurt
Milan
Randstad
Vienna
Dublin
Stockholm
Lyon
Madrid
Zurich
Edinburgh
Luxembourg
Metro Brussels
MEAV
100
95
Note
Source
8
Index 2007=100 based on real GDP (at constant prices and exchange rates, PPP corrected)
BAKBASEL
20
09
20
08
20
07
90
Forecasts for growth of real GDP
Perspectives for Metro Brussels in the coming years are good
2010
2011
2012-2016
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
Note
Source
9
In % p.a.
BAKBASEL, Oxford Economics
M
ila
n
lin
Be
r
rid
M
ad
t
fu
r
n
Fr
an
k
Ly
o
h
ric
Zü
Pa
ri s
na
Vi
en
st
ad
Ra
nd
gh
ur
Ed
in
b
ss
el
s
Br
u
g
bo
ur
M
et
ro
lm
xe
m
ho
Lu
St
ok
bl
in
Du
Lo
nd
on
-2%
Metro Brussels structural performance
 Metro Brussels performance during 2008/2009:
Coping with the crises due to structural strength?
 Is Metro Brussels keeping up with other metropolitan regions in economic
advancement in the middle term?
 Which role plays the internal structure of the Metro Brussels region?
10
GDP per capita 2009
Metro Brussels amongst the most productive regions in Europe
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
m
xe
Lu
g
ur
o
b
Note
Source
11
n
do
n
Lo
s
us
r
B
s
el
r
Zu
ich
ri s
Pa
a
nn
e
Vi
oc
St
m
ol
kh
lin
b
Du
d
ta
s
nd
Ra
In 1'000 US$ (at constant prices and exchange rates, PPP corrected)
BAKBASEL
Ly
on
Fr
rt
fu
k
an
M
V
EA
n
ila
M
id
M
r
ad
Ed
h
rg
u
b
in
r
Be
lin
Real GDP growth trends since 1990
In the longer run Metro Brussels growth is less impressive
280
260
240
220
200
180
Paris
London
Berlin
Milan
Frankfurt
Randstad
Vienna
Dublin
Stockholm
Madrid
Lyon
Zurich
Edinburgh
Metro Brussels
Luxembourg
MEAV
160
140
120
100
Note:
Source:
12
Index 1990=100 based on real GDP (at constant prices and exchange rates, PPP corrected)
BAKBASEL
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
80
Sources of growth 2000-2009
Participation is a key challenge for Metro Brussels
6%
GDP
hourly productivity
hours worked per person
population
participation
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
Note
Source
13
In % p.a. (at constant prices and exchange rates, PPP corrected)
BAKBASEL
i la
n
M
rli
n
Be
nk
fu
rt
h
Fr
a
ric
Zu
nn
a
Vi
e
d
nd
st
a
Ra
Pa
ris
EA
V
M
us
se
ls
Br
et
ro
kh
ol
m
M
St
oc
Ly
on
bu
rg
h
Ed
in
Lo
nd
on
ad
rid
M
lin
Du
b
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
-3%
Growth of real GDP, employment and population, 2000 to 2009
Different patterns in the different parts of Metro Brussels
120
Real GDP
118
Employment
116
Population
Brussels Capital Region
114
112
110
108
106
104
102
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
100
130
Real GDP
125
120
Brabant Walloon and Halle-Vilvoorde
Employment
Population
115
110
105
Note
Source
14
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
100
Index, 1990=100, based on real GDP (GDP at constant prices and exchange rates, PPP corrected)
BAKBASEL
Share of industries, 1980 to 2009
Strong structural change in Metro Brussels …
Metro Brussels
9.0%
3.3%
4.0%
0.1%
2.2%
0.8%
3.8%
8.7%
0.1%
6.7%
1.9% 3.7%
9.5%
5.8%
2.6%
4.8%
5.2%
0.7%
2.8%
8.3%
1.8%
5.9%
2.7%
5.1%
12.4%
10.6%
13.9%
12.7%
Metropolitan
Regions
Average
8.0%
11.0%
9.1%
14.0%
2.9%
2009
2.8%
8.9%
12.8%
4.8%
4.4%
5.3%
1990
17.6%
15
12.7%
17.9%
11.8%
5.0%
in %, based on USD at current prices and exchange rates
BAKBASEL
11.2%
2009
0.6%
Pharmaceuticals and chemicals
Hotels, restaurants, etc (a55+a92)
Banking and insurance
Business Services excl. Real Estate (a71-a74)
Health and social services
Other prim. and sec. sector
Trade and repair
Public administration and other tert. sector
Note
Source
4.8%
10.3%
1.2%
1.2%
5.3%
9.8%
6.4%
4.7%
1990
0.6%
5.3%
15.0%
10.8%
4.6%
Precision and optical equipment, watches
Logistics
Real estate
Education and research (a73+a80)
Interest groups and other associations
Construction
Postal service and telecommunications
10.1%
Share of industries, 1980 to 2009
… with the parts of MB developing quite differently
Brussels
Capital
Region
1.1%
0.1%
1.1%
10.5%
0.9%
4.2%
11.9%
4.4%
0.1%
5.6%
4.5%
5.0% 4.3%
19.4%
5.5%
13.4%
2.3%
2.2%
0.1%
7.9%
8.2%
10.2%
2.4%
2009
5.4%
1.6%
8.1%
15.7%
16.6%
1990
7.8%
5.0%
5.0%
16
4.0%
3.5%
1.5%
8.6%
4.3%
Pharmaceuticals and chemicals
Hotels, restaurants, etc
Business Services excl. Real Estate
Interest groups and other associations
Health and social services
Other prim. and sec. sector
Trade and repair
Public administration and other tert. sector
Note
Source
13.8%
18.2%
2.4%
11.2%
Walloon Brabant
and
Halle-Vilvoorde
21.1%
16.3%
11.1%
5.1% 5.2%
1.2%
4.7%
0.1%
in %, based on USD at current prices and exchange rates
BAKBASEL
15.8%
2009
5.0%
10.5%
2.3%
4.4%
13.6%
1990
2.1% 4.6%
5.1%
0.3%
13.2%
Precision and optical equipment, watches
Logistics
Education and research
Real estate
Banking and insurance
Construction
Postal service and telecommunications
0.3%
Brussels demography
 Exceptional population growth in Brussels?
 Is it a source for economic growth?
17
Growth of Population, 1990 to 2009
Population growth in Metro Brussels strong but not exceptional
2.0%
90-00
00-09
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Note
Source
18
In % p.a.
BAKBASEL
Fr
an
kf
ur
t
Be
rli
n
Ra
nd
st
ad
Pa
ris
rg
h
Ed
in
bu
Lo
nd
on
Ly
on
M
EA
V
M
ila
n
ho
lm
s
St
oc
k
Br
us
se
l
Vi
en
na
M
et
ro
Zu
ric
h
Du
bl
in
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
M
ad
rid
-0.5%
Population forecasts, 2000-2060
Strong population growth in Brussels due to external migration
Brussels Capital Region
Population level
Population change (per year)
1'400'000
Population change
40'000
Net external migration
1'200'000
Net internal migration
30'000
1'000'000
Natural change
20'000
800'000
10'000
600'000
0
400'000
-10'000
200'000
-20'000
0
2000
Note
Source
19
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
In persons
Bruessel Studies (Bureau du Plan, 17. mars 2009)
2060
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
Brussels populations growth
Sources?
Students
Investors /
Entrepreneurs
Refugees
Highly qualified
migrants
low qualified
migrants
Tourists
Less qualified
migrants
Retirees
20
Family members of
migrants
The attractiveness of regions
 Does it matter?
 What is “attractiveness” of regions?
 Which kind of attractiveness is relevant for metropolitan regions in Western
Europe?
21
Why attractiveness and openness matters?

Cities in the Western hemisphere can only maintain their lead in economic
welfare when they manage to keep ahead in productivity

This requires permanent innovation …

… which, in turn, requires the best people
(talents, creative class, highly qualified)

The demand for talents is increasing and talents are increasingly mobile
 Cities and regions compete in attracting and retaining human capital from
all over the world
=>Policy makers need indicators to evaluate differences in both
quality of life performance and openness among regions and to
better design and assess regional policies!
22
A basic model for discussion
The way to long-term economic performance
The ultimate goal is welfare. Its indicator is long-term economic performance.
Attractiveness
people
Potential
resources
structures
Openness
people
Long-term economic performance
(welfare)
Source
23
BAKBASEL
companies
companies
A basic model for discussion
Determination factors
 Potential: What is the economic foundation of the regional economy (today)?


Resources: Availability of productive manpower and capital
Structures: Portfolio of industry sectors, manpower and capital
 Attractiveness: How attractive is it to go to a city/region
(and stay there for some time)?
 People‘s climate: Quality of life for talents, workers, students and retirees
 Business climate: Framework conditions for companies
 Openness: Is there access, or how easy is access to all relevant goods?


24
for people: absence of barriers for entry and staying (and leaving)
for business: absence of barriers for starting and conducting
(and closing) a company
Talents and economic development
How to solve the «hen and egg» problem?
People follow jobs
versus

Jobs follow people

One empirical result
25

In the short run: people follow jobs

In the long run: jobs follow people
Note
Granger-Causality test: employment and population, 40 metropolitan regions in Europe and
the US, 26 years (1980 – 2006)
Source
BAKBASEL
The attractiveness of Brussels
 Is there a concept to measure the relevant attractiveness?
 What can we say about Brussels?
 How can Brussels further assess and exploit its attractiveness?
26
Economic attractiveness – Quality of life – Openness
Overlapping concepts for measurement
 Attractiveness is a multi-dimensional issue
 Not one but numerous indicators and measurement concepts available
 Summarized as indices
BAK
Attractiveness
Index
 These indices are predominantly based
on quantitatively measurable indicators
 Alternative: subjective questionnaires
27
BAK
Quality
of Life
Index
Index of
Openness
BAK Attractiveness Index
Brussels faces some disadvantages vis-à-vis its competitors
120
115
110
105
100
Note
Source
28
Index, WE17 = 100, 2009, no data available for MEAV and Luxembourg
BAKBASEL
on
Ly
rid
M
ad
pe
Eu
ro
n
M
ila
n
W
es
te
r
lin
Be
r
na
St
oc
kh
ol
m
Ed
in
bu
rg
h
Br
us
se
ls
Vi
en
Pa
ri s
bl
in
Du
t
fu
r
Fr
an
k
nd
on
Lo
st
ad
Ra
nd
Zu
ric
h
95
Brussels: Attractiveness profile
“Belgium” factors create a disadvantage for Brussels
25%
50%
Taxation (Companies)
Accessibility
Taxation (Manpower)
Accessibility (Global)
Regulation
Taxation
--
Regulation (Product Market)
Accessibility (Continental)
Regulation (Labour Market)
Innovation
Universities quality: TS per 100'000 inhabitants
Patent density
Publication density
Expenditures on research and development
Brussels
Note
Source
29
Position of Brussels within the benchmarking sample (for each indicator, percentiles)
Higher values indicate a better performance; IBD 2010
BAKBASEL
75%
++
Company taxation and taxation of highly qualified* manpower,
2009
60%
Brussels
taxation of manpower
55%
Milan
Stockholm
50%
Paris
45%
Dublin
40%
MEAV
Randstad
Vienna
Lyon
Frankfurt
Berlin
35%
Luxembourg
Madrid
London, Edinburgh
Zurich
30%
25%
10%
Note
Source
30
15%
20%
25%
taxation of companies
Effective average tax rates (EATR) in %, *disposable income of EUR 100‘000/single person
BAKBASEL, ZEW
30%
35%
Attractiveness of a region
A broad approach is necessary
 People can not be forced but must be attracted!
 Concepts


Richard Florida
the creative class
Edward Glaeser
identifies factors to attract highly qualified people like:
High incomes, rich variety of services and goods, aesthetics and physical
setting, good public services, speed (commuting time), …
 Florida and Glaeser measure different aspects of quality of life
 They should be used combined
31
BAK–Qality of Life–Index Construction
Income and
Consumption
Housing
Market
Labour
Market
Access to
Markets
Safety
Economic
Conditions
Health
Quality of Life
Index
Societal
Conditions
Education
Environmental
Conditions
Culture and
Amenities
Climate
Pollution
 A total of 28 indicators is used
32
Traffic
Quality-of-Life Index
Again, Brussels at the lower part of the ranking
70
60
Economy
50
Society
Environment
40
30
20
10
M
ila
no
ar
t
ut
tg
St
Pa
ris
an
kf
ur
t
Br
ux
el
le
s
Fr
eb
or
g
n
Gö
t
do
Lo
n
nk
i
lsi
He
m
oc
kh
ol
se
l
St
Ba
na
rc
el
o
n
W
ie
Ba
Kø
be
nh
av
Am
n
st
er
da
m
0
Quelle: BAK Basel Economics
Note
Source
33
Weighted ranking points, 2007; some data preliminary (including some data for Brussels)
BAKBASEL
Quality-of-Life Index: Societal conditions
50
Safety
Education
40
Health
Leisure
30
20
10
St
ut
tg
ar
t
M
ila
no
kf
ur
t
Fr
an
se
l
n
ie
W
Ba
öt
eb
or
g
Ba
rc
el
on
a
s
G
le
Br
ux
el
Lo
nd
on
is
St
oc
kh
ol
m
Am
Pa
r
ki
st
er
da
m
sin
el
H
Kø
be
nh
av
n
0
Quelle: BAK Basel Economics
Note
Source
34
Weighted ranking points, 2007; some data preliminary (including some data for Brussels)
BAKBASEL
Brussels: Quality of Life index
 Economic


Market Access and Property Markets are at competitive level …
… but Labour Markets and Income limit the achievements of Brussels in
this field
 Society



Strongest area for Brussels
Safety is the only limiting factor compared to the competitors …
… while Education, Health and Leisure all contribute positively
 Environment


Climate and Location build a disadvantage for Brussels
Infrastructure available for traffic is fairly good, Pollution is about average
 Note: Results are partly based on preliminary data, which is also true for Brussels,
particularly for the data used in the Environment section of the index
35
Brussels’ position in other rankings
Liveability
 Quality of Living survey by Mercer Consulting:
Brussels is ranked 15th from 221 cities compared.
Similarly to the BAK QoL-Index Brussels is behind Copenhagen,
Amsterdam, Vienna, Stockholm, Frankfurt and Munich,
but before Stuttgart, Milano and Paris.
 European Cities Monitor (Cushman & Wakefield):
Brussels is ranked 4th in “best cities to locate a business today”.
But in terms of “quality of life for employees” Brussels is outside the top 10;
it is ranked 16th from 35 cities
behind Copenhagen, Barcelona, Madrid, Munich, Stockholm and Vienna.
36
Brussels’ position in other rankings
Global city
 GaWC studies (Globalisation and World Cities Research Network):
Cities ranked from Alpha++ world cities (New York, London),
Alpha+ world cities (e.g. Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo)
to Gamma- world cities.
Brussels is a Alpha world cities together with Madrid, Moscow, Seoul,
Toronto etc.
 Global Cities Index (Foreign Policy et al)
“the world biggest, most interconnected cities help to set global agendas…”
Brussels is ranked 11th. It reaches the third place among the European
cities, behind London and Paris.
 Global Power City Index (consultant firm Knight Frank LLP and Citibank)
rank “the world most influential cities according to economic activity,
political power, knowledge and influence as well as quality of life”.
Brussels reaches place 6
behind New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Los Angeles.
37
The complementary concept of «Openness»
What is openness?
Openness is the quality and sum of local conditions to attract and retain
international populations (Towards OPENCities 2008)
Places are open to new people and ideas if they have “low barriers of entry”
(Florida 2004)
Thus cities have to be
 attractive, so that people want to go and stay there
 open, so that people can go and stay there
Openness is equivalent to
 low barriers of entry for international populations
 easy integration and participation for international populations
38
The complementary concept of «Openness»
Open for whom?
Students
Investors /
Entrepreneurs
Refugees
Highly qualified
migrants
low qualified
migrants
Tourists
Less qualified
migrants
Retirees
39
Family members of
migrants
How can openness be measured?
 Openness is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon
 It can be measured by a large number of indicators which measure different
aspects of openness
 The indicators can be grouped thematically (e.g. into areas)
 Each of these key factors represents one of the various dimensions of the
quality of life of all inhabitants. Special attention is paid to the international
populations which are important for the attractiveness and openness of the
city
40
Indicators grouped systematically
54 internationally comparable indicators, aggregated to
11 areas:
 Migration
 Freedom
 Barriers of entry
 Quality of living
 Intern. presence
 Education
 International flows
 Intrastructure
 International events
 Standard of living
 Diversity Actions
or 3 policy themes:
 Internationalisation
 Leadership & Governance
 Managing diversity
41
42
43
Summing up
 Economic performance of Brussels



Was good during crisis …
… but limited in a broader view
There are challenges ahead
 Attractiveness of the Brussels region …



… is high – clearly a world city
… often good in perceptions
… but not confirmed by quantitative indicators
 Options


44
Awareness of the importance of high potentials
Better understanding and monitoring of attractiveness
Thank you for your attention!
Contact
BAK Basel Economics AG
Gueterstrasse 82
CH-4052 Basel
Switzerland
Tel + 41 61 279 97 14
Fax + 41 61 279 97 28
[email protected]
www.bakbasel.com
Martin Eichler
Senior Economist
& Executive Board
45
Definition Benchmarking Regions
Region
IBC notation
Country
IB Key
Type
Delimitation
Brussels
Greater Brussels
BEL
BELMB
IBMember
Metropolitan Region
Paris
Ile de France
FK
FK11
NUTS
ZEAT
London
Greater London
UK
UKI
NUTS
Region of England
Berlin
Berlin
DE
BN
NUTS
Bundesland
Frankfurt
FrankfurtRheinMain
DE
RM
BAKBASEL
IB-Aggregat
Milan
Milano
IT
IT205
NUTS
Provincie
Randstad
Randstad
NL
RD
BAKBASEL
Metropolitan Region
Vienna
Wien
AT
AT13
NUTS
Bundesland
Dublin
Greater Dublin Area
IR
IRGD
BAKBASEL
Metropolitan Region
Stockholm
Stockholm
SE
SE01
NUTS
Riksområden
Lyon
Rhône
FK
FK716
NUTS
Département
Madrid
Comunidad de Madrid
ES
ES3
NUTS
Agrupación de CCAA
Zurich
Zürich
CH
ZH
NUTS
Kanton, BFS-Grossreg.
Edinburgh
Metropolitan Edinburgh
UK
UKME
BAKBASEL
Metropolitan Region
Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
LUX
LUX
NUTS
National Level
MEAV
Metropolitan Regions
Average
MEAV
BAKBASEL
Average of the group of Metropolitan
Regions
Note:
46
All regions are either official statistical regions (NUTS-classification) or an aggregate thereof
Sources
All data in this Chart-Set are from the «International Benchmarking Database» by
BAKBASEL. For the BAKBASEL list of data within the International Benchmarking Programme
please consult the «International Benchmarking Report».
© Copyright for data and figures BAK Basel Economics AG.
The data included herein are taken or derived from various data sources, among them
particularly:
- National and regional statistical offices, EUROSTAT
- International Comparisons of Output and Productivity (ICOP), University of Groningen
- Thomson Scientific Ltd. (TS), London, UK, © Copyright Thomson Scientific 2006
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University
- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris (OECD)
- Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim (ZEW)
- Institute for traffic planning and transportation systems, Zürich (IVT)
For further Information please contact:
Marc Bros de Puechredon
[email protected]
47