Transcript Michael Parkinson, SGPTDE

INTERNAL SEMINAR: LIEGE 2010
SGPTDE
Secondary Cities:
Performance, Policies and Prospects
Professor 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
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
CITIES
Vienna
Linz
Graz
Salzburg
Innsbruck
Brussels
Antwerp
Liege
Gent
Charleroi
Sofia
Plovdiv
Varna
Zagreb
Split
Nicosia
Prague
Ostrava
Brno
Plzen
Hradec Kralove - Pardubice
Copenhagen
Aarhus
Aalborg
Odense
Tallinn
Tartu
Helsinki
Tampere
Turku
Paris
Lille
Marseille
Lyon
COUNTRY
France (cont.)
Germany
Greece
Hungary
CITIES
Lens - Liévin
Bordeaux
Rouen
Nantes
Grenoble
Toulouse
Strasbourg
Metz
Nice
Toulon
Montpellier
Rennes
Berlin
Düsseldorf-Ruhrgebiet
Frankfurt am Main
Hamburg
Köln-Bonn
Stuttgart
Munich
Bielefeld
Hannover
Nuremberg
Bremen
Mannheim
Leipzig
Dresden
Chemnitz
Athens
Thessalonica
Budapest
Debrecen
Miskolc
Szeged
Pecs
COUNTRY
Hungary (cont.)
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
CITIES
Gyor
Dublin
Cork
Rome
Milan
Naples
Turin
Bari
Palermo
Brescia
Catania
Salerno
Florence
Bologna
Genoa
Riga
Daugavpils
Vilnius
Kaunas
Klaipeda
Luxembourg
Valletta
Randstad North
Randstad South
Eindhoven
Arnhem
Heerlen
Enschede
Oslo
Bergen
Stavanger
Warsaw
Katowice-Zory
Krakow
COUNTRY
Poland (cont.)
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
CITIES
Gdansk
Wroclaw
Lodz
Poznan
Kielce
Wloclawek
Bydgoszcz
Szczecin
Lublin
Lisbon
Porto
Bucharest
Iasi
Craiova
Constanta
Cluj-Napoca
Timisoara
Bratislava
Kosice
Ljubljana
Maribor
Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Seville
Malaga
Murcia
Bilbao
Cádiz
Coruña
Stockholm
Gothenburg
Malmo
Zurich
COUNTRY
CITIES
Switzerland (cont.)
Geneva
Bern
Lausanne
Basel
London
Manchester
Birmingham
Bradford-Leeds
Glasgow
Sheffield
Liverpool
Newcastle u Tyne
Nottingham
Cardiff
Bristol
Leicester
Edinburgh
Belfast
UK
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