Transcript The EDORA “Typology”

EDORA:
European Development Opportunities
for Rural Areas
How does Cohesion Policy Support Rural Development?
DG Regio Seminar Brussels, 1st October 2009
The Overall Objectives (Specification)
…to describe the main processes of change which
are resulting in the increasing differentiation of
rural areas.
…to identify development opportunities and
constraints for different kinds of rural areas…
…to consider how such knowledge can be
translated into guiding principles to support the
development of appropriate cohesion policy.
The EDORA Approach
• A very wide-ranging task…
• Rural data availability is strongly influenced by the
agrarian rural development tradition.
• Being driven by the data availability risks “slipping
into well-trodden paths…”
• A hybrid “deductive/inductive” approach – first
establish territorial concepts and theory, then
empirical analysis and assessing policy
implications.
• Work so far has been mainly conceptual and
empirical… have not yet considered policy
implications in any detail.
Why a typology of Intermediate
and Predominantly Rural Regions?
• Wished to review explanatory potential of the DijkstraPoelman version of the OECD typology.
• Explore potential to elaborate it; add structure and
performance aspects to U-R dimension.
• Elaborated typology might then serve as a framework for
analysis of recent trends, consideration of future
perspectives, and policy implications.
N.B. It cannot be a typology of Rural Areas – two reasons:
(a)Rural areas do not function separately from adjacent
urban areas – they are connected by a dense web of
interactions.
(b)Smallest practicable data units are NUTS 3(2), most of
these contain sizable towns/cities.
It is a typology of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural
Regions.
The art of the possible…
• Typology should help us to understand the process
of regional differentiation.
• Methodology and structure of the typology should
not be driven by data availability or agrarian RD
traditions.
• Nevertheless, need to work within the limits set by
data availability.
• “Meta-Narratives” identified by EDORA highlighted
various dimensions of change, only some of them
can be “mapped” with existing data, e.g.:
– commodification – “consumption countryside”
– economic diversification – “restructuring”
The EDORA “Typology”
…more of a three-dimensional
framework for analysis,
rather than a onedimensional classification.
The three dimensions are:
•
•
•
Urban-Rural
D-P Typology:
IA,
IR,
PRA,
PRR
(remote/accessible)
Accumulation – DepletionTypes of Intermediate and
Predominantly Rural Areas:
(performance).
Economic structure ------------------------------------------------------Agrarian
(diversification).
…………………………………………..
Consumption Countryside
…………………………………………..
Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector)
………………………………………...
Diversified (Strong Market Services)
Accumulation - Depletion
Accumulation - Depletion Scores
NUTS 3
Unweighted Mean of Z Scores
>-1
Reykjavik
Note:
!
-0.99 - -0.50
-0.49 - 0.00
0.01 - 0.50
0.51 - 1.00
>1
PU Regions
This map shows the unweighted mean of the following indicators:
(i) Annual rate of net migration
(ii) Per Capita GDP (in PPS)
(iii) Annual rate of change in GDP (excluding regions where GDP
per capita is below NUTS 3 average)
(iv) Annual percentage change in total employment
(v) Average unemployment rate
Canarias
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Réunion
Helsinki
!
Oslo
Guyane
!
Tallinn
!
Stockholm
!
Madeira
Riga
!
København
!
Dublin
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Acores
Amsterdam
Berlin
!
London
Warszawa
!
!
!
Kyiv
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
!
Praha
Luxembourg
!
!
Paris
!
WienBratislava
!
!
Kishinev
Budapest
Bern
!
!
Vaduz
!
!
Ljubljana
!
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
Beograd
!
!
Sarajevo
!
Podgorica
Pristina
!
Madrid
Roma
!
Lisboa
Sofiya
!
!
Skopje
!
!
Ankara
Tirana
!
!
!
Athinai
!
El-Jazair
!
Nicosia
Tounis
Ar Ribat
!
!
!
Valletta
!
Agrarian Rural Economy Indicators
NUTS 3
Number of Indicators exceeding the NUTS 3 Mean
0
Note:
1
This map shows the number of the following indicators exceeding
the NUTS3 mean:
(i) Percentage of Private Sector GVA from Primary Industries.
(ii) Percentange of Private Sector Employment in Primary Industries.
(iii) AWU as a percentage of Total Private Sector Employment.
2
3
Reykjavik
!
Canarias
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Réunion
PU Regions
Helsinki
!
Oslo
Guyane
!
Tallinn
!
Stockholm
!
Madeira
Riga
!
København
!
Dublin
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Acores
Amsterdam
Berlin
!
London
Warszawa
!
!
!
Kyiv
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
!
Praha
Luxembourg
!
!
Paris
!
WienBratislava
!
!
Kishinev
Budapest
Bern
!
!
Vaduz
!
!
Ljubljana
!
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
Beograd
!
!
Sarajevo
!
Podgorica
Pristina
!
Madrid
Roma
!
Lisboa
Sofiya
!
!
Skopje
!
!
Ankara
Tirana
!
!
!
Athinai
!
El-Jazair
!
Nicosia
Tounis
Ar Ribat
!
!
!
Valletta
!
Consumption Countryside Indicators
NUTS 3
Number of Indicators exceeding the NUTS 3 mean
0
1
2
3
Reykjavik
Note:
This map shows the number of the following indicator groups with
at least one indicator exceeding the Rural NUTS3 mean:
(i) Tourism capacity and intensity
(ii) Proximity of natural public goods
(iii) Peri-productivist agriculture
!
Canarias
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Réunion
PU Regions
Helsinki
!
Oslo
Guyane
!
Tallinn
!
Stockholm
!
Madeira
Riga
!
København
!
Dublin
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Acores
Amsterdam
Berlin
!
London
Warszawa
!
!
!
Kyiv
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
!
Praha
Luxembourg
!
!
Paris
!
WienBratislava
!
!
Kishinev
Budapest
Bern
!
!
Vaduz
!
!
Ljubljana
!
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
Beograd
!
!
Sarajevo
!
Podgorica
Pristina
!
Madrid
Lisboa
Sofiya
!
!
Skopje
Roma
!
!
!
Ankara
Tirana
!
!
!
Athinai
!
El-Jazair
!
Nicosia
Tounis
Ar Ribat
!
!
!
Valletta
!
Secondary to Private Services Ratio (GVA)
NUTS 3
Ratio of GVA from NACE CE to GK
Reykjavik
!
0.00 - 0.25
Canarias
0.26 - 0.50
Guadeloupe
0.51 - 1.00
Martinique
Réunion
1.01 - 4.79
No data available
Helsinki
!
Oslo
Guyane
!
Tallinn
!
Stockholm
!
Madeira
Riga
!
København
!
Dublin
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Acores
Amsterdam
Berlin
!
London
Warszawa
!
!
!
Kyiv
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
!
Praha
Luxembourg
!
!
Paris
!
WienBratislava
!
!
Bern
Kishinev
Budapest
!
!
Vaduz
!
!
Ljubljana
!
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
Beograd
!
!
Sarajevo
!
Podgorica
Pristina
!
Madrid
Lisboa
!
!
Roma
!
Sofiya
!
Skopje
!
Ankara
Tirana
!
!
!
Athinai
!
El-Jazair
!
Nicosia
Tounis
Ar Ribat
!
!
!
Valletta
!
Typology of Intermediate and Predominantly Rural Areas
EDORA Project September 2009
NUTS 3
TYPES
Reykjavik
!
PU Regions
Canarias
Agrarian
Consumption Countryside
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Réunion
Diversified (Strong Secondary Sector)
Diversified (Strong Private Services Sector)
No data available
Helsinki
!
Oslo
Guyane
!
Tallinn
!
Stockholm
!
Madeira
Riga
!
København
!
Dublin
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Acores
Amsterdam
Berlin
!
London
Warszawa
!
!
!
Kyiv
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
!
Praha
Luxembourg
!
!
Paris
!
WienBratislava
!
!
Bern
Kishinev
Budapest
!
!
Vaduz
!
!
Ljubljana
!
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
Beograd
!
!
Sarajevo
!
Podgorica
Pristina
!
Madrid
Lisboa
Sofiya
!
!
Skopje
!
Roma
!
!
Ankara
Tirana
!
!
!
Athinai
!
El-Jazair
!
Nicosia
Tounis
Ar Ribat
!
!
!
Valletta
!
Some Summary Statistics…
Summary Statistics EDORA Typology (EU27)
Type
% of Regions % of Area % of Population % of GDP
PU
32.4
8.5
44.3
56.0
Agrarian
15.0
23.5
12.4
5.7
Consumption Countryside
12.9
20.6
7.0
6.7
Diversified (Secondary)
15.9
19.3
12.8
10.2
Diversified (Market Services)
23.9
28.1
23.5
21.5
“Agrarian” and “Consumption Countryside” regions
cover about 45% of the total area of the EU27, but only
19% of the population and 12% of the GDP.
By contrast the diversified regions cover almost 50% of
the area, 37% of the population and 32% of GDP.
Some Observations which may be relevant to the
policy discussion…
• Given the great diversity of Intermediate and
Predominantly Rural regions in the EU27, some form of
“targeting”, or regional sensitivity seems appropriate.
• The EDORA typology seems to suggest that there are
some dimensions of (macro scale) systematic variation in
performance and structure across the EU27 area.
• The EDORA typology shows that “Agrarian” and
“Consumption Countryside” regions cover less than half
the land area of the EU27, whilst the Diversified regions
of account for about half the area, have a substantially
greater share of the total population, and account for
about one-third of the economic activity of the EU.
• BUT…regional targeting is a crude tool:
– More appropriate for some forms of intervention than
others
– Need to beware the MAUP and the “ecological fallacy”.
Thank you for your attention….