Transcript Sectorial background of urban–rural economic development

Sectorial background of
urban–rural economic
development inequalities
dr. Jeney László
Senior lecturer
[email protected]
Economic Foundations of Local Development
Module 1/b: Urban and Rural development by sectors
Autumn term 2015/2016.
CUB Department of Economic Geography and Futures Studies
Shifting of the economic Core
2
Geographical concentration of the
economy still remained in the Core
Economic development:
GDP per capita
Economic density:
area GDP per area
3
The European Pentagon

Pentagon/Core
– Area: 20%
– Population: 40%
– GDP: 50%

Cities over 500 thousand
residents:
–
–
–
–
population: 20%
GDP: 29%
GDP/cap.: 141%
GDP-growth: faster with +8%point
4
Economic Importance of
Cities in North America

Economic development measured only with per
capita GDP
–
–
–
–

At current market prices in €
Examined area: V4 Countries (CZ. HU. PL. SK)
Examined regional level: NUTS3
Examined period: 1995–2004
Data source: Eurostat
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
Proportion of cities in Canada/USA
country
population
GDP
USA (SMA)
38%
49%
Canada (CMA)
45%
54%
5
Key Factors of Urban
Competitiveness in European
Space Structure
The subject of research. basic
assumptions

New factors affecting the regional processes of
East Central Europe at the turn of the
millennium
–
–
–


Transition (the end of the bipolar world system)
Integration (accession to the European Union)
Globalization
Dynamic take-off. but cities and rural regions
get different developmental impulses
Dual effects on economic pattern of V4
Countries (trade-off theories)
–
–
Divergence in urban–rural relation
7
Convergence in pan-European relation (catching-up)
Definition of the Concept of Cities
and Rural Regions

City (urban region)
– Only on the basis of population
number: over half million population +
Bratislava
– Without suburbs
– Actually data refer to regions at NUTS3
level (Bratislava  Bratislavský County)

Rural region
– Not only villages
– Not only regions with rural characters
(e. g. sparse population. importance of
agriculture)
– Complementary regions (total area8
outside the cities)
Database used

Economic development measured only with per
capita GDP
–
–
–
–

At current market prices in €
Examined area: V4 Countries (CZ. HU. PL. SK)
Examined regional level: NUTS3
Examined period: 1995–2004
Data source: Eurostat
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
9
Cities as positive residuums of the
East Central European space
structure
V4
EU
population
2004
(million)
GDP 2004
(billion €)
per capita
GDP 2004 (€
per capita)
GDP growth
1995–2004
(%)
Total
64
407
6377
206
Cities
8
106
13368
237
12%
26%
210%
+31%-point
20%
29%
141%
10
+8%-point
Relative
state of
cities
Growing Importance of Cities in
European Economic Pattern


Economic Development State of
Cities and Rural Regions Related
to their National Average. 2004.
Studying success of cities
becomes a key issue for
current European regional
trends and regional policy
Most of the cities over
average
– Some countries: only the
cities are over average (e. g.
V4)
– Some countries: other
inequality factors are more
important (Germany. Italy.
Romania. Spain)
11
Measuring Urban–Rural Duality

DUR: urban–rural duality index
DUR


xU

xR
xU: average per capita GDP of cities in a country
xR: average per capita GDP of rural regions in a
country
12
Differences of Urban–Rural Duality
in Member States of EU. 2004

Cities over 500.000 residents:
–
–
–
–

Source of data:
Eurostat. basis of
map: World
Gazetteer
DU R
xU

xR
population: 20%
GDP: 29%
GDP/cap.: 141%
GDP-growth: faster with +8%point
Measuring Urban–Rural
Duality
– DUR: urban–rural duality index
– xU: average per capita GDP of
cities in a country
– xR: average per capita GDP of
rural regions in a country 13
Relationship Between State of
Development and Urban–Rural
Duality for EU Members. 2004
3.5
Poland
Latvia
3.0
urban–rural duality index
Germany
Slovakia
Hungary
2.5
Czech Republic
Bulgari
a
Romani
a
y = -3E-05x + 2.4688
R2 = 0.4989
Poland
France
Belgiu
m
Portugal
2.0
France
Lithuani
a
Greece
1.5
Italy
Spain
Spain
Netherland
United Kingdom
s
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Austria
United Kingdom
Netherland
Sweeden
s
Denmark
Ireland
Italy
1.0
0
5000
10000
Source of data: EuroStat
15000
20000
25000
national per capita GDP, €
30000
35000
40000
14
Post-socialist countries:
characterized with growing
urban–rural dualism
3.0
2.8
Source of data: EuroStat
Dur, urban–rural duality index
2.6
2.4

1995
2004
2.2

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
ly
re
ec
e
Ita
G
EU
Ire
la
n
U
Fi d
ni
nl
te
an
d
K
in d
g
N
et dom
he
rla
nd
Li
th s
ua
n
Sw ia
ed
en
Sp
ai
n
Sl
ov
ak
ia
B
el
gi
um
H
un
ga
ry
B
ul
ga
ri a
C
ze
La
ch
tv
i
R
ep a
ub
lic
Po
la
nd
Po
rt
ug
a
Fr l
an
c
R
om e
an
i
D
en a
m
ar
k
A
us
tr
i
G
er a
m
an
y
1.0
Chiefly the
outstanding of
capitals
More remarkable in
case of
underdeveloped.
catching-up V4
countries than
older members
Change of Urban–Rural
Duality in EU Member
States. 1995–2004
15
Role of urban–rural inequality
in overall regional inequalities

Measuring overall economic inequalities at level of NUTS3 regions
(H. Hoover index):
n
H
x f
i 1
i
i
2
– n: number of regions at NUTS3 level (n = 87 for Visegrad Countries)
– xi: share of “i” region of the total GDP of the country
– fi: share of “i” region of the total population of the country

Measuring urban–rural inequalities (Hur: Hoover index same
formula)
– n = 2 (aggregate of 8 cities and aggregate of 79 rural NUTS3 regions)

Role of urban–rural inequality with the overall regional inequalities
(Rur):
H ur
Rur 
 100
H
16
Degree of urban–rural inequality
in proportion to the overall
regional inequalities in EU. 2004
30
26
25
level of NUTS3 regions, H
urban–rural level, Hur
%, Hoover index
20
19
15
15
15
15
14
12
26
14
13
11
14
14
15
13
13
13
11
10
9
10
18
8
14
5
14
13
12
12
12
11
11
10
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
6
10
9
5
5
4
Source of data: EuroStat
ly
Ita
y
va
ki
a
B
ul
ga
r
Po ia
C
ze
ch rtug
a
R
ep l
ub
li c
Po
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Fr
an
c
Li
th e
ua
ni
a
B
el
gi
um
Fi
nl
an
d
Ire
la
n
R
om d
an
ia
U
ni
A
us
te
d
tr
ia
K
in
gd
o
Sw m
ed
e
G
er n
m
an
D
en y
m
N
a
et
he rk
rla
nd
s
Sp
ai
n
ga
r
Sl
o
un
H
La
tv
ia
0
17
Role of urban–rural inequality in
overall regional inequalities of EU
member states. 2004
Hur: urban–rural
inequality
Rur: role of Hur in overall
regional inequalities (H)
18
Source of data: EuroStat
Groups of EU members according
to the inequality at urban–rural
and NUTS3 regional level. 2004.
Hur. urban–rural
H. overall regional Rur. role of urban– Types of countries
inequality at
NUTS3 level
(10%)
rural inequality in
overall regional
inequalities (70%)
High
High
High
BG. CZ. F. GR. LV.
LT. H. P. PL. SK
Low
High
Low
A. B. GB. D. I. RO
Low
Low
High
SF. S
Low
Low
Low
DK. NL. E
inequality (10%)
Source of data: EuroStat
19
Role of urban–rural inequality in
overall regional inequalities in V4
countries. Hoover-index 2004
25
25
Source of data: EuroStat
21
19
20
Hoover index, %
16
18
15
15
17
14 15
13
14
15
14
14
12
12
12
12
10
10
8
8
8
7
8
5
0
Hungary
Slovakia
v4
H 1995
H 2004
Czech Republic
Hur 1995
Hur 2004
Poland
EU 20
Role of urban–rural inequality in
overall regional inequalities of V4
member states. Hoover index 2004
100
90
80
70
%, Rur
60
50
100
98
94
40
79
79
30
20
39
10
0
Czech
Republic
Slovakia
Source of data: EuroStat
Hungary
Poland
V4
EU 21
State of cities and rural regions as
compared to the national averages
of V4 member countries. 2004.
22
Economic development state of
cities and rural regions related to
their national average in EU. 2004.



Most of the cities
over average
In some countries
only the cities are
over average (e. g.
V4)
In some countries
other inequality
factors are more
important
(Germany. Italy.
Romania. Spain)23
Post-socialist cities are to join to
the 2nd level of European citynetwork


Post-socialist cities: new development wave (similar to Southern
Periphery) based chiefly on international investments
New European models on Peripheries should adjust the classic
urban zone of Blue Banana
– Sunbelt or (Golden Banana)
– Central European Boomerang)
24
The sectoral background of the
urban–rural development
inequalities
V4: success of cities not
independent of the shift of their
sectoral structure
V4: success of cities not independent of the shift of
their sectoral structure

–
–
Increase of urban–rural inequality is mainly tertiary based
Industrial renewal hide in the background of fine differences
among rural regions
Agriculture
Industry
Services
Cities 1995–
2004.
1.3
1.8
2.6
Rural regions
1995–2004.
1.3
1.9
2.1
Growth Indexes of Gross Value Added (GVA)
in the Sectors in V4 Countries. 1995–2004.
26
Growth of GDP and GVA by
Sectors for Cities and Rural
Regions
GDP
Agriculture
Industry
Services
Czech rural regions
2.0
1.4
2.1
2.0
Hungarian rural regions
2.3
1.7
2.3
2.5
Polish rural regions
1.8
1.2
1.7
2.1
Slovakian rural regions
2.2
1.6
2.2
2.4
Prague
2.4
1.4
1.9
2.6
Budapest
2.3
1.1
1.6
2.6
Polish cities
2.4
1.5
2.3
2.4
Bratislava
2.3
1.1
2.1
Total GDP
2.1
1.3
1.9
27
2.4
2.2
Regional and Sectoral Shifts
within Industry after
Transition (1992–1998): The
Case of Hungary
Regional Shifts in Hungarian
Industry. 1992–1998.
1992
1998
Employment:
995 790
750 900
BUDAPEST (%)
29
22
Industrial output
23 524
33 316
BUDAPEST (%)
36
24
Industrial export
5 449
16 371
FEJÉR county (%)
7
22
BUDAPEST (%)
38
17
29
Sectoral Shifts in Hungarian
Industry. 1992–1998.
Industries
1992
1998
Employment
Output
Export
Machinery and equipment (%)
21
25
Textile. wearing apparel. leather products (%)
15
17
Food. beverages and tobacco products (%)
18
16
Machinery and equipment (%)
13
36
Food. beverages and tobacco products (%)
23
17
Chemical industry (%)
19
15
Electricity. gas. steam and water supply (%)
20
12
Machinery and equipment (%)
27
61
Chemical industry (%)
25
Food. beverages and tobacco products (%)
18
30
12
8
Changes in Regional Industrial
Specialization in Hungary. 1992–
1998. Hirschman–Herfindahl index

1992
1998
employment
output
M
M
M
Me
F
E
F
M
F
E
export
C
C
M
M
Me
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
31
Regional Differences of the
Economic Development Level in
Hungary. 1998. (NUTS3)
32
Conclusions
Postsocialist countries: characterized with growing
urban–rural dualism
1.
–
–
–
Chiefly the outstanding of capitals
More remarkable in case of underdeveloped. catching-up V4
countries than older members (proving of Williamson’s
hypothesis)
Not only the urban–rural inequality increases. but its role is
more and more appreciated in overall regional inequalities
V4: success of cities not independent of the shift of
their sectoral structure
2.
–
–
Increase of urban–rural inequality is mainly tertiary based
Industrial renewal hide in the background of fine differences
among rural regions
33
Growing Importance of Cities in
European Economic Pattern
Studying success of cities becomes a key issue for current
European regional trends and regional policy

–
–
–
Post-socialist cities are to join to the 2nd level of European citynetwork
Post-socialist cities: new industrialization wave (similar to Southern
Periphery) based chiefly on international investments
New European models on Peripheries (Golden Banana and Central
European Boomerang) should adjust the the classic urban zone of
Blue Banana
34