Transcript and economic performance

From “Objective2” to “Regional
Competitiveness and Employment”
POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE REGIONS
ELIGIBLE TO THE NEW
COMPETITIVENESS OBJECTIVE:
A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Alessandro Sterlacchini
Polytechnic University of Marche
Research team: Roberto Esposti (environment and risk prevention), Nicola
Matteucci (innovation and structural indicators), Francesco Venturini
(TLC/ICT and economic indicators)
OPEN DAYS 2005 - Bruxelles, 12 October 2005
1
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
Economic structure
Innovation and knowledge
economy

Access to transport and
TLC/ICT

Environment and risk
prevention

Economic performances
2
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
• Factor analysis to identify a synthetic indicator for each
thematic area. Observations = NUTS2 Regions.
• Identification of three regional groups by cutting the
statistical distribution of the synthetic indicator in two
points (the mean minus and plus half of the standard
deviation).
• Joint analysis (by means of cross tables) of thematic and
economic performance classifications.
• Identification of the most critical situations in terms of
innovation & knowledge economy, access to ICT/TLC &
transport, environment & risk prevention.
3
GENERAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Economic performance indicators
• GDP per capita (PPS): average 2000-2002
• Rate of unemployment: average 2000-2002
• Annual growth rate of GDP at constant prices: 1995-2002
• Annual growth rate of GDP per worker: 1995-2002
Factor 1 (correlated with the rates of growth of GDP and GDP per
worker)
Factor 2 (correlated with GDP per capita and rate of unemployment)
Composite indicator of economic performance = (fact2*2/3) +
(fact1*1/3): a greater weight is attached to the level of economic
performance.
Taking the usual cut points in the composite indicator distribution,
we identify three groups of regions with low, intermediate and
4
high economic performance.
COMPOSITE INDICATOR OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
5
Innovation & knowledge economy
• Total R&D expenditures on GDP: average 1995-2002
• Total EPO applications per million inhabitants: average 1995-2002
• Share of employment in high-tech manufacturing sectors: average 19952003
• Share of employment in high-tech and knowledge-intensive service
sectors:average 1995-2003
• Share of population aged 25-64 with tertiary education: average 20002001
• Share of turnover due to products new to the firm: average 1996-98
ONLY ONE FACTOR EMERGES: on the basis of its
distribution we distinguish the regions with low, intermediate
and high innovation & knowledge potential.
6
Joint analysis of economic performance and
innovation: type and number of regions
Innovation groups
Economic
performance
groups
Low
Intermediate
High
Low
Intermediate
High
Low performers
23
Unexploited
potential
18
Strong unexpl.
potential
10
Uncorrelated
Intermediate
23
33
Unexploited
potential
13
Strongly
uncorrelated
7
Uncorrelated
High performers
24
17
7
INNOVATION & KNOWLEDGE POTENTIAL AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
8
Access to transport
• Multimodal (road, rail, air) accessibility potential: 2001
• Connectivity to transport terminals by car (1/hours): 2001
The accessibility indicator is a measure of the relative facility to reach
other EU regions (and be reached from them) with different modes of
transport.
The connectivity indicator considers the time required to reach by car
(starting from the centroid of each region) important transport nodes: thus,
it is affected by the extent of secondary road networks.
• Identification of the regions with low, intermediate and high level of
accessibility and connectivity.
• Joint analysis with economic performances: distinction between low
performers, uncorrelated and strongly uncorrelated regions. All the others
are classified as non problematic regions.
9
ACCESS TO TRANSPORT (CONNECTIVITY/ACCESSIBILITY)
AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
10
Environment and risk prevention
•
•
•
•
Energy sustainability indicators
Transportation impact indicators
Natural and rural endowment indicators
Risk prevention indicators
Analysis of natural risk. Composite indicator extracted from:
 Regional flood hazard potential: average 1996-2002.
 Size of burnt areas/Total area: 2000.
Low
Intermediate
High
Very low vulnerability
Low vulnerability
Low performers
Intermediate
Low vulnerability
Intermediate
Significant
vulnerability
High
High performers
Medium vulnerability
High vulnerability
Natural Risk
Economic
Performance
Low
11
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND NATURAL RISK
12