Transcript Workshop 2.2 Territorial Factors for Global Competitiveness

ESPON Internal Seminar 2012
“Territorial Development Opportunities in Europe and its
Neighbourhood to Foster Global Competitiveness”
Parallel Workshop Session: Workshop 2.2
Territorial Factors for
Global Competitiveness and
Economic Growth
Workshop 2.2 - Territorial Factors for Global Competitiveness and
Economic Growth
Discussants (5’ per question):
• Gilles Van Hamme, TIGER
• Roberto Camagni, KIT
• Ruben Lois, SIESTA
• Claude Grasland, M4D
• Adrian Healy, ICR2
Policy Statements (10’):
• Didier Michal, FR MC
• Stella Kyvelou, EUROMED
Facilitator (discussion 50’):
• Peter Schön, DE ECP
Reporting and conclusions (10’):
• Kai Böhme
2
Workshop 2.2 – key questions for ESPON projects
1.
What are the main observations or conclusions from your project - for
Europe, its regions and cities - in relation to “economic development,
innovation, technological development, research trade flows, territorial
specialisation and profiles”?
2. How do developments in Europe´s neighborhood influence the territorial
development in Europe and vice-versa?
3. What opportunities and challenges exists for Europe and its neighbourhood
for increasing competitiveness through further cooperation and integration?
3
Workshop 2.2 – key questions for ESPON projects
1. What are the main observations or conclusions from your
project - for Europe, its regions and cities - in relation to
“economic development, innovation, technological
development, research trade flows, territorial specialisation
and profiles”?
4
TIGER
1) Regionalization and globalization are parallel and probably
mutually reinforcing processes;
2) The importance of Europe for European regions : two third
of trade is internal and the openness rate of the EU is
around 20% for the European economy
Internal trade as a share of GDP (%)
ASEAN
CIS
EU
GCC
MERCOSUR
NAFTA
Average of all free
trade areas
External trade as a share of GDP (%)
1968
7,7
0,0
11,9
2,9
1,0
2,8
1986
10,3
0,0
27,3
5,9
1,4
5,5
1996
22,3
13,0
30,5
5,7
3,1
10,0
2007
33,5
11,4
42,4
6,0
4,2
11,7
1968
24,4
2,0
8,8
64,7
11,7
4,2
1986
44,6
8,0
14,6
50,6
13,5
9,2
1996
65,9
29,2
14,1
64,4
12,4
11,7
2007
85,8
40,8
20,6
76,2
22,6
14,6
4,4
10,0
14,1
19,7
7,7
15,3
18,8
28,4
3)
4)
5)
Regions and cities are
unequally “globalized”;
Openness to globalization is
related to competitiveness,
notably in products with high
technological content
However, regional and city
performances in the last ten
years is not clearly related to
their participation to global
economy and networks
Workshop 2.2 – Results from KIT (1)
• Territorial evidence on knowledge and innovation shows that the
picture is rather impressive (or depressive): in most European
regions the knowledge economy is still in its infancy.
• But there is a hope: there appears a variety of possible
“innovation patterns” larger than the simple core/periphery
dichotomy, deriving from territorial specificities of the single regions,
with good potential for success.
7
The Knowledge Economy in Europe
The knowledge economy in Europe
The Knowledge Economy in
Europe gives a very
fragmented picture.
Reykjavik
!
Canarias
!
Guadeloupe
!
Martinique
Réunion
!
!
Helsinki
!
Tallinn
Oslo
!
!
Stockholm
Guyane
!
!
What is striking from this map
is the high number of regions
in which the knowledge
economy is still in its infancy.
Riga
!
Madeira
!
København
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Dublin
!
Acores
!
Warszawa
Berlin
Amsterdam
!
!
!
Kyiv
!
London
!
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
Praha
This map does not
necessarily reflect the
opinion of the ESPON
Monitoring Committee
!
Luxembourg
!
Paris
!
Kishinev
WienBratislava
!
!
Budapest
!
!
Bern
!
Vaduz
!
Ljubljana
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
!
!
Beograd
!
Sarajevo
!
Sofiya
!
Podgorica
!
Skopje
Ankara
!
Roma
!
Tirana
!
!
Madrid
!
Lisboa
!
Athina
!
Nicosia
!
El-Jazair
!
Tounis
!
Valletta
!
0
© Politecnico di Milano, ESPON KIT Project, 2012
260
520
km
Regional level: NUTS2
Source: Own elaboration, 2011
Origin of data: EUROSTAT and REGPAT, 2007
© EuroGeographics Association for administrative boundaries
Legend
No data
None (137 regions)
TAR only (8 regions)
Scientific regions only (11 regions)
Networking regions only (43 regions)
TAR and scientific regions (3 regions)
TAR and networking regions (20 regions)
Scientific and networking regions (29 regions)
TAR, scientific and networking regions (31 regions)
Territorial patterns of innovation
Territorial patterns of innovation in Europe
The geography of innovation is much
more complex than the core-periphery
divide.
Reykjavik
!
Canarias
!
Guadeloupe
!
Martinique
Réunion
!
!
Helsinki
!
Tallinn
Oslo
!
!
Stockholm
Guyane
!
!
Riga
!
Madeira
!
København
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
A European science-based area
!
Dublin
!
Acores
!
Warszawa
Berlin
Amsterdam
!
!
!
Kyiv
!
London
!
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
Praha
This map does not
necessarily reflect the
opinion of the ESPON
Monitoring Committee
!
Luxembourg
An applied science area
!
Paris
!
Kishinev
WienBratislava
!
!
Budapest
!
!
Bern
!
Vaduz
!
Ljubljana
Zagreb
!
Bucuresti
!
!
Beograd
!
A smart technological application area
Sarajevo
!
Sofiya
!
Podgorica
!
Skopje
Ankara
!
Roma
!
Tirana
!
!
Madrid
!
Lisboa
!
A smart and creative diversification area
Athina
!
Nicosia
!
El-Jazair
!
Tounis
!
Valletta
!
0
© Politecnico di Milano, ESPON KIT Project, 2012
260
520
km
Regional level: NUTS2
Source: Own elaboration, 2012
Origin of data: EUROSTAT, 2012
© EuroGeographics Association for administrative boundaries
An imitative innovation area
Legend
No data
Imitative innovation area
Smart and creative diversification area
Smart technological application area
Applied science area
European science-based area
9
Workshop 2.2 – Results from KIT (2)
• R&D expenditure needs critical mass but also shows decreasing returns;
• local formal knowledge intensity does not necessary guarantee higher
innovation performance;
• regions innovating in the absence of a strong local knowledge base can
be as successful as more knowledge-intensive regions in turning
innovation into a higher growth rate.
• Innovate in R&D and regional policies:  ‘Smart innovation’ policies:
 policies able to increase the innovation capability of an area by
boosting effectiveness of accumulated knowledge, fostering new
applications and diversification, enlarging and deepening the local
knowledge base, starting from local specificities and the established
“innovation patterns” in each region.
10
Impact ranking by patterns
Impact () of:
Impact on:
Very high
Impact ranking by pattern
High
Medium
Low
Very low
No impact
R&D
Patents
Pattern 3
Pattern 2
Pattern 4
Pattern 1
Pattern 5
R&D
Innovation
Pattern 1
Pattern 3
Pattern 2
Pattern 4 (-)
Pattern 5 (-)
Innovation
GDP growth
Pattern 1
Pattern 3
Pattern 2
Pattern 4
Pattern 5
R&D
GDP growth
Pattern 1
Pattern 2
Pattern 3
Pattern 4
Pattern 5
In bold, unexpected results
SIESTA
• 1. What are the main observations or
conclusions from your project - for Europe, its
regions and cities - in relation to “economic
development, innovation, technological
development, research trade flows, territorial
specialisation and profiles”?
• In terms of research, there are huge imbalances
between regions. Only 37 out of 272 considered
regions meet the 3% target of R&D investment.
• With regard to R&D, the EU is loosing ground in
relation to competing economies.
Japan (2008)
3.45
United States (2008) 2.79
EU27 (2010)
2.00
12
• For the most innovative regions in terms of R&D,
business expenditure is the key driver.
Japan (2008)
2.70
United States (2008) 2.02
EU27 (2010)
1.23
• The immense majority of patents emerges in a
particular area of Europe that basically includes
Germany and Switzerland, with extensions to
particular regions of Austria, Northern Italy, France,
Benelux, Southern England and some
Scandinavian regions.
• Universities are decisive in R&D, thus they are
very significant in several medium and small-sized
cities.
13
Trends in Europe – M4D
Hypothesis
• Activity rate is more important than unemployment rate for the evaluation of
territorial trends in Europe. Because it reveals the real potential of territory in
terms of labour forces surplus or deficits.
• Absolute count of active and employed people are more interesting than
relative ratio for a sound prediction of structural changes in a mid term
perspective (1999-2010)
• Thanks to HyperAtlas V2 and M4D core databse strategy, it is possible to
evaluate the trends 1999-2010 and the current situation
14
Trends in Europe
15
Trends in Europe
16
Trends in Europe
17
Trends in Europe
18
Trends in Europe
Main discoveries
• Trends of active population 1999-2009 reveals a very strong increase in
Spain, Ireland, southern France, Northern Italy and at a less degree Benelux
and northern Europe. At the same time, we observe a very strong of available
labour force in Romania, Southern Italy, Germany, Baltic countries. As a
whole, an important move of active from east to west.
• Distribution of activity rate in 2009 is characterized by strong imbalances in
the use of available labour force. Maximum use of available labour force is
observed in northern and central Europe and minimum use in peripheral area
of southern and eastern Europe. We can therefore anticipate a baseline
scenario of increasing mobility of active from peripheral to core area.
19
Workshop 2.2 – key questions for ESPON projects
2. How do developments in Europe´s neighborhood
influence the territorial development in Europe and
vice-versa?
20
TIGER
1)
2)
3)
The importance of Europe for the neighbourhood makes no doubt: in
the last decades, the influence of Europe has been more and more
restricted to its neighbourhood  Neighbourhoods are functionnally
part of Europe: some neighbouring countries are indeed more
intensively turned to Europe than some European countries are;
In reverse, the neighbourhoods are important for Europe, but behind
major economic areas, mainly Northern America;
The importance of the neighbourhood is higher for migratory flows and
energy than economic and financial flows  neighbourhood policies
tend to focus on these matters
The weight of Europe (ESPON) in the trade of countries, 1996 - 2007
Regions of the world according to the importance
they have for Europe and the nature of their links
KIT
•
•
Recent history proves that enhanced cooperation in trade (most favorable
customs tariffs) and investment with neighbor countries means:
- increased political stability in these countries,
- increase in GDP, employment and welfare,
- in the long run, limiting pressure on outmigration.
For EU countries this means:
- possibility of building diplomatic and political preference partnerships,
enlarging the political and diplomatic reach of Europe,
- possibility of lowering production costs in manufacturing, with lower
distances with respect to BRICs,
- building a buffer of export potential in technology, services and hi-tech
products,
- assure safer and perhaps cheaper availability of energy and other natural
resources.
- transmit European cultural and political values.
24
KIT
Main issue today: is a crisis period the best moment for relaunching and
enlarging co-operation?
Answer: YES! Because:
- It means relaunching investments in an enlarged integration area,
- relaunching demand for EU products and services (capital goods, advanced
services) thanks to strong feedback effects,
- In the medium and long run, relaunching exports and importing at lower
costs (P. Krugman: the true advantage of international trade is (cheaper)
imports, not exports!)
Pillars:
- Law of comparative advantage: a role in the international division of labour
is always assured to all countries (and is beneficial for all partners)
- Multiplicity of “innovation patterns” and strategies.
25
KIT
Preconditions for success:
•
•
•
•
Cope technological/economic cooperation with a political and diplomatic
strategy (defining alternative diplomatic status for neighboring countries
with repect to pure accession),
Analyse, interpret and understand neigbors’ culture, attitudes, priorities,
Properly define most promising cooperation fields,
Concentrate attention and resources in a few targeted fields.
26
• 2. How do developments in Europe´s neighborhood influence the territorial development in
Europe and vice-versa (according to your mind / your ESPON findings)? - SIESTA
•
If the European regions and its neighbourhood want to influence the territorial development in Europe
and vice-versa it is necessary to increase the investment in R&D.
•
Based on the scarce available data at the regional scale for those non-EU countries that have been
analysed by SIESTA, R&D and economic standards in the majority of EU neighbour countries are
lower than the EU average
•
In general, the neighbourhood policy has been focused on economic issues, basically trade and
common market, as well as democracy development and other ‘core political’ issues. The smart
agenda of the EU2020S, might it be an applicable orientation for a new neighbourhood policy?
27
SIESTA
28
Europe´s neighborhood influence – M4D
Methodology for the identification of attractive an repulsive poles
Europe´s neighborhood influence
• Identification of relative growth pole
offers a good vision of the location
of main growing metropolitan
area in EU and neighborhood.
• Strong polarisations are observed
both inside and outside EU
because of global process of
metropolisation.
Workshop 2.2 – key questions for ESPON projects
3. What opportunities and challenges exists for Europe and
its neighbourhood for increasing competitiveness
through further cooperation and integration?
31
TIGER
1) In the EU 2020 strategy , the following assessment is made:
“The Europe 2020 strategy is not only relevant inside the EU,
it can also offer considerable potential to candidate
countries and our neighbourhood and better help anchor
their own reform efforts. Expanding the area where EU rules
are applied will create new opportunities for both the EU
and its neighbours”
2) This calls for a true cooperation and shared development
strategy for the neighbourhood rather than the partenalistic
vision and/or the actual focus on migrations, security and
energy matters
• 3. What opportunities and challenges exists for Europe and its neighbourhood for increasing
competitiveness through further cooperation and integration? (according to your mind / your
ESPON findings)? – SIESTA
• Investment and diversification in R&D should be promoted by governments, institutions and
businesses.
• In contexts of economic crisis the investment in R&D is strategic to assure the competitiveness of the
regions and their economic growth. Thus, collaborative networks should be established between
Europe and its neighbourhood.
• It would be necessary to look for new niche markets, ensuring that the outputs from R&D will be used
in Europe and its neighborhood.
33
Opportunities for Europe – M4D
Hypothesis
•
Young Depency Rate (Pop. 0-14/ Pop 15-64) is the key strategic indicator to
evaluate the renewal of labour force in the next 30 years (2010-2040).
•
What are the potential complementarities with neighborhood ?
•
Are opportunities different toward east and south ?
•
What about education of labour force toward east and south ?
34
Opportunities for Europe
35
Opportunities for Europe
36
Opportunities for Europe
Key discoveries
•
Theoretical possibilities of complementarities between North and South for
labour force renewal
BUT
•
Strong deficit of labour force to be expected in eastern neighborhood
•
Competition with gulf coutries for labour force available in Middle East
•
Highest potentialities for EU in Maghreb and Turkey.
… IMPLIES STRONG COOPERATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION & RESEARCH !
37