Transcript Gilles van Hamme

Territorial impacts of globalization on European
Regions
Van Hamme Gilles
IGEAT-ULB
Info day of the DG Regio
October 2011
2/25
The TIGER project: General objective
This project intends to assess the position of Europe in the world and
especially tries to deal with how European territories (regions and
cities) participate to the global economy.
Lead partner : IGEAT-ULB
Partners
Pp2 (UK): School of real estate and planning. University of Reading
Pp3 (France): CNRS (mainly Université de Normandie)
Pp4 (Italy): Dpto Studi Europei e Interculturali, Sapienza Università di Roma
Pp5 (Sweden): Internationella Handelshögskolan i Jönköping AB
Pp6 (Bulgaria): Institute of Geography BAS
3/25
Major questions and objectives
1. Objective 1: to assess how Europe, its regions and cities
participate in the global flows and networks and how the global
processes impact on the territorial structures of Europe.
How can territorial policies help to improve the position of the different
types of regions in the world and ensure the objectives of social and
territorial cohesion despite the potentially unequal impacts of
globalization on European territories?
2. Objective 2: to analyse the impacts of territorial structures on
European performances
How can territorial policy improve European competitiveness? For
example, should we invest mainly in the global cities to improve
Europe’s position in the world?
3. Objective 3: to analyse how Europe and its territories position
themselves in the world through cooperation and networking
with other parts of the world.
4/25
The architecture of the Project
5/25
Some Key points (1): Flows and networks versus
structures and performances
To cross structures and networks is one of the main added value of
the project:
 It is important that flows and networks analyses do not « float in the air
». Position in networks are both influenced and impact the territorial
structures.
 European regions and cities, notably big cities are still relatively closed
economy. Hence, it is vital to understand how urban internal structures
interact with global flows and networks, nobaly to explain cities’
competitiveness
Territorial structures include different scales of analysis:
- The urban economic structures, including infrastructures, labour force
composition etc.
- The importance of the Nation-States and their persistent regulatory
power, even if we may argue that since 30 years the balance of power
is not in their favour;
- The territorial structures at continental scales (level of concentration,
mobility, and inequalities) .
6/25
How do we achieve this objective?
At urban scale:
 Elaboration of a database at urban level is under achievement which
cross for US and the ESPON space the urban structures (economic
sectors, qualification), the position in networks through various
indicators and economic performances.
 Testing the relationships between structures, position in networks and
performances
At continental scale:
 Comparison of territorial structures between Northern America, Europe
and Eastern Asia.
7/25
Some key points (2): Europe and its regions in the global
economy
The hegemony of the « network/globalization » paradigm has a bit
obscured some basic features of today’s global economy.
This is why I recall some basic facts and figures here:
 Europe is still a closed and integrated economy.
 Globalization is also « a political process » (the result of political
decisions), not an unavoidable « natural » process
 We know little about the importance of participation to global flows and
networks to explain economic wealth.
8/25
Europe is an integrated economy still moderately open
•
•
•
The map shows that EU is the most integrated
international economic area in the world: intra
block trade reaches 43% of total GDP;
EU has an openness rate (ratio extra-EU Trade on
GDP) of 21%, which makes it the closest large
economy in the world after NAFTA;
This rate has significantly increased, also as the
result of POLITICAL DECISIONS (free trade
and investment have been promoted by the EU).
Openess
1968
China
CIS
Japan
MERCOSUR
NAFTA
EU
GCC
Openness Openness Openness
1987
1997
2007
6.0
28.5
40.6
54.1
2.0
8.0
29.2
40.8
9.4
15.3
14.7
27.8
11.7
4.2
8.8
64.7
13.5
9.2
14.6
50.6
12.4
11.7
14.1
64.4
22.6
14.6
20.6
76.2
9/25
European regions are not concerned to the same extent by globalization
• The map shows the extra-EU
openness (only exports on GDP) of
European regions around 2008;
• This openness is extremely variable
from 0.2% (Corsica) to 31%
(Flanders);
• Metropolitan areas do not appear
because their role in the global
economy is related to the service
economy (not included on the map)
and their central role in global
networks.
 Intensity and nature of
embeddedness in the global
economy very much varies spatially
10/25
Some key points (3): The vital importance of the multi scale analysis
Multi scale has become a platitude of territorial analysis (However, far from
the theory to the practice)
To understand how cities and regions evolve and perform, it is decisive to
take into consideration their embeddedness at larger scales and the
dynamics occuring at these different scales:
1) The global scale, because global trends resonate very differently across
territories  we need to know the key-drivers of globalization;
2) The continental scale, which is the EU/ESPON scale  EU is an
integrated economy with a regulatory power;
3) The national scales, because States are still major regulatory powers
and an essential interface between the global and the city and regions.
11/25
Europe in the world trade: a long term perspective
The changing geographical pattern of Europe’s position in the world
trade
12/25
European geography of trade hides national and regional differences
Northern
America
Middle
East
China
EU and
neighbours
13/25
Europe and countries in the international division of labour
14/25
European regions in the division of labour
Volume and
asymmetry of trade in
Machinery 2007-2009
15/25
European cities in the service economy
Istanbul
Brussels
Singapore
Zurich
Warsaw
New York
Paris
Dublin
Toronto
Milan
Seoul
London
Frankfurt
Moscow
Beijing
Hongkong
Madrid
Tokyo
Sydney
Kuala Lumpur
Mumbai
Bangkok
Buenos Aires
16/25
Conclusion
1. To understand how European cities and regions participate in
the global economy is an absolute necessity for territorial
development policies
2. Most of the literature supposes that the higher the participation
to the global economy the better it is. However:
- Regional and cities economies are still relatively closed and
most of their exchanges take place within the EU;
- We know little about how this participation impact the
competitiveness and social cohesion at regional and city level.
Of course, we know about London but what about other cities
and regions?
 They might be other ways than a global-oriented economy to
achieve EU objectives in terms of competitiveness or social
cohesion