Sectorial background of urbanrural economic development inequalities dr
Sectorial background of urban–rural economic development inequalities dr. Jeney László Senior lecturer jeney@elte. hu Economic Foundations of Local Development Module 1/b: Urban and Rural development by sectors Autumn term 2016/2017. 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/Core – – – n 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 n Economic development measured only with per capita GDP – – n At current market prices in € Examined area: V 4 Countries (CZ. HU. PL. SK) Examined regional level: NUTS 3 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 n New factors affecting the regional processes of East Central Europe at the turn of the millennium 1. Transition (the end of the bipolar world system) 2. Integration (accession to the European Union) 3. Globalization n n Dynamic take-off, but cities and rural regions get different developmental impulses Dual effects on economic pattern of V 4 Countries (trade-off theories) – – Convergence in pan-European relation (catching-up) 7 Divergence in urban–rural relation
Territorial frame n East Central Europe – Broader – Cultural, historical relationships n V 4 Countries – Narrower – Current political states (CZ, HU, PL, SK) n Regional level: NUTS 3 8
Definition of the Concept of Urban and Rural Regions n Urban regions = cities – Population >500 thousand + Bratislava – Without suburbs – Regions at NUTS 3 level (Bratislava Bratislavský County) n Rural regions = complementary regions – ≠ Villages – ≠ Regions with rural characters (e. g. sparse population, importance of 9 agriculture)
Database used n Economic development measured only with per capita GDP – – n At current market prices in € Examined area: V 4 Countries (CZ. HU. PL. SK) Examined regional level: NUTS 3 Examined period: 1995– 2004 Data source: Eurostat http: //epp. eurostat. ec. europa. eu/ 10
Cities as positive residuums of the East Central European space structure V 4 EU population 2004 (million) GDP 2004 (billion €) per capita GDP 2013 (€ per capita) GDP growth 1995– 2013 (%) Total 64 407 6377 206 Cities 8 106 13368 237 12% 26% 210% +31%-point 20% 29% 141% 11 +8%-point Relative state of cities
Differences of Urban–Rural Duality in Member States of EU, 2013 n Measuring Urban– Rural Duality – DUR: urban–rural duality index Source of data: Eurostat – x. U: average per capita GDP of cities in a country – x. R: average per capita GDP of rural regions in a 12 country
Relationship Between State of Development and Urban–Rural Duality for EU Members, 2004 Source of data: Euro. Stat 13
Post-socialist countries: characterized with growing urban– rural dualism Source of data: Euro. Stat n n Chiefly the outstanding of capitals More remarkable in case of underdeveloped, catching-up V 4 countries than older members Change of Urban–Rural Duality in EU Member States, 1995– 2013 14
Growing Importance of Cities in European Economic Pattern Economicn Development State of Cities and Rural Regions Related to their Nationaln Average Most of the cities over average – Studying success of cities: key issue for current European regional trends and regional policy Some countries – Only the cities are over average (e. g. V 4) – Other inequality factors are more important (Germany. Italy. Romania. Spain) 15
State of cities and rural regions as compared to the national averages of V 4 member countries, 2013 16
Role of urban–rural inequality in overall regional inequalities n Measuring overall economic inequalities at level of NUTS 3 regions (H. Hoover index): – n: number of regions at NUTS 3 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 n n Measuring urban–rural inequalities (Hur: Hoover index same formula) – n = 2 (aggregate of 8 cities and aggregate of 79 rural NUTS 3 regions) Role of urban–rural inequality with the overall regional inequalities (Rur): 17
Degree of urban–rural inequality in proportion to the overall regional inequalities in EU, 2013 18 Source of data: Euro. Stat
Role of urban–rural inequality in overall regional inequalities of EU member states, 2013 Hur: urban–rural inequality Rur: role of Hur in overall regional inequalities (H) 19 Source of data: Euro. Stat
Groups of EU members according to the inequality at urban–rural and NUTS 3 regional level, 2013 Hur. urban–rural H. overall regional Rur. role of urban– Types of countries inequality at NUTS 3 level (10%) rural inequality in overall regional inequalities (70%) High BG. CZ. F. GR. LV. LT. H. P. PL. SK Low High Low A. B. GB. D. I. RO Low High SF. S Low Low DK. NL. E inequality (10%) Source of data: Euro. Stat 20
Role of urban–rural inequality in overall regional inequalities of V 4 member states, Hoover index 2013 21 Source of data: Euro. Stat
Post-socialist cities are to join to the 2 nd level of European citynetwork n n Studying success of cities: key issue for current European regional trends and regional policy New European models on Peripheries should adjust the classic urban zone of Blue Banana – Sunbelt or (Golden Banana) – Central European Boomerang n Post-socialist cities: new development wave (similar to Southern Periphery) based chiefly on international investments 22
BUT: weak position of V 4 cities in the European Urban hierarchy n Worse position of V 4: – V 4 countries: 508 company from the 15 thousand largest company of EU – Air traffic n Relative better position of V 4 – International meetings (better position) 23
Cities and NUTS 2 regions: gerrymandering for development n Budapest, Warsaw – Suburban zone lower common average – Initially: better position for EU-supports – Later: due to the urban development no supports n Prague – Suburban zone: target area of EU supports
The sectoral background of the urban–rural development inequalities
V 4: success of cities not independent of the shift of their sectoral structure n V 4: 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– 2013. 1. 3 1. 8 2. 6 Rural regions 1995– 2013. 1. 3 1. 9 2. 1 Growth Indexes of Gross Value Added (GVA) in the Sectors in V 4 Countries, 1995– 2013. 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. 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 Em p l o y m e n t Ou tp u t Ex p o r t 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 n 1992 1998 employment output export 31
Regional Differences of the Economic Development Level in Hungary, 1998. (NUTS 3) 32
Conclusions 1. Postsocialist countries: characterized with growing urban–rural dualism – – – 2. Chiefly the outstanding of capitals More remarkable in case of underdeveloped, catching-up V 4 countries than older members Not only the urban–rural inequality increases, but its role is more and more appreciated in overall regional inequalities V 4: 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 33
- Slides: 33