Citation for published version (APA): Terluin, I. J. (2001). Rural regions in the EU: exploring differences in economic development s.n.

Transcription

1 University of Groningen Rural regions in the EU Terluin, Ida Joke IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2001 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Terluin, I. J. (2001). Rural regions in the EU: exploring differences in economic development s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date:

2 ANNEX 2.1 TERRITORIAL SCHEME OF THE OECD In the scope of the Project on Rural Indicators, the OECD has made a typology of rural regions, which covers its whole territory (OECD, 1994). The typology consists of three types of regions, derived on population density: 1 predominantly rural regions; 2 significantly rural (or: intermediate) regions; 3 predominantly urban regions. The typology is based on a territorial scheme of two hierarchical levels: the local community level and the regional level. Local communities are basic administrative units with a very detailed grid, like cantons in France, districts in the UK and municipalities in the Netherlands. Regions are larger administrative units or functional zones with a less detailed grid, like aemter in Denmark, provincias in Spain and provinces in Belgium and the Netherlands. When population density in local communities is less than 150 inhabitants per square kilometre, the community is classified as rural ; when population exceeds 150 inhabitants per square kilometre as urban 1. As a second step, regions are divided into three groups (Fig. A1): - when more than 50% of the population of the region lives in rural local communities, the region is classified as predominantly rural ; - when between 15 and 50% of the population of the region lives in rural local communities, the region is classified as significantly rural or intermediate 2 ; - and when less than 15% of the population of the region lives in rural local communities, the region is classified as predominantly urban. Moreover, when regions include a city of 200,000 inhabitants or more, the region is classified as intermediate; when regions include a city of 500,000 inhabitants or more, the region is classified as predominantly urban. Within the scope of this scheme, a basic set of socio-economic indicators for these regions has been collected as well. The OECD designed this scheme and database of internationally comparable indicators in order to help member countries to improve their monitoring of changes and trends in rural economies, and to contribute to a sounder basis for decision making in rural development policy. In the RUREMPLO project we have used this methodology for classifying EU15 regions. Since we have used a delineation of regions, which differs for some countries from the OECD delineation, we have adopted the labels of the three groups as follows: 1 most rural regions; 2 intermediate rural regions; 3 most urban regions. 250

3 Figure A1 The territorial scheme for OECD analysis The Territorial Scheme For OECD analysis covers the entire OECD territory Member countries National ( 29 ) OECD distinguishes different levels (regional & local) Predominantly Rural Intermediate Predominantly Urban Regions Regional ( 2500 ) allows for various typologies (e.g. urban / rural) Local communities Rural Urban Local ( ) Territorial Units Rural Local Communities : Population density (below 150 inhabitants per sq.km) Settlement type of Region : Share of rural population (below 15, 15-50, above 50 percent) Source: OECD, 199a. NOTES 1 For Japan the threshold is 500 inhabitants per square kilometre. 2 Originally, the term significantly rural was used; as this was difficult to interpret for many users, later the term intermediate was introduced. 251

4 ANNEX 2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE REGIONAL LEVEL USED IN THE RURAL CLASSIFICATION OF EU 15 REGIONS As already indicated in Section 2.2, in this study we have used the set of 45 EU regions, which has been composed in the RUREMPLO project. It was tried to delineate regions in such a way, that they more or less reflect the size of a labour market area. For some countries NUTS2 regions are appropriate for this purpose; in other countries NUTS3 regions are more suitable. Below we indicate which NUTS level is used for the different EU member states in the RUREMPLO data set. As the delineation of NUTS3 regions in Finland and Austria did not reflect labour market areas, an alternative delineation has been made in the RUREMPLO project. Member state Regional level Number of regions Belgium NUTS2 Provinces 9 Denmark NUTS3 Amter 12 Germany NUTS2 Regierungsbezirke 31 Greece NUTS2 Development regions 13 Spain NUTS3 Comunidades Autonomas 50 France NUTS3 Régions 9 Ireland NUTS3 Planning regions 8 Italy NUTS3 Provincie 95 Luxembourg NUTS2 Country 1 Netherlands NUTS2 Provincies 12 Austria about NUTS3 (Gruppen von politischen Bezirken) 32 Portugal NUTS2 Comissaoes coordenaçao regional 5 Finland about NUTS3 (Maakunnat) 12 Sweden NUTS3 Län 24 United Kingdom NUTS3 Counties 5 252

5 ANNEX 5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROTOCOL, KEY ISSUES AND SWOT ANALYSIS IN THE RUREMPLO PROJECT In this Annex, first the contents of the RUREMPLO protocol is given (Fig. A5.1). For streamlining the summary of each case study report, we have made a list with 11 key issues, referring to each of the three main components of the field of force of a rural region (Fig. A5.2). Besides, the various forces in the field have been assessed by making a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis for 1980 (beginning year of the period under study) and 1997 (ending year of the period under study). Usually, firms carry out a SWOT analysis in order to assess the prospects of products. However, it has also been used in designing integrated rural development programs (Moseley, 199). Insight in the strong and weak points, opportunities and threats of a region provides a better understanding of its problems and perspectives. The items in the SWOT analysis are given in Figure A5.3. Figure A5.1 Contents of RUREMPLO protocol a) PREFACE INTRODUCTION PART ONE: PART TWO: PART THREE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND CONTENTS OF THE REPORT OF THE CASE STUDY GUIDELINE FOR THE CASE STUDIES SOME INTRODUCTIONARY REMARKS FOR THE PARTICIPANTS CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER CHAPTER 7 INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS OF LOCAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ACTORS: ANALYSIS OF LABOUR SUPPLY LABOUR MARKET ACTORS: ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIES DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYMENT: A SYNTHESIS a) Chapter 1-7 refer to the chapters of the case study reports. Source: RUREMPLO team,

6 Figure A5.2 Key issues Local resources (1) Are local resources (including infrastructure) important for the creation of employment? Economic activities (2) In which branches does employment increase (decrease)? What are the properties of these branches? (3) Does the sectoral mix explain the dynamics in employment growth (stagnation)? (4) Is employment created in small or large enterprises? (5) Is employment created in new or existing enterprises? Actors: analysis of labour supply () Does the education level of the labour force matter in the creation (stagnation) of employment? Actors: labour market (7) Is employment hampered by the institutional structure of the labour market? Actors: analysis of strategies (8) Does the capacity of actors matter in the creation (stagnation) of employment? (9) Specify the role of internal and external networks in the creation (stagnation) of employment and give an analysis of which actors come to exercise power over others within and through networks. (10) Give an identification of the most effective policies and strategies towards maintaining or augmenting employment and indicate their local implementation (indicate why policies and strategies failed in maintaining or augmenting employment). (11) How do farm households adapt to the situation of decreasing employment in the agricultural sector? What are the perspectives for tourism on the farm, landscape conservation and pluriactivity for farm households? Source: RUREMPLO project. 254

7 Figure A5.3 Items of the SWOT analysis Strengths and weaknesses location of the region (proximity to a large economic centre) local resources which favour employment education level of the labour force low cost labour well-developed physical infrastructure favourable industry structures favourable climate favourable amenities presence of universities and other major research centres specialisation of the regional economy diversification of the regional economy vertical coordination within sectors horizontal coordination across sectors capacity (knowledge, skills and attitude) of local actors capacity of local actors to innovate entrepreneurial climate internal networks external networks market niches tourism Opportunities and threats can refer for example to: market opportunities (often expressed in relation to a certain sector) development of market niches development of tourism European integration and extension political events like GATT/WTO and the transformation process in Central and Eastern European Countries improvements in infrastructure (not only in the region itself, but also in other regions like the construction of a highway, which connects the region with a main economic centre) improvement of the access to markets Source: RUREMPLO project. 255

8 ANNEX 5.2 OVERVIEW OF LARGEST CITIES IN THE RUREMPLO CASE STUDY REGIONS Leading case study regions Luxembourg (B) Niederbayern (GER) Korinthia (GR) Albacete (SP) Alpes de Haute Provence (FR) Pesaro (IT) Drenthe (NL) Osttirol (AUS) Keski- Suomen Lääni (FIN) Lagging case study regions Overview largest cities in the region Arlon Marche-en-Famenne Aubange Landshut Passau Straubing Korinth Loutraki Kiato Albacete Hellin Almansa Villarrobledo Manosque Digne-les-Bains Pesaro Fano Emmen Assen Hoogeveen Lienz Matrei Sillian Heinfels Jyväskylä Aanekoski Jamsa Keuruu Inhabitants 23,300 15,300 14,200 59,100 50,300 41,700 27,400 9,400 9, ,000 24,200 22,00 20,700 19,100 1,100 80,500 48,700 94,000 53,000 47,000 11,900 4,500 2,900 74,000 13,800 13,100 12,400 as % of regional population Lüneburg (GER) Fthiotis (GR) Zamora (SP) Ardennes (FR) Nièvre (FR) Macerata (IT) Celle Lüneburg Uelzen Lamia Atalandi Stylida Zamora Benavente Toro Charleville-Mézière Sedan Rethel Nevers Cosne sur Loire Decize Macerata Civitanova 73,500 5,100 37,200 44,000,200 5,000,000 1,000 9,700 7,200 29,000 10,500 58,900 13,200 9,100 43,000 37,

9 Groningen (NL) Groningen Hoogezand-Sappemeer Delfzijl Liezen (AUS) Liezen Rottenmann Bad Aussee Mikkelin Lääni (FIN) Mikkeli Savonlinna Heinola Source: Terluin et al., 1999: ,000 34,000 33,000 7,100 5,400 5,100 32,800 28,900 13,

10 ANNEX 5.3 OVERVIEW OF THE SHARE OF EMPLOYMENT INCREASE/DECREASE BY BRANCH IN THE TOTAL INCREASE/DECREASE IN THE CASE STUDY REGIONS (%) Leading case study regions Luxembourg (B) 1980/ /5 Niederbayern (GER) Korinthia (GR) Albacete (SP) Alpes de Haute Provence (FR) Pesaro (IT) Drenthe (NL) Osttirol (AUS) Keski- Suomen Lääni (FIN) Agriculture 2 Mining 3 Manufacturing 4 Electr. /Gas 5 Construction Trade/ Rest./ Hotels 7 Transport 8 Financial serv Community services Lagging case study regions Lüneburg (GER) Fthiotis (GR) Zamora (SP) Ardennes (FR) a) Nièvre (FR) a) Macerata (I) Groningen (NL) Liezen (AUT) Mikkelin Lääni (FIN) a) Branch contains all market services which are not included in branch 7 and 8. Source: Terluin et al., 1999:

11 ANNEX 5.4 OVERVIEW OF THE VALUES OF THE VARIABLES IN THE CASE STUDY REGIONS Nièvre AHP Zamora Albacete Fthiotis Korinthia Lüneburg Niederbayern Ardennes Luxembourg (B) Local resources LR1 Rural amenities LR2 Local raw materials n.r. + n.r. n.r n.r. + LR3 Transport infrastructure in the region ++ 0/+ ++ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ ++ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ LR4 External transport connections /+ - LR5 Soft infrastructure + 0/ LR Agglomeration Economic activities EA1 Non-agricultural employment growth EA2 Valorization of rural amenities and tourist /+ 0/ infrastructure EA3 Overexploitation of rural amenities n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. EA4 Employment increases in tourism EA5 Filières n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ++ n.r. n.r. n.r. EA Employment growth in the filière n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. + n.r. n.r. n.r. EA7 Presence of economic activities using raw n.r. + n.r. n.r n.r. - materials EA8 Employment growth in the production n.r. - n.r. n.r n.r. - related to the local raw materials EA9 Presence of economic activities using n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. local knowledge capital EA10 Employment growth in the production n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. related to the local knowledge capital EA11 Assessment of GDP/capita and its increase Actors A1 Capacity of local policy makers A2 Capacity of local entrepreneurs A3 Capacity of local workers A4 Internal networks A5 Linkages in networks/institutions A External networks A7 Benefits of external networks A8 Assessment of migration balance A9 Initiatives for mobilizing the self-help capacity A10 Local synergy of the filières n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ++ n.r. n.r. n.r. A11 Local innovativeness of the filières n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ++ n.r. n.r. n.r. A12 Transterritorial networks of the filières n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ++ n.r. n.r. n.r. A13 Exogenous changes n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. + - n.r. n.r. 259

12 Mikkelin L. Keski S.L. Liezen Osttirol Groningen Drenthe Macerata Pesaro Local resources LR1 Rural amenities LR2 Local raw materials n.r. n.r. n.r LR3 Transport infrastructure in the region 0/+ 0/ /+ 0/+ 0/+ 0 LR4 External transport connections LR5 Soft infrastructure 0/ / /+ LR Agglomeration Economic activities EA1 Non-agricultural employment growth EA2 Valorization of rural amenities and tourist + 0/+ 0/+ 0/ infrastructure EA3 Overexploitation of rural amenities n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. EA4 Employment increases in tourism EA5 Filières n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. EA Employment growth in the filière + - n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. EA7 Presence of economic activities using raw materials n.r. n.r. n.r EA8 Employment growth in the production related to the n.r. n.r. n.r local raw materials EA9 Presence of economic activities using local n.r. n.r. n.r. + n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. knowledge capital EA10 Employment growth in the production related to the n.r. n.r. n.r. + n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. local knowledge capital EA11 Assessment of GDP/capita and its increase Actors A1 Capacity of local policy makers A2 Capacity of local entrepreneurs A3 Capacity of local workers A4 Internal networks A5 Linkages in networks/institutions A External networks A7 Benefits of external networks A8 Assessment of migration balance A9 Initiatives for mobilizing the self-help capacity A10 Local synergy of the filières n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. A11 Local innovativeness of the filières ++ + n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. A12 Transterritorial networks of the filières n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. A13 Exogenous changes n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. 20

13 ANNEX TABLES Table A2.1 Sectoral structure of employment in the EU regions, (%) Period Agriculture Industry Services Y1-Y2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Belgium Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Denmark Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Germany Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Greece Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Spain Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average France Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Ireland Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Italy Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Luxembourg Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average

14 Table A2.1 Sectoral structure of employment in the EU regions, (%) (continued) Period Agriculture Industry Services Y1-Y2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Netherlands Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Austria Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Portugal Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Finland Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Sweden Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average United Most rural Kingdom Intermediate rural Most urban National average EU Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban Average Source: RUREMPLO project. - denotes that the group does not exist;. denotes that data is not available. 22

15 Table A2.2 Employment growth in the EU regions, (% p.a.) Period Agricul- Industry Services Non- Total Y1-Y2 ture agriculture Belgium Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Denmark Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Germany Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Greece Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Spain Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average France Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Ireland Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Italy Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Luxembourg Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Netherlands Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average

16 Table A2.2 Employment growth in the EU regions, (% p.a.) (continued) Period Agricul- Industry Services Non- Total Y1-Y2 ture agriculture Austria Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Portugal Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Finland Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average Sweden Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban National average United Most rural Kingdom Intermediate rural Most urban National average EU Most rural Intermediate rural Most urban Average Source: RUREMPLO project. - denotes that the group does not exist;. denotes that data is not available. 24