Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Box – Adjusting GDP per head for commuting Although there are no direct data available on the scale of commuting, estimates can be made from Labour Force Survey data 15 . These suggest that there were 22 NUTS 2 regions in 2006 where commuters added 5% to employment relative to population and 15 where the figure was over 10%. In Brussels, commuters added over 80% to employment and in Inner London, around 75%. GDP per head is likely, therefore, to have been inflated to a similar extent. Many of the regions where net inward commuting is large contain capital cities, Praha and Bratislava being cases in point, while others contain large conurbations. The implication is that these regions diverge significantly from ‘functional’ regions, which effectively cover a wider area, in some cases a much wider area 16 . There are many more regions where net outward commuting occurs on a significant scale, reflecting the fact that economic activity tends to be more concentrated regionally than population. Estimates also suggest that there were 53 NUTS 2 regions where commuting reduced employment by over 5% relative to population and 23 where it reduced it by over 10%, depressing GDP per head by similar proportions. These regions include many of those close to capitals and other large cities, including a number of Objective 1 regions, such as Hainaut in Belgium, Burgenland in Austria and, most notably, Flevoland in the Netherlands. Changes in commuter flows can increase or reduce GDP per head in a region without any change in GDP occurring. If people move out of a city region to live in a surrounding region but continue to work in the city, then GDP will not necessarily change but population will decline so increasing GDP per head as measured. Conversely, if people working in a city move into the region instead of commuting, then GDP again might remain unchanged but GDP per head will decline since it is calculated in relation to a larger population. In general, a reduction in the scale of commuter flows will tend to reduce disparities in GDP per head as more people work in the region where they live. Belgium and Portugal, along with Greece were the only countries in the EU15 where regional disparities widened between 2000 and 2006. In 8 of the 13 countries with NUTS 2 regions, they narrowed and in two they remained the same. The effect of commuting is also pronounced in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia, in both of which there are large-scale inward flows into the capital city regions from neighbouring ones. In both cases, these flows increased between 2000 and 2006, so widening disparities between regions in terms of GDP per head. Adjusted for commuting, there was in fact no change in disparities in Slovakia and a relatively small increase in the Czech Republic. In Hungary, the widening of regional disparities over the period is also reduced if commuting is allowed for, though by less, and there remains a significant increase over the period. In Poland, commuting is on a smaller scale and has a minor effect on disparities in GDP per head between regions. 15 The European Labour Force Survey contains information on the region in which those surveyed live and on the region in which they work. The fact that the survey is based on a relatively small sample of respondents means that the information is inevitably subject to a margin of error. This margin is especially large in relation to changes between survey years because those surveyed may not necessarily be representative of commuters. To reduce the margin of error, the change between the average of the two years 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 has been taken. See Ex post evaluation, WP1, Regional developments and trends, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/expost2006/wp1_en.htm. 16 This is illustrated by comparing London and Paris. Whereas London is split into two NUTS 2 regions with substantial commuting between them, Paris is part of the Ile de France NUTS 2 region which is much more akin to a functional region where commuting is largely internal. 60
Ex-post Evaluation of the ERDF 2000-2006 Synthesis Report Table 2.6 Disparities between NUTS 2 regions according to different indicators, 2000 and 2006 Mean log deviation index GDP per head unadjusted GDP per head adjusted Income per head 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000 2006 BE 5.2 5.2 1.2 1.4 0.5 0.5 DE 2.7 2.4 1.7 1.5 0.6 0.7 IE 2.2 1.9 2.2 1.9 0.2 0.2 GR 2.4 4.2 2.4 4.2 1.5 1.9 ES 2.6 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.4 FR 3.4 3.2 2.2 2.0 0.9 0.6 IT 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.3 2.3 2.3 NL 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 AT 2.3 1.8 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.0 PT 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.7 1.3 1.4 SE 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.3 FI 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.2 0.4 0.3 UK 5.0 5.4 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 EU15 3.9 3.7 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.7 CZ 4.5 5.3 3.1 3.3 0.7 0.9 HU 6.4 8.5 5.4 6.8 2.9 2.6 PL 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.9 1.1 1.0 SK 6.0 8.0 3.8 3.8 1.2 1.7 EU10 4.9 5.5 4.2 4.5 2.2 1.7 EU25 7.5 6.3 6.6 5.1 5.8 4.7 Notes: For France, the effect of commuting is assumed to be the same in 2000 as in 2006 because of a break in the LFS series. For all countries, apart from Germany and Italy, the commuting effect for 2000 is an average of the two years 1999 and 2000 and for 2006, an average of 2005 and 2006. For Germany and Italy, figures for 1999 have been used for 2000 because of problems with the figures for the latter. Income per head refers to mean household disposable income Note that the three EU aggregates include disparities across the relevant countries, including those comprised of a single NUTS 2 region Source: Estimates based on Eurostat, Regional Accounts and European Labour Force Survey 2.3.4 Narrowing of disparities in household income per head While GDP per head gives an indication of the economic strength of a region, it does not necessarily reflect the well-being and living standards of the people living there, which are relevant for judging social cohesion. There are many reasons for this. In the first place, the income produced by GDP does not necessarily go to individuals. It can equally go to companies, which might transfer their income, or profits, elsewhere, or to government in the form of taxes. Secondly, it does not include transfers into the region from outside, whether by government (such as social benefits), companies or individuals. Thirdly, it does not capture other non-monetary aspects of well-being, such as health, education or various amenities which individuals might have access to, as well as living in a pleasant and attractive environment. These aspects include the availability of public goods and services which may be part of government expenditure in the region and, indeed, partly funded under cohesion policy. 61
Page 1:
Cohesion Policy Ex-Post Evaluation
Page 4 and 5:
Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13: Synthesis Report Ex-post Evaluation
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176:
Consult this website for further in
show all

Synthesis Report - European Commission - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?