development report 2012 - UMAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

228 Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development Regional variation in GDP per capita In 2009 economic activity declined in all regions, the Osrednjeslovenska region recording the lowest decline, so that the gap by which the economically weaker regions trail the Osrednjeslovenska region and the national average increased. In 2009 1 the highest GDP per capita was recorded by the Osrednjeslovenska region (more than 42% higher than the national average), while the lowest was recorded by the Pomurska region (34.3% lower than the national average). As in previous years, the Obalno-kraška region was the only region other than the Osrednjeslovenska to exceed the national average in 2009 (by 9%). The two regions with above-average GDP per capita recorded the smallest declines in economic activity in 2009, and thus continued to increase their advantage over the national average. By contrast, the largest declines in GDP were recorded by the Koroška, Gorenjska and Jugovzhodna Slovenija regions, i.e. the regions with relatively high shares of manufacturing in GVA, which was most affected by the crisis in 2009. In 2009 the economically weakest Pomurska region managed to narrow the gap by which it trails the national average for the first time since 2000. The gap by which Slovenian regions trailed the European average widened in 2009. The statistical regions had been fairly successful in narrowing their gaps to the European average, particularly after 2006, but in 2009 this came to a halt. The Osrednjeslovenska and Obalno-kraška regions are the only regions to still exceed the European average, by almost 25% and 5%, respectively, but their leads decreased. The gaps by which other regions trail increased, particularly those of the Gorenjska region, Jugovzhodna Slovenia and the Koroška region. The Osrednjeslovenska region also recorded the largest improvement in its position relative to the European average (by 14 p.p.) over the longer term (between 2000 and 2009), in contrast to the Zasavska region, whose position deteriorated the most (by -5 p.p.). The ratio between the two regions with the highest and lowest GDP per capita, which has remained unchanged since 2006, is relatively low. In 2009 GDP per capita in the Osrednjeslovenska region was 2.2 times that of the economically weakest Pomurska region. This was the same figure as in the previous year, and slightly higher than in 2000, when the GDP per capita in the Osrednjeslovenska region was 1.9 times higher. Taking into account the differences in 1 The latest available data. purchasing power across regions, the actual ratio is probably even lower. This is also indicated by the lower ratio between the highest and lowest net disposable income (1:1.3), which has been practically unchanged since 2000. 2 The ratio of GDP per capita between the two regions with the highest and lowest figures at the NUTS 3 level in Slovenia is among the lowest in the EU. In 2009 3 it stood at 2.2 in Slovenia, compared with the highest figure of 10.5 in the United Kingdom and the lowest figure of 1.4 in Malta. Regional disparities in GDP per capita increased slightly in 2009, but remain among the lowest in the EU. The relative dispersion 4 of GDP per capita, which is also one of the indicators of regional disparities, increased by 1.3 p.p. relative to 2008 to 22.9% according to our calculations. Although this is the largest increase since 2003, regional disparities at the NUTS 3 level in Slovenia are still among the lowest in the EU. According to our calculations, this indicator of dispersion averaged 32.8% 5 in 2009 in the EU as a whole; it was highest in Bulgaria (46.6%) and lowest in the Netherlands (17.7%). While the differences between the EU Member States are narrowing, this is mostly not the case for differences within the countries themselves. Since 2000 the largest decline in disparity with the EU average has been recorded primarily by the countries that joined the EU in or after 2004, but at the same time the regional disparities within these countries have mainly increased. This also holds true for Slovenia, where dispersion rose by 2.3 p.p., which is still the lowest among these countries. Regional disparities are mainly a consequence of higher growth in one or two regions, usually the region with the capital city. This is also what happened in Slovenia, though this process was less pronounced. 2 Between 1.3 and 1.4. 3 IMAD’s calculations for 2009. 4 where = year, = population of the region, = population of Slovenia, = GDP per captia of the region, = GDP per capita of Slovenia, expressed in percent. 5 The calculation does not include Cyprus and Luxembourg, which do not have regions at the NUTS level 3, nor Spain, for which data for NUTS 3 level regions is not available.
Development Report 2012 Indicators of Slovenia’s development 229 Table: GDP per capita, indices, SLO=100, EU–27=100 Cohesion region / Statistical region 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 EU- 27=100 2009 GVA structure 2009, % Real GDP growth 2009/08, % Slovenia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 87 100.0 -8.0 Zahodna Slovenija 118.2 120.3 120.8 120.6 119.5 120.0 105 56.3 np Obalno-kraška 107.8 105.6 106.6 106.7 107.7 109.0 95 5.9 -6.0 Goriška 97.8 94.4 93.4 95.5 95.7 94.6 82 5.5 -10.0 Gorenjska 88.9 87.7 86.4 86.2 85.4 82.0 71 8.1 -11.8 Osrednjeslovenska 137.3 142.5 144.0 143.1 140.7 142.6 124 36.8 -5.7 Vzhodna Slovenija 84.6 82.7 82.2 82.3 82.9 82.4 72 43.7 np Notranjsko-kraška 80.7 72.6 71.7 72.0 72.2 72.4 63 1.8 -7.9 Jugovzhodna Slovenija 93.0 93.3 94.9 94.8 94.9 92.4 80 6.4 -10.0 Spodnjeposavska 87.8 84.9 82.9 83.5 84.6 85.6 75 2.9 -8.4 Zasavska 78.5 69.9 67.2 66.2 66.7 66.4 58 1.5 -9.8 Savinjska 89.8 89.0 87.5 87.4 89.5 89.0 78 11.3 -9.0 Koroška 83.8 79.8 77.8 77.9 77.6 74.9 65 2.7 -12.1 Podravska 82.5 82.6 83.3 83.8 84.0 83.6 73 13.2 -8.9 Pomurska 72.7 67.0 65.4 65.0 64.9 65.7 57 3.8 -8.4 Source: SI-Stat Data Portal – Economy – National accounts – Regional gross domestic product, 2011, Eurostat – general and regional statistics, 2012. Note: GVA – gross value added. Figure: Dispersion of regional GDP per capita in PPS at the NUTS 3 level in the EU-27 and Slovenia, % 43 In % 40 All regions (NUTS 3) EU-27 37 34 31 28 25 22 19 16 13 10 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: SI-STAT data portal, 2011.
Page 1:
development report 2012
Page 5 and 6:
Development Report 2012 Contents 3
Page 7:
Development Report 2012 Contents 5
Page 10 and 11:
8 Development Report 2012 Main find
Page 12 and 13:
10 Development Report 2012 Summary
Page 15:
Part I Development by the prioritie
Page 18 and 19:
16 Development Report 2012 Developm
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 93:
Part II Indicators of Slovenia’s
Page 96 and 97:
94 Development Report 2012 Indicato
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
100 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
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 133 and 134:
THE SECOND PRIORITY Efficient use o
Page 135 and 136:
Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 171 and 172:
THE FOURTH PRIORITY: A modern welfa
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 203: Development Report 2012 Indicators
Page 206 and 207: 204 Development Report 2012 Indicat
Page 236 and 237: 234 Development Report 2012 Bibliog
Page 247 and 248: Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 249 and 250: Development Report 2012 Appendix 24
Page 251: development report 2012
show all

development report 2012 - UMAR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?