The role of international organisations in understanding globaliThe role of international organisations in understanding globalisationsation

OECD Territorial Indicators and OECD Territorial Indicators and Regions at a GlanceRegions at a Glance

Vincenzo SpieziaVincenzo SpieziaHead, Territorial Statistics and IndicatorsHead, Territorial Statistics and Indicators

SCORUSSCORUS

25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research

Wroclaw, Poland 30 August Wroclaw, Poland 30 August -- 1 September 20061 September 2006

VincenzoVincenzo SpieziaSpieziaHead, Territorial Statistics and IndicatorsHead, Territorial Statistics and Indicators

SCORUSSCORUS

25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research25th Conference on Urban and Regional Statistics and Research

Wroclaw, Poland 30 August Wroclaw, Poland 30 August -- 1 September 20061 September 2006

The role of international organisations in understanding globaliThe role of international organisations in understanding globalisationsation

Presentation :Presentation :

1.1. Regional Policies at OECDRegional Policies at OECD

2.2. Implications of GlobalisationImplications of Globalisation

3.3. Statistics for policyStatistics for policy--makingmaking

Regional Development Policy at OECDRegional Development Policy at OECD

Territorial Development Policy Territorial Development Policy CommitteeCommitteeAim:Aim:toto enhance regional competitivenessenhance regional competitivenessPolicy focus, supported by three Policy focus, supported by three Working Parties:Working Parties:•• Urban Policy Working PartyUrban Policy Working Party•• Rural Policy Working PartyRural Policy Working Party•• Territorial Indicators WP (WPTI)Territorial Indicators WP (WPTI)

Regional Development Policy at OECDRegional Development Policy at OECD

Working Party on Territorial Indicators Working Party on Territorial Indicators

(WPTI)(WPTI)

•• Secretariat and Head of TI Unit at OECDSecretariat and Head of TI Unit at OECD

VincenzoVincenzo SpieziaSpiezia

•• ChairChair

Dev Virdee (ONS, UK)Dev Virdee (ONS, UK)

Statistical focus:Statistical focus:

to benchmark the policy debateto benchmark the policy debate

Regional Development Policy at OECDRegional Development Policy at OECD

3 Pillars3 Pillars

1. Regions as actors of national 1. Regions as actors of national

growthgrowth

2. Making the best of local assets2. Making the best of local assets

3. Competing on the basis of 3. Competing on the basis of

regional wellregional well--beingbeing

FFactors of national growth actors of national growth are are strongly localised in strongly localised in a smalla small number of regionsnumber of regions

⇓⇓Promoting national growth requirePromoting national growth requiress improving improving

the use of these factors within regionsthe use of these factors within regions

⇓⇓Regional PoliciesRegional Policies

GLOBALISATION

1. 1. Regions as the actors of national growthRegions as the actors of national growth

OECD Regions at a GlanceOECD Regions at a Glance

Geographic ConcentrationGeographic Concentration of:of:

•• ResourcesResources (GDP, Active Population, Industries, R&D, (GDP, Active Population, Industries, R&D,

Skills, etc.)Skills, etc.)

•• Unused AssetsUnused Assets (Unemployment)(Unemployment)

Regional Contribution to National GrowthRegional Contribution to National Growth in:in:

•• PopulationPopulation

•• GDPGDP

•• EmploymentEmployment

•• Labour ForceLabour Force

about 40% of national GDP

GDP share of the 10% regions with the highest concentration of GDP 2001

39%37%

55%45%45%

25%53%

27%38%

33%22%

40%43%

42%39%

38%44%

38%35%

38%44%

33%25%

41%19%

46%35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

United States TL2United Kingdom

Turkey Sweden

Spain Slovak Republic

Portugal Poland

OECD averageNorway

Netherlands Mexico TL2

Korea Japan

Italy Ireland

Hungary Greece

Germany France Finland

Denmark Czech Republic

Canada TL2Belgium Austria

Australia TL2

more than 50% of national patents

Patents share of the 10% regions with the highest concentration of patents 2001

65%

46%

51%

65%

56%

43%

54%

37%

49%

73%

83%

54%

58%

56%

46%

52%

65%

41%

44%

21%

45%79%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

United States

United Kingdom

Sweden

Spain

Portugal

Poland TL2

OECD average

Norway

Netherlands

Korea

Japan

Italy

Ireland

Greece

Germany

France

Finland

Denmark

Canada TL2

Belgium

Austria

Australia

In OECD, 10% of regions account forIn OECD, 10% of regions account for……

Employment growth varies significantly among OECD countries…

…but differences in employment growth are even larger among regions

1 .9 %0 .5 %

1 .2 %2 .4 %

-0 .9 %0 .7 %

2 .1 %1 .8 %

0 .3 %0 .3 %

1 .2 %5 .8 %

1 .3 %-0 .2 %

0 .7 %2 .5 %2 .6 %

1 .1 %1 .4 %1 .4 %

-1 .1 %3 .0 %

-0 .9 %4 .6 %

1 .4 %1 .0 %

0 .3 %1 .3 %

1 .6 %

-4 .0 % -2 .0 % 0 .0 % 2 .0 % 4 .0 % 6 .0 % 8 .0 %

A u s tra liaA u s tr ia

B e lg iu mC a n a d a

C z e c h R e p u b licD e n m a rk

F in la n dF ra n c e

G e rm a n yG re e c e

H u n g a ryIre la n d

Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a

M e x ic oN e th e rla n d s

N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y

O E C D a v e ra g eP o la n d

P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic

S p a inS w e d e n

S w itz e rla n dT u rk e y

U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s

A v e ra g e a n n u a l e m p lo y m e n t g ro w th ra te (1 9 9 6 -2 0 0 1 )

-1 %0 %

1 %-3 %-3 %

0 %-1 %

-1 %-2 %

-3 %1 %

4 %-1 %-1 %

-5 %-2 %

2 %-1 %

-1 %-6 %-6 %

-1 %-3 %

-1 %-1 %

-2 %

-2 %

5 %1 %

3 %7 %

0 %2 %

4 %5 %

2 %2 %2 %

9 %4 %

1 %3 %

1 3 %6 %

7 %2 %

1 4 %3 %

3 %1 %

7 %3 %

8 %6 %

1 4 %6 %

-3 %

-1 %

-1 0 % -5 % 0 % 5 % 1 0 % 1 5 %

A u s tra liaA u s tr ia

B e lg iu mC a n a d a

C z e c h R e p u b licD e n m a rk

F in la n dF ra n c e

G e rm a n yG re e c e

H u n g a ryIre la n d

Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a

M e x ic oN e th e r la n d s

N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y

O E C DP o la n d

P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic

S p a inS w e d e n

S w itz e r la n dT u rk e y

U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s

V a ria t io n o f re g io n a l e m p lo y m e n t g ro w th (1 9 9 6 -2 0 0 1 )

100%

80%

27%

100%

94%

64%

31%

100%

53%

81%

100%

43%

69%

69%

28%

93%

22%

100%

55%

100%

51%

93%

39%

0% 50% 100% 1

Austra lia

Canada

C zech R epublic

Fin land

France

G erm any

G reece

Ita ly

Japan

Korea

M exico

New Zealand

Norway

O EC D average

Poland

Portugal

S lovak Republic

Spain

Sw eden

Sw itzerland

Turkey

U nited K ingdom

U nited States

Proportion of total job losses due to 10% of regions w ith largest em ploym ent decrease

7 5 %5 5 %

1 7 %7 6 %

3 4 %5 6 %

4 1 %4 4 %

9 2 %3 9 %

3 2 %4 0 %

1 0 0 %7 9 %

5 3 %2 3 %

4 9 %5 3 %

5 6 %9 9 %

5 0 %9 1 %

4 3 %5 9 %

3 4 %6 9 %

4 5 %6 4 %

0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 2 0 %

A u s tra liaA u s tr ia

B e lg iu mC a n a d a

D e n m a rkF in la n dF ra n c e

G e rm a n yG re e c e

H u n g a ryIre la n d

Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a

M e x ic oN e th e rla n d s

N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y

O E C D a v e ra g eP o la n d

P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic

S p a inS w e d e n

S w itz e rla n dT u rk e y

U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s

P ro p o rtio n o f n a tio n a l e m p lo y m e n t c re a tio n d u e to 1 0 % o f re g io n s w ith la rg e s t e m p lo y m e n t in c re a s e

56% of employment creation 69 % of job losses

In OECD, 10% of regions account forIn OECD, 10% of regions account for……

6 2 %4 1 %

2 6 %5 5 %

2 8 %2 2 %

2 6 %3 4 %3 4 %

4 8 %2 6 %

5 7 %2 5 %

4 8 %3 6 %

3 8 %5 7 %

2 5 %3 8 %

2 3 %3 7 %

2 0 %4 7 %

1 9 %3 9 %

3 6 %3 1 %

4 8 %3 3 %

5 0 %

0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 %

A u s tra liaA u s tr ia

B e lg iu mC a n a d a

C z e c h R e p u b licD e n m a rk

F in la n dF ra n c e

G e rm a n yG re e c e

H u n g a ryIc e la n dIre la n d

Ita lyJ a p a nK o re a

M e x ic oN e th e r la n d s

N e w Z e a la n dN o rw a y

O E C D a v e ra g eP o la n d

P o rtu g a lS lo v a k R e p u b lic

S p a inS w e d e n

S w itz e r la n dT u rk e y

U n ite d K in g d o mU n ite d S ta te s

U n e m p lo y m e n t s h a re o f th e 1 0 % re g io n s w ith th e h ig h e s t c o n c e n tra tio n o f u n e m p lo y m e n t

In OECD, 10% of regions account for 37% of In OECD, 10% of regions account for 37% of total unemploymenttotal unemployment

Enhancing competitiveness

Better use of local assets

Identifying unused assets

Regional Benchmarking

2. 2. Making the best of local assetsMaking the best of local assets

GLOBALISATION

MethodologyMethodology

Compare regions against a Compare regions against a

common benchmarkcommon benchmark

3 Benchmarks3 Benchmarks::

1.1.National AveragesNational Averages

2.2.OECD AverageOECD Average

3.3.Regional Type (Urban / Rural)Regional Type (Urban / Rural)

2. 2. Making the best of local assetsMaking the best of local assets

GDP per capita

Average Labour Productivity

Employment rate

Commuting rate

Activity rate

What explains regional differencesin GDP per capita?

Number of regions by main determinant of regional economic performances in selected OECD member countries

CountryHigh

PerformanceSpecialis-

ation ProductivityEmploy-

ment rate Commuting AgeActivity

rateLow

PerformanceSpecialis-

ation ProductivityEmploy-

ment rate Commuting AgeActivity

rate

Total

Australia 5 0 4 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 8Austria 10 0 4 0 5 0 1 25 0 12 0 10 0 3 35Belgium 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 9 0 6 0 3 0 0 11

Czech Rep. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 0 12 1 0 0 0 14Denmark 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 0 7 0 5 0 0 15Finland 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 17 0 9 1 1 0 6 20France 13 0 4 0 8 0 1 83 2 59 0 13 0 9 96

Germany 12 0 10 1 0 0 1 37 1 21 1 0 0 14 49Hungary 4 0 2 0 1 0 1 15 0 0 0 13 0 2 19Ireland 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0 8

Italy 55 4 12 10 2 0 27 48 0 19 9 9 0 11 103Japan 6 0 3 0 2 0 1 41 15 19 0 5 0 2 # 47Korea 8 n.a. 7 0 1 n.a. 0 8 n.a. 6 1 n.a 1 16

Netherlands 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 0 12Norway 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 17 1 13 0 2 0 1 19Poland 10 2 8 0 0 0 0 34 17 3 4 0 0 10 44Spain 18 0 9 7 0 0 2 34 1 15 7 0 0 11 52

Sweden 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 18 0 7 1 3 0 7 21UK 44 0 13 1 19 0 11 89 0 32 1 41 0 15 133US 88 0 53 0 0 0 35 677 13 616 1 0 0 47 765

n.a. = not available.Source: IDENTIFYING THE DETERMINANTS OF REGIONAL PERFORMANCE (GOV/TDPC/TI(2002)1/REV1)

BENCHMARKING

OECD Regions at a GlanceOECD Regions at a GlanceRegional DisparitiesRegional Disparities in:in:

–– GDP per capitaGDP per capita–– LabourLabour ProductivityProductivity–– Unemployment RatesUnemployment Rates–– AgeAge–– Activity RatesActivity Rates

Factors of Regional CompetitivenessFactors of Regional Competitiveness::—— LabourLabour ProductivityProductivity—— Industry SpecialisationIndustry Specialisation—— Employment RatesEmployment Rates—— CommutingCommuting—— AgeAge—— Activity RatesActivity Rates

Differences in GDP per capita due to productivity: Europe TL3Percentage difference from national GDP per capita 2001

The OECD Regional TypologyThe OECD Regional Typology

OECD Regional TypologyOECD Regional Typology3 criteria:3 criteria:

1.1. Population densityPopulation density::

a community is rural if density < 150 inhabitantsa community is rural if density < 150 inhabitants

< (500 in Japan)< (500 in Japan)

2.2. % of population in rural communities% of population in rural communities::

> 50%> 50% ⇒⇒ Predominantly Rural (PR)Predominantly Rural (PR)< 15 %< 15 % ⇒⇒ Predominantly Urban (PU)Predominantly Urban (PU)Between 50 and 15 % Between 50 and 15 % ⇒⇒ Intermediate (IN)Intermediate (IN)

3.3. Urban centreUrban centre::

> 200K> 200K Rural Rural ⇒⇒ IntermediateIntermediate> 500K> 500K IntermediateIntermediate ⇒⇒ UrbanUrban

51%

51%

53%

54%

57%

Employment rate

Activity rate

Commuting

Specialisation

Age

Productivity 60%

How much is explained by the Typology ?How much is explained by the Typology ?

3. 3. Competing on Competing on the basis of the basis of regional wellregional well--beingbeing

WellWell--beingbeing ⇒⇒ CompetitivenessCompetitiveness

WWellell--being being == AttractivenessAttractiveness

WWellell--being being >> EconomicsEconomics

GLOBALISATION

OECD Regions at a GlanceOECD Regions at a GlanceIndicators of wellIndicators of well--beingbeing

—— AccessibilityAccessibility—— Home ownershipHome ownership—— EducationEducation—— Health statusHealth status—— Health resourcesHealth resources—— Crime against the personsCrime against the persons—— Crime against the propertyCrime against the property—— Fatal car accidentFatal car accident—— Stock of private vehiclesStock of private vehicles

308

1511

33

920

92

204

1114

33

216

108

423

42

251

334

0 10 20 30 40

United StatesUnited Kingdom

TurkeySwitzerland

SwedenSpain

PortugalPoland TL2

OECDNorway

New ZealandNetherlandsMexico TL2

KoreaJapan

ItalyIrelandIceland

HungaryGreece

GermanyFranceFinland

DenmarkCzech Rep

CanadaBelgiumAustria

Australia

AccessibilityAccessibility

Time to reach the

closest centre (range)

Education: student enrolment in tertiary education(students per 100 people)

0.130.43

0.250.23

0.880.230.25

0.430.140.14

0.260.33

0.250.38

0.310.490.48

0.370.22

0.390.52

0.340.65

0.220.32

0.0 0.5 1.0

United StatesTurkey

SwedenSpain

Slovak RepublicPortugal

PolandOECD Average

NorwayNetherlands

MexicoKoreaJapan

ItalyIceland

HungaryGreece

GermanyFranceFinland

DenmarkCanadaBelgiumAustria

Australia

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

United StatesTurkey

SwedenSpain

Slovak RepPortugal

PolandOECD Average

NorwayNetherlands

MexicoKoreaJapanItaly

IcelandHungary

GreeceGermany

FranceFinland

DenmarkCanada

BelgiumAustria

Australia

Coefficient of variation

Rural, urban &

intermediate(country=1)

Safety: reported criminal offences against property(per 1000 people)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

United StatesUnited Kingdom

TurkeySwitzerland

SwedenSpain

Slovak RepOECD Average

NorwayPortugal

PolandNew Zealand

NetherlandsMexico

KoreaJapanItaly

IcelandHungary

GreeceGermany

FranceCzech Rep

CanadaBelgium

AustriaAustralia

Rural, urban &

intermediate(country=1)

Health: age-adjusted mortality rate

Highest and lowest mortality

(country=1)

0.680.900.97

0.860.900.920.95

0.680.910.98

0.830.920.970.930.910.930.900.890.970.960.920.940.910.96

2.101.16

1.081.13

1.031.11

1.052.10

1.071.03

1.231.15

1.031.051.041.051.15

1.261.041.051.08

1.811.111.07

1.68

0.75

United StatesUnited Kingdom

SwedenSpain

Slovak RepPoland

PortugalOECD Average

NorwayNetherlands

MexicoKoreaJapan

IcelandHungary

GreeceGermany

FranceFinland

DenmarkCzech Rep

CanadaBelgiumAustria

Australia

Application of OECD Methods to UKApplication of OECD Methods to UK

Analysing differences inAnalysing differences inRegional Economic PerformanceRegional Economic Performanceby Daniela New and Dev Virdeeby Daniela New and Dev Virdee

UK regional disparities in economic UK regional disparities in economic performance are significant…performance are significant…

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East M idlands

West M idlands

East o f England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per head

UK average

GVA – Gross Value Added – measure or economic activity

.. but how different depends on the criteria we .. but how different depends on the criteria we use to measure “performance”…..use to measure “performance”…..

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East M idlands

West M idlands

East o f England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per head GVA per job

(UK average)

GVA GVA per hourper hour worked, the preferred measure of worked, the preferred measure of productivity, shows smaller gap between regionsproductivity, shows smaller gap between regions

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East M idlands

West M idlands

East o f England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per head GVA per job GVA per hour w orked

(UK average)

Explaining the differences:Explaining the differences:

UK average-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per hour w orked

(UK average)

Explanatory factors: Hours worked Explanatory factors: Hours worked per jobper job

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job

(UK average)

Hours worked

Explanatory factors: Explanatory factors: Employment/Labour ForceEmployment/Labour Force

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per hour w orked Hours w orked per job employment rate

(UK average)

Employment rate

Explanatory factorsExplanatory factors-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job employment rate commuting rate

(UK average)

Commuting rate

Explanatory factors: Labour Explanatory factors: Labour Force/PopulationForce/Population

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job employment rate commuting rate activity rate

(UK average)

Activity rate

Explanatory factorsExplanatory factors

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North East

North West

Yorkshire and The Humber

East Midlands

West Midlands

East of England

London

South East

South West

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

GVA per hour w orked hours w orked per job employment rate commuting rate activity rate other factors

Other factors

(UK average)

Main findingsMain findingsThe perception of relative regional performance can The perception of relative regional performance can change depending on the measure of productivity change depending on the measure of productivity that is chosen that is chosen

Differences within regions can be as important as Differences within regions can be as important as differences between regionsdifferences between regions

Several factors explain the gap between regions: in Several factors explain the gap between regions: in the North East, all working in one directionthe North East, all working in one direction

East of England and South East East of England and South East -- good exploitation good exploitation of geographical location, skills, innovation, transport of geographical location, skills, innovation, transport and infrastructureand infrastructure

Further InformationFurther Information

OECD Regions at a Glance 2005OECD Regions at a Glance 2005

www.oecd.orgwww.oecd.org

vincenzo.spiezia@oecd.orgvincenzo.spiezia@oecd.org