Kwartalnik 'Studia Regionalne i Lokalne' - The impact ... · miasto stołeczne. 1 The research...
Transcript of Kwartalnik 'Studia Regionalne i Lokalne' - The impact ... · miasto stołeczne. 1 The research...
Maciej SmętkowskiUniversityofWarsaw,CentreforEuropeanRegionalandLocalStudies(EUROREG),KrakowskiePrzedmieście30,00-927Warsaw,Poland;[email protected]
the impact oF the economic cRiSiS on the metRopoliSation pRoceSS… in the capital citieS oF
the cee countRieS1
Abstract:TheaimofthispaperistodiscussthesituationoftheEU-10CEEcapitalcitiesduringtheyearssincethe2008financialcrisis.Thepaperconcentratesonmetropolisationprocessesthatbecameparticularlypronouncedattheendofthefirststageofthetransformation,longbeforetheaccessionofthesecountriestotheEuropeanUnion.Themainhypothesisisthattheseprocessesalsocontinuedintheconditionsoftheeconomiccrisis.Asaresult,thecapitalcitiesinmostCEEcountriesshouldhavedonerelativelywellcomingoutofthecrisis,mainlyduetothenatureoftheirdiversifiedeconomiesandthesignificantshareofadvancedbusinessservicesintheirstructure.Asaresult,thecrisisprovidedanopportunityto‘verify’theviabilityofthecurrenteconomicmodelintheshortterm,inthespecificconditionsoftransformationeconomies.
Keywords:CEEcountries,metropolisation,economiccrisis,capitalcity.
WpłyW kryzysu gospodarczego na proces metropolizacji W miastach stołecznych
krajóW europy ŚrodkoWo-Wschodniej
Streszczenie:Celemartykułu jest przedstawienie sytuacji 10miast stołecznychkrajówEuropyŚrodkowo-Wschodniej w okresie następującym po kryzysie finansowym z 2008 r. Artykułkoncentrujesięnaprocesachmetropolizacji,którestałysięszczególniewidocznewpierwszejfazietransformacji,nadługoprzedprzystąpieniemtychkrajówdoUniiEuropejskiej.Przyjętahipotezazakłada,żeteprocesypostępująrównieżwwarunkachkryzysugospodarczego.Wrezultacienależyoczekiwać, że sytuacja miast stołecznych krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej powinna byćdobrazuwaginazdywersyfikowanąstrukturęgospodarcząidużyudziałzaawansowanychusługdla przedsiębiorstw.W efekcie kryzys stworzył możliwość weryfikacji odporności aktualnegomodelurozwojugospodarczegowkrótkimokresiewspecyficznychwarunkachtransformującychsięgospodarek.
Słowa kluczowe: kraje Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, metropolizacja, kryzys gospodarczy,miastostołeczne.
1 The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’sSeventhFrameworkProgramme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement ‘Growth-Innovation-Competitiveness:FosteringCohesioninCentralandEasternEurope’(GRINCOH).
Studia Regionalne i LokalneNr 2(60)/2015
ISSN 1509–4995DOI: 10.7366/1509499526002
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 33
Introduction
Contemporarymetropolisationprocessestakingplaceondifferentspatialscalesarethemainfactorshapingtheeconomyandspaceoflargecities,particularlyinwell-developedcountries(Castells,1989,1998).Inaninformationeconomy,thedevelopmentofmetropolises isbasedon threemutuallysupplementarypillars(Sassen,2001;HallandPain,2006;Krätke2007).Thefirstisrelatedtotransnationalcorporations, including companies providing advanced business services. Thesecondisassociatedwithhi-techandcreativeindustries.Forinstance,T.Hutton(2010)drawsattentiontocontemporary,specificreindustrialisationprocessesinthecentralareasofmetropolises.Thethirdpillarencapsulatesculturalandtradefunctions,includingtheirroleinthedevelopmentofthetourismsector(WrigleyandLowe,2002;DegenandGarcia,2012).At thesametime, it ispossible toobserve thespatialdimensionof thegrowingpolycentricityofexistingspatialstructures(cf.e.g.Batten,1995;Kunzmann,1998;Criekingenetal.,2007),withcentralitybecomingincreasinglyfuzzyinthemetropolitanspace(Soja,2000).Tosumup,theobservablemetropolisationprocessesareassociatedwith(cf.
SmętkowskiandGorzelak,2008):• transition from a traditional industrial economy,with capital and labour asitsmainproductionfactors,toaninformationandservice-basedeconomyinwhichinnovationisthemainfactorofdevelopment;
• segmentation of the global economy, where the competitive advantage inthe high-technology segment is based on the capacity to create and adaptinnovations, whilst the low-technology segment is governed by the pricecompetition. The former segment is usually located in metropolitan areas,whilethelatter–innon-metropolitanareas;
• changes in the spatial linkages within the economy, which involve thedevelopmentofanetworkofglobalcitiesthatattractfirmsprovidingadvancedbusiness services, headquarters of the largest international corporations andresearch-intensiveindustriesthatorganiseglobalinformationflows.Inrecentyears,thechangestakingplaceintheservicesectorhavehadacrucial
impactontheeconomiesofthemetropolitancentresinhighly-developedcountries,andthemostimportantchangestookplaceoverapproximately10-yearperiods,starting in1970 (cf.Hutton,2010).Thefirstof theseperiods,whichbegan inthe 1970s, involved the externalisationof services from industrial enterprises,aprocessthatfosteredthedevelopmentofbusinessservicesandledtothecitiesbecoming specialised,nationalor regional, servicecentres.The secondphase,associatedwith the increasing internationalisationof the service sector, beganinthe1980sandwascharacterisedbyagrowthofintermediationservicessuchasbankingandfinance,but alsoofotheradvancedbusiness services, coupledwiththeirincreasingspecialisationincontrolandmanagementfunctions.Overthisperiod,metropolisesbecamethemainhubsforinternationalexchangeandinvestments.Thecurrentphase,whichstartedafter1990,canbedescribedastheglobalisationphase,duetotherapidgrowthofinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICT),accompaniedbyanexpansionofknowledge-basedbusiness
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI34
servicesandtoughercompetitionbetweenmetropolisesforcontrolovertheflowsofcapital,technologies,andinformation.InCentralandEasternEuropeancountries(CEECs),lockedinthefettersof
the old industrial development paradigmuntil 1989, it couldbe expected thatthe scale ofmetropolisation processes associatedwith the transition to a freemarket economy and becoming a part of globalisation flowswould bemuchmorespontaneousthaninWesternEuropeancountries.Furthermore,itshouldbeassumedthatthesewavesofchangesintheservicesectortypicalofmetropolisesinhighly-developedcountrieswouldoverlapwitheachother.Thisiscorroboratedbymany empirical studies that clearly show that large cities, especially thoseincorporating capital cities, became the leaders of the transformation process(Gorzelak, 1996; Petrakos, 2001; Smętkowski and Wójcik, 2012). Thiswas a consequence of the fact that capital city regions had the best transportaccessibility,aswellas theircapitalcityfunctionsandthehumancapitalwiththebest qualifications, akey factor in thedevelopmentof aknowledge-basedeconomy. In effect, this led to a huge inflow of capital from abroad, withinvestmentsinter aliainthesectorofadvancedbusinessservices,whichinturnresultedinaboominthemarketforofficeandretailspace,boostedthenumbersofuniversitystudents,increasedairtravel,andproducedconsiderablestructuralchanges triggered by deindustrialisation processes (cf. e.g. Kuć-Czajkowska,2010;GorzelakandSmętkowski,2011).The global economic crisis originating in a crisis in the financial sector
couldhaveexertedastrongimpactonmetropolisationprocessesintheCEECs.However, the regional dimension of the crisis phenomena has not yet beendiscussed in depth, due to the lack of relevant statistical data. Preliminaryanalysesbasedonthechangestakingplaceinthelabourmarkets(cf.Gorzelak,2011) ledtoahypothesisstatingthattheregionstheleastaffectedbythecrisisshouldincludemetropolitanregionswiththemostdiversifiedeconomicstructureontheonehand,andontheother–agriculturalregionswiththeleastpresenceinglobalisationprocesses.Inconsequence,theremainingregionsshouldbemostheavilyexposedtothecrisisphenomena,especiallythosewiththemostattributesoftheformer,‘Fordist’modelofeconomicdevelopment.Themain aim of this paper is to present the situation in ten capital cities
ofCEEcountries thataremembersof theEuropeanUnionover the last threepost-crisis years, i.e. 2008–2011. The paper concentrates on metropolisationprocesses that became particularly pronounced at the end of the first stage ofthetransformation,longbeforetheaccessionofthesecountriestotheEuropeanUnion. The main hypothesis is that these processes also continued in theconditionsof theeconomiccrisis.Asa result, thecapitalcities inmostof theCEECsshouldhavedonerelativelywellcomingoutofthecrisis,mainlyduetothenatureof theirdiversifiedeconomiesandthesignificantshareofadvancedbusinessservicesintheirstructure.Asaresult,thecrisisprovidedanopportunityto‘verify’theviabilityofthecurrenteconomicmodelintheshortterm,inthespecificconditionsoftransformationeconomies.
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 35
The paper has the following structure: the first part discusses the national(domestic) dimension of the economic crisis and the development trajectoriesof thecapitalcityregionsin1995–2011.Thesecondpart identifiesthefactorsthatunderpinnedthemetropolisationprocessesintheCEECs.Thethirdandfinalpartdemonstrateshowthecapitalcityregionsof theCEECswereaffectedbytherecenteconomiccrisis,withanemphasisonthedynamicsoftheireconomicgrowth compared to their respective national economies, the direction ofstructuralchangestakingplaceoverthisperiod,andthechangingrelationshipsbetweenthemetropolisesandtheirregions.Inaddition,basedontwoselectedcasestudiesofmetropolitancentres,WarsawandRiga,thedevelopmentstakingplaceinthelabourandofficepropertymarketsduringtheeconomicslowdown/crisisarediscussed.
1. Economic crisis in the CEECs and capital cities
Thefinancialcrisis, theonsetofwhichwassymbolicallyepitomisedby thecollapse of LehmanBrothers, aUS investment bank, on 15 September 2008,quickly turned into a global economic recession. Themain channels throughwhich the global crisis was imported into the CEECs included (Orłowski,2010) the collapseof exports toWesternEuropean countriesdue to shrinkingconsumer demand, reduced scale of FDIs globally, and financial instabilitycausedbydependencyonexternalsourcesoffinancingthatwerecrippleddueto declining confidence in emergingmarkets. In parallel, G. Gorzelak (2011)dividedthefactorsunderpinningthecrisisintotwocategories:external,whichinclude decreasing exports, reduced activity of foreign banks, drop in FDIs,andoutflowofcapital;andinternal,embracinghighspecialisationlevelsofthenationaleconomies,housingbubble,excessivesalaryrises,overvaluednationalcurrencies,highpublicdeficitlevels,andweakinstitutions.The scale of the economic crisis differed across the CEECs (Figure 1). In
2009, thecrisiswas themostacutelyfelt in theBalticstates, leadingtoarealGDPdropby a staggering15%, afigureunheardof even in thefirst stageoftheeconomictransformation.Intheremainingcountries,therecessionoscillatedbetween5%and8%,withtheexceptionofPoland,whichrecordeda1.7%riseinGDP.Acomparisonof theGDP level in2008with thatat theendof2013showedthatPolandhadanaggregateeconomicgrowthof14.3%.Inthisperiod,Slovakia andEstoniawere the countrieswhose economies had bounced back(a5.0%anda3.0%increase,respectively).ChangesintheGDPofanotherfourcountriesapproximatedtheEUaverage,whichmeantaslightdecreaseofca.2%.However,Hungary,Latvia (a5–6%decrease)andSlovenia (a9.4%decrease)hadnot rebounded, even though twoof these countrieswere thefirst to entertherecessionphase.Inaddition,post2010,onlyfivecountriesclearlyrecoveredgrowth;thesewerePoland,SlovakiaandtheBalticstates,whilstgrowthinthecaseofRomaniaandBulgariawasmuchlowerthanintheformergroup.Atthesametime,theeconomiesofSlovenia,theCzechRepublic,andHungarywerestillstagnating,andevenrecordedasmalldropinGDPin2012–2013.
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI36
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Poland
Slovakia
Estonia
EU (27 countries)
Romania
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Latvia
Slovenia
Figure 1. Real GDP changes in CEECs in 2008–2013 (2008 = 100)
Source: own elaboration based on Eurostat data.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
BRATISLAVA MA
LJUBLJANA MA
PRAGA MA
WARSAW MA
TALLINN MA
BUDAPEST MA
BUCARESTI MA
VILNIUS MA
RIGA MA
SOFIA MA
Figure 2. Dynamics of economic development of the capital city regions (GDP per capita in EUR)
* MA – metropolitan area
Source: own elaboration based on Eurostat data.
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 37
InnominalvaluesmeasuredbyGDPpercapitainEUR,thecapitalcityregions(which,forthepurposesofthisstudy,aredefinedasthecapitalcitiestogetherwiththesurroundingNUTS3subregions)intheCEECsweredevelopingrapidlyuntil2008.Inthisperiod,thesituationdeterioratedonlyinSofiaasaresultofforeigncurrencyfluctuations(in1996–1997),andinWarsaw(in2002–2004)(Figure2).In contrast, the most dissimilar paths of growth characterised Bratislava andTallinn,thesuccessofwhichcouldbeexplainedbytheadvantagescreatedbytheirlocationintheproximityofViennaandHelsinki,respectively.Ontheotherhand,andespeciallyintheyears2004–2008,theregionsofSofiaandLjubljana,thecapitalsofthepoorestandthewealthiestcountriesofthemacroregion,weredevelopingatavisiblyslowerrate.Asaresultofthecrisis,thesituationoftheBratislavacapitalregionimproved
significantly,withitbeingrankedfirstamongtheCEEcountries(EUR30,000percapita),alikelyconsequenceofSlovakia’saccessiontotheeurozonein2009.Otherthanthat,thefiguresforGDPmeasuredinEURdidnotdecreaseonlyintheSofiaMA(metropolitanarea),asaresultofwhichithadagainrecordedaGDPpercapitagrowthsimilartothatoftheRiga,Vilnius,andBucharestMAs.Thelatter,followingthedeeprecessionof2009,begantoimprovetheirsituationstartingin2011,similarlytoWarsawandTallinn,whichhadrecoveredfromthe2009level.Incontrasttothistrend,thepositionofLjubljana,Prague,andBudapestbegantodeterioratesteadily,whichcouldbeviewedasaconsequenceofpoordynamicsofgrowthnationally,discussedabove.
2. Drivers of metropolisation processes in CEECs before the crisis
PositionoftheCEECs’capitalcityregionsinadvancedproducerservicesrankings
Ingeneral,metropolisesintheCEECsoccupyquitedistantplacesinvariousglobalcityrankings.Forinstance,onthebasisoftheGaWC(GlobalandWorldCities)study(Taylor,2007),itcanbeconcludedthat,ofapoolof315surveyedglobalcities,onlyPrague,Warsaw,andBudapestwererankedamongthetop50citiesintermsoftheconnectivityofglobalservicefirms,atalevelofca.40%ofLondon’spotentialinthatregard,whilsttherespectivevaluesinthecaseofBucharest,Bratislava,andSofiawerebetween20%and25%,andforthecapitalcities of theBaltic states and Slovenia – only 15%. (Table 1).However, thissituationgradually changed in the followingyears. In2011, basedon anotheranalysis examining the branch structure of 350 transnational corporationsprovidingadvancedbusiness services (CBRE,2011), it couldbe seen that thecitiesinquestionvisiblywentupintheranking(althoughcomparedtoasmallernumber of cities). For the three cities with top positions in the ranking, i.e.Warsaw,Budapest,andPrague, thiscouldbeobservedparticularlywell in thecaseoftheformertwocities.Inthenextgroupofcities,thechangeofrankwasevenmorepronounced,particularlyinthecaseofBucharestandBratislava,andtoalesserextent–Sofia.Ontheotherhand,theremainingCEECs’capitalcities
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI38
continued tobescoredat theverybottomof the ranking,probablydue to thesmallsizeoftheirnationaleconomies.
Table 1. Rank of CEECs’ capital cities based on the location of headquarters and subsidiaries of largest advanced producer services (APS) companies
City
CB Richard Ellis (2011) GAWC (P. Taylor) (2000)
Rank (197 cities)
Number of global APS companies (max. 350)
Rank (315 cities)
Connectivity index for 100 global APS companies (max. 1.00 London)
Warsaw 12 150 39 0.42
Budapest 20 128 45 0.41
Prague 21 126 29 0.43
Bucharest 29 110 83 0.25
Bratislava 35 93 113 0.21
Sofia 53 80 121 0.20
Riga 76 59 154 0.16
Vilnius 86 51 179 0.14
Tallinn 89 49 176 0.14
Ljubljana 93 45 185 0.14
Source: prepared by the author on the basis of data from: CBRE, 2011; Taylor, 2000.
Itshouldbenoted,however,thatahighplaceinanyoftheaboverankingsdoesnotmean that thesemetropolises serveanysignificantcontrolormanagementfunctionsintheglobaleconomybutratherthatthey:• provideconvenient locations forbranchofficesofglobalservicecompanies(withasignificantroleofinternationalairports),whichofferservicesmostlytolocal/domesticenterprises;
• employ a well-qualified and cheap workforce, largely performing ancillaryfunctionsinrelationtothoseperformedbytheheadofficesofsuchcompanies;
• someofthebranchofficesmaybesmallinsizewhencomparedtothescaleofoperationsintheirhomecountriesand/orglobally.TheseobservationsarecorroboratedbythelowpositionoftheseCEEcities
inthelocationrankingsofmajortransnationalcorporations(coveringnotonlyservicefirms),particularlywhenthelocationofcorporateheadofficesistakenintoaccount(cf.ESPONFOCI,2010).Atthesametime,citiesinthispartoftheEuropelagbehindthemajorcitycentresoftheEU,alsoinrelationtothelocationofbranchofficesofsuchcorporations.
Metropolisationandsupplyanddemandfactors
The prominent places occupied by the CEEC capital city regions in theserankingscanbeexplainedbybothsupplyanddemandfactors.Theformernotablyincludereadyavailabilityofacheapworkforcewiththerequiredqualifications.
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 39
It is quite accurately expressed by the total number of the population in themetropolitan area, which reveals a linear correlation between the size of thepopulationandthenumberofsubsidiariesofinternationalcorporationsprovidingadvancedbusinessservices(Figure2a).OnesignificantexceptiontothisruleistheBratislavaMA,wheredemandfactorsarealsolikelytoplayaroleduetoitscloseproximitytoVienna.Thishypothesisiscorroboratedbytheregion’shighscores in the attractiveness ranking ofEuropeanMAs for business activity intermsofcostsoflabour.In2011,Bucharest,Bratislava,andWarsawoccupiedthetopthreeplacesinthisranking,whileBudapestandPraguewereranked6th and 7th,respectively(CushmanandWakefield,2012).Ontheotherhand,thedemand-sidecorrelationbetweenthenumberofsubsidiaries/branchesandthesizeofthenationaleconomythatcouldgeneratedemandfortheprovidedadvancedservices
a) Population of metropolitan area [in million]
b) Country’s GDP [in billion EUR]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Num
ber o
f glo
bal A
PS c
ompa
nies
Population – metropolitan area [mln]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Num
ber o
g gl
obal
APS
com
pani
es
GDP – country [bln EUR]
Figure 3. Advanced producer service firms location vs. supply/ demand factors on local and country levels in 2011
Source: own elaboration based on CBRE, 2011, Eurostat data.
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI40
iscurvilinear(Figure2b).Thiscoulddemonstratethat,inbiggercountrieswithamorepolycentricstructureofthesettlementsystem(notablysuchasPoland),othercitiescanalsoofferattractive locations foradvancedservicesproviders.Ontheotherhand,itshouldbeborneinmindthatsomeoftheseservicesmaybe exported. Nevertheless, the low scores awarded to metropolitan areas ininvestment attractiveness surveys suggest that the scale of operations reachesonly slightly beyond national borders. In this approach,Warsaw was ranked19th,whilstPrague andBudapestwere at thebottomof the33MAsanalysed(CushmanandWakefield,2012).
Structuralchangesinmetropolitanareas
TheconsiderableattractivenessoftheCEECs’capitalregionsfortransnationalcorporationsledtofar-reachingchangesintheireconomicstructures,whichtookplace in theperiodof rapidgrowthpreceding the recent economiccrisis.Theprevailingtrendwasthetransitionfromanindustrialeconomytoaninformationeconomy,manifestedbyafallingshareofindustryingrossvalueadded(GVA)andan increasingshareofbusinessservices(Table2). In2008, theseserviceswere of the greatest significance for the economy of themetropolitan area inWarsaw,reachingalevelcloseto30%,whereasinVilniusandRigatheirsharewasonly21.3%and24.4%,respectively.Inthelatterregions,thesectorexpandedatthefastestrate,reachingca.6ppin2000–2008,comparedtoamere1.7ppinWarsaw.Theshareofadvancedservicesintheremainingmetropolisesoscillatedatca.25–26%,andtheirsignificanceincreasedataraterangingfrom2.0ppinLjubljanato4.8ppinPrague.Inthiscontext,thesituationofBudapestdifferedfromthegeneralpicture,astheshareofthissectorhadnotundergoneanymajorchanges,whilethespecialisationoftheregionaleconomyinthisarea,measuredbythelocationquotient(LQ),hadevenslightlydecreased.Suchspecialisationwas the greatest inWarsaw (1.6) and Bratislava (1.5).Among the remainingcities,Praguerecordedhigher-than-averagevalues(1.4),andTallinnandRiga–below-averagevalues,withthedegreeofspecialisationbeingverylowcomparedtothenationaleconomybeingverylow,reachingca.1.1in2008.Ontheotherhand,deindustrialisationprocesseshadbeenmostadvancedin
Warsaw,Riga,andSofia,wheretheshareofGVAinindustryreachedameagre12–14%, a comparable figure to those found in the majority of metropolisesin highly developed countries.At the other extreme, therewas Prague (20%)andBudapest (ca. 18.5%),which hadmaintained their industrial traditions intheir functional urban area. In contrast, the share of industry in GVA in theremainingcapitalcityregionsoscillatedaround15–17%.Intheanalysedperiod,deindustrialisation processes were occurring at the fastest rate inVilnius andBratislava (a drop of over 4pp),whereas in the case of Prague andBudapestthissectorhadstillmaintainedamajor role (aslightdecreaseby0.5pp),withasimilarsituationbeingobservedinSofiaandTallinn(a1ppdecrease).Intheremainingcities,theroleofindustryhaddiminishedbyca.3pp.Itshouldalsobenotedthatdeindustrialisationhadtakenplaceacrosstherespectivecountries,but
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 41Ta
ble
2. S
truct
ural
cha
nges
in C
EE
Cs’
cap
ital c
ity re
gion
s*
Cap
ital c
ity
regi
ons
Bus
ines
s se
rvic
esIn
dust
ry
Sha
re
2000
Sha
re20
08C
hang
e (p
p)LQ
200
0LQ 20
08S
hare
20
00S
hare
2008
Cha
nge
(pp)
LQ 2
000
LQ 2008
Sofi
a 23
.626
.32.
71.
221.
3215
.314
.1–1
.20.
720.
65
Pra
gue
20.4
25.2
4.7
1.36
1.42
20.8
20.1
–0.7
0.67
0.64
Talli
nn
22.6
25.6
3.1
1.04
1.12
17.1
15.9
–1.2
0.79
0.79
Rig
a 18
.123
.45.
21.
101.
1216
.212
.9–3
.30.
870.
85
Viln
ius
15.4
21.3
5.8
1.21
1.34
19.9
15.7
–4.2
0.84
0.73
Bud
apes
t 25
.926
.00.
11.
351.
2618
.918
.3–0
.60.
700.
72
War
saw
27
.829
.51.
71.
531.
6115
.312
.4–3
.00.
670.
51
Ljub
ljana
23
.125
.12.
01.
161.
2018
.215
.3–2
.90.
650.
60
Bra
tisla
va
21.3
24.7
3.4
1.28
1.51
21.7
17.6
–4.2
0.75
0.61
* B
ucha
rest
was
exc
lude
d fro
m th
e an
alys
is d
ue to
low
relia
bilit
y of
sta
tistic
al d
ata.
Sou
rce:
ow
n el
abor
atio
n ba
sed
on E
uros
tat d
ata
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI42
asharpdecreaseinindustrylocationquotientvaluessuggeststhat thisprocesshadagreaterdynamicinthecapitalcityregions.Thefollowingsimplifiedtypologycouldbeproposedtosummarisethesituation
oftheCEECs’capitalcityregionsintermsofboththestatusandthedynamicsofstructuralchanges.Attheoneend,wehavePragueandBudapest,whichretaineda large share of industry in the economyof theirMAs,with a strong leaningtowardsadvancedservicesobservableinPrague.Attheotherextreme,thereisWarsaw,and, toalesserextent,Riga,Vilnius,andBratislava,whereadvancedserviceshaveamajorshareingeneratingGVA,orwheresuchashareisgrowingatthefastestrate.Sofia,Tallinn,andLjubljanacanbeplacedbetweenthesetwoextremes.
3. Impact of the crisis upon the CEECs’ metropolises
The crisis and/or economic slowdown of 2008–2011 did not considerablyaffecttheearlierpositionoftheCEECs’capitalcityregionscomparedtotheirrespectivecountries(Figure4).Inmostofthem,thedynamicsofGDPgrowth
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Real
GDP
gro
wth
(%)
GDP growth relativised by national average (country = 100)
Warsaw
Bratislava
Sofia
Riga
Vilnius
Prague
Ljubljana
TallinnBudapestBucaresti
Figure 4. Performance of capital city regions* in GDP terms in 2008–2011
* Cities with their surrounding NUTS3 regions.
Source: own elaboration based on Eurostat data.
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 43
washigherthanthenationalaverage,aphenomenonespeciallyvisibleinSofia,but also inBratislava, i.e. capital citieswhich, in the researchedperiod,werejoining theglobal economyat the relatively fastest rate (the location rentduetotheproximityofViennainthecaseofBratislava,fastexpansionofbusinessservices inSofia). In theanalysedperiod,onlyPrague,VilniusandRigaweredeveloping at a slower rate than the national average, but only insignificantlyso in the former twocases.TheRigacapital city regionwasanexception, asitspositionhadconsiderablydeteriorated,notonly in relative,butalso in realterms, as proved by an 18%GDP decrease compared to 2008. On the otherhand,itshouldbenotedthatthiswastakingplaceinasituationofthegreatestconcentration, amongall theCEECs,of economicpotential in thecapital cityregion.Intheremainingcountries,thecapitalcityregionsweredevelopingmorerobustlythanthenationalaverage,butthedynamicsofthisprocesswaspositiveonly in theWarsawregion.Tosumupthesechanges, itcouldbesaid that thefinalpicturewasratherpatchyincharacter,andmadeitimpossibletoofferanyin-depthgeneralisationsconcerningtheperformanceofthecapitalcityregionsinthetimeoftheeconomiccrisis.More information can be derived from the structural changes taking place
inthemetropolitanareas,whichoccurredatafastrateduringthecrisisandinthefollowingyears(Figure5).First,itshouldbenotedthat,viewedinrelativeterms,thecrisisinindustryprovedrathershort-lived,andtheshareofthesectorinGVAwassimilar to thatfrombefore thecrisisasearlyas2011.ThiscouldsuggestthatthedeindustrialisationprocessesintheCEECs’capitalcityregionshadcometoanend.Furthermore,insomecases,suchasthecapitalcityregionsof Bulgaria and the Baltic states, the role of the industrial sector had visiblyincreased,whichcanpointtothehugescaleoftheeconomiccollapseinothersectors.Theconstructionsectorwasabranchespeciallybadlyhitbythecrisis,particularlyinthecapitalcityregionsoftheBalticstatesandSlovenia(withanexceptionallyheavydrop in thecaseofVilniusandRiga).Thiswas theresultofaspeculativebubbleintherealestatesector,whichwaslargelyfinancedbyfinancialinstitutionsfromabroad.Inthiscontext,Warsawcouldbeviewedasanexception,astheconstructionboomwasstillstrongthere,alikelyconsequenceofthefastestrateofGDPgrowth,relatively,inthisperiod.Apalpableregressioncouldalsobeobservedinthesimpleservicessector,aphenomenonmostclearlyvisibleaboveallinPragueandBratislava.Thiscouldbeaneffectofdwindlingconsumer demand, also that generated by consumers from abroad due to theweakening of the tourism sector.At the same time, paradoxically, this sectorhadbecomerelativelystrongerinthecaseofRigaandVilnius–capitalsofthecountriesmostheavilyaffectedbythecrisis.Anothertypicalfeatureofthisperiodwasthegrowingsignificanceofadvancedbusinessservicesinalltheanalysedcases,whichwasparticularlyvisibleinSofia.Thisindicatesthattherestructuringdirectionof theCEECs’metropolitanareasnoticeable in theperiodbefore thecrisiscontinued.Vilniuswasoneexceptioninthisregard,althoughtherelativestagnationofthesectorcouldbeobservedinthecapitalcityregionsofRigaandWarsaw.Incontrast,theincreasingroleofpublicservices,quiteprobablydueto
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI44
thecontinuinginterventionofthecentralauthorities,couldbestbeobservedinLjubljana,Bratislava,andTallinn.Tosumup,itshouldbenotedthatthelargest,andtherebythemosteconomically
diversified,metropolitanareasofWarsaw,Budapest,andPraguedemonstratedarelativelyconsiderableinertiaoftheireconomicstructuresbothduringthecrisisandinthepost-crisisconditions.WhileinthecaseofWarsawandBudapestthiscouldbeobservedalsointheperiodleadinguptothecrisis,Praguehadearlierbeenabletochangeitseconomicstructuremuchfaster,followingtheexpansionofthebusinessservicessector.
–6
–5
–4
–3
–2
–1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SOFIA MA BRATISLAVAMA
PRAGA MA BUDAPESTMA
LJUBLJANAMA
TALLINN MA RIGA MA WARSAWMA
VILNIUS MA
Industry
Construction
Simple services
Business services
Public services
Figure 5. Structural change of MAs’ economies in 2008–2011 (percentage points, pp)
* Bucharest was excluded from the analysis due to low reliability of statistical data.
Source: own elaboration based on Eurostat data.
Anotherspherethatcouldhavebeenaffectedbytheeconomiccrisisinvolvedtherelationsbetweenthemetropolisanditsregionalhinterland.Therapidlywideningdisparitiesinthelevelofeconomicdevelopmentbetweenthemetropolisandtheregion,visibleespecially in thefirstphaseof the transformation,characterisedall theCEECs (Table 3). In effect, the scale of these disparitiesmeasured byGDPpercapitawasthehighestofalltheEUcountries(cf.Smętkowskietal.,2011). Interestingly, therewasadistinctcatch-upeffectobservableduring the
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 45
crisis,particularly in theRigaandWarsawMAs,although inboth thesecasesthenarrowingscaleofthedisparitiescouldalsobeseenintheearlierperiodofrapideconomicgrowth.Intheremainingcases,avisibletendencyforreducingthesedisparitiesortheirstagnationcouldbeobserved.TheonlyunquestionableexceptionsinthisregardwereSofia,andtoalesserextent,Vilnius.Oneofthepotential reasonsforsuchconvergence,whichcanbeseenasquitesurprising,giventherelativelyfastdevelopmentofthemetropoliscomparedtotherestofthecountry,couldincludetheincreasedspreadeffectswithinthemetropolitanregions.Thiscouldinvolve,ontheonehand,anincreasedinvestmentattractivenessofthedirectmetropolitansurroundingsforbusinessactivitiesrequiredbythemetropolis,mostly in thesphereof transportand industrialoperations.Ontheotherhand,it could be a consequence of the increased polycentricity of themetropolitanareas’structure,whichinturncouldleadtoincreasedworkcommutingfromtheregionalhinterlandtothemetropolis.Thiscanresultinthetransferofearningsfromworkandaboostedconsumerdemanddrivingthedevelopmentofsimpleservicesintheregionalhinterland.
Table 3. GDP per capita ratio between the metropolis and its regional hinterland*
Metropolitan macroregion
Ratio Change
1995 2004 2008 2011 1995–2004
2004–2008
2008–2011
Bratislava 1.86 1.87 2.01 2.02 0.01 0.15 0.01
Bucharest 1.32 2.43 3.17 3.05 1.11 0.74 –0.13
Budapest 1.72 2.00 2.17 2.20 0.27 0.17 0.03
Ljubljana 1.57 1.60 1.63 1.61 0.03 0.03 –0.03
Prague 1.39 1.77 1.94 1.82 0.37 0.17 –0.12
Riga 1.47 2.13 2.13 1.80 0.66 0.01 –0.33
Sofia 1.60 2.22 2.81 3.21 0.62 0.59 0.40
Tallinn 1.74 2.28 2.38 2.45 0.53 0.10 0.07
Vilnius 1.31 1.89 2.07 2.20 0.58 0.18 0.13
Warsaw 2.00 2.35 2.44 2.28 0.35 0.09 –0.17
* Ratio for the metropolis calculated for the city within the administrative boundaries together with the surrounding NUTS3; regional hinterland defined as the NUTS2 region or the directly adjoining NUTS3 regions
Source: own elaboration based on Eurostat data.
Casestudiesofselectedmetropolises
Anin-depthevaluationoftheimpactoftheeconomiccrisisonselectedaspectsofmetropolisationcanonlybeattemptedonamicroscale,thatis,atthelevelofasinglemetropolis,duetotheavailabilityandcomparabilityofstatisticaldata.Consequently,twocategorieswereselectedforanalysis–thelabourmarketandtheofficepropertymarket– in twocasestudiesof thecities thathadoppositedynamicsofeconomicgrowth.TheseareWarsaw,whichrecordedgrowth,and
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI46
Riga,whoseMA,similarlytothewholecountry,sufferedfromthedeepestcrisiscomparedtoallofthecapitalcityregionsincludedinthisresearch.
Thelabourmarket
In thecaseofWarsaw,changes in the labourmarketwereanalysedfor twosub-periods: 2005–2008, comprising a period of rapid economic growth, and2008–2012,when an economic slowdown could be observed (Figure 6). The formerperiod,takingintoaccountthenumberofpeopleemployedincompanieswith10ormorestaff,sawanincreaseinemploymentby10%,whereasinthenextfouryearstheaggregateincreaseinthisareatotalledamere2%.
–30
–20
–10
0
10
20
30
40
Man
ufac
turin
g
Real
est
ate
Wat
er m
anag
emen
t
Hote
ls an
d re
stur
ants
Tran
spor
t and
logi
stics
Leisu
re
Trad
e an
d re
pairs
IT se
ctor
Pow
er su
pply
Tota
l
Adm
inist
ratio
n
Prof
essio
nal s
ervi
ces
Cons
truc
tion
Educ
ation
Publ
ic a
dmin
istra
tion
Fina
nce
and
insu
ranc
e
Heal
th c
are
2005–2008
2008–2012
Figure 6. Changes in the number of employed in Warsaw in 2005–2012 [%]*
* Statistics for businesses employing 10 or more staff.
Source: own elaboration based on Central Statistical Offi ce data.
AmongthebiggestlosersintermsoftheirshareinWarsaw’slabourmarketwas the financial and insurance sector,which employed ca. 85,000 staff, andcurrently ranked 2nd with a 10.5% share. The sector expanded rapidly in theperiodleadinguptothecrisis(anincreasebymorethan30%inthreeyears),buttheyearsafter2008sawacontinuedriseinemploymentinthesector,by10,000jobs(13.5%)overall.Othersectorsthatweredevelopingatamodestratepriorto
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 47
2008,butgrewrapidlyintherecentperiod,includedpublicservicessuchaspublicadministration,education,andhealthcare.Ontheonehand,thiscanpointtoanincreasingscaleofpublicintervention,butontheotherhand,itcanbeviewedasaconsequenceofthedevelopmentofprivateenterprisestosatisfythegrowingdemandforhealthandeducationservices.Asimilarconclusioncanbedrawninthecaseofemploymentintheconstructionsector,whichisgrowingasaresultofimplementingmanypublicinvestmentprojects,includingthosefinancedbytheEuropeanUnion,butalsoduetothecontinueddemandforcommercialproperty.Otherbranchesthatweredevelopingrapidlyprior to2008respondedtothe
new circumstances in a variety ofways. In the case of professional services,employmenthadstabilisedandthesectormaintainedits9.4%shareinthelabourmarket(securingits3rdplaceintheranking),whereastheICTsectorhadshedmore than7%of jobs.The transportation andwarehousing sectors performedratherbadly (whichcouldalsomean that theseactivitieswerebeingrelocatedoutsideofthecity’sadministrativeboundaries),asweretheaccommodationandcateringsectors,whichlostnearly10%ofjobsduetothereduceddemand.Nevertheless,thebiggestlosersintheperiodofeconomicslowdowninWarsaw
includedmanufacturingandrealestateserviceproviders,wherethelossofjobsreached20%oftheworkforce.Intheformercase,thiswasassociatedwiththecommissioningofnewindustrialplantsinthevicinityofWarsaw.Similarly,thetradesectorperformedpoorlybutmanagedtoretainits firstplaceintheWarsawjobmarket,witha16%share(130,000employed).Interestingly, a comparison of the situation ofWarsaw to that ofRiga, one
of the capital cities most heavily hit by the economic crisis (with an overalllossofjobsinthe2008–2012periodreaching17%)revealscertainsimilarities(Figure 7). Firstly, in Riga the financial, insurance, and professional servicessectorwasdevelopingbetterthanotherbranchesduringthecrisis,recordinganastounding20%increase.JustasinWarsaw,thiswasaccompaniedbyincreasingemploymentinthepublicsector,mainlyineducationandhealthcare.However,therewerenonewjobscreatedinpublicadministration,wherethegovernment’sausterityschemesslashed30%ofjobsoverafour-yearperiod.Theconstructionsectorwasevenworsehit,asithadlostmorethanhalfofitsjobs,togetherwiththe industrial sector,which recordedadrop inemploymentofnearly40%. Inthe former case, this could demonstrate the scale of the speculative bubble,whose sizewasnowherenear to that ofWarsaw. In the latter case, the crisis,just as in Warsaw, had accelerated deindustrialisation processes within thecentre of the agglomeration, while at the same time the industrial sectors inthemetropolitan areawere being consolidated.On the other hand, the fall inindividualconsumption,whichwasbiggerthaninPoland,andweakereconomicperformance,ledtoadropinthenumberofjobsinthesimpleservicessectorby20%,mainlyintrade,hotel,andcateringactivities.
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI48
–60
–50
–40
–30
–20
–10
0
10
20
30
Cons
tructio
n
Man
ufac
turin
g, m
inin
g an
dqu
arry
ing,
oth
er in
dust
ry
Publ
ic a
dmin
istratio
n an
d de
fenc
e;co
mpu
lsory
soci
al se
curit
y
Trad
e, a
ccom
mod
ation
and
food
serv
ice
activ
ities
Oth
er se
rvic
es
Tran
spor
tatio
n, st
orag
e,in
form
ation
and
com
mun
icati
on
Hum
an h
ealth
and
soci
al w
ork
activ
ities
Fina
ncia
l, in
sura
nce,
scie
ntific
and
adm
inist
rativ
e activ
ities
; rea
l est
ate
activ
ities
Educ
ation
2008–2012
Figure 7. Change in the number of employed in Riga in 2008–2012 [%]
Source: own elaboration based on CSO data.
Officepropertymarket
In2004–2014,thevolumeofmodernofficespaceinWarsawincreasedtwofold,from2,400,000m² toca.4,400,000m².Theannual increaseofmodernofficespaceinWarsaw,shownonthediagram(onaverage,250,000m²peryear)werecharacterisedbyadistinctcyclicality:periodsofhighsupply,250–300,000m²,werealternatingwithperiodsofdownturnin theofficepropertymarket,whenca.150–200,000m²ofnewofficespacewasputtouse(Figure8).Itshouldalsobenotedthattheimpactofthemostrecenteconomicslowdownin2008wasfeltonlyin2011,whichindicatesadelayoftwotothreeyearsinrelationtoGDPperformance.Overall,theoutlaysontheconstructionofnewofficebuildingsinWarsawcouldbeestimatedatMEUR500peryear,whiletheannualinvestmentspendingbythecityauthoritiestotalswereca.MEUR900.ThedynamicsofofficespacegrowthinRigain2004–2014wereevenfaster
than that ofWarsaw, but were largely a consequence of the low base effect(Figure9).The stockofmodernoffice space increasednearly threefold, from200,000m²to600,000m².InRiga, justas inWarsaw,theyearsleadinguptothe crisis brought record highs in this regard. The main difference betweenRigaandWarsawwasthelowersupplyofmodernofficespaceintheformerasaresultofthecrisis.Stagnationinthepropertymarket,whichwasobservablein2011–2013,wasslowlyreplacedbyarecovery,visibleinthefirsthalfof2014.Itshouldbeborneinmind,however,thatalargesingledevelopmentprojectcouldsignificantlyaffecttheoverallpictureinsuchashallowmarket.
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 49
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Figure 8. Annual increase of office space in Warsaw in 2004–2014 (sq m)
Source: own elaboration based on Warsaw Research Forum data.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014/H1
Figure 9. Annual increase of office space in Riga in 2005–2014 (sq m)
Source: own elaboration based on NEWSEC data (2014).
Conclusions
Metropolisation in theCEECs ismanifestedmainlyby thegrowing roleoflargecities,especiallythenationalcapitals,ineconomicdevelopmentprocesses.Theglobalfinancialcrisis,whichdevelopedintoarecessionthataffectedmostoftheCEEcountries,hasnotputanendtothisprocesseitherinthecountrieswhichweretheleasthitbythecrisis,i.e.PolandandSlovakia,orintheBalticstateswheretheeconomicdownturnwasthedeepest.Themainfactorunderpinningthedevelopmentofthecapitalcityregionswas
theincreasingroleoftheadvancedbusinessservicessectorintheireconomies,which triggered a number of interrelated changes in the labourmarket or the
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI50
officepropertymarket.Itshouldalsobenotedthat,insomecountries,theshareofthebusinessservicessectoringeneratingGVAreachedasaturationlevelofca.30%.Therefore,thestructuralchangestakingplacewithinthemetropolitanareasarebecomingslower.Inadditiontothat,specialisationwithinthemetropolitanareasis increasing,duetosomebusinessactivitiesbeingpushedfromthecitycentres to the outer parts of themetropolitan area, especially in industry andselected simple services. Presumably, these developments are taking place onanincreasinglywiderspatialscale,whichismanifestedbyanimprovementofthe situation in theouterpartsof themetropolitanmacroregions in relation tothemetropolis,aprocessparticularlyvisibleduringthecrisisandtheeconomicslowdown.Thedevelopmentofbusinessservicesislargelydrivenbytheinfluxofforeign
capital,includingtransnationalcorporationsdrawntometropolisesbyalow-costworkforcewithrelevantqualificationsfortheadvancedservicessector.Theroleofsupplyfactorsisdemonstratedbythelinearcorrelationbetweenthesizeofthepopulationinthemetropolitanarea(functionalurbanareaforworkcommuting),andthenumberofbranches/subsidiariesofmajorglobalcorporations,whereasthedemandfactorsassociatedwiththescaleofthenationaleconomycanbeoflesserimportance,especiallygiventhegrowingvolumeofexportservices,alsothose,providedbytransnationalcorporatestructures.Amongadvancedservices,financial and insurance services play a special role; they contributed to theincreaseinthenumberofjobseveninthetimeoftheeconomiccrisis,asprovedbytheexamplesofWarsawandRiga.Duringthecrisis, thenumberofpeopleemployedinpublicservicessuchashealthcareandeducationalsoincreased.This,however,couldbeaconsequenceofthedevelopmentofthemetropolitanclassandanincreaseddemandforsuchservicesfromcorporateemployees,satisfiedbyprivatecompaniesoperatinginthesesectors.Theexpansionoftheservicesectorwasnoticeablyassociatedwithanincrease
in modern office space, which means that the construction sector, despiteadownturndrivenbythespeculativebubbleintheresidentialpropertymarket,isalsodevelopingrelativelywell.This,however,couldalsobeaffectedbypublicinvestmentprojects,alsothoseco-financedfromtheEUfunds.Tosumup,therecenteconomiccrisisdidnotchangethedevelopmentmodel
thathadevolvedinthelastdecade,whichsuggeststhatthecurrentlyobservablemetropolisationprocesses in theCEECswillcontinue. It shouldalsobenotedthat the high level of development that the capital city regions of theCEECshad achieved, associatedwith the expansion of knowledge-intensive businessservices,needs tobecomplemented in thenear futurewith the tworemainingpillarsdrivingthegrowthofcontemporarymetropolises,viz.hi-techandcreativeindustries.Shouldthisnotbethecase,thecurrentdevelopmentsandprocessesarelikelytolosemomentum,whichcouldineffectgraduallyleadtothenarrowingofthegapinlevelsofdevelopmentbetweenthemetropolisesandtheremainingregionsinthecountriesthatwereanalysed.
THEIMPACTOFTHEECONOMICCRISISONTHEMETROPOLISATIONPROCESS… 51
References
Batten,D.(1995).Networkcities:Creativeurbanagglomerationsfor the21stcentury,Urban Studies,32(2),312–327.
Castells, M. (1989). The Informational City: Economic Restructuring and Urban Development.Oxford:Blackwell.
Castells,M.(1998).The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture – The Rise of Network Society.Oxford:Blackwell.
CBRE(2011).Business Footprints. Global Office Locations 2011,CBRICHARDELLIS.Criekingen,M.,Bachmann,M.,Guisset,C.,Lennert,M. (2007).Towardspolycentric
cities,Belgeo,1,31–50.CushmanandWakefield(2012).European City Monitor 2011,www.cushmanwakefield.
com.Degen,M.,García,M.(2012).Thetransformationofthe‘BarcelonaModel’:Ananalysis
ofculture,urban regenerationandgovernance, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,36(5),1022–1038.
ESPONFOCI(2010).Future Orientation of Cities,www.espon.eu.Gorzelak,G.(1996).The Regional Dimension of Transformation in Central and Eastern
Europe.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.Gorzelak,G.(2011).ThefinancialcrisisinCentralandEasternEurope,in:G.Gorzelak
(ed.),Financial Crisis in Central and Eastern Europe: From Similarity to Diversity. Warsaw:ScholarPublishingHouse.
Gorzelak,G.,Smętkowski,M.(2011).Warsawasametropolis–successesandmissedopportunities,Regional Science Policy & Practice,4(1),25–45.
Hall, P., Pain,K. (ed.) (2006).The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-city Regions in Europe,London,Sterling,VA:Earthscan.
Hutton,T.A.(2010).The New Economy of the Inner City. Restructuring, Regeneration and Dislocation in the Twenty-first-century Metropolis.London,NewYork:Routledge.
Krätke,S.(2007).MetropolisationoftheEuropeaneconomicterritoryasaconsequenceof increasing specialisation of urban agglomerations in the knowledge economy,European Planning Studies,15,1–27.
Kuć-Czajkowska,K.(2010).MetropolitanfunctionsofWarsaw,PragueandBudapest,in:G.Gorzelak,B.Bachtler,M.Smętkowski(ed.),Regional Development in Central and Eastern Europe: Development Processes and Policy Challenges.London,NewYork:Routledge,137–156.
Kunzamann,K.R.(1998).WorldcityregionsinEurope:Structuralchangeandfuturechallenges, in:F.Lo,Y.Yeung(ed.),Globalisation and World Large Cities. Tokyo, NewYork,Paris:UNUniversityPress.
NEWSEC,2014,Office market report 2014 H1,http://www.newsec.lt.Orłowski,W.M.(2010).W pogoni za straconym czasem. Wzrost gospodarczy w Europie
Środkowo-Wschodniej.Warsaw:PWE.Petrakos,G. (2001).Patternsof regional inequality in transitioneconomies,European
Planning Studies,9,359–383.Sassen,S.(1991).The Global City,Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Smętkowski,M.,Gorzelak,G.(2008).Metropolisanditsregion:Newrelationsin the
informationeconomy,European Planning Studies,16(6),727–743.
MACIEJSMĘTKOWSKI52
Smętkowski, M., Wójcik, P. (2012). Regional convergence in Central and EasternEuropean Countries – a multidimensional approach, European Planning Studies, 20(6),923–939.
Smętkowski, M., Gorzelak, G., Kozak, M., Olechnicka, A., Płoszaj, A., Wojnar, K.(2011).European Metropolises and Their Regions: From Economic Landscapes to Metropolitan Networks,Warsaw:ScholarPublishingHouse.
Soja, E.W. (2000). Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford:BlackwellPublishersLtd.
Taylor,P.(2000).GlobalNetworkServiceConnectivitiesfor315Cities in2000,DataSet12oftheGlobalizationandWorldCities(GaWC)ResearchNetwork,http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/datasets/da12.html(accessed:15.03.2015).
Taylor,P.J.(2007).World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis.London,NewYork:Routledge.
Wrigley,N.,Lowe,M.(2002).Reading Retail. A Geographical Perspective on Retailing and Consumption Spaces.London:Arnold.