INTERNAL SEMINAR: LIEGE 2010

1. INTERNAL SEMINAR: LIEGE 2010 SGPTDE Secondary Cities: Performance, Policies and Prospects Professor Michael Parkinson CBE

2. Answer 5 Questions • WHO ARE WE? • 2. WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO? • 3. HOW ARE WE DOING IT? • 4. WHAT WILL WE PRODUCE? • HOW WELL ARE WE DOING?

3. 1. Who Are We? • Partners • EIUA lead – Parkinson, Meegan, Evans, Jones, Karecha • MRI Budapest – Ivan Tosics, Antal Gertheis, Andrea Tonko • University of Tampere – Markku Sotarauta, Olli Ruokolainen • Advisers • University College London – Sir Peter Hall • University of Paris - Christian Lefevre

4. 1. Who Are We? • Our ethos - connecting research to policy makers • Related work • Competitive European Cities • COMPETE project • URBAN Evaluation • State of European Cities • Urban Audit • Urbanisation and Functions of Cities • URBACT • State of the English Cities • Credit Crunch, Recession & Cities

5. 2. What Are We Trying To Do? • Our analytical approach: • Relationship territory, governance, economy in challenged world • Institutional & evolutionary • Policy & politics not only markets matter • National factors, policies matter to cities • But so do local in multi scalar world • Cities path dependent but room for manoeuvre • Hard & soft factors matter • Competiveness, cohesion, environment crucial • Key drivers territorial performance – innovation, human capital connectivity, place quality, governance capacity • Policies – explicit & implicit - for these crucial

6. 2. What Are We Trying to Do? • Explore common assertions: • Economic & institutional deconcentration lead more territorially balanced economic development Europe. • Relationship capital & secondaries win-win, not zero sum • More secondaries perform better, national and European economies better • National policies for secondaries crucial – competition, cohesion, environment • Leadership & governance matters - cities path dependent but room for manoeuvre • Territory & place matters more not less globalised economy

7. 2. What Are We Trying To Do? • Specifically assess • Secondaries’ actual & potential contribution to more balanced European territorial development • Performance on critical success factors – innovation, human capital, connectivity, place quality, strategic capacity • Policy impact & implications – European, national, regional • Territorial prospects secondaries – European, national, regional

8. 2. What Are We Trying to Do? • Reflecting policy concerns Cohesion Report & DG Regio • Secondaries are larger non-capital cities which make major contribution to national performance – positive or negative • What performance secondaries, what gap with capitals, what direction of change? • What policy debate member states - how gap & urban hierarchy seen, competitiveness or cohesion, explicit or implicit, any concern territorial impact? • What effect debate on national policy secondaries - greater targeting, increased capacity & skills, more powers & resources, fewer constraints?

9. 2. What Are We Trying to Do? • Answers • Which kind secondaries punching weight nationally & Europe, how and why? • Who doing what to help? • What works? • What impact & implications crisis? • Who does what better, different in future?

10. 3. How Are We Doing It? • Qualitative & quantitative, breadth & depth • Triangulate • Research & policy literature – performance, policies, prospects • Quantitative data 124 secondaries, 30 capitals • Interviews - European, national policy makers, private sector • E-questionnaire – ESPON family, policy makers, researchers, EUROCITIES, Core Cities, URBACT, EUKN • 9 detailed case studies

11. How Did We Select Secondaries? • Key principles • Nothing’s perfect – always over bounding, under bounding, data gaps • Not let best drive out good • Balance economic significance with territorial representation • Views Monitoring Committee • Common sense! • Best fit policy agenda • So we • Began with 255 DG Regio/OECD agreed Metro Regions • Accepted all in 22 countries population under 15 m • 8 larger countries all up to 2/3 of urban population • Compared LUZ population, excluded few wildly over bounded • Added few just excluded by pop threshold on basis MC judgement • All countries get 1 secondary even if OECD/DG Regio not defined

12. 124 SECONDARY & 30 CAPITAL CITIES

13. Current Indicators Secondaries & Capitals: • Population (1995-2007) • Total GDP (1995-2007) • GDP per capita (1995-2007) • Total employment (1998-2007) • Employment by sector (1998-2007) • High level of education (2008) • Employment rate (2008) • Unemployment rates (1999-2008) • Patent applications (2006-7) • Potential accessibility air (2001 & 2006) • Potential accessibility road (2001 & 2006) • Potential accessibility rail (2001 & 2006) • Potential accessibility multi-modal (2001 & 2006) • Net migration rates (2007)

14. How Selected Case Study Cities? • Mix - size, economic performance, national governance, territorial role location • North Europe • Tampere - Finland • West Europe • Cork - Ireland • Leeds – UK • Lyon - France • Central Europe • Munich- Germany • South Europe • Barcelona - Spain • Turin - Italy • East, Central East and South Central Europe • Katowice - Poland • Timisoara - Romania

15. Purpose Case Study • Places where key factors collide - test key hypotheses • Specific but generic • Powerful narrative – own story but wider significance • Relationships & contribution regional, national, European territory • Performance drivers - innovation, skills, connectivity, place quality, governance • Relationship capital, rest national urban system • Impact explicit ,implicit national/regional policies • Future territorial, economic prospects • Key policy messages - local, regional, national, European

16. Methodology Case Studies • Academic policy literature on city • Existing economic plus additional local data within and across city- deprivation, life expectancy, earnings, crime, health, education, housing costs quality, transport, environment • Economic development governance infrastructure - finance, public bodies, networks, collaborative agencies, universities • Analysis key strategies and policies • Interviews elected officials, civil servants, researchers, community groups, private sector, media. • Interviews national partners

17. 4. What Will We Produce? • Big picture for policy makers • Accessible short report - key policy messages role secondaries & balanced territorial development Europe • More detailed picture for researchers • Literature review • Extensive quantitative data analysis, maps & tables • Case study reports • Questionnaire results

18. 5. How Well Are We Doing? • So far, so good – interest & support policy makers • Inception report well received • Literature mixed – quality, territory, focus - but developing • Data analysis - much progress made • Case studies – great support, methodology agreed, literature scoped, initial visits soon • Questionnaire – great interest, piloted, already circulated 150 researchers policy makers, more to come

19. 5. How Well Are We Doing? • SOME INITIAL CONTEXT • RELATIONSHIPS CAPITALS AND SECONDARIES

20. Top Secondary Outperforms Capital: Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Ireland

21. Top Secondary Lags Capital by 5-20%: Spain, UK, Netherlands, France

22. Top Secondary Lags Capital by 20-30%: Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Portugal

23. Top Secondary Lags Capital by 30-45%: Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia

24. Top Secondary Lags Capital by 50-65%: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia