1 / 42

Regional Competitiveness: Unlocking Unused Resources for Comparative Advantages

This report explores the concept of regional competitiveness and the potential of unused resources. It analyzes factors contributing to regional growth, the utilization of local assets, and the role of regional well-being. Additionally, it examines the differences in employment growth and unemployment concentration across regions. The report also presents a methodology to identify and compare regional benchmarks. Overall, it highlights the importance of regional policies in enhancing national performances.

fatimac
Download Presentation

Regional Competitiveness: Unlocking Unused Resources for Comparative Advantages

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS:COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES AND UNUSED RESOURCESbyVincenzo SpieziaOECD – Territorial Statistics and Indicators Regional and Urban Statistics Working Party meetingLuxembourg, 3-5 November 2004

  2. OECD • Territorial Development Committee • policy focus is on policies to enhanceregional competitiveness • Working Party on Territorial Indicators • statistical focus is to benchmark the policy debate • how can each region valorise its underutilised resources

  3. OECD Regions at A Glance (2005) 3 themes: • Regions as actors of national growth; • Making the best of local assets; • Competing on the basis of regional well-being

  4. OECD Regions at A Glance • Regions as actors of national growth: factors of national growth tend to be strongly localised in a small number of regions so that promoting national growth would require improving the use of these factors within regions.

  5. OECD Regions at A Glance • Making the best of local assets: assess the economic performances of regions and identify unused resources that can be mobilised to improve regional competitiveness.

  6. OECD Regions at A Glance • Competing on the basis of regional well-being: different dimensions of well-being (accessibility, health, education, security) are key factors to improve regional competitiveness.

  7. 1. Regions as the actors of National Performances …but the differences in employment growth were even larger among regions within countries. From 1996 to 2001, employment growth varied significantly among OECD countries…

  8. 1. Regions as the actors of National Performances 69 % of job losses in OECD countries was due to only 10 % of regions. 10% of regions explained for 56% of employment creation in OECD countries.

  9. 1. Regions as the actors of National Performances Concentration of unemployment is the highest in Australia and Canada and the lowest in the Slovak Republic. On average, 37 per cent of national unemployment in 2001 was concentrated in only 10 per cent of regions.

  10. 1. Regions as the actors of National Performances About 47 per cent of unemployment in OECD countries is concentrated in urban regions. Concentration of unemployment does not mirror concentration of the labour force.

  11. 1. Regions as the actors of National Performances Regional policy may give a significant contribution to the reduction of total unemployment

  12. 2. Making the best of local assets Identifying Unused Resources Methodology • To compare regions against a common benchmark • 3 Benchmarks: • National Averages • OECD Average • Regional Type (Urban / Rural)

  13. What explains regional differencesin GDP per capita? Average Labour Productivity Employment rate Activity rate Commuting rate GDP . Employment at the workplace Employment at the workplace Labour force at the workplace Labour force at the workplace. Resident labour force Resident labour force Resident population

  14. What explains differences inAverage Labour Productivity? Productivity is higher in Manufacturing than in Agriculture or Services Sectoral Specialisation Technology & Infrastructures

  15. What explains differences inEmployment Rates? High-skills individuals have higher employment rates than low-skills ones Labour Force Skills Labour Market Efficiency

  16. What explains differences inActivity Rates? Activity rates are decreasing with age Age-profile of the population Labour market participation

  17. Identifying unused resources UnusedResources Natural Endowments Specialisation -Natural resources -Geographic location -Rural or urban type -Demographics -Infrastructures -Transportation -Tourism facilities -Labour market -Human capital -Social capital Technology & Infrastructure Skills Labour market Ageing Participation Commuting

  18. Identifying unused resources UnusedResources Natural Endowments Specialisation Specialisation Technology & Infrastructure Technology & Infrastructure Ageing Skills Skills Commuting Labour market Labour market Ageing Participation Participation Commuting

  19. Benchmark 1: National Looking at selected regions in Spain . . . . . . . -40% -20% 0% +20% +40% Comparing GDP per capita of the region to the national average: What is the contribution of each component to the percent difference? Percent contribution of each component Presentation to the OECD Territorial Development Policy Committee, November 27, 2003

  20. Benchmark 1: National Looking at selected regions in Spain . . . . . . . -40% -20% 0% +20% +40% Comparing GDP per capita of the region to the national average: What is the contribution of each component to the percent difference? Percent contribution of each component Presentation to the OECD Territorial Development Policy Committee, November 27, 2003

  21. Benchmark 1: National Looking at selected regions in Spain . . . . . . . -40% -20% 0% +20% +40% Comparing GDP per capita of the region to the national average: What is the contribution of each component to the percent difference? Percent contribution of each component Presentation to the OECD Territorial Development Policy Committee, November 27, 2003

  22. Benchmark 1: National Looking at selected regions in Spain . . . . . . . -40% -20% 0% +20% +40% Comparing GDP per capita of the region to the national average: What is the contribution of each component to the percent difference? Percent contribution of each component Presentation to the OECD Territorial Development Policy Committee, November 27, 2003

  23. Benchmark 1: National

  24. Benchmark 2: OECD Average • Regional variables are compared to the OECD Average • Effects of performance factors are measured asUS $ PPP • Above average = “Gains” • Below average = “Losses” • OECD Territorial Level 2

  25. Regional differences in real GDP per capita, 2000EuropeOECD average = 23,833 US $(PPP)

  26. Gains and losses in GDP per capita due to sectoral specialisation, 2000 - North America

  27. Gains and losses in GDP per capita due to average productivity, 2000 - Europe

  28. Gains and losses in GDP per capita due to employment rates2000 - Europe

  29. Gains and losses in GDP per capita due to age of population2000 - Australia

  30. Labour market pressure due to ageing, 2000North America

  31. Gains and losses in GDP per capita due to participation rates 2000 – Japan

  32. Benchmark 3: Regional Type OECD Regional Typology 3 criteria: • Population density:a community is rural if density < 150 inhabitants < (500 in Japan) • % of population in rural communities: • > 50% Predominantly Rural (PR) • < 15 % Predominantly Urban (PU) • Between 50 and 15 %  Intermediate (IN) • Urban centre: • > 200KRural  Intermediate • > 500K Intermediate  Urban

  33. GDP per capita by regional type In most OECD countries PU > IN > National Average > PR Exceptions: Canada Finland Greece Ireland Korea US IN < NA

  34. How much is explained by the Typology ? GDP per capita National Average Rural Average Regional Type Rural Region Regional Type Region Specific

  35. Ireland 81% Slovak Rep. 77% Czech Republic 76% Norway 69% France 69% Finland 69% Sweden 66% Austria 66% Denmark 65% United States 63% Hungary 63% Portugal 62% Japan 60% OECD 56% Greece 56% Spain 55% Mexico (TL2) 55% Italy 48% Belgium 45% Germany 44% Netherlands 38% U.K. 35% Canada (TL2) 35% Australia (TL2) 32% Korea 22% How much is explained by the Typology ?GDP per capita

  36. From 0% to 25% From 25% to 50% From 51% to 75% From 76% to 100% 0 500 1,000 Kilomètres Impact of Regional Types on GDP per CapitaDifferences from national averages explained by the OECD Regional Typology

  37. From 0% to 25% From 25% to 50% From 51% to 75% From 76% to 100% 0 250 500 Kilomètres Impact of Regional Types on GDP per CapitaDifferences from national averages explained by the OECD Regional Typology

  38. From 0% to 25% From 25% to 50% From 51% to 75% From 76% to 100% 0 500 1,000 Kilomètres Impact of Regional Types on GDP per CapitaDifferences from national averages explained by the OECD Regional Typology

  39. From 0% to 25% From 25% to 50% From 51% to 75% From 76% to 100% Impact of Regional Types on GDP per CapitaDifferences from national averages explained by the OECD Regional Typology

  40. From 0% to 25% From 25% to 50% From 51% to 75% From 76% to 100% Impact of Regional Types on GDP per CapitaDifferences from national averages explained by the OECD Regional Typology

  41. How much is explained by Regional Type ? Productivity 60% Age 57% Specialisation 54% Commuting 53% Activity rate 51% Employment rate 51%

  42. www.oecd.org/gov/territorialindicators

More Related