Abstract
This chapter analyses the dynamics of regional disparities in the member states that joined the European Union in or after 2004, excluding Cyprus and Malta (EU11). The analysis shows that while differences between countries have been shrinking, regional disparities in GDP per capita and employment rates within countries have been increasing. In particular, there is evidence of a strong and growing divide between urban and rural areas, at least until the 2008 crisis. Consistently, population dynamics also point to increasing within-country agglomeration, with the areas that had lower income per capita in 2000 (prevailingly rural) experiencing very sizeable population outflows over the subsequent 15 years. While a region’s prosperity depends on and affects that of neighbour regions, this spatial dependency has been declining over time, with geographical clusters of prosperous (poor) regions breaking up into more a granular spatial organisation.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the European Commission. We would like to thank István P. Székely, Michael Landesmann, Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, Septimiu Szabo, Andrea Mairate and Angel Catalina Rubianes for their very helpful comments. Any errors or omissions are ours alone.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This review is not exhaustive. Among many contributions, an important recent review of theoretical and empirical research is in Breinlich, Ottaviano and Temple (2014). Less recent, but more comprehensive, reviews of empirical research are in Magrini (2004), and, focused on Europe, Monfort (2008). Recent contributions include Ottaviano (2019), Alfaro, Chen and Fadinger (2019), Demertzis, Sapir and Wolff (2019). The definition of convergence, empirical methodology and findings vary across papers. Only the trends that are broadly consistent across papers, sometimes with many exceptions, are reported above.
- 2.
As a caveat, similar to all administrative units, even NUTS 3 regions may have arbitrary boundaries that do not correspond to actual geographical areas of economic activity.
- 3.
The database is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/territorial/ardeco-database_en. Data were downloaded in July 2019.
- 4.
In order to approximate better the average citizen’s purchasing power across locations, GDP is usually corrected for differences in prices. Price indexes are however available only at national level. Since prices tend to be higher in higher income areas, it is likely that our measure of GDP per capita overestimates differences in real purchasing power at regional level.
- 5.
An alternative definition of convergence is β-convergence. There is β-convergence when the regions that were initially poorer are growing faster. It has been shown that σ-convergence is a sufficient condition for β-convergence. For a comprehensive review of the definitions and measurements of regional convergence, see Eurofound (2018).
- 6.
Regions are categorised in four groups: in addition to urban, intermediate and rural (according to European Commission 2017, p. 21) regions, the NUTS 3 regions including the capital cities are treated separately from urban regions.
- 7.
This seems a long-term trend. Ezcurra, Pascual and Rapún (2007) found multimodality in the regional distribution of income per capita in 1900, which substantially weakened by 2001.
- 8.
GDP per capita in capitals could be inflated by the concentration of company headquarters in these cities. This concentration allocates a disproportionate share of gross operating surplus to capitals, even though these firms may operate in several regions.
- 9.
The unemployment rate is the number of persons not working but actively searching for employment, as a percentage of the labour force (unemployed plus those in paid or self-employment). The non-employment rate is the number of those not working (irrespective of whether they are searching for work) as a percentage of the working-age population.
- 10.
To see why, consider two opposing cases. First, assume that labour is fully mobile and individuals’ utility is determined only by their real income (purchasing power). One would expect people to move to higher productivity places where they reap higher nominal incomes. This migration would continue until the prices of localised goods (e.g., land, property, local services) change sufficiently to equalise real income across locations. Second, assume instead that localities have the same productivity level but different non-monetary amenities. Then, people may accept lower income in exchange for better amenities (e.g. better climate or nicer landscapes). The joint behaviour of local prices and local population dynamics can differentiate between these two cases. If higher income per capita is accompanied by higher population growth, productivity differences would be the main driver of local differences in income per capita. If higher income per capita is instead accompanied by lower population growth, local non-monetary amenities would be the main driver. In this chapter, we find that local population dynamics and incomes are positively correlated, which would suggest that they primarily reflect productivity differences. For a more complete explanation of these mechanisms, see for instance, Breinlich, Ottaviano and Temple (2014).
- 11.
The position of regions (poor/rich and fast/slow growing) is always relative to their national average. This implies that a Type 1 region in Country A may grow slower than a Type 4 region in Country B, if Country B national average growth is sufficiently higher than Country A national average growth.
- 12.
Neighbouring regions more than 200 kilometres away are not considered for this analysis, their weights are set to zero. This implies that spillovers are considered negligible beyond this threshold. As a robustness check, various thresholds were tried between 100 and 500 kilometres, but the results did not change materially. The calculations also take into account the GDP per capita in bordering regions in Western Europe.
- 13.
In 2000, the slope coefficient I = 0.505 with a standard deviation of 0.033 (z = 15.441, significant at all levels). By 2015, the slope had halved (0.238) while remaining statistically significant (standard deviation of 0.033, z = 7.394, significant at all levels).
- 14.
The calculations take into account the GDP per capita in bordering regions in Western Europe.
- 15.
Rosés and Wolf (2018) also find evidence of weakening spatial dependency in the EU as a whole over the long term (1900–2010).
- 16.
- 17.
This is because these models include a non-linear relation between trade costs and agglomeration effects. Agglomeration effects are minimised when transport costs are either very high (firms have to locate close to their customers) or very low (firms’ location becomes irrelevant). For intermediate costs, agglomeration effects are stronger – in this case, market outcomes tend to be inefficient. Combes et al. (2011) find evidence of such bell-shaped curve with regard to French regions over the period 1860–2000.
- 18.
- 19.
Breinlich, Ottaviano and Temple (2014) provide a good overview of the topic and analyse the related important analytical gaps.
References
Alfaro, L., Chen, M. X., & Fadinger, H. (2019). Spatial Agglomeration and Superstar Firms: Firm-Level Patterns from Europe and US. Working Paper 20-015, Harvard Business School.
Artelaris, P., Kallioras, D., & Petrakos, G. (2010). Regional Inequalities and Convergence Clubs in the European Union New Member States. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 1(1), 113–133.
Austin, B. A., Glaeser, E. L., & Summers, L. H. (2018). Jobs for the Heartland: Place-Based Policies in 21st-Century America. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 49(1), 151–255.
Baldwin, R. (2016). The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalisation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Baldwin, R., Forslid, R., Martin, P., Ottaviano, G. I. P., & Robert-Nicoud, F. (2003). Economic Geography and Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The Case for Regional Development Intervention: Place-Based Versus Place-Neutral Approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152.
Becker, S. O., Egger, P. H., & von Ehrlich, M. (2012). Too Much of a Good Thing? On the Growth Effect of the EU’s Regional Policy. European Economic Review, 56(4), 648–668.
Becker, S. O., Egger, P. H., & von Ehrlich, M. (2013). Absorptive Capacity and the Growth and Investment Effects of Regional Transfers: A Regression Discontinuity Design with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(4), 29–77.
Becker, S. O., Egger, P. H., & von Ehrlich, M. (2018). Effects of EU Regional Policy, 1989–2013. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 69, 143–152.
Bourdin, S. (2015). National and Regional Trajectories of Convergence and Economic Integration in Central and Eastern Europe. Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences régionales, 38(1/3), 55–63.
Bourdin, S. (2019). Does the Cohesion Policy Have the Same Influence on Growth Everywhere? A Geographically Weighted Regression Approach in Central and Eastern Europe. Economic Geography, 95(3), 256–287.
Breinlich, H., Ottaviano, G. I. P., & Temple, J. R. W. (2014). Regional Growth and Regional Decline. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (Vol. 2B). Oxford: Elsevier.
Brülhart, M. (2009, January 7). Is the New Economic Geography Passé? VoxEU. https://voxeu.org/article/new-economic-geography-pass
Combes, P.-P., Lafourcade, M., Thisse, J.-F., & Toutain, J.-C. (2011). The Rise and Fall of Spatial Inequalities in France: A Long-Run Perspective. Explorations in Economic History, 48(2), 243–271.
Council of Economic Advisers. (2016). The Long-Term Decline in Prime-Age Male Labour Force Participation. Technical Report.
Cuaresma, J. C., Doppelhofer, G., & Feldkircher, M. (2014). The Determinants of Economic Growth in European Regions. Regional Studies, 48(1), 44–67.
Demertzis, M., Sapir, A., & Wolff, G. (2019). Promoting Sustainable and Inclusive Growth and Convergence in the European Union. Policy Contribution No. 7, Bruegel.
Desmet, K., Nagy, D., Nigmatulina, D., & Young, N. (2018). Chapter 4: Geographic Transition. In Transition Report 2018–19. London: EBRD.
Dijkstra, L., Garcilazo, E., & McCann, P. (2015). The Effect of the Global Financial Crisis on European Regions and Cities. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(5), 935–949.
Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). The Geography of EU Discontent. Regional Studies, 54(6), 737–753.
Eckey, H.-F., & Türck, M. (2007). Convergence of EU-Regions. A Literature Report. Investigaciones Regionales, 10, 5–32.
Eurofound. (2018). Upward Convergence in the EU: Concepts, Measurements and Indicators. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2017). Seventh Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
Ezcurra, R., Pascual, P., & Rapún, M. (2007). The Dynamics of Regional Disparities in Central and Eastern Europe During Transition. European Planning Studies, 15(10), 1397–1421.
Forgó, B., & Jevčák, A. (2015). Economic Convergence of Central and Eastern European EU Member States Over the Last Decade (2004–2014). European Economy – Discussion Papers 001, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission.
Gagliardi, L., & Percoco, M. (2017). The Impact of European Cohesion Policy in Urban and Rural Regions. Regional Studies, 51(6), 857–868.
Glaeser, E. L. (2011). The Triumph of the City. How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Glaeser, E. L. (2013). A Review of Enrico Moretti’s “The New Geography of Jobs”. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(3), 825–837.
Gorzelak, G. (2017). Cohesion Policy and Regional Development. In J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, & T. Muravska (Eds.), EU Cohesion Policy. Reassessing Performance and Direction (Regions and Cities). Oxon/New York: Regional Studies Association/Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group.
Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional Inequality in Europe: Evidence, Theory and Policy Implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298.
Kotosz, B., & Lengyel, I. (2017). Regional Growth and Convergence of the NUTS 3 Regions of Eastern European Countries. Draft manuscript, University of Szeged, presented at the 57th ERSA Congress: Social Progress for Resilient Regions, available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Balazs_Kotosz/publication/319768127_Regional_Growth_and_Convergence_of_the_NUTS_3_Regions_of_Eastern_European_Countries/links/59bbfa08458515e9cfc7bc97/Regional-Growth-and-Convergence-of-the-NUTS-3-Regions-of-Eastern-European-Countries.pdf.
Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Magrini, S. (2004). Regional (Di)Convergence. In V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Monfort, P. (2008). Convergence of EU Regions. Measures and Evolution. Working Paper 1/2008, Directorate-General Regional Policy, European Commission.
Moretti, E. (2011). Local Labour Markets. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 4B). North Holland: Elsevier.
Moretti, E. (2012). The New Geography of Jobs. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing.
Ottaviano, G. I. P. (2019). Geografia economica dell’Europa sovranista. Roma: Editori Laterza.
Ottaviano, G. I. P., & Pinelli, D. (2005). A ‘New Economic Geography’ Perspective on Globalization. Italian Journal of Regional Science, 4, 71–106.
Ottaviano, G. I. P., & Thisse, J.-F. (2002). Integration, Agglomeration and the Political Economics of Factor Mobility. Journal of Public Economics, 83(3), 429–456.
Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Ketterer, T. (2020). Institutional Change and the Development of Lagging Regions in Europe. Regional Studies, 54(7), 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1608356.
Rosés, J. R., & Wolf, N. (2018). Regional Economic Development in Europe: 1900–2010: A Description of Patterns. CEPR Discussion Paper 12749, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Tondl, G., & Vuksic, G. (2007). Catching Up of Eastern European Regions: The Role of Foreign Investment, Human Capital and Geography. In R. Eisen, A. M. Díaz Cafferata, A. E. Neder, & M. L. Recalde (Eds.), Trade, Integration and Institutional Reforms in Latin America and the EU. Frankfurt: Lang.
World Bank. (2009). World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pinelli, D., Pellényi, G.M. (2021). Regional Dynamics in EU11. In: Landesmann, M., Székely, I.P. (eds) Does EU Membership Facilitate Convergence? The Experience of the EU's Eastern Enlargement - Volume I. Studies in Economic Transition. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57686-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57686-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57685-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57686-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)