Getting stronger by knowing our weaknesses Janis Brunenieks Analysis and Research Coordination...
-
Upload
alexandra-farley -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Getting stronger by knowing our weaknesses Janis Brunenieks Analysis and Research Coordination...
Getting stronger by knowing our weaknesses
Janis BrunenieksAnalysis and Research
Coordination DepartmentState Regional Development
AgencyLatvia
What are we talking aboutWhat are we talking about Development Urban ¹ development Measuring urban development Measuring urban development in Latvia
Indicating differences in development Detecting weaknesses Finding strength Understanding mutual influences
¹ Urban development here is used only for shorter form. In our context it doesn’t include development of physical space.
Map images from commons.wikimedia.org
About About Latvia (I)Latvia (I)
77 cities / towns 447 rural municipalities Population density – ⅓ of EU average
Urban population – 67.9% of total in Latvia Population of Riga – 31.7% of total in Latvia (or 47% of total urban)
About Latvia (II)About Latvia (II) Area – 1.6% of EU Population – 0.5% of EU
Latvia produces
~ 0.23% of EU total GDP
GDP per capita – 54.2% of EU average
Picture: www.baltic-course.com
Source: www.urenio.org
Innovations (compared to other EU countries)
Forests cover 44.1% of Latvia's territory
> 45% of electricity is produced from renewables
Studies on developmentStudies on development
Socio-economic development tendencies in Latvian townswhich will be evolved in
Assessment of Mutual Influence Between Urban and Rural Areas in Latvia /upcoming in 2009/
Proposals for Elaboration of Town and City Policy /upcoming in 2009/
Methodological approaches for Evaluation of Regional Policy and Territory Development /upcoming 2009/
Scope of the research studyScope of the research study
Elaboration of methodology (including studies of existing experience)
Selection of development dimensions and indicators Creation of representative sample of towns Measurement of the development
• collection of existing statistical and administrative data• sociological survey (1500+ respondents)• questionnaire (data and opinions) for municipal institutions• collecting information on policy documents• SWOT analysis
Drawing conclusions and recommendations
Choosing development dimensionsChoosing development dimensions
Quality of Life Economic activity Openness Human resources
+ creativity, activity Administrative capacity Ecological footprint
... are essential, but often audience get “dog-tired”
... jump forward !
interested experts will dohome-reading, butwe will...
Methodological detailsMethodological details
Quality of lifeQuality of life
Accessibility of education Health care Safety (crime rate) Habitation Internet usage Sports infrastructure Life satisfaction Communal services
Economic activityEconomic activity
Employment statistics (unemployment rate, number and structural characteristics of enterprises; job satisfaction)
Economic branches represented; structural characteristics
Personal income tax revenues Newly established enterprises; change in number of
self-employed persons Dynamics in number of economically active
enterprises Presence of Special Economic Zones Amounts of EU funds attracted in projects Geo-economic advantages
OpennessOpenness
Transportation and road infrastructure Mobility Number of visitors of municipality
maintained web pages International events Partner-cities Services provided to visitors Tourism infrastructure Interests expressed by inhabitants regarding
life in other towns (and vice-versa)
Human resourcesHuman resources
Population Gender proportions Natural growth Migration
Creativity, activityCreativity, activity
Number of innovative enterprises Number of hobby groups Number of pupils wining prizes in education (art and
science) contests Number of library visitors Cultural activities Number of NGO-s Numbers on music's, art and other specialized
schools Numbers on “Culture houses”, exhibition halls Satisfaction of inhabitants with potentialities to be
involved in cultural life and to express creativity
Administrative capacityAdministrative capacity
Municipal budget Satisfaction of inhabitants with
municipal government and municipal services
Elaboration and implementation of long-term strategies
Elaboration and implementation of development programs
Ecological footprintEcological footprint
calculated from: Land area Energy consumption Transportation amounts Food consumption Waste production Built area
Creation of representative sample Creation of representative sample
There are 77 cities and towns of different size in Latvia – too much for all-inclusive study
Included all major cities (“cities of state
importance”) (Rīga, Daugavpils, Jēkabpils, Jelgava, Jūrmala, Liepāja, Rēzekne, Ventspils, Valmiera) = 9
Included all cities of regional importance(Talsi, Kuldīga, Saldus, Tukums, Dobele, Bauska, Ogre, Sigulda, Cēsis, Limbaži, Valka, Alūksne, Gulbene, Madona, Balvi, Preiļi, Aizkraukle) = 17
remains 51 town of local importance random sampling method is applied
Random sampling in group of towns of local importanceRandom sampling in group of towns of local importance
Aim – to choose X towns representing diversity of development patterns (at least – main types)
Selection is realized by grouping all towns in groups. The most similar towns have to fit in one group, and towns in different groups have to be as dissimilar as possible. Practically – factor analysis is applied.
Factors, used to group towns, are basic statistical data (available for all towns) representing in general lines all development dimensions.
Small number (2 – 3) of towns from each group are chosen by lot to represent this group in further analysis.
Key findingsKey findings
What characterizes Latvian towns?What characterizes Latvian towns?
People are more satisfied with their city/town rather then quality of life!
By inhabitants there are indicated main limitations in opportunities:
to get acceptable job, and
to influence decisions on matters essential for the city/town
Also as somehow limited are mentioned:
possibilities for leisure time activities, and
possibilities to attain additional education, knowledge, competences
State of health by most part of population in cities/towns is perceived as “not good enough”
Accessibility of health-care services mostly is assessed as “insufficient”
Main obstacle for taking sufficient charge of health is mentioned lack of resources
Negative assessment of health-care is the main component, which diminishes overall assessment of life quality in cities/towns
Inhabitants of cities/towns are quite intolerant – more then half of them would prefer not to live in neighbors with Roma people, homosexuals, and Muslims.
There is quite high intolerance also regarding guest-workers and nonwhite people.
Higher level of tolerance is typical for smaller towns.
Data regarding years 2005 / 2006.
In average 2% of urban population have experienced discrimination in labour market – in most cases owing to age and state of health.
In some specific towns more often discrimination was experienced owing to nationality.
there are no leader-
towns regarding concentration of
creative people
58,1% of “creative class” lives in Riga
(Riga constituates xx% of Latvian population)
Riga is metropolis of creativity, especially regarding technologies and talents
Towns of Riga region are creative too
Other towns are not standing out (including those, where higher schools are located)
There is evident concentration of economic activity in Riga:
more than 50% of GDP is produced in Riga with tendency to increase in dominance (in period of 1997 – 2005 share of Riga increased from 49% to 57%)
number of enterprises (per 1000 of inhabitants) is much higher in Riga
absolute majority (369) of top-500 enterprises (ranked by turnover) are located in Riga
As well maps of market potential (MP) indicate dominance of Riga.
Market potential is calculated from data on GDP produced, and distances between towns.
Comparing maps for years 1997 and 2001 there is evident increase
in economic concentration.
1997.g.
2001.g.
Besides of Riga there are several region level exporting centers – Liepāja, Daugavpils,
Jelgava and Valmiera.
Riga is dominating also as main exporter.
There are district level exporting centers, which can’t compete with Riga, but are remarkable in region.
Number of exporting enterprises by cities and districts in 2006.
Volume of Exports by cities and districts in 2006 (mill. Euro)
In most cities Ecological Footprint exceeds average for Latvia.
To sustain our planet there is available 1.9 gha of footprint per inhabitant – it means:
if all inhabitants of the World would consume the same amount of resources (emit the same amount of pollution etc.) as average inhabitant of Latvia, there would be necessary to have two planets like our;
if all inhabitants of the World would like to live as average inhabitant of Liepāja, Ventspils or Riga, there would be necessary to have 2.6 planets like our.
Satisfaction of inhabitants with municipal government and municipal services is quite low. Only in some cases it exceeds 50%. Remarkable are some “critical” cases – Riga 8%, Jurmala 10%, Rezekne 12%.
Administrative borders are limitingAdministrative borders are limiting
Majority of development plans are limited by administrative border-lines – in preparation there is omitted regional context. In many cases neighboring cities are indicating contradictory tendencies or competing with the same specialization
Models of polycentric developmentModels of polycentric development
Development models
Several development centers
Cooperation networks
Driving force of development
Development centers Cooperation
Regime of development Relation “center – periphery”
Cooperation
Additional benefits Externalities, spillovers Synergy, complementarity
Critical mass Concentration of resources
Conjunction of resources
Development of transport infrastructure
Optimal growth Widening of cooperation
Economic development Diversity and specialization
Profiling in frames of network
Institutional capacity Level of the city Regional and inter-regional level
Several development centers Several development centers (I)(I)
Riga has potential, however it isn’t metropolis of the Europe: Riga is like as Krakow, Turku, Cork, Vilnius or Tallinn Riga still lacks critical mass of creative people as well as
international investment Riga has the most opportunities for specialization,
nevertheless those remain unused. Riga have to decide to become city of industry or city of creativity
Riga is the head of Latvian economy: Market potential decreases with distance from Riga Riga is center of technologies and science – 83% of scientific
potential as well as 83% of high-tech enterprises are located in Riga
Riga is center of economic activity, creativity and exports
Several development centersSeveral development centers (II) (II)
There are also other development centers in Latvia of lower importance
Liepaja, Ventspils, Jelgava, Daugavpils, Rezekne and Valmiera These centers however have impact limited to district / region These centers are incomparable with Riga, they lack critical
mass
Opportunities for development – attractive environment and developed transport system
make efforts to develop environment (including institutional) attractive for living and business and concentrate resources in development centers
specialization (!) – otherwise critical mass can’t be achieved improve connectivity with towns in periphery
Cooperation networks (I)Cooperation networks (I)
Development of Riga as international (regional) center is driving force for development of Latvia as whole
Develop cooperation with some of cities from European “pentagon” (London – Paris – Milan – Munich – Hamburg), as well as some of Baltic regional centers
Riga has to be involved in network of Latvian cities. Cooperation between cities has to strengthen positions of all cities, especially – Riga.
Cooperation networks in Latvia Latvian cities are weak in functional specialization Cooperation networks are not developed as a part of strategies
and development plans In everyday life networks exist - 38,6% of inhabitants are
employed and 39,4% are studying outside territory, they live
Cooperation networks (ICooperation networks (III))Opportunities for development. We are too small to
make no cooperation:
Critical mass has to be created not by concentrating resources, but merging existing resources of cities by developing infrastructures of transportation and information technologies
Cities have to cooperate, complement each other, not competing and duplicating different functions
Larger cities with higher potentials of creativity, economic activity and exports have to be networked as a priority
Cooperation networks (ICooperation networks (IIIII))Opportunities for development. We are too small to
make no cooperation:
Not only Riga, but also other cities have to develop international cooperation. For example – networking of Liepaja with Lithuanian, and Valmiera with Estonian cities is natural way of development
Urban – rural cooperation has to be developed
Probably, not support for development of particular cities is the best policy, but support for development of cooperation (networking) projects
Real cooperation networksReal cooperation networks (I) (I)
Real cooperation networksReal cooperation networks (II) (II)
Sweden
NorwayFinland Estonia
Russia
BelorussiaLithuaniaPoland
UK
USA
GermanyDenmark France Romania Greece TurkeySpain
Portugal Slovakia Czech Republic
Ireland
Belgium
Israel
Canada
China
NetherlandsSwitzerland Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Georgia
Ukraine
Real cooperation networksReal cooperation networks (III) (III)
• In previous slide only two types of cooperation are represented– town partnership (“sister – towns”)– cooperation between universities
• Obviously there exist much more types,
• However picture is already mazy and unlikely informative
Measuring cooperation in networksMeasuring cooperation in networks (I) (I)
• There is need for methodology to assess regional cooperation
• The simplest way to capture connectiveness in networks is to calculate l/n (links per node) ratio
• It’s already improvement, but this method does not reflect– different types of cooperation– intensity of cooperation– outcomes of cooperation
Measuring cooperation in networksMeasuring cooperation in networks (II) (II)
• To reflect– different types of cooperation– intensity of cooperation– outcomes of cooperation
we propose idea for weighted method:
n
I
rlt
lt
lt
,,
,
where:
is measure reflecting cooperation
- measure for outcomes from cooperation of type t
- measure for intensity (inputs) for cooperation of type t
- number of effective links
- number of nodes (towns)
tr
tI
nl
Home work (for us and others)Home work (for us and others)
• We propose only rough idea mainly stressing necessity to develop methodology for assessment of regional cooperation
• We are open to cooperate with other interested parties in developing comprehensive methodology
Paldies !
Thank You !