Promoting integrated development in the context of demographic change
•
0 gefällt mir•1,523 views
Presentation on promoting integrated development at the XIV All-Russian Forum "Strategic Planning in the Regions and Cities of Russia", 19-20 October 2015, St Petersburg,, Russian Federation, by William Tompson, Senior Counsellor, OECD Regional Development Policy Division. St Petersburg, 19 October 2015
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Promoting integrated development in the context of demographic change
Ähnlich wie Promoting integrated development in the context of demographic change (20)
Mehr von OECD Governance
Mehr von OECD Governance (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Promoting integrated development in the context of demographic change
- 1. PROMOTING INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT IN A CONTEXT OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE XIV All-Russian Forum «Strategic Planning in the Regions and Cities of Russia» St Petersburg, 20 October 2015 Bill Tompson, Senior Counsellor & Deputy Head Regional Development Policy Division william.tompson@oecd.org
- 2. • The population pyramid is increasing inverted. • The age structure of the early stages of the demographic transition was uniquely favourable for economic growth. • It coincided with important productivity- enhancing changes in economy and society. • Productivity growth grows more difficult even as it becomes more important. The demographic dividend is past 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 2
- 3. • Concentration continues but in the context of slow or negative population growth. • Many rural areas are losing population. • Rural areas tend to age faster than cities. • Concentration offers productivity benefits but at a cost in terms of key rural functions. • Technology offers new opportunities for well- connected rural areas with good amenities. Changing settlement patterns generate increasing challenges 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 3
- 4. New patterns of territorial organization Economic development / structural changes Improved ICT and transport Mass diffusion of cars Increased urbanisation Larger functional regions Increased integration of places before more independent Larger distances daily travelled by individuals New concept of cities and rural areas 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 4 Beyond urban rural divide: Territorial transformations in the last decades Growth spill-overs extend further
- 5. Rural and urban areas are interconnected through different linkages (commuting, provision of amenities, transportation, economic transactions etc.) The way these linkages are governed has an impact on the economic development and people’s wellbeing both in urban and rural communities Better understanding of interdependencies (unit of analysis = self- contained space of relationship, functional region) Design governance solutions to facilitate an integrated approach that improves the outcome of the rural-urban partnerships 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 5 Why are we interested in urban-rural partnerships?
- 6. Category of benefit observed Example of benefit Production of public goods (or “club” goods) Higher external visibility and attractiveness Exploiting local productive linkages (e.g. agro-industry) and economic complementarities Easier access to natural resources (incl. renewable energies) Strengthen territorial identity and social capital Achieve higher economies of scale Network economies (e.g. overcoming limits of small-size business environments) Higher political power, financial resources and better dialogue with other government levels Improving quality, access or economic viability of services’ provision Capacity building Improving local government capacity to carry out tasks Account for negative externalities Coordinating land use policy (e.g. sprawl issues) Limiting zero-sum competition among municipalities (e.g. tax competition) Overcoming coordination failures Setting and aligning priorities for economic development Improving local knowledge through social learning and information sharing Rurban partnership can help reaching development objectives 6
- 7. a) Overcoming institutional fragmentation Potential conflicts with other existing government levels Different political and economic weight of different partners b) Reforms and stability Combining efficiency with legitimacy Financial sustainability and incentive dependency c) Balancing transaction costs and human resources costs d) Accountability towards citizens Galvanise actors towards clear, relevant and measurable objectives Data challenge Lessons learned 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 7 Challenges to adopt a functional approach to policy making
- 8. • The formation and the effectiveness of the partnership is affected by some main “enabling” and “hindering” factors. • Main enabling factors: • Clearly defined objectives • High awareness of interdependence between urban and rural areas • Democratic participation • Leadership • Main hindering factors: • Regulatory and political barriers • Lack of trust and social capital • Policy fragmentation 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 8 When do rurban partnerships work?
- 9. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Intentional with delegated functions More unified rural-urban action; greater access to resources; influence on national/ regional policy makers Less flexibility; threat to local autonomy; less citizen and private sector engagement. Intentional with no delegated functions Same as above but also more scope for citizen, academia and private sector participation. Fewer resources (e.g. funding) and implementation instruments; Potential for discord between urban-rural stakeholders. Unintentional with delegated functions Facilitates a bottom-up process of rural- urban collaboration; can promote a territorial approach on rural-urban issues (multiple purpose) Indirect management of rural-urban issues (and more complex); Needs legitimacy, good evidence and comprehension of rural-urban issues. Unintentional with no delegated functions Maintains local autonomy; can address challenges on a service by service basis; can bring in relevant stakeholders as needed. Fewer resources; No one voice: no region- wide coordination; more opportunities for sectoral vs. integrated rural-urban strategies Advantages and disadvantages of the different governance models 9
- 10. National levels of government could: 1) promote institutional and functional integration between urban and rural areas; 2) overcome fragmentation among different sectoral policies; 3) encourage territories to self-determine their integrated strategies and projects around flexible functional geographies; 4) set a framework for a better dialogue among levels of government; and 5) establish platforms to share experiences and good practices of rural- urban partnership. Sub-national levels of government could: 1) help in setting strategic orientation (and coordinate with local levels); 2) facilitate co-operation between public and private actors; and 3) monitor the progress of rural-urban partnership. 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 10 A strategy to build effective and sustainable rurban partnerships
- 11. СПАСИБО ЗА ВНИМАНИЕ 20 Oct 2015 XIV All-Russian Forum, St Petersburg 11
Hinweis der Redaktion
- OECD population projections suggest that at least six OECD countries will have populations more than 10% below their peak by mid-century and twelve will have elderly dependency ratios (elderly/working-age population) in excess of 50%.
- In addition to the presence of spatial externalities, several territorial transformations occurred that should be taken into account. More specifically, there have been processes of territorial integration. Exogenous and endogenous forces (listed on the left side of the slide) have reduced the cost of remoteness and cities and territories have become a “regional” phenomenon. Connected with urban expansion, the amount of space considered by individuals for their daily activities has dramatically enlarged. People travel longer distances than in the past and all economic interactions take place on a wider spatial dimension. These changes have also transformed the concepts of urban and rural areas. The differences are now more subtle and they are not based anymore on economic functions (e.g. agriculture vs.. manufacturing and services). There has been also a process of polarization of population in larger functional areas made by an economic core and an integrated hinterland.
- Rural and Urban areas are increasingly interconnected through a broad set of linkages. This interdependences can affect well being and economic performances of urban and rural areas The interdependences between urban and rural areas can be caught by the concept of functional region (territories that emerge as self-contained spaces of relationships between urban and rural areas, which do not correspond with administrative regions) Many OECD countries are experiencing innovative forms of governing urban-rural relationships through partnerships between urban and rural areas, in order to deal with several issues of policy (economic strategy, service provision, spatial planning, etc.) These partnerships allow the constraints imposed by local administrative boundaries to be overcome through an integrated approach for economic development There is currently much attention at analysing what governance approaches these partnerships can take and what are the characteristics that make them bringing about benefits to both rural and urban territories
- Potential risks and bad outcomes: Transaction costs Additional administrative boundaries Risks of focusing on output rather than of outcome and actual needs of territories Risks of unbalanced distribution of benefits among partners
- The governance of these interactions should take into account several issues (coordination gaps): different actors (public/private) different levels of government different incentives to cooperate (need to align objectives) financial sustainability of the partnership
- Intentional with delegated functions: Advantages: Can directly manage rural and urban issues --more unified rural-urban action; can speak on behalf of the region; facilitates more local influence with national/ regional policy makers; greater access to resources; more implementation mechanisms; more organisational support e.g. resources (financial, physical). Disadvantage: less flexibility; threat to local autonomy; less citizen and private sector engagement. Intentional with no delegated functions: Advantages: Can directly manage rural and urban issues --more unified rural-urban action; can manage a wide range of functions; more local influence with national/regional policy makers; can improve access to national and regional funds; greater flexibility e.g. more scope for citizen, academia and private sector participation. Disadvantages: fewer resources (e.g. funding); less implementation instruments; potential for discord e.g. dominant versus subordinate relationship between urban-rural stakeholders.
- All government levels have specific but complementary roles. National government can set the institutional framework and give the impetus, regions propose strategic orientations and ensure capacity support, and local institutions foster inter-municipal co-operation and promote the engagement of different stakeholders. Ensure accessibility to services, jobs and amenities and ensure institutional dialogue within functionally integrated spaces. Many OECD countries design and implement policy with a ‘silo approach’, which hinders policy coordination and, in turn, the effectiveness of policy itself. Trying to integrate or coordinate different policy areas would lead to a higher functional integration between urban and rural areas, exploiting sectoral complementarities and increasing the effectiveness of place-tailored responses to their different territorial challenges. This would allow for a better institutional and strategic response to specific regional challenges. Local stakeholders should be put in the condition of co-operate beyond the constraints imposed by traditional administrative boundaries and with a strong horizontal and vertical coordination in order to avoid institutional conflicts. In particular, it is important to align national and regional strategies to the projects and plans devised locally. This includes promoting visibility of rural-urban co-operation projects, favouring research on the topic, building networks of scholars and practitioners and organising events for the dissemination of knowledge and experiences acquired nationally and internationally. Regions can provide the vision for the territory and facilitate rural-urban partnership. They can listen to the specific needs of territories. Engaging the private sector can help to find resources, co-design programs and gain business acumen. Monitoring activities should be based on few but clear indicators that accounts for short, medium and long term change. The indicators should be few and clear, but they should be defined ex ante and agreed by the different stakeholders. However, the extent of monitoring activities should be related with the scope and the objectives of the partnership. Smaller co-operation requires lighter monitoring. Being able to measure success in early stages on the basis of agreed indicators can clearly support self enforcement of cooperative approaches for the future. Early identification of difficulties is also a powerful tool for revising existing arrangements in a flexible way.