Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

The contribution of regions to the productivity of nations - Oliveira Martins, OECD

284 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

1st informal meeting of the Trento Centre Spatial Productivity Lab - 21 Feb 2018 - 14.00 | Trento, Italy
For more info: www.trento.oecd.org

Veröffentlicht in: News & Politik
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

The contribution of regions to the productivity of nations - Oliveira Martins, OECD

  1. 1. THE CONTRIBUTION OF REGIONS TO THE PRODUCTIVITY OF NATIONS OECD TRENTO CENTRE – SPATIAL PRODUCTIVITY SEMINARS, 21 FEB 2018 Joaquim Oliveira Martins, OECD/CFE
  2. 2. The OECD (and EU) Productivity Problem
  3. 3. Trends of Labour productivity growth before and after the crisis Source: OECD Productivity database; moving averages (t, t-1, t-2) -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Japan US Euro Area Financial crisis
  4. 4. Decomposition of Potential output growth in Europe
  5. 5. The contribution of regions to aggregate labour productivity
  6. 6. Regional productivity has diverged in the OECD, slowing since the crisis Notes: Average of top 10% and bottom 10% TL2 regions, selected for each year. Top and bottom regions are the aggregation of regions with the highest and lowest GDP per worker and representing 10% of national employment. 19 countries with data included. Source: OECD Regional Outlook 2016 Averages of top 10% (frontier), bottom 75%, and bottom 10% (lagging) regional GDP per worker, TL2 regions 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 100 000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 USD PPP per employee Frontier regions Lagging regions 75% of regions 1.6% per year 1.3% per year 1.3% per year 60% increase
  7. 7. A majority of regions have flat or declining labour productivity catching-up Type of regions Employment share in 2000 GDP share in 2000 Annual avg. GDP growth, 2000-13 GDP growth contribution Frontier 16.1% 20.1% 1.7% 21.9% Catching up 20.3% 18.2% 2.2% 25.3% Keeping pace 38.9% 39.1% 1.3% 30.4% Diverging 24.6% 22.6% 1.6% 22.4% OECD average 1.6% Note: Frontier regions are fixed for the 2000-13 period. In four countries the values for 2000 or 2013 were extrapolated from growth rates over a shorter time period as data for 2000 or 2013 were not available. The countries are FIN (2000-12), HUN (2000-12), NLD (2001-13) and KOR (2004-13).  62% of OECD GDP is generated in regions were productivity is Keeping pace or Diverging. They contributed to 53% of GDP growth
  8. 8. The contribution of regions to national productivity growth: two main types of EU countries 8 Source: Bachtler, Oliveira Martins, Wostner and Zuber(2017), “TOWARDS COHESION POLICY 4.0”, Regional Studies Association. Type-I (distributed): Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania. Most of the productivity performance of these countries is the result of the catching-up of the lagging regions. The frontier regions sustain high productivity levels, but productivity growth dynamics occur elsewhere in the country. Type-II (concentrated): Bulgaria, Denmark, France, United Kingdom, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Slovak Republic and Sweden. In these countries, most of the productivity dynamics is concentrated at the frontier with limited effects from the catching-up process.
  9. 9. Illustrations of the two regional productivity models, 2000-2014 NB: The contribution of a region is defined as the difference between the national annual average labour productivity growth rate and the same rate excluding the indicated region, cf. OECD Regional Outlook (2016). GERMANY (TYPE I) FRANCE (TYPE II)
  10. 10. Illustrations of the two regional productivity models, 2000-2014 The contribution of a region is defined as the difference between the national annual average labour productivity growth rate and the same rate excluding the indicated region, cf. OECD Regional Outlook (2016). UK (TYPE II)SPAIN (TYPE I)
  11. 11. Distributed model (Type I), 2000-2014 The contribution of a region is defined as the difference between the national annual average labour productivity growth rate and the same rate excluding the indicated region, cf. OECD Regional Outlook (2016). SPAIN ITALY
  12. 12. Distributed model (Type I), 2000-2014 The contribution of a region is defined as the difference between the national annual average labour productivity growth rate and the same rate excluding the indicated region, cf. OECD Regional Outlook (2016). POLAND PORTUGAL
  13. 13. Concentrated model (Type II), 2000-2014 SWEDEN The contribution of a region is defined as the difference between the national annual average labour productivity growth rate and the same rate excluding the indicated region, cf. OECD Regional Outlook (2016). DENMARK
  14. 14. Concentrated model (Type II), 2000-2014 GREECE The contribution of a region is defined as the difference between the national annual average labour productivity growth rate and the same rate excluding the indicated region, cf. OECD Regional Outlook (2016). HUNGARY
  15. 15. Geography of productivity convergence relative to national frontiers in European regions, 2000-14
  16. 16. Productivity trends for Type I and Type II countries Type I (Distributed) countries Type II (concentrated) countries  There was productivity convergence for Type I countries  Type II countries displayed productivity divergence 55 000 65 000 75 000 85 000 95 000 105 000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Frontier Top 10% Lagging Bottom 90% in USD 1% per year 1.1% per year 55 000 65 000 75 000 85 000 95 000 105 000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Frontier Top 10% Lagging Bottom 90% in USD 1.6% per year 0.9% per year
  17. 17. Comparison of (unweighted) productivity growth for Type I and Type II countries -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Unweighted TYPE I Unweighted TYPE II Average productivity growth Type I: 1.25% Average productivity growth Type II: 1.34%
  18. 18. Comparison of (weighted) productivity growth for Type I and Type II countries -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Weighted TYPE I Weighted TYPE II Average productivity growth Type I: 1.07% Average productivity growth Type II: 1.12%
  19. 19. Comparison of Regional inequalities for Type I and Type II countries (OECD TL2 regions) Gini of GDP per capita - weighted averages TL2 regions 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 Type I Type II Gini of GDP per capita – simple averages TL2 regions 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 Type I Type II  Type II countries displayed an increase of regional inequality, especially before the crisis
  20. 20. Comparison of Regional inequalities for Type I and Type II countries (OECD TL3 regions) Gini of GDP per capita - weighted averages TL3 regions Gini of GDP per capita – simple averages TL3 regions 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.23 Type I Type II 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 Type I Type II  Type II countries displayed an increase of regional inequality, especially before the crisis
  21. 21. How can regional and urban policies better contribute to inclusive growth?
  22. 22. Regional Policies should promote rural-urban linkages 22 Source: OECD Regional Outlook 2016 Average annual labor productivity growth rate 2000-12 (%)
  23. 23. Proximity to cities promote productivity of rural areas 88% 89% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total RURAL RURAL CLOSE TO CITIES RURAL REMOTE Productivity levels of Predominantly Urban regions = 100
  24. 24. Tradable sectors are important for regional productivity catching-up All tradable sectors, TL2 regions Notes: Tradable sectors are defined by a selection of the 10 industries defined in the SNA 2008. They include: agriculture (A), industry (BCDE), information and communication (J), financial and insurance activities (K), and other services (R to U). Non tradable sectors are composed of construction, distributive trade, repairs, transport, accommodation, food services activities (GHI), real estate activities (L), business services (MN), and public administration (OPQ). 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Frontier Catching-up Diverging Frontier Catchin Tradable GVA share Tradable emplo 2013 2000 % er Catching-up Diverging Frontier Catching-up Diverging Tradable GVA share Tradable employment share 2013 2000
  25. 25. Globalisation shocks and regional inequalities are related Source: OECD Economic Outlook, 2016
  26. 26. 26 An example of a large structural adjustment in the tradable sector: Region Norte (Portugal) 2000-07 2008-13 +64 000 jobs -98 000 jobs -9 000 jobs -67 000 jobs -101 000 jobs Non-tradable sectors contributed to GVA growth through employment growth, tradable sectors by productivity growth +12 000 jobs
  27. 27. Better metro governance improve productivity and reduce inequalities 27 -.05 0 .05 .1 .15 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Administrative fragmentation Higher administrative fragmentation reduces city productivity premia Higher administrative fragmentation increases municipal inequality and segregation
  28. 28. The contribution of regions needs to be organised through a proper Multi-level governance system
  29. 29. The role of decentralisation  Designing place-based policies is too complex task to be centralised. A central government cannot have as many policies as different types of cities and regions  But decentralisation needs to be organised as a partnership and not only as a process of autonomy and devolution of competencies  Decentralisation works better when it is done in a process allowing for the asymmetry of capacities at the local level and experimentation (learning-by-doing)
  30. 30. TCDGIN COGKHM MLTGRM DOMJAM AZEBENMWIBFA CRI CYPTUNSEN MUSMLI JORARMPRYSLVZWE MYSCHLHNDUGAPSEKEN GRCMARTZA THA IRLTURALB CPV ECU NZL NGAKGZ GEO ISRMNE SVKPRTIDN HUNGHA SRB BGR LTUPER ROU KAZMNGMDA SVNEST CZELVA GBRFRAPHL HRVMEXCOL POL ISLKOR NLDIND ITAUKR NOR JPN AUS AUT USA VNM CHEDEUCHN ESPZAF BRA BEL FIN RUS SWE CAN DNK ARG R² = 0.3555 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 SNGexpenditureasa%ofGDP GDP per capita (USD PPP) Decentralisation seems to be a feature of development (like urbanisation)
  31. 31. Central Government Ministerial Departments Sub-national Governments Inter Governmental Council (ex. COAG, Australia) Regional Agencies (ex. Canada, Brazil) Contracts (ex. France) Special Commission (Delta, Netherlands) Whatever the type of system – federal, regionalised, unitary – policies need to be aligned across levels of government There are different models for cooperation across levels of government Conditionalities ( ex. EU programming)
  32. 32. 32 Supra-municipal cooperation help to overcome governance fragmentation Elaborated from http://www.municipal-cooperation.org France Italy Spain Portugal Norway, Sweden Netherlands CHILE England New Zealand Australia Ireland France Netherlands Slovakia Belgium Different sources of revenues depending on the status
  33. 33. Make planning more flexible and policy coordination may improve Housing sectors How land is used Public policies aimed at steering land use • Spatial planning • Transport planning • Land use planning • Environmental regulations • Building code regulations Public policies not targeted at land use • Tax policies • Transport taxes and subsidies • Fiscal systems and inter-governmental transfers • Agricultural policies • Energy policies How land is permitted to be used How individuals and businesses want to use land
  34. 34. • Invest using an integrated strategy tailored to different places • Adopt effective co-ordination instruments across levels of government • Co-ordinate across SNGs to invest at the relevant scale Pillar 1 Co-ordinate across governments and policy areas • Assess upfront long term impacts and risks • Encourage stakeholder involvement throughout investment cycle • Mobilise private actors and financing institutions • Reinforce the expertise of public officials & institutions • Focus on results and promote learning Pillar 2 Strengthen capacities and promote policy learning across levels of government • Develop a fiscal framework adapted to the objectives pursued • Require sound, transparent financial management • Promote transparency and strategic use of procurement • Strive for quality and consistency in regulatory systems across levels of government Pillar 3 Ensure sound framework conditions at all levels of government The OECD Recommendation on Effective Public Investment across Levels of Government
  35. 35.  The administrative burden in many programmes remains high  We often under-estimate the importance of building relationships (and trust) across levels of government  We continue to expect results when organisational and individual incentives are aligned to the contrary  We create systems to promote performance but in the end we promote compliance Governance lessons for the redesign of regional policies Source: Proceedings of EC/OECD Governance seminars (forthcoming)
  36. 36. Thank you!

×