INTEGRACIÓN DE UNA PROPUESTA DE TRC
I. MARCO TEÓRICO-METODOLÓGICO
II.4. DISCUSIÓN: IDENTIDADES PRODUCTIVAS COMO BASE DEL POTENCIAL DEL TRC
catching up
Map 3.5 provides a four-year comparison of the changes in per capita disposable income (in PPCS) between 1999 and 2003 compared to the average
( &!$-!--$ !.*--()&
**without Bolzano and Trento * without Overseas Departments
Hainaut Prov. Luxembourg (B) BE CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR* IE (1) IT** LV LT HU NL AT (2) PL PT FI RO SE UK SK 5 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Moravskoslezsko Praha Oberbayern orpommern Attiki Dytiki Makedonia Principado de Asturias Illes Balears Île-de-France
Southern and Eastern Border, Midland and Western Liguria Lombardia Észak-Magyarország Nyugat-Dunántúl Drenthe Flevoland Mazowieckie Podkarpackie Alentejo Madeira
Bratislavsk kraj V chodné Slovensko
Åland
Stockholm Övre Norrland
Inner London Sud Vest Dessau 45 50 55 Languedoc-Rousillon Wien Vorarlberg Itä-Suomi
West Wales and The Valleys
(1) 2002
(2) Eurostat estimates
3
HOUSEHOL
D
A
C
C
O
UN
T
S
for the 21 Member States. A special EU-21 aver- age had to be used as data were not yet available for Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta or Slovenia. This EU-21 average can, however, be used as an approximation for an EU-25 average, as the total population of these four Member States accounts for less than one per cent of the total population of the EU-25.
Regions in which per capita disposable income increased by more than one percentage point
compared to the average between 1999 and 2003 are shown in green and those in which it fell by at least one percentage point are shown in orange and red. The range of change varies between +15 percentage points in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire (UK) to -14 percentage points in Dél-Dunántúl in Hungary. The map shows that, in EU-15 and in the new Member States, trends in private income in relative terms have been very uneven.
AÇORES P 0 100 MADEIRA P 0 25 CANARIAS E 0 100 GUADELOUPE F 0 25 MARTINIQUE F 0 20 RÉUNION F 0 20 GUYANE F 0 100 0 100 500 km > + 3 + 1 − + 3 −1 − + 1 −3 − −1 <= −3
Data not available
0 50
CYPRUS
0 10
MALTA
IE: 1999−2002; HU: 2000−2003
Social Benefits as share of disposable income of private households
Change between 1999 and 2003 in percentage points − NUTS 2
AT: Eurostat estimates
Statistical data: Eurostat − Database: REGIO © EuroGeographics, for the administrative boundaries Cartography: Eurostat − GISCO, 07/2006
R e g i o n s : S t a t i s t i c a l y e a r b o o k 2 0 0 6 47
In the EU-15 countries, the unsatisfactory trends in Germany, Italy and Portugal, where even regions with average levels of income have lost between 5 and 10 percentage points compared to the EU average, are particularly apparent. The losses in Denmark (-7.5), Vienna (-8) and Nieder- österreich (-5) are less severe, as these regions have very high income levels.
As far as the new Member States are concerned, although the Baltic countries are catching up
fast, with increases of between 5 und 7.5 per- centage points, trends in other regions have not been as positive. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have fallen slightly behind compared to the EU average. Income in 12 of Poland’s 16 provinces fell short of the EU aver- age by up to three percentage points; only four were able to improve their relative position and only one of them (Podlaskie) by more than one percentage point. It is possible that this region
AÇORES P 0 100 MADEIRA P 0 25 CANARIAS E 0 100 GUADELOUPE F 0 25 MARTINIQUE F 0 20 RÉUNION F 0 20 GUYANE F 0 100 0 100 500 km > + 5 + 1 − + 5 −1 − + 1 −5 − −1 <= −5
Data not available
0 50 CYPRUS 0 10 MALTA NUTS 2 IE: 1999−2002; HU: 2000−2003
Development of disposable income of private households per inhabitant
Change between 1999 and 2003 in percentage points of the average EU−21 in PPCS
AT: Eurostat estimates
Statistical data: Eurostat − Database: REGIO © EuroGeographics, for the administrative boundaries Cartography: Eurostat − GISCO, 07/2006
Map 3.5
3
HOUSEHOL
D
A
C
C
O
UN
T
S
has benefited from the dynamic growth in neigh- bouring Lithuania.
The figures for Romania, on the other hand, are quite encouraging. With an increase of +8.6 per- centage points, the Bucharest region has achieved the greatest relative improvement of all regions outside EU-15, with even the east of the country keeping up with average income development in the EU. A structural problem nevertheless remains in that the wealth gap between the capital and the poorer parts of the country has widened further. On the whole, the changes between 1999 and 2003 resulted in a slight flattening of the upper edge of the regional income distribution band: while 38 regions still recorded disposable income of 125% of the average in 1999, only 31 did so in 2003. However, the same cannot be said of the lower end of the distribution band, where the number of regions with an income of less than 50% of the average rose from 31 to 34. The dynamic growth of the highest income regions, particularly in the UK, means that the range be- tween the two extreme values (Inner London and Nord-Est in Romania) has increased slightly from a factor of 8.3 to a factor of 8.5.
Summary
The regional distribution of disposable house- hold income differs from the distribution of regional GDP in a number of NUTS 2 regions. This is mainly the result of State activity in the form of monetary social transfers and the levying of direct taxes, which levels out the disparities be- tween regions considerably. In some cases, other transfer payments and types of income received
by private households from outside their region can also play an important role.
Taken together, State intervention and other items of income bring the range of disposable income be- tween the most prosperous and the economically weakest regions to a factor of about 8.5, whereas the two extreme values of primary income per capita differ by a factor of up to 11.2. The flatten- ing out of regional income distribution desired by most countries is therefore being achieved.
The income level of private households in the new Member States continues to be far below that in EU-15; in only a small number of capital regions are income values more than two thirds of the EU average.
An analysis over a four-year period from 1999 to 2003 shows those incomes in the regions of the new Member States, apart from the Baltic coun- tries, are catching up only slowly with those in EU-15. Most of the Polish regions, as well as a few Czech, Hungarian and Slovakian regions, have actually fallen behind compared to the EU aver- age. Romania, on the other hand, clearly seems to be catching up — a development which, happily, extends beyond the Bucharest capital region. Thanks to the dynamic growth in the UK, the range between the highest and the lowest income values increased slightly between 1999 and 2003 from a factor of 8.3 to a factor of 8.5.
With regard to the availability of data concerning income, the comprehensiveness of the data and the length of the time series have gradually im- proved. Once a complete data set is available, the income statistics for private households could be taken into account in the decision-making process for regional policy, alongside statistics on GDP.