Differences in the level of development – measured in GDP per capita and in the closely-related value added per capita – are conside- red a factor that is inherent to the labour market to the extent that more attention should be paid to the analysis of causes of interre- gional differentiation and its evolution. Developments in average productivity at the national level are dictated by its increasing values in particular sectors as well as by the reallocation of labour resources between sectors having different productivity levels. As follows from the analyses conducted by Bukowski et al. (2006b), in Poland, similarly to other countries, convergence of labour productivity results from its increasing values in particular sections of industry and services, and not from the reallocation of employment between sections.18 Unfortunately, we do not have sufficiently detailed data on value added at the level of subregions to be able to conduct the
above-mentioned analysis because some of its elements are only possible at the level of companies (see chapter 2 of this part).
As for labour productivity and employment level (analysed upon the exclusion of agriculture, i.e. for industry and services only19), the
processes unfolding in the period 1995-2004 were not even and the relative positions of particular regions were subject to material shifts in time. In order to emphasise the changes, we have divided this analysis into three subperiods, namely 1995-1998 (increase in employment and productivity), 1998-2002 (decrease in employment, increase in productivity) and 2002-2004 (another increase in employment and productivity).
During the period 1995-1998, there was a striking difference in performance of “urban” subregions which overlapped to some extent with Development centres. Although in Warsaw, Poznań and Kraków (and in the surrounding subregions), there occurred a concurrent dynamics increase in productivity and employment, in the Tricity, Silesia and Łódź, the increase in productivity was lower and it was accompanied by a decrease in employment. In the second group – similarly to all other subregions where there had been a decrease in employment – the above resulted from decreased employment in industry and decreased – or only marginally increased – employ- ment in services.
In the subsequent period, namely in the years 1998-2002, all subregions experienced a decrease in employment, which means that not all subregions that had done well in 1995-1998 managed to maintain their relative advantage in the later period. In particular, subregions that in the earlier period had registered an above-average increase in employment and only a slight increase in produc- tivity, were more likely to experience a faster-than-average slump in employment in the second period. This phenomenon could be observed above all in lower-developed subregions, such as the bialskopodlaski, białostocko-suwalski, elbląski, ełcki, gorzowski, kosza- liński, słupski and toruńsko-włocławski subregions. As far as Warsaw and Poznań are concerned, their advantage persisted regardless of a decreasing trend in employment, mainly because the decrease was considerably lower than the average. Notwithstanding the above, this deterioration in the labour market situation generally concerned all subregions and it is difficult to firmly establish the causes for some minor differences in this respect – although it seems that subregions with lower labour productivity dynamics were characterised by greater vulnerability.
The picture of the period 2002-2004 is most confusing (partly because it is the shortest out of the examined periods). The reversal of trends in the labour market and the revival of the economy brought an increase in both the number of the working population and productivity in most subregions. However, for the first time it was possible to identify subregions where an increase in employment coincided with a decrease in productivity. What is more, they were the subregions which were characterised by the highest increase in employment and which saw a decrease in productivity in services and industry alike (although it was more obvious in services than in industry). As for the group of subregions where the decreasing trend in the number of the working population continued (with different developments in productivity), it was rather numerous. Moreover, in a number of cases this continuation concerned negative (compared to other subregions) trends from earlier period.
One fundamental observation is that the disparities in productivity between subregions increased throughout the examined period, however, only due to the productivity increase in industry (see Chart II.9.).20 The exclusion of Warsaw and Poznań from the study lowers
the increase in disparities only marginally – these cities are untypical because of their concurrent increasing trends in productivity and employment (and thus their highly above-average output per capita growth), whereas their productivity dynamics was similar to that of a number of other regions (see Chart II.9.).
Throughout the examined period, the situation was best in Warsaw, Poznań and in the subregions that surround them (plus in the wrocławski subregion). The other cities too recorded some increase in productivity, however, at the expense of lower employment. The subregions where the slump in the employment was highest, also experienced a large increase in productivity (although not larger than, for instance, in Warsaw which saw an increase in employment).21
18 By no means does this imply, however, that no reallocation occurs because it does so on a huge scale at the level of companies, see charter 2 devoted to analysis at the company level. 19 This approach is dictated by serious difficulties with estimating the number of people working in agriculture in particular subregions.
20 Productivity and employment changes by subregions in 2004 compared with 1995 are presented in Table II.18. in the Appendix.
21 A firm assessment is difficult due to modifications in the borders of particular subregions because these modifications exerted a great influence of the process of shaping of the discussed
indicators. During the examined period, the above-mentioned modifications concerned the following subregions: centralny śląski, rybnicko-jastrzębski, bielsko-bialski, częstochowski, krakowsko-tarnowski and krośnieńsko-przemyski – thus, the results for the above subregions should be approached with particular caution.
99 Chart II.9
Productivity and employment changes (for industry and services only) in subregions
1998 versus 1995 2002 versus 1998
2004 versus 2002 2004 versus 1995
Source: Own calculations based on BDR data. .
Chart II.10.
Changes in coefficient of variation of value added per employee by regions
Source: Own calculations based on BDR data.
total industry services
Productivity 2004, 1995=1 Productivity 2004, 2002=1 Employment 2004, 2002=1 Employment 2004, 1995=1 Productivity 2004, 1995=1 Productivity 2002, 1998=1 Employment 1998, 1995=1 Employment 2002, 1998=1
100