5.4. Talento Humano y Cultura Organizacional
5.4.1. Variables sistémicas de la gestión del talento
5.4.1.1. Variables estratégicas de la gestión del talento
In relation to actions under the ERDF and the ESF, Region Zealand will be designated a transition region in the 2014–2020 period, as Region Zealand had a per capita GDP (PPS) of 87.3% of the EU 27 average in the 2007–2009 period (see Figure 28). Transition regions comprise regions whose per capita GDP63 amounts to 75–90% of the EU 27 average.
Figure 28. GDP as a percentage of the EU 27 average (2000–2010)
Note: PPS per capita as a percentage of the EU 27 average. Source: Eurostat.
Regional differences in per capita GDP are also shown in Figure 29. The GDP level is highest by far in the Capital Region of Denmark and the lowest by far in Region Zealand, whereas the other three regions are at roughly the same level.
63 According to Article 90(2) of the CPR that per capita GDP (PPS) is measured in the 2007–2009 period. 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 In d e ks (EU -g e n n e m sn it = 1 0 0 ) EU-gennemsnit
Danmark (incl. udenfor regioner) Danmark Hovedstaden
Sjælland Syddanmark Midtjylland
Figure 29. Per capita GDP in the regions, 2011 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1 0 0 0 k r.
Note: All of Denmark is included in the category “outside of regions” (oil extraction, etc.). Source: Statistics Denmark.
The difference in the two eastern Danish regions is due in part to the fact that many of the people living in Region Zealand have their workplace in the Capital Region of Denmark. These individuals have a positive impact on the per capita GDP in the Capital Region of Denmark but a negative impact on the per capita GDP in Region Zealand.64 This is because the added value (GDP) is calculated by place of employment, whereas the population is calculated by residence.65
Calculations show that roughly half of the gap of Region Zealand and the Capital Region of Denmark between the national average for per capita GDP is attributable to commuting and therefore does not express a genuine difference in value creation.66 This is also expressed by the fact that both the Capital Region of Denmark and Region Zealand are significantly closer to the national average, when considering per capita earned income and disposable income. Both types of income are calculated at the place of residence, by contrast with GDP. Region Zealand has the second-highest per capita earned income and disposable income of the Danish regions.
Generally speaking, Region Zealand faces the same challenges as the other regions. For instance, unemployment in Region Zealand is on a par with the national average (almost 6% in March 2013). The start-up rate is slightly lower in Region Zealand (7.2%) than nationally (7.6%, 2010). The percentage of new enterprises which continue to exist over time is slightly higher in Region Zealand than at national level. This is true in both the short term (1 year) and slightly longer term. In addition, the percentage of innovative enterprises in Region Zealand (42%) is slightly lower than at national level (44%, most recent data year: 2011). The percentage who are expected to complete at least a youth education and tertiary education is lower than the national average. Finally, there are fewer individuals in the region aged 25–34 with at least a youth education and tertiary education.
64 The opposite is true for the significantly lower number of people commuting in the opposite direction. 65
Regional calculations of per capita GDP must therefore be interpreted with caution.
66 See, e.g. Regional konkurrenceevneredegørelse 2011 [Statement of Regional Competitiveness, 2011], Danish
Enterprise and Construction Agency. The GDP per capita in the other three regions is only marginally influenced by commuting.
Region Zealand’s challenges to growth and the specific initiatives required to overcome them are not significantly different from the other regions. Thus, for several years now, the Capital Region of Denmark and Region Zealand have also collaborated closely on large-scale business policy ventures, including the joint funding of common projects, with resources from both the ERDF and ESF. Recently, these two regions and their municipalities (the municipal contact council for the Capital Region and the municipal contact council for Region Zealand) have joined forces to develop a focused agenda for growth and employment aimed at boosting all of the de facto Capital Region. Like the other growth forums, Growth Forum Zealand aims to prepare contributions for a growth and development strategy, including contributions to actions targeting peripheral areas. Growth Forum Zealand is not required to focus particularly in terms of content on the business development action from 2014–2020, as the challenges in Region Zealand are generally assessed as corresponding with the challenges of other regions. As in other regions, the forum’s contribution to the growth and development strategy must be drawn up on the basis of a common analytical framework brought about by the regional council and the growth forum. This can bring focus to bear on Zealand’s challenges and reflect possible initiatives to counteract the challenges, and also be based on the ERDF and ESF programmes. Actions targeting peripheral areas must also address how Growth Forum Zealand will help to boost growth and job creation in the region’s peripheral areas. Seven of the 23 municipalities designated as peripheral areas in the 2014–2020 period are situated in Region Zealand (see also Section 3).
Against this backdrop, the ERDF and ESF programmes cover all five regions and thus build on the positive lessons learned from 2007–2013 with nationwide programmes. In this respect, an attempt is also made to avoid the limitations which a subdivided programme structure would unavoidably place on the interaction between Region Zealand and the Capital Region of Denmark, as well as the other regions. For instance, the selection of technically relevant partners available to projects would be geographically limited, making it more difficult to carry out collaborative transregional projects.