1

From “Objective2” to “Regional Competitiveness and Employment”

POLICY GUIDELINES FOR THE REGIONS ELIGIBLE TO THE NEW

COMPETITIVENESS OBJECTIVE: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Alessandro Sterlacchini Polytechnic University of Marche

Research team: Roberto Esposti (environment and risk prevention), Nicola

Matteucci (innovation and structural indicators), Francesco Venturini (TLC/ICT and economic indicators)

OPEN DAYS 2005 - Bruxelles, 12 October 2005

2

STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY

I nnovation and knowledgeeconomy

Access to transport andTLC/ ICT

Environment and riskprevention

Economic performances

Economic structure

3

STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY

• Factor analysis to identify a synthetic indicator for each thematic area. Observations = NUTS2 Regions.

• Identification of three regional groups by cutting the statistical distribution of the synthetic indicator in two points (the mean minus and plus half of the standard deviation).

• Joint analysis (by means of cross tables) of thematic and economic performance classifications.

• Identification of the most critical situations in terms of innovation & knowledge economy, access to ICT/TLC & transport, environment & risk prevention.

4

GENERAL ECONOMIC ANALYSISEconomic performance indicators

• GDP per capita (PPS): average 2000-2002

• Rate of unemployment: average 2000-2002

• Annual growth rate of GDP at constant prices: 1995-2002

• Annual growth rate of GDP per worker: 1995-2002Factor 1 (correlated with the rates of growth of GDP and GDP per worker)

Factor 2 (correlated with GDP per capita and rate of unemployment)

Composite indicator of economic performance = (fact2*2/3) + (fact1*1/3): a greater weight is attached to the level of economic performance.

Taking the usual cut points in the composite indicator distribution, we identify three groups of regions with low, intermediate and high economic performance.

5

COMPOSITE INDICATOR OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

6

Innovation & knowledge economy

• Total R&D expenditures on GDP: average 1995-2002

• Total EPO applications per million inhabitants: average 1995-2002

• Share of employment in high-tech manufacturing sectors: average 1995-2003

• Share of employment in high-tech and knowledge-intensive service sectors:average 1995-2003

• Share of population aged 25-64 with tertiary education: average 2000-2001

• Share of turnover due to products new to the firm: average 1996-98

ONLY ONE FACTOR EMERGES: on the basis of its distribution we distinguish the regions with low, intermediate and high innovation & knowledge potential.

7

Joint analysis of economic performance and innovation: type and number of regions

Innovation groups

Economicperformancegroups

Low Intermediate High

Low Low performers

23

Unexploitedpotential

18

Strong unexpl.potential

10

Intermediate Uncorrelated

23

Intermediate

33

Unexploitedpotential

13

High Stronglyuncorrelated

7

Uncorrelated

24

High performers

17

8

INNOVATION & KNOWLEDGE POTENTIAL AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

9

Access to transport• Multimodal (road, rail, air) accessibility potential: 2001

• Connectivity to transport terminals by car (1/hours): 2001

The accessibility indicator is a measure of the relative facility to reach other EU regions (and be reached from them) with different modes of transport.

The connectivity indicator considers the time required to reach by car (starting from the centroid of each region) important transport nodes: thus, it is affected by the extent of secondary road networks.

• Identification of the regions with low, intermediate and high level of accessibility and connectivity.

• Joint analysis with economic performances: distinction between low performers, uncorrelated and strongly uncorrelated regions. All the others are classified as non problematic regions.

10

ACCESS TO TRANSPORT (CONNECTIVITY/ACCESSIBILITY) AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

11

Environment and risk prevention• Energy sustainability indicators

• Transportation impact indicators

• Natural and rural endowment indicators

• Risk prevention indicators

Analysis of natural risk. Composite indicator extracted from: Regional flood hazard potential: average 1996-2002. Size of burnt areas/Total area: 2000.

Natural Risk

EconomicPerformance

Low Intermediate High

Low Very low vulnerability Low vulnerability Low performers

Intermediate Low vulnerability Intermediate Significantvulnerability

High High performers Medium vulnerability High vulnerability

12

ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND NATURAL RISK