Territorial impacts of globalization on European

Regions

Van Hamme GillesIGEAT-ULB

Liege meetingNovember 2010

2/25

The team

Lead partner : IGEAT-ULB

PartnersPp2 (UK): School of real estate and planning. University of ReadingPp3 (France): CNRS (mainly Université de Normandie) Pp4 (Italy): Dpto Studi Europei e Interculturali, Sapienza Università di Roma Pp5 (Sweden): Internationella Handelshögskolan i Jönköping ABPp6 (Bulgaria): Institute of Geography BAS

3/25

Major questions and objectives

1. Objective 1: to assess how Europe, its regions and cities participate in the global flows and networks and how the global processes impact on the territorial structures of Europe.

How can territorial policies help to improve the position of the different types of regions in the world and ensure the objectives of social and territorial cohesion despite the potentially unequal impacts of globalization on European territories?

2. Objective 2: : to analyse the impacts of territorial structures on European performances

How can territorial policy improve European competitiveness? For example, should we invest mainly in the global cities to improve Europe’s position in the world?

3. Objective 3: to analyse how Europe and its territories position themselves in the world through cooperation and networking with other parts of the world.

How this positioning participates in achieving the objectives of improving competitiveness as well as social and territorial cohesion?

4/25

The architecture of the Project

5/25

WP 2.2. Territorial structures in a comparative perspective

1. To provide updated divisions of the world (WUTS)2. To Compare Europe with other parts of the world according to

the main political objectives of EU: competitiveness, social and territorial cohesion

3. To assess the territorial structures of Europe in a comparative 3-D approach: level of concentration (density), inequalities/mobility (distance) and internal mobility (divisions):

- To assess the contemporary urban structure in Europe, including the role of gateways. More precisely, to assess the position of European cities in the global networks in a comparative perspective;

- To assess the internal mobility in the European space (people, goods and capital)

- To assess the territorial inequalities of Europe in a comparative and long term perspective.

6/25

1. European Urban structure in a comparative perspective

1 - Elaboration of a database of all cities with more than 500000 inhabitants which include: Population (1990-2007), GDP (six sectors 1995-2006), airflows and Fortune indicators (2005)

2 – Databases and analyses will be completed with original data coming from Flows and Networks’ WP (2.3). This should include GAWC (2000,2004, 2008), port gateways, financial data (cross-listings and real estates), airflows (1990-1999-2008-2010), Fortune,..

3 – The analysis should privilege the dynamic aspects since I guess we understand sufficiently well why urban structure is more concentrated in USA. Main questions relate to the dynamics of concentration (metropolitanization? At which scale? National- macro-regional - global) of:

- population; - GDP; - High level services;- Air and port networks.

7/25

Basic resultsTable 1. Population of major cities in US and Europe in 2006

Europe (ESPON space) USA Share of Share of

Rank of the cities

Total the cities population

The whole population

Total the cities

population The whole population

1 to 5 41 012 300 17% 8% 52 818 471 27% 18% 1 to10 61 055 900 25% 12% 78 639 292 40% 27% 1 to 20 87 813 300 37% 17% 112 803 829 58% 38% 1 to 50 139 554 600 58% 28% 160 919 486 83% 54%

Source: FOCI, Urban Audit, US Census Bureau Map 1. Population of cities (functional areas) with more than 500000 inhabitants in US and ESPON space, 2006

8/25

Basic results : airflows (2)

9/25

The GAWC data to assess Urban network dynamics in a comparative perspective

Top 12 - 2000 Top 12 -20081. LON 100.002. NY 97.103. HK 73.084. TOKYO 70.645. PARIS 69.726. SINGAPORE 66.617. CHICAGO 61.188. MILAN 60.449. MADRID 59.2310. LOS ANG 58.7511. SYDNEY 58.0612. FRANKFURT 57.53

1. NY 100.002. LON 99.323. HK 83.414. PARIS 79.685. SINGAPORE 76.156. TOKYO 73.627. SYDNEY 70.938. SHANGHAI 69.069. MILAN 69.0510. BEIJING 67.6511. MADRID 65.9512. MOSCOW 64.85

- NY and LON are now near equivalent - All US cities except New York drop out of top rankings- Cities linking to the WCN from the semi-periphery increase their WCN

connectivity, e.g. Shanghai, Beijing, Moscow- Half the top 20 global service centres are now in the Asia Pacific region

10/25

WP 2.3. Flows and networks

“Analyse the space of flows at the world level and understand its meaning in terms of territorial development and new territorial structures”, that is:

1. To assess the position of Europe and its territories in different types of flows?- Economic (Regional trade, value chain), - Financial (stock-exchange flows, real estate investments flows at the city

level)- Migratory (women, highly qualified)- knowledge (license payments, patent citations)- Transport (maritime, air)

2. Four scales:EuropeCountriesRegionsCities

3. To assess how the flows related to globalization impact on the territorial structure of Europe?

11/25

Europe and countries in the world trade: a long term perspective

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Share of extra-West European trade in the world tradeexcluding intra-block trade

Share of intra-West European trade in the world trade

1968 1978 1988

1995 2005

The declining position of Europe

12/25

Europe and countries in the world trade: a long term perspective

An integrated and not so open economy

INTRA-BLOCK trade (%) Ratio Exports (extra)/GDP by blocks (%)

1987 1995 2000 2006 1987 1995 2000 2006 EU-27 63.4 65.5 65.3 66.6 7.5 8.9 8.0 10.9 NAFTA 47.8 45.7 55.4 53.7 3.4 5.2 4.5 4.7 China 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 5.6 6.5 9.9 Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.3 15.1 15.1 16.2 Middle East and Northern Africa 3.1 5.6 4.0 5.4 13.4 12.7 17.6 20.3

Subsaharian Africa 5.7 10.8 10.2 9.6 8.2 7.5 7.9 11.3

Latin America 14.0 26.8 26.0 24.1 4.3 4.3 4.9 7.8 Rest of Asia (excluding NIC) 10.7 14.0 13.8 18.0 4.2 6.2 6.6 7.4 ex-USSR 0.0 26.9 20.7 19.0 - 6.3 6.9 10.9

13/25

Europe and countries in the world trade: a long term perspective

A stable role in the international division of labour

US67

germany67

Italy67

UK67

Spain67

Greece67 West Europe67

J apan67

cameroon67

Korea67 Hungary67

Romania67

China67

US77

germany77

Italy77

UK77

Spain77

Greece77

West Europe77J apan77

cameroon77

Korea77

Hungary77

Romania77

China77

US87

germany87

Italy87

UK87

Spain87

Greece87

West Europe87

J apan87

cameroon87

Korea87

Hungary87

Romania87

China87

US97

germany97

Italy97

UK97

Spain97

Greece97

West Europe97

J apan97

cameroon97

Korea97

Hungary97

Romania97

China97

US07

germany07

Italy07

UK07

Spain07

Greece07West Europe07

J apan07

cameroon07

Korea07

Hungary07Romania07

China07

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

labour intensive

pri

ma

ry

Manufacturing

Capital intensive

14/25

Europe and countries in the world trade: a long term perspective

The changing geographical pattern of Europe’s position in the world trade

15/25

WP 2.4. Political cooperation and networks

1) To analyse the different forms of cooperation between Europe and the rest of the world and to assess which vision of Europe of the world it supports

2) To focus on neighbourhood policies to see whether there is a real integration between Europe and neighbouring regions

3) To assess the “new regionalism” by the analysis of network cooperation and networks of excellence between European actors, including public bodies such as regions, and the rest of the world

16/25

Conclusion

1. Identifying the key-driving forces of globalization and its impact on European territories at different scales in relation with the main political questions

2. To classify European cities and regions according to their position in the global space of flows.

On this basis, we can produce: - Prospective results: how globalization trends will impact on European

territories- Policy options differentiated according to the city/regions’s position in

the world economy.