Traditionally, EU policies have been focused on economic and social cohesion. Recently, the territorial dimension of regional disparities as an aspect of EU policy has gained importance. The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), adopted in 1999, is meant to support a balanced development of the EU territory. Moreover, the European Commission addressed issues of territorial cohesion in its latest cohesion report. The present paper deals with territorial disparities and their current development in the EU. It analyses which kinds of region develop dynamically and offer favourable labour market conditions. The differences between rural and urban areas are a fundamental feature of territorial disparities in the EU and are of essential significance for the ESDP. The analysis deals with the question whether disparities between poor and rich regions as well as different growth trends and labour market conditions are still marked by the dualism between city and countryside.
KeywordsGross Domestic Product Capita Income Rural Region Labour Market Condition Settlement Structure
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.European Commission: ESDP, European Spatial Development Perspective. Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Community, Brussels 1999.Google Scholar
- 2.See R. J. Barro, X. Sala-i-Martin: Economic Growth, New York 1995, McGraw-Hill; J. Bröcker: Konvergenz in Europa und die Europäische Währungsunion, in: B. Fischer, T. Straubhaar (eds.): Ökonomische Konvergenz in Theorie und Praxis, Baden-Baden 1998, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 105–135; G. Tondl: Convergence After Divergence? Regional Growth in Europe, Wien, New York 2001.Google Scholar
- 3.The analysis by Straubhaar et al. is one of the rare exceptions in this context. See T. Straubhaar, M. Suhrcke, D. Urban: Divergence — Is it Geography?, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 181, Hamburg 2002.Google Scholar
- 4.For an analysis of interregional spillovers see M. Funke, A. Niebuhr: Spatial R&D Spillovers and Economic Growth, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 98, Hamburg 2000.Google Scholar
- 5.See Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung: Study Programme on European Spatial Planning, Final Report, Bonn 2001.Google Scholar
- 6.See European Commission: Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory. Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Brussels 2001.Google Scholar
- 7.For corresponding results see J. Bröcker: How would an EU-membership of the Visegrád-countries affect Europe’s economic geography?, in: Annals of Regional Science, 1998, Vol. 32, pp. 91–114; or V. Nitsch: National borders and international trade: evidence from the European Union, in: Canadian Journal of Economics, 2000, Vol. 33, pp. 1091–1105.Google Scholar
- 8.See for example G.-J. Hospers: Beyond the Blue Banana. Structural Change in Europe’s Geo-Economy, in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2003, pp. 76–85.Google Scholar
- 10.See G. Bertola: Labour Markets in the European Union, IFO Studien, 2000, Vol. 46, pp. 99–122; and H. G. Overman, D. Puga: Unemployment clusters across Europe’s regions and countries, in: Economic policy, 2002, Vol. 34, pp. 117–147.Google Scholar
- 11.See A. Niebuhr: Die Dimension regionaler Arbeitsmarktdisparitäten in der EU, in: R. Caesar, K. Lammers, H.-E. Scharrer; Konvergenz und Divergenz in der EU: Empirische Befunde und wirtschaftspolitische Implikationen, publication by the HWWA and the “Arbeitskreis Europäische Integration e.V.”, Baden-Baden 2003, Nomos Veriagsgesellschaft, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- 14.D. Urban, op. cit. Divergence — Is it Geography?, HWWA Discussion Paper No. 181, Hamburg 2002.Google Scholar
- 15.European Commission: Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory. Second report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Brussels 2001.Google Scholar
- 16.See e.g. A. Niebuhr: Räumliche Wachstumsstrukturen: Theoretische Erklärungsansätze und empirische Befunde für Deutschland, Munich 1999, Florentz.Google Scholar