Transcript Territorial performance and urbanisation implications of

Contested trajectories of
regionalisation and peripherisation under
Europeanisation
in the Southern Estonia –
windows of opportunity
at the external border of EU
Antti Roose,PhD
University of Tartu,
Department of geography
[email protected]
Outline
I.
Territorial complexities of
regionalisation of Tartu/Southern
Estonia: upper scale
II.
Peripherisation: wicked cycles in
remote Estonian borderland and
regional policy impact: lower scale
Emergence of ‘Europe of Regions’
in this part of Europe
Paradoxes in the emergence of regions
1.
Deepening of the European integration has
actually developed a new horizontal cooperation above the regions: Europe of flows,
macro-regional trade and labour market.
2.
Post-socialist case: significant discontinuity from
past trajectories and emerging welfare state.
‘New’ regionalisation
• Global, macro-regional, national and regional + strong
Europanisation: the study identifies the territorial
performance of Southern Estonia at the multiple scales.
• Southern Estonia as region has became important element in
making sense of the rapid transformation and rescaling of
Estonian national space.
• The region has acquired a status in the spatial structure and
the social consciousness of society while county-level
territorial governance retreats.
Method: territorial potential and performance
The national plan Estonia 2030+
(2012)
‘Polycentric’ Estonia
JobKeys
related
for the regional growth
commuting 2011
(census)
Which is the weakest link?
Any plans?
Population change % 2001-2012
Pop. change %
Allikas: Statistikaamet
Metropolisation,
regionalisation
and inner
peripheries
Accel growth
Slowing growth
Decline to growth
Growth to decline
Slowing decline
Accel decline
EU structural funding per capita 2007-2013
Allikas: Siseministeerium
Territorial performance: connectivity
Injecting EU Structural funds
• Strategic priority for the ‘Main road infrastructure’
Tallinn-Tartu highway: reaches 40 km from Tallinn
Territorial performance: knowledge economy and R&D
Injecting EU Structural funds
Human capital and R&D,
in fact ‘hard’ infrastructure
Critical comment: moving out to suburb campus, detail planning
quality, high operational costs
Territorial performance: border infrastructure
Injecting EU Structural funds
Koidula railway terminal at the Russian border
Critical comment: declining curve due to Russian foreign
trade policy (full value chain, own harbours)
Tartu as regional centre : 4 dimensions of territorial
processes
Globalisation:
leading research centre
•
•
University of Tartu: top 300.
Achievements in the fields of global
R&D.
– Biosciences, gene technology
and nanosciences
– Medicine
– ICT
Europeanisation:
Integration, EU law&funding,
mobility, infrastructure
•
•
•
Reconstructing and reopening of Tartu
Airport in 2009 (ERDF)
Road: Tallinn-Tartu 189 km 2.5 h
Research infrastructure
Tartu as regional centre
Regionalisation:
regional labour and service pole
•
•
•
•
Labour market area (r=70 km)
University, gymnasium and vocat.
education
Public services: medicine, public
administration, courts etc
Shopping and entertainment
Urbanisation:
periurbanisation
• Transformed fabric and pattern daily spatial interaction and new
clustering
• 25% population growth in suburbs
• Shrinking core city
Strengthening spatial structure
of Southern Estonia
• Regional competitiveness
– Strengthening the position Tartu with new ‘global’ functions
– Smart specialization: counties too small, cross-border value
chains
• Services – strong driver
Periperisation
and trajectories in the Estonian
border peripheries
The cumulative stagnation cycle of rural areas
(negative causation cycles adapted from Drudy 1989 )
Fundamental indicator:
annual demographic decline rate
(a)LONG-TERM RURAL EXODUS: total population
change since 1959 -50%; ‘old’ rural areas,
unable to regenerate
(b)SHORT-TERM JOB EXODUS: population
change over 1 year since 2000 more than
1%: restructuring, diversifying related
depopulation and socio-economic drivers
Exposed-to-risk: sparsely populated area <8 inh km2
Remote rural municipalities
Rural municipalities exposed-to-risk
Category
Residents, %
Territory km2, %
Remote
49 461, 3.7%
8616, 19%
Exposed-to-risk
91 861, 6.8%
14 108, 31.2%
141 322, 10.5%
22 724, 50.2%
TOTAL
Performance index of local authorities
Peripherisation features
DEPOPULATION
 Grassrooths-level regional policy: official statistics biased
and overshoot: part-time and vacation residency, certain
emotional loyalty, grassrooths redistribution
 High age dependency, closure (quality) of schools
 Younger retirement segment as underused resource
 Population on benefits
ECONOMY
 Primary sector prevalence (>50%): agriculture and forestry
Tourism and visitation growth
Growth sectors
Green Economy
agriculture, foresty, energy and environment
Grey economy
– Health and service sector (EU liberalisation, Nordic)
Tourism
commodification of the rural environment and attractive heritage
Old industries
– Wood
– Metal and machinery
New economy  urban economies  rural living
– Creative industries and ICT
Household economy
– Summer and seasonal living and household services
– Quality services (consumption economy)
Tourism growth: accommodation units vs
overnight stays 2004-2012
units
units
units
stays
stays
stays
‘Windows of opportunity’
for regional growth
 Growth is based on internal resources
 Hard+soft investments: financial capital + human
capital + intrastructure
More part-time jobs (with lower pay)
Natural adaptation by job migration
 Agility of policy-making is a key …
Supporting local solutions – flexilibity and
decentralised decision-making
‘Windows of opportunity’
regional policy critique
• Intervention just limits the increase of regional
disparities (very narrow instruments with small target
areas)
• Upgrading public services: arms race for public
services, public premises and civil engineering projects
(remote municipalities recieve more per capita)
• No county-level/regional policies and cohesion
instruments which increases intra-county disparities
‘Windows of opportunity’
for balanced territories
• Increasing globalisation and concentration of public
and private investments and resources has lead to a
strong demographic and socioeconomic polarisation
nationally and within region.
• Growth opportunities are restricted by poor
connectivity as well low levels of international trade
and foreign direct investment.
• ‘Leapfrog’ development considering emerging
functional tiers with EU external border, Russia, Latvia
and Baltic Sea Region with increasing capacity on
strategic planning and territorial governance.
• Instruments for post-productivist development in
shrinking areas and towns: depends on leadership etc