INTERNAL SEMINAR: LIEGE 2010 SGPTDE Secondary Cities: Performance, Policies and Prospects Professor Michael Parkinson CBE

Answer 5 Questions 1.WHO ARE WE? 2.WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO? 3.HOW ARE WE DOING IT? 4.WHAT WILL WE PRODUCE? 5.HOW WELL ARE WE DOING?

1. Who Are We? Partners EIUA lead – Parkinson, Meegan, Evans, Jones, Karecha MRI Budapest – Ivan Tosics, Antal Gertheis, Andrea Tonko University of Tampere – Markku Sotarauta, Olli Ruokolainen Advisers University College London – Sir Peter Hall University of Paris - Christian Lefevre

1. Who Are We? Our ethos - connecting research to policy makers Related work Competitive European Cities COMPETE project URBAN Evaluation State of European Cities Urban Audit Urbanisation and Functions of Cities URBACT State of the English Cities Credit Crunch, Recession & Cities

2. What Are We Trying To Do? Our analytical approach: Relationship territory, governance, economy in challenged world Institutional & evolutionary Policy & politics not only markets matter National factors, policies matter to cities But so do local in multi scalar world Cities path dependent but room for manoeuvre Hard & soft factors matter Competiveness, cohesion, environment crucial Key drivers territorial performance – innovation, human capital connectivity, place quality, governance capacity Policies – explicit & implicit - for these crucial

2. What Are We Trying to Do? Explore common assertions: Economic & institutional deconcentration lead more territorially balanced economic development Europe. Relationship capital & secondaries win-win, not zero sum More secondaries perform better, national and European economies better National policies for secondaries crucial – competition, cohesion, environment Leadership & governance matters - cities path dependent but room for manoeuvre Territory & place matters more not less globalised economy

2. What Are We Trying To Do? Specifically assess Secondaries’ actual & potential contribution to more balanced European territorial development Performance on critical success factors – innovation, human capital, connectivity, place quality, strategic capacity Policy impact & implications – European, national, regional Territorial prospects secondaries – European, national, regional

2. What Are We Trying to Do? Reflecting policy concerns Cohesion Report & DG Regio Secondaries are larger non-capital cities which make major contribution to national performance – positive or negative What performance secondaries, what gap with capitals, what direction of change? What policy debate member states - how gap & urban hierarchy seen, competitiveness or cohesion, explicit or implicit, any concern territorial impact? What effect debate on national policy secondaries - greater targeting, increased capacity & skills, more powers & resources, fewer constraints?

2. What Are We Trying to Do? Answers Which kind secondaries punching weight nationally & Europe, how and why? Who doing what to help? What works? What impact & implications crisis? Who does what better, different in future?

3. How Are We Doing It? Qualitative & quantitative, breadth & depth Triangulate Research & policy literature – performance, policies, prospects Quantitative data 124 secondaries, 30 capitals Interviews - European, national policy makers, private sector E-questionnaire – ESPON family, policy makers, researchers, EUROCITIES, Core Cities, URBACT, EUKN 9 detailed case studies

How Did We Select Secondaries? Key principles Nothing’s perfect – always over bounding, under bounding, data gaps Not let best drive out good Balance economic significance with territorial representation Views Monitoring Committee Common sense! Best fit policy agenda So we Began with 255 DG Regio/OECD agreed Metro Regions Accepted all in 22 countries population under 15 m 8 larger countries all up to 2/3 of urban population Compared LUZ population, excluded few wildly over bounded Added few just excluded by pop threshold on basis MC judgement All countries get 1 secondary even if OECD/DG Regio not defined

124 SECONDARY & 30 CAPITAL CITIES

Current Indicators Secondaries & Capitals: Population ( ) Total GDP ( ) GDP per capita ( ) Total employment ( ) Employment by sector ( ) High level of education (2008) Employment rate (2008) Unemployment rates ( ) Patent applications (2006-7) Potential accessibility air (2001 & 2006) Potential accessibility road (2001 & 2006) Potential accessibility rail (2001 & 2006) Potential accessibility multi-modal (2001 & 2006) Net migration rates (2007)

How Selected Case Study Cities? Mix - size, economic performance, national governance, territorial role location North Europe Tampere - Finland West Europe Cork - Ireland Leeds – UK Lyon - France Central Europe Munich- Germany South Europe Barcelona - Spain Turin - Italy East, Central East and South Central Europe Katowice - Poland Timisoara - Romania

Purpose Case Study Places where key factors collide - test key hypotheses Specific but generic Powerful narrative – own story but wider significance Relationships & contribution regional, national, European territory Performance drivers - innovation, skills, connectivity, place quality, governance Relationship capital, rest national urban system Impact explicit,implicit national/regional policies Future territorial, economic prospects Key policy messages - local, regional, national, European

Methodology Case Studies Academic policy literature on city Existing economic plus additional local data within and across city- deprivation, life expectancy, earnings, crime, health, education, housing costs quality, transport, environment Economic development governance infrastructure - finance, public bodies, networks, collaborative agencies, universities Analysis key strategies and policies Interviews elected officials, civil servants, researchers, community groups, private sector, media. Interviews national partners

4. What Will We Produce? Big picture for policy makers Accessible short report - key policy messages role secondaries & balanced territorial development Europe More detailed picture for researchers Literature review Extensive quantitative data analysis, maps & tables Case study reports Questionnaire results

5. How Well Are We Doing? So far, so good – interest & support policy makers Inception report well received Literature mixed – quality, territory, focus - but developing Data analysis - much progress made Case studies – great support, methodology agreed, literature scoped, initial visits soon Questionnaire – great interest, piloted, already circulated 150 researchers policy makers, more to come

5. How Well Are We Doing? SOME INITIAL CONTEXT RELATIONSHIPS CAPITALS AND SECONDARIES

Top Secondary Outperforms Capital: Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Ireland

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 5-20%: Spain, UK, Netherlands, France

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 20-30%: Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Portugal

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 30-45%: Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Greece, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia

Top Secondary Lags Capital by 50-65%: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia