|
|
 |
| The
results presented here are intermediate (May 2001). They will be
completed with the end of the project. A part of the results was
already published and can be obtained in the documents for download
at the bottom of this page.
Problems of structural change winners ... Some industrialized cities and regions have already made great progress in modernising and restructuring economic and social parameters by dint of endogenous potential and external stimuli. Favourable combinations of access to transport facilities, levels of resources, national awareness or interest shown by foreign developers frequently add up to conditions conducive to tackling structural change. Examples that can be cited are capital city regions and further select growth centres in the individual States (including the region where Hungary, Austria and Slovakia meet). ... and losers Governing factors such as location, economic structure and environmental quality are less favourable for the majority of such cities and regions, however, making it more difficult for these to tackle structural shortcomings. It is extremely uncertain whether trends are likely to improve. These will be the problem areas of the future if they continue developing as they are. They include single-industry mining regions (e.g. the Most region in the north of the Czech Republic), but also countless unfavourably located smaller cities and regions. A vicious circle Many problems facing industrialized cities and regions are interlinked and exacerbate one another. The decline of industrial value-added, loss of image and self-esteem, the exodus of qualified and young strata of population, the financial overtaxing of the public purse for the maintenance of huge infrastructural legacies and the implementation of decontamination measures, and, finally, increasing social disintegration and a lack of economic perspectives combine to form a complex set of problems that are not amenable to simple solutions and traditional remedies. Specific, historically grounded factors to which many of the CEE States are subject make finding solutions even more difficult, with the upshot that a direct transplantation of strategies is out of the question in most cases. New disparities The industrial and settlement policies of the CEE States, for instance, was geared towards decentralisation of industry and resulted in significant changes to spatial structures, notably in large countries such as Romania and Bulgaria that were slow to become industrialized. Owing to the downward trend suffered by large numbers of industrial regions, organic structures have been forfeiting their sense of purpose for decades now. Conversely, suburbanisation has been occurring at a similarly fast pace as in other European States. Disparities old and new have been exacerbated over areas large and small to a degree hitherto unimaginable. The Riga capital city region, for example, attracts 60 % of all foreign investments made in Latvia, and its per capita GDP is now 4.4 times as high as in the least developed region in the country. The situation is similar in Slovenia and Slovakia. Industrialized regions, by contrast, evidently have little appeal for foreign capital: in Bulgaria they make up 10 % of the national territory and population but only garner 4 % of foreign direct investment. In many cases, as a result, it is only the shortage of affordable accommodation that - unlike the situation in, for instance, eastern Germany - prevents more extensive migration to growth centres. There has, on the other hand, been a steep fall in birth rates in all CEE States since 1990, and this is giving rise to demographic problems. Such was the monolithic structure, production depth and range of social and economic service functions provided by the socialist industrial combines in the CEE countries that these frequently had a considerable impact on how the cities and regions in which they were sited developed. Large corporations occupied a particularly commanding position in the industrial conurbations that were established or significantly expanded after the Second World War. Their collapse, therefore, gave rise to a profound state of crisis. Alternative economic activities to counter these problems are insufficiently developed. East-west differences When industrial regions in the western industrialized nations were subjected to structural change, capacity was only cut back in a small number of sectors (textiles, coal, steel, shipbuilding). In the case of the CEE States, the situation is completely different. On one hand the heavy-industry sector is strongly affected as well because in international terms it is extremely uncompetitive and far too big. On the other hand - in contrast to western industrialized countries - former prestige sectors in the CEE States such as microelectronics or aircraft construction have likewise come under pressure to adapt. At the same time, there is no uniform pattern of structural change discernible - say, from heavy industry to consumer goods and services. In Romania, for instance, large numbers of former industrial labourers are returning to subsistence farming. Meanwhile, in the Ukrainian industrial district of Donezk a paradoxical situation is emerging whereby, whilst industrial production as a whole has fallen to 45 % (1990-98), the relative share of "traditional" industries (mining, power and fuel production, smelting) has risen markedly. The brunt has been borne by mechanical engineering and consumption-related branches of light industry and the food-and-drinks industry. Unemployment is lower than the national average in this district - far-reaching change is possibly still to come. Environmental problems Decades of dominance by mining and primary and heavy industry have, together with antiquated technology, given rise to serious environmental pollution, and hence the challenges of economic and social development are often closely bound up with environmental clean-up tasks. As a rule the latter cannot be performed solely with resort to endogenous forces. This is particularly so in the case of densely populated regions with a long history of industrialisation (e.g. Upper Silesia). The human factor In terms of action taken by the actual population, the industrialized regions appear to be less well-placed than the dynamic centres, as evidenced by the significantly lower number of business start-ups. Added to this are unfavourable determining factors such as the absence of entrepreneurial traditions plus, also, a certain passivity on the part of the population, something that where Romania is concerned led to the spectacular failure of a social scheme in the mining region of Petrosani. One size fits all? Despite the similarity of the problems they face, the countries of central and eastern Europe display striking differences. Factors with a crucial bearing on the extent of local and regional problems as well as on the likelihood of development strategies succeeding include the specific course of national transformation processes, a given country's economic structures and degree of interaction with the international economy, and advantages and disadvantages in respect of geographical location and the ability to attract foreign capital. Furthermore, comparisons between countries reveal that large amounts of data are not available at regional level or else are unreliable. There is a major discrepancy, for example, between official unemployment figures and the actual numbers directly or indirectly unemployed (cf. ILO-CEET 1994). Solution strategies Notwithstanding the various regional and nationally specific features, the regional development strategies adopted are similar. The imminent enlargement of the EU in particular will, for the accession States at least, have a unifying effect in this respect. Statutory foundations have been laid for several spheres at national level that are comparable with those in western Europe. Intersectoral approaches - as they currently are being followed by the German program "The Social Town" are a somewhat less frequent phenomenon, however. Some countries have in the meantime introduced tools to provide economic stimuli for particularly affected regions and have designated regions of industrial decline as development areas. In Bulgaria, for instance, seven regions have been delimited on the basis of five indicators. There are major barriers to implementing structural development measures here, though, since national funding resources are stretched. The regional level Key factors impeding the nurturing of problem regions are a poor degree of institutionalisation and limited scope for action at regional level. Institutions at sub-national level that could independently formulate, co-ordinate and implement regional development strategies only currently exist in very few CEE States. The regional level will need to come more and more to the fore in future where the implementation of measures is concerned, however. Proof that this is increasingly being realized are the thorough-going administrative reforms enacted over recent years in, for example, Poland and the Czech Republic and now being discussed in a number of further States. Regionally focused EU policy (PHARE, ISPA) is helping speed the relevant processes up and also unify them. Involving the actors There is, moreover, ample evidence that the channelling efficacy of "top-down" state planning is limited. Where the CEE States are concerned, greater attention will in future be given to involving key actors in the planning process, adopting a discursive approach to planning, and intensifying local and regional input. Regional management may be the path to tread here: regional development agencies have, for instance, already been opened in Most and Ostrava, the two regions in the Czech Republic most heavily affected by structural change. These agencies are receiving EU funding. Transfer of success? Long-time experience and safe predictions about the possible success of strategies in CEE countries are scarce. Often enough, national frame conditions are responsible for success or failure of regional development strategies - this stands against a simple transfer of "successful" models. Therefore, the conclusions which are drawn from the project only may serve as provisional information, not as a final guide for action. Conclusions and recommendations Based on the major findings of the project which were discussed at the conference of the Network of Spatial Research Institutions held in October 2000 at Leipzig, the attendants adopted a Declaration entitled "The Future of Industrialized Cities and Regions". In furtherance of the objective of reducing differences in the levels of development of European cities and regions, as already specified for the EU in Article 158 of the EC Treaty, the following five recommendations were made.
Brownfields development In addition to these five recommendations, the recycling of industrial buildings and areas ("brownfields") is, from the view of ecology and economy, to be preferred to the suburbanisation on "greenfields". Brownfields development also is an important factor for townscape, self-confidence and the image of industrialised regions; legal and institutional foundations have to be created on national level. In the affected cities, an effective way must be found to put areas and buildings back to use as soon as possible. Sources
Conferences
Publications
Lectures Bernhard Müller, Gerd Lintz, Karl Schmude (IÖR, Dresden)
|