Regional Development in the Nordic Countries 2010

Home , Akrahreppur, Brande, Janakkala, Kaskinen, Qeqqata, Raseborg

Maria Lindqvist, editor Nordregio Report 2010:2 ISSN 1403-2503 ISBN 978-91-89332-76-8

Nordregio P.O. Box 1658 SE-111 86 Stockholm, Sweden [email protected] www.nordregio.se www.norden.se

Analyses & text: Maria Lindqvist, Lisa Hörnström, Petri Kahila, Moa Hedström, Rasmus Ole Rasmussen, Lisa Van Well, Jon Moxnes Steineke, Lisbeth Greve-Harbo, Peter Schmitt, Stefanie Lange, Johanna Roto, José Sterling, Lise Smed Olsen, Katarina Pettersson, Patrick Galera-Lindblom, Asli Tepecik Dis Dtp: Allduplo, Stockholm, Sweden Linguistic editing: Chris Smith Repro and print: Allduplo, Stockholm, Sweden Nordic cooperation

Nordic cooperation takes place among the countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, as well as the autonomous territories of the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.

The Nordic Council is a forum for cooperation between the Nordic parliaments and governments. The Council consists of 87 parliamentarians form the Nordic countries. The Nordic Council takes policy initiatives and monitors Nordic cooperation. Founded in 1952.

The Nordic Council of Ministers is a forum of cooperation between the Nordic governments. The Nordic Council of Ministers implements Nordic cooperation. The prime ministers have the overall responsibility. Its activities are co-ordinated by the Nordic ministers for cooperation, the Nordic Committee for cooperation and portfolio ministers. Founded in 1971.

Nordregio – Nordic Centre for Spatial Development works in the ﬁ eld of spatial development, which includes physical planning and regional policies, in particular with a Nordic and European comparative perspective. Nordregio is active in research, education and knowledge dissemination and provides policy-relevant data. Nordregio was established in 1997 by the Nordic Council of Ministers. The centre is owned by the f ive Nordic countries and builds upon more than 30 years of Nordic cooperation in its ﬁ eld.

Stockholm, Sweden, 2010 Contents

Preface 9

Executive summary 11

Introduction 17

Regional Policies in the Nordic Countries 19 Introduction 19 The impact of EU policies 19 National regional policies 22 Structures and reforms 28 The Evolution of Rural Development Policies 32

Cross-Border Interactions 35 Introduction 35 Continuous development of Nordic cross-border cooperation 35 European cross-border and transnational cooperation programmes 41 The Challenge of Cross-Border Statistics 45 A Macro-Regional Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 48

Regional Development Trends 53 Introduction 53 Human Resources as a base for regional development 54 Economic Development and Business 66 Labour Market 74 Combined challenges and future possibilities 85

Innovation and Entrepreneurship 87 Introduction 87 Knowledge as a resource base 87 Regional Innovation Performance 91 The importance of entrepreneurship 92

Climate Change and Energy Policy 97 Introduction 97 The Nordic response to climate change 98 Energy policy in the Nordic Context 101 Bibliography 111

Technical Annex 115

Annex of ﬁ gures 119

Statistical annex (electronic version only)

List of fi gures Figure 1: Location of the Nordic cross-border committees that receive funding from NMR in 2009 ...... 40 Figure 2: Current EU programmes in the Nordic region ...... 44 Figure 3: Commuting between the Nordic countries (2006 fi gures) ...... 47 Figure 4: State of play for National Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the BSR ...... 51 Figure 5: Relations between GDP, jobs and population ...... 53 Figure 6: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009 ...... 55 Figure 7: Population change in the Nordic commuter catchment areas in 2000-2010 ...... 58 Figure 8: Population change in the Nordic municipalities in 2009-2010...... 61 Figure 9: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (a) ...... 62 Figure 10: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (b) ...... 63 Figure 11: Net migration rate in the West Nordic Countries in 1970-2009 ...... 64 Figure 12: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009 .... 66 Figure 13: GDP growth at market prices 2000-2010 ...... 68 Figure 14: GDP in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) per Capita in 2007 ...... 68 Figure 15: GDP in PPS per capita and per employed person in 2007. Index, EU27 = 100 ...... 70 Figure 16: Total exports and imports by sector in the Nordic Countries, 2009 .. 73 Figure 17: Trade fl ows in the Nordic Countries 2009 ...... 74 Figure 18: Unemployment rates in June 2010 compared to 2008 annual rates . 76 Figure 19: Total employment growth rate 1995-2009 ...... 76 Figure 20: Unemployment development in the Nordic countries in the last 10 years (annual change) and during the global fi nancial crisis (quartile change) .. 77 Figure 21: Total and youth unemployment (2009) and youth unemployment development between 2006 and 2010 (fi rst quarter) ...... 77 Figure 22: Youth unemployment in the Nordic regions at the end of 2008 ...... 78 Figure 23: Long term unemployment in Nordic regions at the end of 2008 ...... 78 Figure 24: Total and immigrant unemployment rates in the Nordic countries in 2009 ...... 78 Figure 25: Harmonised unemployment rates 2009 at municipal level in the Nordic countries ...... 81 Figure 26: Employment growth by main economic sectors in the Nordic countries 2005-2009 ...... 82 Figure 27: Labour force levels of education in the Nordic countries ...... 83 Figure 28: Regional Development types ...... 87 Figure 29: Share of employment by sector in Norden 2008 ...... 90 Figure 30: Students in Higher Education in Norden ...... 91 Figure 31: Private/public sector R&D expenditure ...... 92 Figure 32: Evolution of gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP ...... 92 Figure 33: Regional Innovation Performance in Europe ...... 93 Figure 34: Enterprises birth rates by sector in the Nordic Countries 2006 ...... 94 Figure 35: Distribution of self-employed workers in the Nordic countries, 2002-2008...... 95 Figure 36: Total energy consumption and total primary energy production in the Nordic countries 1997-2007 ...... 105 Figure 37: Generation of electrical energy by source 2008 ...... 105 Figure 38: Electricity generation by source in NUTS 3 regions ...... 106 Figure 39: Electricity consumption by consumer group and per capita in NUTS 3 regions ...... 107 Figure 40: Consumption of electric energy by sector in Gwh...... 108 Figure 41: Share of renewables and non-renewables for electricity generation 108 Figure 42: Electricity generation by renewable energy source in the Nordic Countries ...... 109 Figure 43: Dominant branch of employment in Nordic Local Labour Market Areas ...... 120 Figure 44: Total age dependency 2010 ...... 121 Figure 45: Young age dependency 2010 ...... 122 Figure 46: Old age dependency rate 2010 ...... 123 Figure 47: Domestic net migration 2005-2009 ...... 124 Figure 48: Natural population change 2005-2009 ...... 125 Figure 49: Gross domestic product per capita and productivity in 2007 ...... 126 Figure 50: Regions and municipalities in the Nordic Countries in 2010 ...... 127

List of tables Table 1: Nordic Cross-border committees, 2010 ...... 36 Table 2: European Territorial Cooperation, ongoing programmes, 2010 ...... 42 Table 3: Entrepreneurial activity among men and women in the Nordic countries ...... 95 Table 4: Measures supporting women´s entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries ...... 96

Preface

Nordic policy makers need to have access to up to third chapter on regional development trends. In this date and comparable information in order to develop chapter, a state-of-the art look at human resources, the and implement successful regional development economic situation and labour markets in the Nordic strategies. This report is the twelfth volume in the series countries is presented. The volume’s fourth chapter “Regional Development in the Nordic Countries”, on innovation and entrepreneurship as drivers for which has, since 1981, regularly supplied practitioners regional development was compiled by Lise Smed with comprehensive analysis of the Nordic regional Olsen and Katarina Pettersson. Finally, the chapter on development scene. It is also the fi rst summary report the development of policies and initiatives in respect of presented by Nordregio, as a result of the ambition to climate change and energy policy was summarised by widen the diffusion of results from recent or ongoing Patrick Galera-Lindblom and Asli Tepecik Dis. research and analysis projects. Overall, input from The compilation of statistical information and its around twenty different projects has been used in the presentation in tabular and map form was undertaken production of this report. The aspects covered in the mainly by Johanna Roto and José Sterling. A more report correspond to the three main themes of the detailed explanation of the statistical issues relating Nordregio work programme; competitive regions and to the data used can be found in the electronic annex. territorial cohesion; territorial knowledge dynamics and Chris Smith was responsible for language editing. community and environment. Valuable input to the chapter on regional policies was This book has been compiled by a team of provided by Sverker Lindblad, Ministry of Enterprise, Nordregio staff members under the editorship of Maria Energy and Communications (Sweden), Birgitte Sem Lindqvist. The fi rst chapter on regional policies in the Whol, Ministry of Local Government and Regional Nordic countries was written by Lisa Hörnström, with Development (Norway), Snorri B. Sigurðsson, Icelandic support from Lisa van Well, Rasmus Ole Rasmusen, Regional Development Institute, Susanne Johansen, Petri Kahila, Moa Hedström and Jon Moxnes Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority and Leif Steineke. In chapter two, the presentation of cross- Ehrsten, Ministry of Employment and the Economy border activities infl uencing the regional development (Finland). We would like to thank all of you for your of Nordic countries was coordinated by Lisbeth support! Greve Harbo, with the assistance of Peter Schmitt and Stephanie Lange. Johanna Roto, José Sterling Stockholm, December 2010 and Rasmus Ole Rasmusen, were responsible for the

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 9 10 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Executive summary

Introduction

This report is the twelfth volume in the series “Regional between the Nordic countries as well as within Development in the Nordic Countries”, which has the EU more generally is presented. Chapter three regularly supplied practitioners with comprehensive discusses regional development trends in terms of analysis of the Nordic regional development scene. It human resources; economic development and labour is a summary report, with the ambition of widening the markets. The following two chapters elaborate on diffusion of results from recent or ongoing research questions related to two of Nordregio’s core research and analysis projects. Overall, input from around twenty areas; territorial knowledge dynamics and community different projects has been used in the production of and environment. In chapter four, the importance of this report. knowledge and the relationship between innovation and The report consists of ﬁ ve chapters beginning entrepreneurship in regional development is discussed. with a general introduction to regional policies in Finally, chapter ﬁ ve focuses on climate change and the Nordic countries which is designed to provide a energy policy which are seen as central issues for framework for the following chapter. In the second sustainable regional development. chapter, the development of cross-border cooperation

Regional Policies in the Nordic Countries

The general motive behind regional policy is to address specifi c policy fi eld in the larger Nordic countries but the problems emerging from the uneven economic after EU accession greater attention has undoubtedly development between regions. At a European level, the been given to rural development, particularly related purpose of EU Cohesion Policy is to contribute to the to the agri-environmental measures of the Rural Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives for growth, jobs Development Programme. and sustainable development by promoting cohesion Over the last two decades there has been a across the EU-territory and improving the use of all discernable shift in focus in regional policy strategies available resources. Sweden, Denmark and Finland, in the Nordic countries from redistribution and state and to some extent even the non-EU members of intervention to the promotion of a stronger focus on Norway and Iceland, are infl uenced by EU policies endogenous growth strategies. Important differences and programmes, since they create a framework which nevertheless remain across the Nordic countries. For impacts on regional policies. For example, in Finland, example, the shift toward regional growth strategies Sweden and Denmark the EU programming periods tends to be most pronounced in Sweden, Denmark are taken into account when forming regional policy at and Finland. Innovation and entrepreneurship have the national as well as the regional level. Norway and been introduced as important mechanisms in regional Iceland are also affected by strategies formulated at the development policies. However, regional development EU level, not least concerning state aid rules, as they are is a complex issue and it is often diffi cult to distinguish a part of the EEA. regional policy from other policy areas such as labour- EU membership has pushed regionalisation market policy, research policy and education policy. processes in the Nordic countries, for example During the fi rst years of the new century there the establishment of regional partnerships for the seemed to be a clear tendency towards a strengthening formulation of regional development policy documents of the regional administrative level in the Nordic and the allocation of EU funding. Similarly, rural countries, especially in Sweden and Finland. Since development has traditionally not been addressed as a then, developments have taken a different direction

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 11 and the role of the regional level is still in question. creation of the ﬁ ve new administrative regions has in In Sweden, the regional level was strengthened as the some respects reduced the importance of the regional administrative experiments in Västra Götaland and level. In Norway, a structural reform to strengthen the Skåne were formalised and 14 cooperative councils regional level by creating new larger administrative were created to take over tasks related to regional regions was implemented in January 2010, but very few development from the regional state representative. of the original intentions were realised. In Iceland, a Similarly in Finland, large-scale structural reform and large number of small and often isolated municipalities the amalgamation of municipalities began in 2005 and remain and resistance to merging into larger entities in January 2010 a new regional state administration is still signiﬁ cant, while in the Nordic autonomous was established. In Denmark, on the other hand, the regions, municipalities still play a strong role.

Cross-Border Interactions

Cross-border cooperation is an important means to history; beginning as early as the 1960s. In 2010, eleven achieving the overall EU aim of economic and social Nordic cross-border committees receive funding from cohesion across the EU. The European Regional the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM). These are Development Fund (ERDF) provides the bulk of located throughout the Nordic region and, in spite of fi nancing for cross-border activities in the Nordic differences in organisational structures; similarities exist countries. The European Territorial Cooperation in terms of aim (regional development of the cross- objective is the fourth programme period for what border region), the thematic areas of their activities, the was previously termed the INTERREG Community process of their work and the roles undertaken in this Initiative. The objective covers three types of process. programmes: cross-border cooperation, transnational Since the fi rst Nordic commuter map was cooperation, and interregional cooperation. Some of presented in 2001, cross-border commuting has steadily these programmes are open also to the Nordic non- increased. In 2006, a total of 44 000 individuals were EU member countries. In addition, the EU has set classifi ed as cross-border commuters. Commuting from up a number of programmes that target cooperation Sweden to Denmark or Norway is the major commuter along the external borders of Europe: The European fl ow, making up 75% of total cross-border commuting Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). traffi c. Norway has by far the largest number of in- Three ENPI programmes are applicable to the Nordic commuters, followed by Denmark. The commuter region. fl ows between Sweden and Finland are increasing even In June 2009 the EU adopted a major strategic if the numbers are not dramatic. With increased cross- policy document on the territorial future of the Baltic border commuting, the demand for statistical data for Sea Region (BSR): The European Union Strategy for the policy analysis of the cross-border labour market the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). This document is has also increased. However, national statistics often important to the Nordic countries, as it sets out the display signifi cant shortcomings in attempting to gain framework for the strengthening of territorial and a clearer picture of the border region and a number of thus also transnational cooperation around the Baltic different initiatives have been taken in this light. In 2008 Sea. This also marked the beginning of the EUs the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM) decided to give implementation of a macro-regional strategy, since it the statistical offi ces of Denmark, Norway and Sweden was subsequently announced that the strategic policy the task of constructing a Nordic statistical database paper for the BSR may be viewed as a forerunner to the with comparable statistics, StatNord. The database implementation of further macro-regional strategies was launched in November 2009, but a discussion is across the European Union. still ongoing concerning the development and future Nordic cross-border cooperation has a long fi nancing of the continual updating of the database.

12 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Regional Development Trends

From the middle of 1990s the global economy went (3.1%). through a period of exceptional growth, with the Asian The economic decline is also shown in trade economies in the van. Most Nordic countries saw statistics and many Nordic regions dominated by economic development above the EU average, with export-orientated manufacturing industries were struck Iceland at the top and Denmark slightly below the EU hard by the crisis. The most striking example was average. During this period, economic development Finland, were the volume of exports shrunk by 20% and in the Nordic Countries, as in many other advanced imports by 18%. Norway had the least negative growth; economies, became increasingly dependent on probably due to the stable situation of the petroleum innovation and knowledge-related growth, as material market. At a regional level, Finnish regions relying on investments decreased, while immaterial investments the paper and pulp industry were heavily hit and West in human capital, R&D, education, organisational Sweden experienced a signifi cant negative change due development and ‘branding’ became more valuable. to the downturn in the automobile industry. In regions From a European perspective the Nordic countries more dependent on services and on public sector are performing well. In terms of welfare, measured as employment, the effects of the crisis have, hitherto, been GDP per capita in PPS, 80% of the Nordic regions have more limited. As a result, there are substantial regional reached a level above the EU average. Still only 60% differences in terms of unemployment. The lowest of the regions scored higher in terms of productivity fi gures (below 2%) are found in most municipalities per employee, indicating a potential for further in Norway and in the Finnish region of Åland, and development. the highest fi gures (above 14%) are found in northern The economic development of regions is closely Swedish and Finnish municipalities, in Nordjylland linked to the development of a competitive business (Denmark) and Trollhättan (Sweden). In Denmark, sector, supply and demand of human resources and Iceland and Norway, regional differences are smaller. a well functioning labour market. When combining In 2010 the global economy was still recovering total population change, the level of employment and after the crises. During the fi rst quarter of the year economic performance, large variations emerge between GDP expanded at an annual rate over 5%. With strong the Nordic regions. The capital regions, together with public fi nances, Nordic economies, with the exception some larger city regions, are performing well, while of Iceland, had been able to give strong support to the a negative development is found in many rural areas. fi nancial sector and were among the fi rst economies to Even if overall regional polarisation slowed during the recover. previous decade the Nordic countries and their regions still display different preconditions in their attempts to meet future challenges. Development of human resources Demographic development has a signifi cant impact on society, since human resources are vital for regional The impact of the economic crises development, both as a supply base for labour markets The global fi nancial and economic crisis beginning in and as a source of economic activities, generating the autumn of 2008 posed signifi cant new challenges to household incomes, taxes and the production/ the Nordic countries. The situation has been particularly consumption of private and public services. All across severe on Iceland, where three of the largest banks Europe, there is a trend towards an ageing population. collapsed, leading to a rapid depreciation and a severe There are, however, differences between the European downturn in the Icelandic economy. The crises resulted Union and the Nordic age structures. Compared to the in a rapid increase in the European unemployment rate. EU27 average, the age group 60-64 years is signifi cantly In 2009, the annual average unemployment rate of the larger in the Nordic countries, while the age groups EU27 was 8.9%. Among the Nordic countries, Iceland, 20-54 years are slightly smaller. At the same time, the Sweden and Finland were especially hard hit. Iceland Nordic countries have, in general terms, high birth rates suffered the most dramatic change in unemployment. and a larger share of children aged 0-19 years than the Before the crisis, the country had the lowest European average. unemployment rate in Europe. Since then, the level of The overall population change is a combination unemployment has reached a rate of around 8%. In of births, deaths and migration to and from the region. Denmark, the unemployment rate almost doubled, but Since the end of the 1980s, decreasing fertility rates, and still remained well below the EU27 average. Norway increasing life expectancy has resulted in demographic had the lowest unemployment rate in Europe in 2009 ageing in Europe and migration has become the major

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 13 component of population growth. For example, A skilled labour force most Nordic municipalities gained from international Unemployment levels are strongly infl uenced by the migration in the period 2005-2009. However, in economic situation, but a low unemployment rate also Denmark, Norway and Sweden the overall level and indicates an effi cient regional labour market, where share of international migration was much higher than labour supply and demand are relatively balanced. The in Finland. During this period, the Nordic countries saw increase in unemployment has been affected by an ageing a modest population growth of approximately 0.67% population, population changes (especially in sparsely per annum, which was above the average EU growth of populated areas) and the marginalisation of vulnerable 0.40% per annum. At a national level, Denmark, Finland groups, such as youth, the long-term unemployed and and Sweden had a population increase close to the EU immigrants. The impact of unemployed on vulnerable average, while Norway had an annual growth rate above groups can be expected to vary considerably between 1%. In Iceland, a rapid population increase was turned regions, due to variations in population structure, into a decrease as a result of the economic crises in 2008, growth and skills. and in the autonomous regions population growth was An important asset for the Nordic labour market negative (Greenland) or low (Faroe Islands). is its highly skilled labour force, with the highest levels Looking at the population structure by age and of population with a tertiary education in Europe at the gender, regional variations remain. A common trend regional level. When it comes to ‘life-long learning’, the here is that the population in urban areas is younger tendency is similar and all Nordic countries have fi gures than in rural and sparsely populated areas. Generally well above the EU27 average of 9%, with Finland (29%), speaking, the city regions also have the highest share Denmark (20%) and Sweden (18%) at the top. Skilled of female population, while in small and medium- workers tend to be more productive, less exposed to sized towns and some more rural regions, especially unemployment; more satisfi ed with their professional in West Norden, males predominate. Large variations lives and they retire at a higher age. The level of in population growth are also found between Nordic education and the quality of the entire educational regions. Over the last ten years the Nordic capital system are crucial elements in the construction of a commuter catchment regions and some larger city skilled labour force. Therefore, many of the measures regions experienced a high annual average population for countering unemployment in the Nordic countries increase, often due to a combination of immigration have focused on education and training. It is also crucial and natural increase. At the same time municipalities to provide a well-functioning infrastructure and new outside the city regions have experienced remarkable investment in transportation, housing and education to population losses, mainly in the Danish, Finnish and attract people to and maintain them in a region. Swedish countryside.

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

In a globalised world, knowledge is becoming an The knowledge base för innovation increasingly important factor for innovation and regional In a knowledge-based economy, a high level of education competitiveness. The concept of innovation is much among the labour force, access to a high quality school broader than inventions or technical development, and system and investments in research and development includes the implementation of a new or signifi cantly (R&D) are important resource bases for innovation improved product (good or service) or process, new and development. In a European perspective, the marketing methods as well as new organisational innovation potential of the Nordic countries is high, methods. In an increasingly complex world, a single since both the share of the population with a tertiary actor seldom has access to all the resources, knowledge education and the level of R&D investment is high. In and competences required to face global challenges, for 2008, the fi ve Nordic countries had the highest public example an ageing population, climate changes and the R&D expenditure as a share of GDP in the EU, with need for energy effi ciency. Today, we often talk about Iceland top. Finland, followed by Sweden was ranked systems of innovations, where private as well as public highest in terms of private sector R& D expenditure. actors from various sectors need to interact. Still, there are important regional variations, as higher education is clearly concentrated to metropolitan areas in the Nordic countries.

14 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 However, a high level of tertiary education or high level of formal education is not a guarantee that research expenditures may not be enough to stimulate innovation will take place. A strong national and regional innovation and development. There is also a need for entrepreneurship culture indicates a higher potential to mechanisms to stimulate the exploitation of new ideas, create growth in established or new fi rms. In a global the commercialisation of academic research and the comparison the Nordic countries have not been found transfer of different types of knowledge between the among the highest performers in terms of new start-up public and private sectors. Firms delivering knowledge- activities. There are, however, large variations between intensive business services (KIBS) have a central role countries, regions and sectors. In 2009, Finland had as integrators of knowledge from various parts of the the highest share of high-growth entrepreneurs of innovation system, as they tend to have close relations the Nordic countries, while Denmark was introduced with the knowledge and innovation infrastructure of as an example of a country where entrepreneurialism society, including education and research institutions. fl ourishes. The largest concentration of KIBS is found in Even if, on average, 58% of all students are large metropolitan areas, since concentration offers female, the levels of self-employed women in the advantages connected with the production and diffusion Nordic countries have been relatively stable at around of knowledge and with individual and collective learning 30% between 2002 and 2008. To increase this level, processes. An essential element for the competitiveness a strong emphasis has been placed on supporting of knowledge-intensive business services is access to the development of women entrepreneurs, relating highly skilled persons and urban areas tend to have the both to women’s position in society and the general highest concentration of educated human resources, importance of entrepreneurship in the development of with a good potential to fi nd relevant employees, economic growth. All Nordic countries, except Iceland, partners or customers. have a programme or an action plan with the aim of supporting women’s entrepreneurship. However, the measures applied vary between the countries concerned Importance of entreprenurship and generally consist of a mix of individually and more Entrepreneurship is another important mechanism structurally focused efforts. to stimulate innovation and regional development. A

Climate Change and Energy Policy

In order to encourage future sustainable development, policy in the Nordic countries has been inﬂ uenced by it is important for both the public and the private the issues of energy efﬁ ciency, security of supply and actors to address the grand challenges concerning the environmental impact of energy usage. Over the climate change and energy policy. Nordic countries last three decades, the Nordic countries have sought differ in their institutional settings but have similar to respond to economic and environmental challenges targets for their climate policies. For climate change through the implementation of various national policy adaptation more research and knowledge are needed to frameworks for the energy sector. Renewable energy set realistic targets. Close cooperation with the private sources have progressively substituted coal – mainly sector is important for utilising the research results. The with wind power in Denmark and district heating based facilitation of dialogue and the exchange of knowledge on biomass in Sweden and Denmark. The success has and experience between the various levels of public been the results of various support schemes for these administration are essential in creating synergies and technologies. Progressive deregulation towards the developing effective climate adaptation strategies. The market-based trade of electric power has also been climate change measures taken in the Nordic countries taking place. highlight different institutional approaches to climate Despite the fact that the Nordic countries are change adaptation. While Finland considers sectoral generating only moderate emissions of greenhouse adaptation strategies, Denmark and Sweden emphasise gases compared to other developed countries of a the role of local or regional actors in carrying out similar size, their consumption of energy per capita is climate change adaptation efforts. among the highest in the world. Relatively high heating In terms of climate change mitigation, the demand, due to the cold climate, combined with a sparse Nordic countries are committed to further reducing population distribution, a greater need for individual greenhouse gas emissions by increasing their share of transportation, the presence of heavy process industries energy generation from renewable sources. Energy plus generally high levels of income, are some of the

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 15 factors behind this high level of energy demand. In and Norway, almost 100% of all electricity is generated spite of continuous economic growth in the region, from renewable energy while Greenland, a newcomer however, the demand for energy has remained stable to renewable energy, had its ﬁ rst hydropower plant over the last ten years. in 1993, and due to the expansion of capacity and The most important energy sources for the construction of additional three hydropower plants Nordic countries, in order of importance, are oil, during the last years has reached a situation where 11% renewable energy sources (mainly hydro-, geothermal of the total energy consumption and almost 50% of and wind energy), nuclear power, coal and gas. The electricity consumption is based on renewable energy. Nordic region has been privileged to have good access The Nordic countries have a strong position worldwide to renewable energy sources as well as a high innovation in energy innovation thanks to strong national support capacity and efﬁ cient national energy policies. On for this sector, even if energy innovation systems vary average, the Nordic countries generate electricity from with respect to the energy resources available, dominant renewable sources at four times the level of the OECD technology regimes, institutional structures and policy countries. Still, there are large variations concerning commitments on energy and climate change. access to different renewable energy sources. In Iceland

16 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Introduction

Nordregio, the Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, if the Nordic countries are perceived as relatively is a European research centre in the broad knowledge homogenous, from a European perspective, important fi eld known as regional studies, established by the differences continue to exist between regions. Many Nordic Council of Ministers. Its primary mission is of the peripheral and sparsely populated areas, for to bridge the gap between research and policy making example, can be characterised as small economies facing on issues related to regional development. As such, it demographic challenges with an ageing population and is important to produce and communicate directly to the continuing out-migration of young people. At policy makers at the regional, national and international the same time, some of the larger urban regions are level relevant research results and analysis from the struggling to develop an approach to the provision of institute’s own research agenda. In the context of this sustainable living conditions, for example in relation wider process this report fulfi ls an important function, to access to housing and the provision of adequate namely, as the fi rst summary report produced in the communication infrastructures. It has also become attempt to diffuse results from recent or ongoing increasingly clear that different types of regions need research and analysis projects. In this report, the results to cooperate across regional, national and international of more than twenty different research and analysis borders. It is for this reason that an overview of regional projects have been included. Some have already been policies and recent regional development trends in the concluded while others are still ongoing. Nordic countries is thus presented in the fi rst three The fi rst two chapters contain a short presentation chapters of this report. on the Regional Policies of the Nordic Countries, A second core area of research concerns including reference to the recent structural reforms, a territorial knowledge dynamics, including questions presentation of the development of rural policies and a relating to entrepreneurship and innovation. In a more detailed discussion on cross-border cooperation. globalised world, knowledge, in terms of education and These chapters provide a useful background to experience, becomes an increasingly important factor in understanding the trends and results presented in the the development of regional competitiveness. Through following chapters. After a period of strong economic the processes of entrepreneurship and innovation, growth all fi ve Nordic countries were hit by the global knowledge can be used to develop new or improved recession in the autumn of 2008. This, of course, has products, services and organisations. Innovation is, constituted an important challenge to all countries, but however, a complex process, often involving customers to Iceland in particular. Chapter three, on the Regional and suppliers from the private and public sectors, as Development Trends, presents the recent development well as advanced researchers. An important emerging of human resources, economic growth and labour challenge for regional policy makers then is clearly to markets at national and regional level in the Nordic stimulate the production of relevant knowledge and to countries and gives a state-of-the art introduction to secure networks and linkages for knowledge-transfer the current situation. The two fi nal chapters focus on between individuals in different organisations, sectors specifi c development themes. and regions. Data on the educational level of the Nordic The report relates closely to Nordregio’s own labour force is presented in the chapter on regional working programme. The working programme for the development trends. The question of knowledge, period 2010-2012 consists of three main research areas. innovation and entrepreneurship is then further In the context of this report important fi ndings from elaborated in the thematic chapter on Innovation and each of these research areas are presented. The fi rst Entrepreneurship. research area concerns regional development focusing The third research area in the Nordregio working in particular on competitive regions and territorial programme relates to the diffi cult challenges posed by cohesion. One of the greatest challenges in respect climate change. To develop a sustainable society for the of regional policy is the need to balance the goal of future it is important to include environmental aspects providing inhabitants in all types of regions with in regional development policies. It is important here good living conditions, with that of ensuring that all to understand the regional consequences of climate regions contribute to national growth and development, policy and green growth strategies, and to develop based on each region’s endogenous potential. Even energy policies to increase energy effi ciency and

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 17 the use of renewable energy. In the second thematic chapter on Climate Change and Energy Policy, recent climate policies and the challenges concerning energy consumption and production in the Nordic countries are presented.

18 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Regional Policies in the Nordic Countries

Introduction

This chapter focuses on regional policies in the Nordic has changed. In 2007, it still appeared that all the countries, the impact of EU policies on national Nordic countries were continuing to strengthen their strategies for regional development, the formal administrative regional levels, both in terms of size structures for governing regional policies and the and in relation to the amount of responsibilities given current reform process in respect of these structures. to them, but since then, the picture has become more The chapter also contains a description of policies of fragmented. rural development in the four largest Nordic countries. Traditionally rural development has not been Regional policy strategies in all the Nordic countries addressed as a separate policy fi eld in the four largest focus on creating the conditions for development to Nordic countries. The strong and redistributive regional take place across all parts of the country. This implies policies combined with primary sector support were the need for special incentives in regions that are weaker regarded as suffi cient for decades. However, Norway than the average in terms of economic development differs to some extent from the other countries. Instead and population trends. Regional policy in the Nordic of focusing on regional and rural policies a division is, countries has, however, also gone through something and has for decades been made between regional and of a transformation over the last two decades with district policy. The later focuses on sustaining more the focus now increasingly on regional growth based peripheral regions. Development policies focusing on endogenous growth strategies and less on state on rural areas in specifi c, looking beyond agricultural intervention. Important differences, moreover, activities, gained attention with the EU accession of remain in terms of strategies for regional development Denmark and later also of Finland and Sweden as well across the Nordic countries. These differences will be as with the parallel shift in Nordic regional policies highlighted in this chapter. When it comes to governing from redistribution to competition. In general in all regional development policy, structural reforms have four countries endogenous development and local long been and remain an important topic in the policy engagement have come to be seen as important tools discourse in each of the Nordic countries. During the for the development of rural areas. There are however last 10-15 years the desire to involve regional actors has important differences between the Nordic countries become stronger and the division of responsibilities which will be attended to in this chapter. between the state, the regions and the municipalities

The impact of EU policies

Several EU territorial strategies work as external drivers The Lisbon Agenda shaping regional development in Sweden, Denmark, The EU Lisbon Agenda, adopted in 2000 had the Finland, and to some extent even the non-EU members ambitious goal of making the EU the world’s most of Norway and Iceland. The Lisbon Agenda, the competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. Territorial Agenda and Europe 2020 are examples It called for the creation of competitive growth of recent, current and future drivers of regional throughout the EU territory via efforts to boost development policy. technology, knowledge transfer and innovation. In 2005 the Lisbon Agenda was re-launched with somewhat less

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 19 ambitious targets but in a version that operationalised challenges illuminated by the Territorial agenda: the strategy with a focus on national and regional actions for growth and employment, creating more and 1. the regionally diverse impacts of climate change, better jobs, instigating better governance procedures 2. rising energy prices and the need for new forms of and sustainable development. energy supply, At the national level, National Reform 3. increased integration of regions in global economic Programmes (NRP) in each member state set out the competition, goals to be achieved in relation to the Lisbon Agenda 4. the impact of EU enlargement on social, economic objectives and the Community Integrated Guidelines and territorial cohesion, for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008). An important 5. the overuse of ecological and cultural resources and ambition of the NRPs is to involve national parliaments 6. demographic changes such as ageing, and in- and and other national actors in the implementation process out-migration. of the Lisbon agenda. Important priorities include: EU cohesion policy has a spatial focus; it is not about 1. Knowledge and innovation for growth, sectors but about places, regions. The important 2. Creating more attractive places to invest and work, question in the debate of the new territorial agenda and has been whether it has an added value as compared 3. Creating not just more, but better quality jobs. to the traditional cohesion policy of the EU; ensuring social and economic cohesion by strengthening the Regional policy instruments such as Cohesion lagging behind regions. The added of value of having a Policy funding from the ERDF (European Regional territorial dimension in European policies is considered Development Fund) play an important role in achieving as 3 E rationales; Effi ciency, Equity and Environmental. the goals of the Lisbon agenda and the EU-15 member It is argued that there is a clear link between these states are required to earmark a substantial percentage rationales and the EU sustainability agenda whose three (at least 75%) of their cohesion policy funding towards pillars are economic competitiveness, social inclusion achieving the Lisbon goals. and environmental protection. The term ‘territorial cohesion’ is used and interpreted throughout the EU and its Member States Territoral Agenda (MS) by applying varied meanings. The Green Paper The Territorial Agenda of the European Union was on Territorial Cohesion started a debate among all MS, agreed upon at the Informal Ministerial meeting on regional and local authorities, civil society organisations, Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion in research institutions as well as individual citizens on how Leipzig in May 2007. Strengthening territorial cohesion to develop a common understanding on the concept is the primary goal of the agenda which became of Territorial Cohesion. Some of the contributions solidifi ed when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force from the Green Paper debate referred to the need for in December 2009. The Territorial Agenda sets the task a strict and uniform defi nition across the EU while of achieving territorial cohesion through the setting of others denied this and instead mentioned the need for priorities which echo those of the ESDP (European a common understanding over the key principles of Spatial Development Perspective): Development of the concept. There are already anchors not debated a balanced and polycentric urban system and a new which reveal that the common understanding of urban-rural partnership, securing parity of access Territorial Cohesion is in place. According to the Green to infrastructure and knowledge, and sustainable Paper discussion, every place has its own capital which development, prudent management and protection should be used for sustainable development. The of the natural and cultural heritage. It further adds common territorial knowledge base, the importance of the promotion of regional clusters of competition territorial cooperation, the cross-sectoral coordination and innovation, strengthening and extending trans- aspects and multi level governance attached to this, the European networks and the promotion of trans- territorial content programming documents, the local- European risk management, including the impacts of regional approach and the functional approach related climate change, to the priorities. to administrative borders can be mentioned as the The agenda highlights the importance of shared anchors which do not need a defi nition. Briefl y, territorial governance in seeking to involve all Territorial Cohesion yet encompasses the sharing stakeholders (both public and private at national, values among the MS and emphasizes learning how to regional and local level) in an ongoing dialogue process. develop the potential of each region out of their own Regional diversity within Europe is seen as a source of assets in order to ensure the harmonious and balanced strength. Thus regions are key actors in addressing the development of the European territory.

20 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 The fi nal discussion about the future of cohesion with a GDP/capita far below 75% the EU25 average policy is currently under debate and the 5th cohesion which is the criteria for being eligible for the fi rst report will be published in November 2010. The objective ‘convergence - EU regional policy’s focus of Territorial Agenda is currently being renewed and will attention inevitably shifted towards regions in Central be fi nalised during the Hungarian Presidency in 2011. and Eastern Europe. Barca report1 argues that there has to be a change in the idea of cohesion policy by “shifting away from re- Europe 2020 distribution” (the rich giving to the poor) to the notion Europe 2020 is a recent European strategy designed to of a policy that is “place-based”. The report further address the rapid transformations that have hit Europe. argues that current cohesion policy structure provides an It aims to guide Member States in managing the global appropriate basis for territorial development. However fi nancial crisis and unleashing the EU’s innovative reforms are necessary for achieving the EU’s long-term capacities by identifying three drivers of growth: 1) goals in post-2013 period. Therefore, ten pillars of smart growth based on knowledge and innovation, 2) change are proposed in order to achieve the targets of sustainable growth for a more effi cient, greener and the cohesion policy.2 The report states that all regions competitive economy and 3) inclusive growth capable of should be able to realize their potential in terms of their delivering employment, social and territorial cohesion. assets in order to improve their economic development Targets to be achieved include boosting the and the role of subsidiarity is highly emphasized in this employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from regard. The subsidiarity principle, therefore, needs to 69% to 75%, investing at least 3% of EU GDP in R&D, manage the re-allocation of tasks accordingly.3 This reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% principle is also referred as the architecture of modern compared to 1990 levels (or by 30% conditional on policy-design; a system of multi-level governance which similar commitments from other developed countries), supports regions to re-arrange the responsibilities reducing the proportion of early school leavers from between different levels of government and local 15% to 10% and reducing the number of Europeans institutions based on the current development needs. living below the poverty line by 35%. On the other hand, the report criticizes the current The Commission proposes that these targets cohesion policy since it lacks quantifi able targets and are translated into national targets and trajectories. information on how it will make an impact on people’s Europe 2020 calls for a stronger governance framework well-being in European regions.4 The report highlights at national, regional and local level, but other than the primary goal of the EU Cohesion target as the specifying that Cohesion policy and structural funds are “place-based policy” with greater local involvement one of the delivery mechanisms for smart, sustainable in decision making. Mobilizing this local knowledge is and inclusive growth, has thus far little to say about the taken as a potential instrument for better functioning of role of regions and regional development. However, as policies. Sixth progress report on social and economic the strategy is still in the initial stages of development, cohesion5 also mentions this point which is favoured regions themselves may be able to further defi ne their due to its likely impact on “innovators” to take up contribution. the initiative on economic and social progress in their respective regions. The Structural Funds The EU Structural Funds are an important part of EU Rural Development Programmes its Cohesion Policy and the planning and funding of The EU has a long history of supporting farmers and incentives for regional development in the Nordic EU this fi nancial support continues to make up a large member countries Finland, Sweden and Denmark. share of the EU budget. Over time however not only During the current programming period 2007-2013 agriculture but also the more general development of the the Nordic countries, and especially the northernmost regions of Finland and Sweden, have seen a signifi cant 1 An Agenda For a Reformed Cohesion Policy-A Place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations, reduction in funding compared to the previous period Independent Report , prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, 2000-2006. Another important change is that during Commissioner For Regional Policy by Fabrizio Barca, April 2009 the current period large city-regions have also become Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/ eligible for funding. The objectives of the current pdf/report_barca_v0306.pdf Accessed 2010.10.19 2 programming period are Convergence, Regional Ibid. P. VIII 3 Ibid. p.41 Competiveness and Employment and Territorial 4 Ibid, p.121 Cooperation. When twelve new member states entered 5 Sixth progress report on economic and social cohesion. Available the European Union in 2004 and 2007 – many of them at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffi c/offi cial/ reports/interim6/com_2009_295_en.pdf Accessed 2010.10.19

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 21 countryside has come into focus. EU support to rural as a whole almost 40% of the total budget is allocated development is carried out as a part of the Common to the fi rst axis, 34% to the second, 15% to the third Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP has two pillars. The and 13% to the fourth. fi rst pillar supports farmers directly while the focus of the second goes beyond agriculture. In order to create a coherent programme for the implementation of the Territoral cooperation second pillar the Rural Development Programme (RDP) Territorial cooperation is one of the objectives of EU 2007-2013 was established. This programme is divided Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 which facilitates regions into four axes. Axis I focuses on the competitiveness of and localities to work together across national borders. the countryside, axis II on the environment, axis III on There are three different types of programmes within the diversifi cation of the economy and axis IV consists the territorial cooperation objective; transnational of the Leader approach which is a way of working cooperation (within the EU-defi ned 13 cooperation with rural development through local engagement regions), cross-border cooperation (among 52 in local action groups (LAGs). All three Nordic EU programming areas between two or more adjacent states) countries carrying out the programme have allocated a and interregional cooperation (networking areas). The comparatively large share of the programme budget to Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 (sometimes the agri-environmental measures of axis II. In Denmark called INTERREG IVB) covers the states of the Baltic the share is 45%, in Sweden just over 50% and in Finland Sea Region and indeed this EU grouping of states the share is almost 70%. On the other hand, the budget (since 1994) has helped to defi ne the boundaries of this for increasing competitiveness is considerable smaller in macro-region. Within the Baltic Sea geographic region Finland than in the other two countries. Within the EU there are also 12 EU cross-border regions (sometimes called INTERREG IVA).

National regional policies

Policies for territorial development in Denmark, Finland Denmark the concept of ‘regional development’ is and Sweden are to a large extent formed according to used and in Denmark there is also a focus on regional the different EU strategies and funding programmes. business policy (regional erhvervspolitik). These different Norway and Iceland are also affected by strategies ways of labelling policies for regional development to formulated at the EU level, not at least concerning state some extent refl ect the fact that, despite the existing aid rules, as they are a part of the EEA. In Denmark, and extensive similarities between the Nordic countries, Finland and Sweden the structural funds programming various ways of handling disparities in development and periods are taken into account when forming regional strategies for striking a balance between the different policy at the national as well as at the regional level. The parts of these countries exist. sequencing period of the structural funds programmes The Treaty of Lisbon has institutionalised the is therefore steering the planning of regional policy principle of territorial cohesion as an overarching incentives and national regional aid is aligned with goal of the European Union, together with economic EU funding. EU membership has also pushed and social cohesion. The creation of balanced living regionalisation processes in the Nordic countries, e.g. conditions across all parts of the territory has been, the establishment of regional partnerships especially and to a large extent remains, an overall ambition of for the formulation of regional development policy regional policy in the Nordic countries and in the documents (e.g. regional development programmes in European Union more generally. Previously, the main Sweden) and the regional structural fund programmes. tool to accomplish this was the redistribution of Regional policy is generally understood as resources between different parts of the country. It will policy formulated to solve problems arising due to be shown that this ambition still characterises regional territorially uneven economic development. Regional policy in the Nordic countries but that there is now a policy strategies are diffi cult, if not to say impossible, signifi cant national variation in the way in which this is to distinguish from other policy areas such as labour- achieved. Differences also emerge in how the various market policy, research policy, education policy etc. policy areas link to regional policy. To a large extent the Policies for regional development are, however, defi ned Nordic countries face the same challenges, e.g. an ageing in different ways in the Nordic countries; in Norway, it is population and dwindling labour market participation regional and “district” policy (regional- og distriktspolitikk), though the ability to handle these challenges often in Sweden, the most recent concept is regional growth differs between the countries. policy (regional tillväxtpolitik); in Finland as well as in The more traditional way of thinking regional

22 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 policy can be characterized as developing strategies that Five new regions, responsible for preparing Regional focus on speciﬁ c parts of the country that need support Development Plans, and six Regional Growth Foras, for development. In Norway, there is a distinction between playing a crucial role in the implementation of policies regionalpolitikk which aims at encouraging development for regional development, were established. across the whole country and distriktspolitikk which There has to a large extent been a discernable aims at developing the parts of the country that are shift in focus from redistribution in regional policy in facing speciﬁ c challenges. Regional policy in Norway the Nordic countries to a stronger focus on endogenous retains a strong focus on the development of the more economic growth. First generation regional policy was peripheral parts of the country. In Sweden, on the characterised by state subsidies and centralised territorial other hand, traditional regional policy was de-prioritised planning aiming at striking a balance between different in 2001 when regional development policy, regional regions within the countries. This view characterised utvecklingspolitik was launched as a new policy area. In regional policy in the Nordic countries during the 1960s 2007, this policy area was replaced by regional growth 1970s and 1980s. From the beginning of the 1990s policy, regional tillväxtpolitik. The overall aim of regional increasing globalisation meant new challenges to the growth policy in Sweden is to address initiatives to all Nordic economies and the second generation regional parts of the country and not only to the most remote policy therefore became more focused on the regional areas. In Finland, the current programmes for regional level as an appropriate arena for the formulation and development focus primarily on city-regions, rural areas implementation of regional development strategies. and the archipelago. Regional policy in Finland also has Third generation policy takes this a step further and a strong focus on innovation and coordination between focuses on basing strategies for regional development different stakeholders in the regions. In Denmark, the on the characteristics of each region and not imposing structural reform in 2007 substantially changed the one single model for development on all regions (see structure for the governing of regional development. Box).

Box: Towards a third generation regional policy? In the study “Mot den tredje generationens regionalpolitik: Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner” (Towards third generation regional policy: Lessons from the Nordic autonomous regions and peripheral island regions) the examples of the autonomous areas of the Nordic countries; Greenland, Åland and the Faroe Islands were used in order to analyse the extent to which a more autonomous system could contribute to and enhance regional development. The objective was to contribute to the discussion on the degree to which the regional level should be more autonomous in order to create incentives for a more fl exible and effi cient regional policy in the Nordic countries. In order to facilitate the comparison with more “typical” Nordic regions, the Danish island region Bornholm, which does not have autonomous status but maintains a certain regional responsibility with its own Growth Forum, was also included in the study. At the onset of the study it was stressed that a limited institutional capacity to act within a region can be an obstacle to regional development but it must also be borne in mind that the development of regional economies depends not only on responsible regional or national actors but also, increasingly, on the interplay between public and private initiatives and actors. The authors of the study conclude that there has to be a match between the responsibility given and the capability of regional actors to act and therefore the degree of regional responsibility must be adapted to the economic capacity of the region. Greenland has a weak economic capacity but a signifi cant level of autonomy within Denmark. There tends to be a discrepancy between the responsibility given and the capacity to act in Greenland. Åland, on the other hand, has a relatively strong economy but only a limited level of autonomy. The report concludes that there is potential for stronger development if Åland is given a greater level of autonomy within Finland. In the Faroe Islands, the degree of autonomy corresponds better to its economic capacity level than in Greenland or Åland. The Faroe Islands have a large degree of autonomy and also a relatively high capacity level for innovation. An important conclusion of the study is that a well-functioning regional policy has, as far as possible, to be adapted to different production conditions in the regions. This also implies that there must be a will to open the way for the creation of a more asymmetric system in the Nordic countries, e.g. it should be possible to have different degrees of self-governance in different regions. There must also be a clearer structure when it comes to who is responsible for what. Another policy implication of the study is that regional reform aiming at the creation of larger regions does not necessarily lead to economic growth. Source: Karlsson, A., Lindström, B., och Van Well, L. (2009), Mot den tredje generationens regionpolitik – Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner. Nordregio report 2009:1.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 23 The shift away from the fi rst generation regional policy part of the reform process, a regional growth forum tends to be more pronounced in Sweden, Denmark and was established in each region. A total of six regional Finland than in Norway where regional policy is still growth fora were established, since Region Hovedstaden formulated on the basis of the redistribution ambition. (The Capital Region) also includes Growth Forum In the Nordic countries, innovation has also become a Bornholm. The growth fora are organised in line with key word in policies for enhancing regional development the partnership principle and include representatives at the analytical level as well as the political level. of the following fi ve groups of actors: the region, the A commonly used way of enhancing local authority, knowledge and education institutions, coordination between sectors is to gather responsibility the business community and the labour unions. The for all programmes and instruments relevant to a executives and the secretariat of the growth fora specifi c policy fi eld within the same ministry or national are part of each region’s Department of Regional authority. The Ministry for Economic and Business Development. The main tasks of the regional growth Affairs in Denmark and the Ministry of Employment fora are to formulate a regional business development and Economy in Finland are examples of such “super- strategy; to monitor the regional and local conditions ministries”6. Different policy fi elds with relevance to for growth; to propose allocation of Structural Funds; regional development are brought together under one and to propose co-fi nancing for regional business “umbrella”. As regional policy has many different development activities. The regional growth fora are dimensions and touches upon most other policy areas also responsible for regional development funding and coordination is a necessity but also a challenge. industrial development7. The fi nancial and economic crisis beginning in The Danish Enterprise and Construction the autumn of 2008 posed signifi cant new challenges to Authority (Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen), which is part of the the Nordic countries. The situation has been particularly Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs (Økonomi- severe on Iceland while the rest of the Nordic countries og Erhvervsministeriet) is the responsible authority, on the have been impacted by the crisis to a much smaller extent. national level, for regional development. Each year the In the other Nordic countries the crisis in the fi nancial government publishes a declaration on regional policy sector was relatively limited. Yet, governments in all the for growth (regionalpolitisk vaekstredegørelse). In order to Nordic countries gave strong support to the fi nancial control the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda at sector. Macro-economic instruments have been used to the regional level, the government has formulated a repair the consequences of the crisis and other types of ‘globalisation strategy’ which is operationalised through initiatives have also been taken. Export industries across the government’s partnership agreement with each of the Nordic countries were also struck by the crisis. Many the six regional growth fora. regions dominated by export-orientated manufacturing Thus far, apart from Growth Forum industries had been growing rapidly in the years before Hovedstaden’s and Bornholm’s solely focus on regional the economic crisis and were severely impacted by it. growth, the Regional Growth Fora’s focus has been on In Sweden, for example, the automotive industry and both regional growth and on internal regional balance. its sub-contractors in the Västra Götaland region were The latter aspect of the focus has been legitimised by heavily affected by the decline in international demand. a national policy of distributing a certain percentage of In regions more dependent on services and on public the Structural Funds to the region’s rural hinterlands. sector employment, the effects of the fi nancial crisis This two-legged focus has resulted in a wide-ranging have, hitherto, been more limited. Although the issue of implementation of the regional growth fora’s business public sector debt, and thus of public sector spending development strategy. and employment, is only now being addressed and this As a consequence of the new political patterns is likely to have an effect on such regions going forward. created by the reform process the development of what is called “Udkantsdanmark” (Outskirt-Denmark) and concerns over the infl uence decisions taken in Denmark: New regions and Regional Copenhagen may have in rural areas - a new political Growth Fora party was formed in 2010 which aims to promote The Danish Structural Reform of 2007 reduced greater political and economic support for these the number of local authorities from 271 to 98 and vulnerable areas. The discussion related to the special transformed 14 county councils (amtskommuner) into characteristics of the peripheral regions as well as of fi ve regions the main task of which, besides health the smaller islands has been ongoing for some time, care, is regional development. In April 2006, as a among other things in response to increasing old age dependency ratios, the outmigration of young people 6 Moxnes Steineke, Jon (2009) Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og 7 Larsen, Peter Wilgaard (forthcoming) Partnerskab og regional sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working erhvervsfremme i Danmark, PhD dissertation, Aalborg University. Paper 2009:2. 24 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 and especially younger women. Representatives for presented. The proposal includes a proposal for a the smaller peripheral municipalities and islands have radical change to the Danish planning system relating objected to the characterisation of these regions in to a suggested amendment to the Planning Act which the media as being “losers” and as rapidly turning differentiates the access to conduct planning between into “reservations for elderly people”. The debate the peripheral municipalities and other municipalities in subsequently made something of an impression on Denmark. This differentiation will give the peripheral the Government and in early September 2010 a new areas greater freedom in terms of planning, including in proposal aimed at strengthening peripheral areas was their coastal zones.

Box: The debate on rural areas in Denmark One incidence triggering the political debate was the location of a hospital in Western Jutland. While the local politicians had agreed upon its location, the Government (headed by “Venstre”, i.e. the liberal party which has a number of its core voters in that particular region) decided otherwise. Thereby the representatives from “Udkantsdanmark” experienced not only a peripheral economic and demographic situation, but also their own politicians overruled by politicians representing “Copenhagen”. In a rather short time the new political party was formed around a policy emphasising the need for economic compensations and the transfer of state employment from Copenhagen to the periphery - and ﬁ rst and foremost emphasising a “no interference from Copenhagen” policy. The members were primarily a group of politicians from the right wing spectrum, including representatives from municipal governments in the region, and with pensioners and pre-pensioners (persons with “Efterløn”) constituting the major group. For some time they managed to create a momentum, and it looked like they might become a new player in the political game. After a while, however, it has become clear that the internal divisions among them are also rather signiﬁ cant as individual interests differ markedly.

Finland: Highligthing regional centres and in urban regions as a driver for regional development innovation in each region. Regional centres are deﬁ ned as labour- Regional policy in Finland combines national incentives market and service regions. The programme combines 8 for development with EU strategies and aims at giving innovation and regional development. Evaluation of the regions the possibility to develop on the basis of the previous programme period 2000-2006 shows that their own opportunities while also providing for special the differences between urban regions in Finland have measures to be taken aimed at less favoured regions. decreased. The programme has also helped to encourage Regional policy is based on the Regional Development further cooperation both between municipalities and Act and the government’s decision on national goals between other public and private actors within the for regional development. The overall target of Finnish urban regions. Other programmes include the Centre regional policy is to improve the competiveness of of Expertise Programme, the Special Rural Policy regions to manage increasing international competition Programme, and the Island Development Programme. and to create a better balance between different regions. The Regional Centre Programme and the Centre of The strategy for Structural Funds 2007- Expertise Programme are part of a long tradition in 2013 sets out the guidelines for the formulation and Finland focusing on the connection between urban and implementation of development projects. The goal regional policies. of the strategy is to strengthen the competiveness of In November 2009 the Finnish government Finnish regions with particular incentives aiming at approved the Regional Cohesion and Competitiveness the development of the parts of the country facing Programme, ‘COCO’. The aim of the programme particular difﬁ culties. When it comes to territorial is to give regions the ability and incentive to develop cooperation Finland gives priority to cooperation with according to their own characteristics and conditions. Russia, primarily in its northernmost regions and in the COCO commenced in early 2010 and will continue wider Baltic Sea area. until the end of 2013. COCO covers the entire country, The Ministry of Employment and the Economy excluding Åland. All regions forming an operative (Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö/Arbets- och näringsministeriet) strategic entity are eligible. There are altogether 52 is in charge of regional policy at the national level. A COCO regions covering 322 of 326 municipalities number of programmes have been initiated to realise 8 Moxnes Steineke, Jon (2009) Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal the goals set up for regional development. The Regional politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og Centre programme focuses on creating competiveness sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working Paper 2009:2.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 25 in continental Finland. The implementation of this 2010. The reform gave, among many other new programme was also a way for the government things, the county councils responsibility for Innovation to simplify the system of regional programmes. The Norway with a 49% share of the agency. In regional programme should coordinate the work of different and district policy, North Norway is given priority not actors within the region and between regions while also only by the Ministry in charge of regional policies, but providing the basis for larger development projects. The also by other Ministries. There is an important emphasis municipalities within the 52 programming regions own now on the exploitation of resources in the North, both the projects and can therefore use them in the way that off-shore and land-based. Regional policy in Norway they fi nd most suitable for the needs of their region. tends to have a stronger focus on rural and peripheral areas than is the case in the other Nordic countries. The use of tax incentives and transfer payments to strike a Norway: Local growth and strong belief in balance between different parts of the country is more the future common in Norway than in the other Nordic countries. One of the strongest ambitions of regional policy Examples here include differentiated payroll tax and in Norway remains the desire to preserve the main increased child benefi ts in Nord-Troms and Finnmark, settlement patterns in all the regions of the country. In the northernmost parts of Norway. the most recent government’s report on regional and In the debate on the future development of rural policies the government states that the citizens regional policy in Norway a discussion has been initiated should “be able to have real freedom when it comes on opting for a stronger focus on centre regions and to choosing where they want to live”9. The Ministry not only on rural and peripheral regions. Discussion on of Local Government and Regional Development infrastructure, e.g. high speed trains between the largest (Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet) is in charge of cities and enhanced focus on innovation policy are the coordination of regional and rural policies in other characteristics of the current debate in Norway. Norway. Most resources for regional development are channelled through the county councils (fylkeskommuner) and Innovation Norway (Innovasjon Norge) which is a Sweden: Policy for regional growth public company promoting industrial development When regional development policy was launched in through funding, internationalisation and competence 2001 the focus of regional policy shifted towards the development services for SMEs and new business contributions that each region could make to its own ventures. improvement though priority was still given to the Even though the focus in Norway is regions and weaker parts of the country. In 2007, the name of the areas with a low population density and long distances policy area changed from regional development policy to important markets, the centralisation tendencies to regional growth policy. This further strengthened the have been diffi cult to stop. Nevertheless, this situation focus on local and regional responsibility for economic is not dramatic thanks to immigration. Employment growth. Actors responsible for regional growth in is no longer the only decisive factor when it comes to their respective country such as county administration where people choose to live; good living conditions, boards, county councils or regional co-operative activities etc., are increasingly important. Infrastructure bodies are obliged to set up Regional Development is considered crucial in securing the possibility to Programmes (RDP). The aim of the RDPs is to settle down and live in all parts of the country. The create strategies for sustainable development in the local community is given priority and, therefore, the respective regions. The RDP is the overall strategy for importance of local government is underlined10. one or several regions on which the Structural Fund The responsibility of the county councils as regional programme, the Regional Growth Programmes (RGP) development actors has also gained importance in recent and other relevant programmes are based. The process years. In 2003 funding were delegated to the 19 county to set up RDPs is continuous and should involve both councils for regional development with regional plans public and private actors in a broad regional partnership. and regional partnerships as important elements. The The actors responsible for regional growth may also county councils’ responsibility for regional development develop Regional Growth Programmes (RGP) which became even more important with the structural reform are generally more operative programmes focused on implemented on 1st January promoting business development and growth.

9 St meld 25. 2008-2009; Lokal vekstkraft og framtidstru. Om distrikts- og regionalpolitikken, p.7 10 Ibid.

26 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 The ambition of the centre-right government USD 2.1 billion (approximately € 1.6 billion) from the during the period in offi ce 2006-2010 to focus on IMF. Additional loans of up to USD 3 billion have growth is refl ected in the reorganisation of the national been secured from the other Nordic countries, Russia, institutional structure11, resulting in the establishment and Poland. The IMF stand-by arrangement has the of two new state authorities the Swedish Agency for overarching goal of re-establishing confi dence in the Economic and Regional Growth (Tillväxtverket), with Icelandic economy with the main focus on stabilising responsibilities in the fi eld of regional growth policy, the exchange rate, rebuilding confi dence in monetary and the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis, policy and enabling the lifting of capital controls while (Tillväxtanalys), which is responsible for analysis, also reviewing and revising fi scal policy and undertaking statistical studies and evaluation aiming at promoting banking sector restructuring and the reform of the growth and competiveness in all parts of the country. insolvency framework The Swedish National Strategic Reference In April 2010 a two-thousand-page report Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013 coordinates the national on the Icelandic crisis was delivered to the Icelandic policy for regional development, the national labour Parliament, Althingi.13 The report shows that the assets market policy and EU cohesion policy12. The NSRF of Icelandic banks were extremely overrated and that is the overall document for implementation of EU the Financial Supervisory Authority FME, the Icelandic cohesion policy in Sweden and should provide directions Central Bank and leading politicians had failed to take for different regional programmes and activities. As any measures to prevent the banks from collapsing. Due a consequence of the economic crisis, the Swedish to rising unemployment and overall levels of economic government named regional coordinators initially in insecurity an increasing number of Icelandic people those regions particularly affected by the crisis and later have opted for migration, a large share of them to the in all regions of the country. The assignment of these other Nordic countries. The fi nancial crisis has also regional coordinators was to map the consequences of led to the emergence of a heightened level of distrust the crisis in each region, analyse the needs of the region among people in the fi nancial and political system. and present this to the government. The task was in After the crisis report was published the Icelandic most Swedish counties (regions) shared between the government appointed a commission of independent county governor and a political leader in the region, experts to investigate how public institutions should such as the head of the regional co-operative bodies. respond to the conclusions drawn in the report. The debate on joining the EU was also renewed in Iceland with the driving force of the debate centred Iceland: Bank collapse and a renewed on the question of joining the euro as a hedge against discussion on EU membership future fi nancial and economic crises. The two main During the past two years Iceland has experienced the political parties in Iceland, the Social Democratic Alliance most severe fi nancial crisis in the country’s history. In and the Independence Party represent opposite standpoints the autumn of 2008 the three largest banks in Iceland on the issue. After an intense debate where the Social collapsed following a rapid depreciation of the Icelandic Democrats argued in favour of EU membership and the krona in the fi rst half of 2008. This consequently led Independence Party against, the Parliament (Althinget) to a severe downturn in the Icelandic economy and decided to apply for membership. At the beginning of further depreciation of the currency. Foreign currency 2010 the European Commission recommended that the transactions were virtually suspended for weeks and EU initiate formal talks with Iceland on membership. capital controls are still in place. In addition to this the Even though Iceland already fulfi ls many of the criteria market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange for membership there are nevertheless a number of dropped by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, problems to be overcome before Iceland can become Iceland experienced a severe economic recession. The a full member. The Netherlands and the UK, both of Icelandic government decided to seek assistance from which have large claims on one of the fallen banks, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). On November Landsbankinn due to retail deposits, are in negotiation 19th 2008 the IMF approved Iceland’s request for a with the Icelandic government on the terms of the two year stand-by arrangement. Iceland will receive repayment of the deposit guarantees. This could impact the membership talks. 11 The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (NUTEK), The National Rural Development Agency (Glesbygdsverket) and The Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies (ITPS), were closed down. 12 Moxnes Steineke, Jon (2009) Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og 13 Report of the Special Investigation Commission (Chapter 2: sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working Summary of the Reports Main Conclusions), http://sic.althingi.is/, Paper 2009:2. downloaded 2010-07-09

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 27 Structures and reforms

Structural changes are generally based on changes in administration was established in Finland. In Iceland, a society’s demands. It may be changes in the political large number of small and often isolated municipalities structure, changes in demographics or economic remain and resistance to merging into larger entities is characteristics, or it may be due to new demands on still signifi cant. services. Structural changes, however, can also be based on a conscious process aiming at moving decisions closer to the population, or to centralize the decision Denmark: A regional reform, reducing the processes, in order to enable a situation where more regional mandate general rules and regulations may apply and be managed On 1st January 2007 the 14 counties, amter, were replaced unaffected by the local discourse. Finally there is also by 5 new administrative regions. The new regions are an economic dimension as administration based on an directly elected, but do not have tax-raising powers and “economic of scale” approach may provide savings are thus funded by the state and the municipalities. The by concentrating the activities on fewer units or levels. main responsibility of the new regions is health care. Very often the structural reforms are closely linked to a The reform process implied that several tasks, including reform of responsibilities and activities. secondary education and environmental issues were During the fi rst years of the new century there transferred from the regions to either the state or seemed to be a clear tendency towards a strengthening the municipalities. At the same time, the number of of the regional administrative level in the Nordic municipalities was reduced from 271 to 98. countries, especially in Sweden and Finland. Since then The new administrative regions have now existed however developments have taken a new direction. In for more than three years. The Danish regional reform Denmark, the creation of the fi ve new administrative process oversaw de facto weakening of the regions, as regions has in some respects reduced the importance several tasks were transferred to the state or to the of the regional level, as tasks have been transferred municipalities. The Danish regions also lost their right ‘down’ to the municipalities and back ‘up’ to the to levy taxes. The Danish structural reform process was state. The new regions do not have the right to levy a top-down political initiative and the implementation taxes but they do however still play a strategic role process was fast. It took less than fi ve years from when in regional development. In Norway, the regional the committee was appointed to investigate a new level lost an important part of its portfolio as health structure in 2002 to the implementation of the reform care was transferred from the county councils to the 1st January 2007. No long drawn out discussion was state in 2002. The structural reform in 2005 intended entered into before implementation. This can also be to strengthen the regional level by creating, on a considered a sign of the consensus that had already voluntary basis, new larger administrative regions. emerged around the notion of reform or at least as By the time that the reform was fi nally implemented signalling a basic lack of political opposition to it.14 in January 2010 however the original intentions were not accomplished. In Sweden, the regionalisation tendencies have been stronger, with the formalisation Norway: Debated reform, but an increased of the regional administrative experiments in Västra role for county councils Götaland and Skåne (självstyrelseorgan) and the creation In 2005, the left-centre coalition government in of 14 cooperative councils (samverkansorgan), taking over Norway launched an ambitious reform project tasks related to regional development from the state to redraw the administrative map of Norway and representative in the regions (länsstyrelser). The regional transfer responsibilities from the state to new larger reform proposal presented by the Committee of Public administrative regions. The aim was to abolish the Sector Responsibilities (Ansvarskommittén) in Sweden county councils replacing them with larger regions with in 2007 has been strongly supported by regional and greater responsibility for regional development. The local actors, but less so on the national level. In Finland, debate on where to draw the new borders between the large-scale structural reform and the amalgamation of regions was thus joined. The Norwegian Association municipalities began in 2005 though the effects of the of Local and Regional Authorities (KS) was strongly in reform process have not been deemed entirely positive. favour of this new reform. However, due to differences On the 1st of January 2010 a new regional state of opinion between and within the political parties, both

14 Aalbu, Hallgeir, Böhme, Kai and Uhlin, Åke (2008) Administrative reform – Arguments and Values, Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008: Report: 6, Nordregio.

28 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 on the national and the regional level, the decision was proved to be rather more diffi cult to reach. taken after all not to amalgamate counties and draw new In January 2009, almost two years after the reform borders. On January 1st 2010, the Norwegian regional proposal had been presented by the Committee of administrative reform was implemented, putting an Public Sector Responsibilities, the government agreed end to the 4-year political process. The administration to award permanent status to the two experimental reform maintains the multi-level organisation of the projects in Västra Götaland and Skåne in 2011. In this state, with politically-elected bodies at all three tiers. process, the same status will be awarded to Halland Thus, the county councils are maintained without any and Gotland. Applications to merge counties in the alterations to their current territorial division. northern and central parts of Sweden have been set The role of the county councils has been, and aside for further study. A new committee has now been remains, vigorously debated in Norway. In 2002, when given the task of looking for geographical solutions for specialist health care was transferred from the county these applications. councils to state-owned health care enterprises, its role In Stockholm there has been some reluctance as a welfare service provider decreased. Following the among local and regional politicians to establish a reform, some additional responsibilities were transferred ‘Stockholm region’. The creation of a joint region in from the national level to the county councils. Most the capital area with greater responsibility for regional signifi cantly, the county councils are now responsible development tasks has however recently attracted more for the management and maintenance of the regional support. road network. In addition, the county councils have The Swedish debate on formal structures for taken on coordination tasks in the public health area regional development issues have been dominated as well as in some new environmental issues (water and by two different views, one arguing that the state natural resource management). The county councils representative on the regional level, in the county have also been prepared to take on a more prominent administration boards (länsstyrelser), should handle role as a regional development agent by taking a 49% regional development, the other that regional stake in Innovation Norway. In addition, the county development should be the assignment of a directly- councils are coordinating seven newly established elected regional assembly. A third or intermediate regional research funds and will be board members of approach was also forwarded when the government the regional university colleges. The aim of the regional made it possible for municipalities to indirectly elected research funds is to encourage and support research and regional co-operative bodies (samverkansorgan) designed innovation for regional development. The resources to assume the tasks of regional development from the of the funds shall also contribute to the building and state representative in the region. Since 2007, new co- strengthening of highly competitive research centres in operative bodies have been established and are currently all Norwegian counties. active in 14 counties15 while in fi ve counties, county administration boards still has the main responsibility for regional development. The current situation in Sweden: Experimenting with different Sweden indicates that the infl uence of regional directly regional organisations or indirectly elected assemblies on regional growth In Sweden, the Committee of Public Sector policy has increased. Responsibilities (Ansvarskommittén) launched a report on a new regional structure in February 2007. The report suggested a model with new administrative regions Finland: Reorganising regional state (regionkommuner) covering a larger territory and new administration assignments. The experimental projects to develop After a period of minor reforms at the beginning of directly elected regional organisations (själstyrelseorgan) the 2000s, an extensive structural reform process in the form of county councils in Västra Götaland was launched in Finland in 2005. The reform aimed and Skåne served as a model for the structural reform at making the municipal structure more effi cient by proposal. A process began where the government encouraging municipal mergers. The consequences appointed a coordinator who was assigned to probe of the reform process have however been rather regional and local actors about how they wanted variable with the effects generally viewed as not wholly the reform process to proceed. Support by local and positive. In some cases existing cooperation between regional actors turned out to be massive but agreement pre-reform municipalities has disappeared or been over where to draw the borders between the new regions weakened when these municipalities were amalgamated.

15 In addition, the municipalities and the county council of Jämtland have decided to form a co-operative body for Jämtland from the 1st January 2011.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 29 Notwithstanding this, at the beginning of 2010 the the same time, Iceland can be characterised as a highly number of municipalities was reduced from 412 to 342. urbanised country where the capital region’s share of In 2008 the government launched a reform of population is about 75% when it is considered as a the regional state administration. This was known as travel-to-work area. the ALKU project. As a result, a signifi cant reform was In Iceland, local government tasks are more implemented in January 2010, when the provincial offi ces limited than in the other Nordic countries, as the and other state administrative bodies in the regions were municipal structure makes it more diffi cult to use abolished and replaced by two new types of authorities: the local government structure as a driver for welfare 15 Centres for Economic Development, Transport and delivery. The main share of the municipalities’ the Environment and six Regional State Administrative responsibilities involves the management of primary Agencies (EVY). The overall aim of the reform was education. In order to strengthen the responsibilities to bring assignments related to state control into one of the municipal level, the Icelandic government has organisation, making the regional administration more repeatedly encouraged municipal mergers, but until effi cient and client-friendly. An additional aim was to recently only with limited success. The parliament has transfer regional development tasks to the indirectly- maintained that amalgamations shall be voluntary and elected regional councils (maakunta liitot). The Finnish that any merger must have popular support in all of the two-level system (state-municipality) is strongly municipalities involved. In the smaller municipalities embedded in Finnish administrative culture and even in particular widespread resistance to change has though the issue has been discussed it is unlikely that a meant that it has been impossible to implement any third directly elected administrative level will be added. meaningful reform in relation to the current division of The weightiest argument in this regard is undoubtedly responsibilities between central and local government. that there is no need for a third level of administration Meanwhile, in recent years some amalgamations have in a country like Finland with only 5 million inhabitants. been carried out, as the 124 municipalities in the year It took some time before the restructuring reform of 2000 had been reduced to 78 by 2010, of which 16 have National Ministries in Finland settled down and it will a population of less than 200. now take even more time before the reform of the The Institute for Regional Development is the regional state administration is fully implemented. This main implementing authority in terms of regional policy might prove to be an obstacle to coordination between in Iceland. The Institute of Regional Development is the various actors involved an independent institution owned by the Icelandic state The Kainuu experimental project, which with the Minister of Industry as its managing authority. began in 2005, implied that a directly-elected regional The purpose of the Regional Development Institute assembly could be established in Kainuu, a region in is to work towards the strengthening of regional and East Finland with high unemployment. The primary economic development in Iceland outside the greater aim of the experimental project was to fi nd a solution Reykjavík area. to the diffi culties of the municipalities that are too small to be able to provide welfare services in an effi cient way. Evaluations show that the experiment has only Greenland and Faroe Islands: New had a minor impact on the development of the region. structural focus The strengthened role of the regional council when In relation to the municipal reform in Greenland the it comes to regional development was not, however, expressed intentions have focused on two overall fully implemented. Restructuring of services in the goals. In order to enable a delegation of responsibility experiment has nevertheless helped keep costs down and decisions to the regions, a choice has been made while spending on health care has actually been lower in to reduce the number of municipalities from 18 to 4, the Kainuu region than in the rest of the country. thus deliberately establishing fairly large units. Secondly, in order to enable the same level of delegation of responsibility to each of the new municipalities, Iceland: A fragmented structure at the neighbouring units have been merged in such a way that local level they have become population-wise reasonably similar Iceland has a two-tiered administrative system with sized units, with one exception, though: the Sermersooq the state and the municipalities as the only levels region encompassing the most populated town, the of administration. The Icelandic municipalities are capital of Nuuk, while also including municipalities in generally small in terms of population. The average both East and West Greenland. The other overall goal municipality has approximately 4,000 inhabitants. The of the structural reform has been a reduction in the smallest are agricultural communities without a village, economic overhead required by maintaining a large in some cases with a population of only 50 persons. At number of municipal governments, and to use the

30 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 savings as a basis for new services for the population. smaller units are more democratic because decision- Both before and after the reform work has been making is brought closer to those who are concerned. done in order to generate new structures enabling the On the other hand it is stressed that larger municipalities delegation of activities, and in terms of planning one and/or administrative regions are capable of handling of the key issues has been a total re-structuring of the more tasks. Larger units will allow a transfer of tasks physical planning system, where most of the activities from the state to the municipalities and/or the regions. formerly handled by the Home Rule Government have been transferred to the Municipalities. Several of the planning activities were previously duplicated, The second main driver behind the reforms is effi ciency. as the municipalities were generating their own plans, Larger units are expected to make the provision of for instance in relation to housing, land use etc. and welfare services more effi cient. The third driver is that then submitting them to the central government for larger units may have a positive effect on economic growth approval. Some general control mechanisms are still as larger units in theory have more resources to promote maintained, but basically it is the responsibility of each development in the region. The fi nal driver is that – as of the four municipalities to develop their own plans things currently stand - defi ciencies undoubtedly remain – of course still in accordance with national rules and in the reform processes: there is a need for more time, more regulations. Consequently a new, highly decentralised actors should be involved and legislation is needed. planning system has been inaugurated, and will be When it comes to the division of responsibilities challenged to stand the test of practical use over the between different levels in the political system the next few of years. main question is whether the state representative in the While the shift of focus in the planning debate region, a regionally elected assembly or municipalities in the Faroe Islands has been moved from Bygdamening in cooperation should be in charge. This is an ongoing (development of the villages) towards Økismening debate, especially in Norway and Sweden. The move (development of the regions), and some restructuring towards stronger regions is a general tendency in most of the municipal structure has taken place over the West European countries. The Nordic reform processes last couple of years, the huge difference in population might be compared to regionalisation processes in other size between the municipalities strongly limits the countries. The regionalisation tendencies in France and possibilities of delegating activities and responsibilities the establishment of Regional Development Agencies17 to the municipalities. The smallest municipalities are in England in 1999 are closer to the Nordic situation. unable to provide the required skills and knowledge, These processes, as in the Nordic countries, are the just as the economic sources needed are also lacking. result of a policy approach which seeks to strengthen As such, identifying the proper functions of the the role of the regions as actors in regional development. municipalities remains a question of creating the proper As shown above, the Nordic countries have taken social framework for the communities and functional different directions, even though the intentions of the management units for local activities, while more reform proposals were similar - to strengthen the role overarching planning ‘authority’ has, to some extent, of the administrative regions. The reform process in been delegated to the larger municipalities, while being, Denmark differs from the processes in Finland, Sweden primarily, maintained as a centralised activity. and Norway. In Denmark, a general opinion exists that implementation of the reform has been rather seamless. However, the management of hospitals, the most Concluding remarks important task of the new regions, is still criticised. The four main drivers of structural reform are given In Norway, Sweden and Finland, the process has been similar expression across the Nordic countries16. much slower with the ambition being to have a wide- Democracy is being used as an argument both in favour ranging debate, involving different actors. of and against reform. On the one hand it is argued that

17 The new centre-right government in the UK will abolish the RDAs in England. The argument is that business was more successful 16 Aalbu, Hallgeir, Böhme, Kai and Uhlin, Åke (2008) Administrative in the years before the establishment of RDAs than after but the reform – Arguments and Values, Nordic Research Programme abolishment of the RDAs is also part of the process of cutting the 2005-2008: Report: 6, Nordregio. budget deﬁ cit.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 31 The Evolution of Rural Development Policies

Rural development has not traditionally been addressed associations mobilised to make the voice of the as a policy fi eld in its own right in Denmark, Finland, countryside heard during the 1980s and 1990s. In Norway or Sweden18. After the Second World War, 1997 the fi rst national rural development initiative was politics in the Nordic countries was dominated by designed to support development initiatives at the local a concentration on building the welfare state while level. Recently the role of the village movement was the development of rural areas was seen to be in the enhanced when the local action groups (LAGs) were purview of ‘strong’ regional policy combined with strengthened in the implementation of the EU rural policies supporting the primary sector. development programme. With the EU accession of Denmark, and The state, the primary sector and civil society subsequently also some twenty years later of Finland have all taken part in shaping the rural development and Sweden, more attention was given to the issue of work that today mainly consists of support programmes rural development. Policies affecting rural areas, with for local development projects, combined with business a wider focus looking beyond agricultural activities, and environmental support to the agricultural sector. were implemented. In the same period rural areas were The content of rural policy in the broadest sense is also affected by the shifting focus of regional policy to some degree formulated through a fundamentally away from regional balance towards a greater focus ‘agricultural-based’ approach. It may be argued that on competitiveness and regional growth as well as by Danish rural policy’s aims and approaches are somewhat increased competition between places. This imposed a limited because of this ‘agricultural hegemony’, but the new set of challenges for policies aiming at the further administrative reform process has undoubtedly brought development of rural areas. forth new tasks for the municipalities, including Since 1945 the Danish strategy has shifted planning responsibilities in respect of rural areas. The from supporting national redistribution and welfare ongoing changes in rural areas are no longer exclusively service provision to a greater focus on grassroots anchored in agriculture, and agriculture is no longer the developments. Swedish politics have shifted from a concentric core of Danish ‘rurality’. focus on regional equalisation policy to the creation of The Danish Rural Development Programme competitiveness based on the endogenous strengths now squares with important societal needs and of each region combined with support to the primary addresses real societal problems. The strategy and sector for securing public goods, such as environmental. goals are also in line with EU priorities in terms of In Finland rural development politics have gained both the Gothenburg Declaration on sustainability acceptance over the last twenty years. Finland is today and the Lisbon Declaration on economic growth and characterised by a holistic view of rural areas and by employment. This is clearly stated in the programme’s the search for a coherent policy covering a number objectives, which emphasise innovation and promote of administrative sectors. In contrast, distinguishing new earning potential, while still focusing on preserving it from the other larger Nordic countries, Norway has natural assets. The programme also has the potential to attempted to maintain established settlement patterns – bestow signifi cant economic effects in rural areas in the and continues to do so. form of new employment and businesses opportunities and increased innovation. Innovativeness is particularly well presented in most of the measures in the Rural Denmark Development Programme. The Danish welfare state developed after the Second World War supported decentralisation and aimed at distributing the wealth of the country evenly between Finland places and people. This idea was further strengthened by The 1960s and 1970s saw a period of heavy national and municipal reforms in the 1970s and, until urbanisation and structural change in Finland. This recently, signs of convergence between the different gave rise to the fi rst measures directed at peripheral regions could be seen. areas, concerning fi elds beyond agriculture. In addition, The so-called ‘village movement’ was fi rst to a more holistic approach highlighting the desirability draw attention to the need for a more explicit rural of conceptualising rural areas as entities composed of development policy in Denmark, a policy which nature, people and different activities emerged in the went beyond regional and agricultural policies. Local 1970s and 1980s. These changes also gave rise to the

18 Hedström, M. (2010), Politics of Nordic rural development. Journal of Nordregio No. 2 September. Volume 10. 2010

32 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Finnish village movement, which remains today one of Nordic countries, Norwegian national policies remain the cornerstones of the country’s rural development to a greater extent focused on adapting to the situation policy. in the different regions of the country through the As in Denmark, rural policy emerged as a policy strong tools available to it for fi nancial redistribution. fi eld in its own right in the 1990s; in 1991 a fi rst rural The political debate in Norway has, over the development programme defi ned the initial tools for last fi fty years, been dominated by two camps; one rural development. In the same period a national rural promoting decentralised growth and local development policy committee with representatives from a number initiatives, the other promoting policies focusing on the of different administrative sectors was created. The provision of infrastructure and growth centres. Current rural policy system has since then expanded, and today policies are a mix of the two, but the focus is still to consists of both a broad policy, outlining the direction, some extent placed on avoiding centralisation and and a narrow policy, containing different project enabling the existing settlement patterns to continue. support measures. This is designed to ensure cross- cutting territorial rural development at all levels19. The key focus here has long been about enabling Sweden rural areas, including remote areas, to keep pace with A strong welfare state policy dating back to the 1950s, a urban areas. Finnish rural policy was outlined within redistributive regional policy and a well developed local the context of national regional policy, drawing public sector have helped for many years to minimise attention to its intersecting dimension and underlining urban-rural disparities in Sweden. Specifi c policies a distinct differentiation with agricultural policy. The supporting the primary sector did initially exist, but had strengthened institutionalisation of broad rural policy been phased out by the 1990s. On reappearing after has been emphasised through regional policy. In recent EU accession in the context of the CAP, public interest years, however, regional policy has, as elsewhere, in payments to farmers remained low. The policy only focused increasingly on competitiveness. gained public acceptance when it was clearly designed On the other hand, narrow rural policy, i.e. to support farming activities with positive effects on development projects implemented through the Rural environmental and other public goods. Development Programme was, on the basis of the In the 1970s the welfare state model started to implementation of EU rural policy, placed within the weaken, partly in the wake of increased globalisation Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. This arrangement and the infl uence of neo-liberalism .One result was a has caused some tension between agricultural and rural gradual change in regional policies, from redistribution development policies since they often compete over towards competitiveness and endogenous growth. priorities and resources. The aim of achieving regional balance in economic development was thus largely superseded. In the late 1980s policy started to attach more importance to Norway local village associations and community initiatives. The Norwegian welfare state was developed after 1945, “Regional enlargement”; increasing labour markets, has while the country recovered through economic growth also attracted more interest as a tool for sustaining rural based on the transfer of labour from the primary sector areas20. to industries in more urban settings. The fi rst actions The focus of regional policy in Sweden has shifted to reverse the relative decline of rural areas came in from equalisation and compensation towards improving 1961 when a public fund was established to prevent regional competitiveness. This is not necessarily negative the loss of rural jobs and depopulation. However, the for agriculture. It may strengthen the competitiveness term ‘rural’ was then, and is still, not used. Instead, of rural businesses and thereby contribute to enhancing such policies used the term districts. Over time specifi c the economic vitality of the countryside. The Rural policies for agriculture, fi sheries and businesses were Development Programme does not substitute for the developed with the aim of creating a balance between absence of rural policy in the Swedish countryside. On rural and urban areas. the other hand, the stronger position of rural policy In the 1960s and 1970s the development of has not been regarded as important in Sweden, since infrastructure and industry, as well as the decentralisation regional policy and the distribution of welfare services of higher education, was high on the rural policy are expected to provide for all economic and social agenda. Since the 1980s competitiveness, deregulation needs in rural areas. However, regional policy and the and the development of regional urban centres once distribution of welfare services have not yet converged again became the main focus. Compared with the other in terms of rural needs in Sweden. To address these

19 Kahila, P. (2009), Deliverable Deliverable 1.1 Country proﬁ le on 20 Kahila, P., Steineke, Moxnes. J. and Copus, A. C. (2009), Deliverable rural characteristics, Finland, RuDI project. 2.2 National report on RD policy design Sweden, RuDI project.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 33 needs, in 2009, the Swedish Government presented a ‘bottom up’ management of rural policy, based on a Rural Development Strategy with the aim of delivering strong and powerful democratic local government, a measures across a wide range of policy areas with the relative equality between citizens and an active process objective being to make it easier for people to live, work of citizen engagement. Nevertheless two factors and start a business in rural areas. continue to complicate the implementation of rural policy in the Nordic countries. Firstly, local government reforms have in some cases weakened local engagement Concluding remarks in rural development work. And secondly, the weight From a broader European perspective, rural policies of agricultural policy is still stronger than rural policy, in the Nordic countries are characterised by an inter- i.e. activities and sources of livelihood which are not sectoral approach at the regional and, especially also, directly linked to agriculture have not gained more at the local level. Signiﬁ cant focus remains on the attention in policy making.

34 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Cross-Border Interactions

Introduction

Cross-border cooperation is an important means to cooperation and ﬁ nancing their projects, and these achieve the overall EU aim of economic and social programmes are interrelated to the overall aim of cohesion across the EU. At the core of Nordic and enabling regional development in border regions. In European cooperation lies cooperation activities across this respect, the previous INTERREG-programmes borders, regional as well as national, and a wide range have paved the way for EU level funding for the Nordic of programmes are at work in the Nordic and Baltic cross-border regions, while more recent initiatives, countries in this respect, some of which have been such as the European Grouping of Territorial ongoing for a long period of time (Nordic cross- Cooperation (EGTC), also point to the continuous border cooperation), some which are a continuation of attention given to cross-border regions. Most recently previous programmes (for example the INTERREG the working programme of the Nordic Committee Community Initiatives), and others which are of a of Senior Ofﬁ cials for Regional Policy recognised this more recent vintage (the Baltic Sea Region Strategy). interdependent relationship between EU and Nordic These programmes vary in geographic scope, available initiatives when stating that: funding, political grounding and backing, aim, thematic content and desired process. “Active utilisation of the old, well-established cross- The large number of programmes and initiatives border cooperation network and the potential for – often geographically overlapping both in terms of integration should promote the competitiveness and geographic scope and participating actors - might seem visibility of the Nordic region as a pioneer in EU to bring about a messy ‘reality’ for the Nordic countries, cross-border territorial policy” (Nordic regional policy but it can also be viewed as a multilevel approach to cooperation programme 2009-2012, p. 57) regional development. One positive outcome of these multiscalar (multilevel) cross-border activities is that In this chapter we shall explore some of the major there is a multitude of programmes in place to assist contributions to cross-border organisation-building and the local, regional and national actors in building activity currently operating in the Nordic countries.

Continuous development of Nordic cross-border cooperation

Nordic cross-border cooperation has a long history; their current organisational form in the 1990s. However, beginning as early as the 1960s when transnational both of these base their operations on previous coordination organisations were set up to strengthen organisations in the cross-border region. the integration of the Nordic region across national Recently, NCM fi nancing of the Nordic cross- borders. Of the current 11 Nordic cross-border border committees underwent an important change committees, eight have previously had the status of when, in 2009, the Nordic Council of Ministers being the permanent organisation through which the changed their conditions for cross-border fi nancing Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM) carried out their in an attempt to open the funding option up for integration work in terms of cross-border territories. other cross-border cooperation organisations in the Two of these eight cross-border committees can trace Nordic countries. The intention of NCM was to invite their origin back to the 1960s; another four were set new recipients, as well as to induce a more dynamic up during the 1970s and 1980, while the remaining two approach to the available funding, as the funding went – NORA and Øresundskomiteen – were established in from being fi xed to being application-based. All cross-

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 35 border cooperation organisations now have to apply listed in Table 1. for funding, at minimum every third year, and in the Although three additional cross-border ﬁ rst application round of the new procedure a total of committees were new under NCM auspices only one 11 Nordic cross-border committees received funding. was an actual new cross-border organisation, namely Eight of these were the original Nordic cross-border TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna. Tornedalsrådet and committees, while another three received funding from Bothnian Arc were established already in 1987 and NCM for the ﬁ rst time. The 11 current committees are 2002, respectively.

Table 1: Nordic Cross-border committees, 2010

Organisation Countries Members Established

ARKO Norway-Sweden Municipal actors 1967

Bothnian Arc Sweden-Finland Regional and municipal 1999 actors

Kvarkenrådet Sweden-Finland Regional and municipal 1972 actors

Mittnordenkomiteen Norway-Sweden-Finland Regional actors 1977

NORA Greenland, Faroe Islands, National and regional 1996 Iceland, and west-Norway actors

Nordkalottrådet Norway-Sweden-Finland Regional actors 1967

Skærgårdssamarbejdet Sweden-Finland Regional actors 1978

Tornedalsrådet Norway-Sweden-Finland Municipal actors 1987

TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna Norway-Sweden Regional actors 2008

Øresundskomiteen Denmark-Sweden Regional and municipal 1993 actors

Østfold-Bohuslän/ Norway-Sweden Regional and municipal 1980 Dalsland actors

The 11 Nordic cross-border committees are located Geographical differences throughout the Nordic region (cf. Figure 1) and this, The regions that the Nordic cross-border committees together with differences in organisational structures, cover vary from quite small areas, such as Østfold- makes them quite different from each other. However, Bohuslän/Dalsland at approximately 9 500 km², to since they all work towards the same aim – regional vast areas, such as the North Calotte Council, which development of the cross-border region – they also covers three large regions in the north (310 000 km²), have some resemblances in terms of the thematic areas and NORA, which covers a total ice free land mass in of their activities, the process of work and the roles excess of 720 000 km², plus an even larger marine area undertaken in this process. between the Member States.

36 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 In addition, the border regions vary from regions those with a more recent start date can often trace their dominated by metropolitan areas, such as the Öresund organisation further back. One such example is NORA, Committee with both Copenhagen and Malmö in its which was established on the basis of the earlier region and a population density of 185 inhabitants/km², “Vestnordensamarbejde” (West Nordic Partnership), to peripherally situated areas with a very low population another is Tornedalsrådet, which was established in density, such as Tornedalsrådet, with a population 1987 by amalgamating two earlier organisations in density of only 1.5 inhabitants/km². the region. Only TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna is a new Furthermore, the geographical locations organisation that is currently seeking to consolidate of the individual border region committees mean its existence, both in its region and within the wider that the number of national administrative systems network of Nordic cross-border activities. involved varies from two (e.g. Norway/Sweden in The longstanding tradition of cross-border ARKO and Sweden/Finland in the Bothnian Arc and collaboration in most regions means that the cross- Kvarkenrådet), to three (Norwegian-Swedish-Finnish in border committee has been able to consolidate its the North Calotte Council and Mid Nordic Comitte), to position as the natural anchor organisation for the 4–5 for an organisation such as NORA, which has to region’s cross-border collaboration. Conversely, the interact with the administrative echelons of Greenland, long history can also mean that some cross-border Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and, to some extent, committees have had to evaluate their purpose from Denmark in the course of its work. time to time and perhaps even revitalise collaboration. These differences in geographical scope have Revitalisation may be necessary in order to re-engage implications in terms of how cohesively the region is the member organisations or to identify a new, shared perceived – both internally and externally – and also vision of where collaboration is supposed to lead. creates different working conditions for a cross-border Another organisational difference with a very committee that seeks to serve the entire area it covers. real impact on the day-to-day workings of the cross- More specifi cally, these geographical differences affect border committees is their resources – the number of which problem areas the regions work with. Several staff in their secretariats, fi nances, and opportunities border region committees cover peripheral areas for external project involvement. The size of the (nationally and internationally) and, as a result, topics cross-border committee secretariats ranges from one- such as depopulation, lack of educational opportunities person secretariats (Skærgården, ARKO), to secretariats and expensive infrastructure projects to service a rather with a few employees (Østfold-Bohuslän/Dalsland, small population characterise the political challenges in Kvarkenrådet, Mid Nordic Committe), to NORA the region. At the other end of the scale are the dense which, in addition to a small main secretariat on the commuter belts where a topic such as minimising Faroe Islands, also has liaison offi cers in the other border obstacles for these commuters is an important member countries. The Öresund Committee has by far work area for the cross-border committee. the largest secretariat, with a staff of ten, and in addition it serves as the host organisation for the secretariats of INTERREG in the Öresund Region (9 employees) and Organisational differences the Danish part of ØresundDirekt (6 employees). The cross-border committees are also wide-ranging in Secretariat sizes depend to some extent on the their organisational structure and history, which affects fi nances of the committee in question. One committee their traditional areas of operation, and the purpose for operates primarily on NCM funds (the North Calotte which the organisation was set up. Council), whereas the vast majority of committees The member organisations in the individual also receive substantial fi nancial subsidies from their cross-border committees come from different political member organisations. levels – from purely municipal composite organisations With regard to external project involvement the (ARKO, Tornedalsrådet), to committees comprising structure of project management varies widely. NORA representatives of both the municipal and the regional and the North Calotte Council have annual grants and administrative level (Öresund, Kvarkenrådet), to cross- dedicated application procedures, and, by prioritising border committees such as the North Calotte Council areas for applications, thus infl uence and also often and Mid Nordic Committee which also involve regional coordinate activities in the border region. Tornedalsrådet organisations, such as chambers of commerce as formal and TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna are currently involved in partners within their organisation. INTERREG projects while the remaining cross-border As mentioned, the organisations also vary widely committees’ project involvement ranges from projects in terms of history. Most of the committees have a long they host to projects they have chosen to co-fi nance. history of collaboration behind them, both the old ones that were established in the 1960 and 1970s, but even

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 37 Similarities in themes and approaches formed between companies and business organisations, Despite the apparent differences described above, the but also social networks among the youth, networks Nordic Cross-border committees also share a number involving institutions of learning, and networks in the of similarities. First of all, the main purpose of all energy sector are notable examples of unifying action cross-border committees is to contribute to increased areas. These networks may be established as part of a growth and the development of the individual border specifi c project, but all cross-border committees also regions. This concept of development is rooted in the organise seminars, meetings, conferences, fairs, etc., expectation that dynamic and well-integrated regions which serve as meeting platforms for regional actors will be able to retain and attract companies and people, and thus also serve to create networks. as bigger regions have a better foundation in terms of Expansion of existing, and/or the establishment resources for growth and development, and because of new, infrastructure is another theme that is of each region has the potential for further development. importance for both peripheral as well as more centrally Thus, all border regions have the same overall task: to located cross-border regions. It can involve lobbying break down physical and mental border obstacles within for national funding and awareness of the need for their region and to encourage member organisations, improving or establishing roads and railway lines, but collaboration partners, residents, politicians, companies, priority is also given to maintaining and establishing etc., to look beyond national boundaries when air and ferry services. Infrastructure also includes IT addressing the region’s potential for development. infrastructure which is a topic of particular importance Furthermore, despite the various geographical for the peripheral regions. starting points, there are similarities in the overall The cross-border committees are all situated in themes that are addressed, as well as in the approach part or in whole in scenic regions making nature and to these themes. The way the cross-border committees tourism obvious focal areas. The activities within this carry out the work within each theme varies over time. theme range from creating networks among businesses Similarly, not all organisations address the same topics. in the tourism sector to participating in development This depends on the chosen focal areas of the member projects with the aim of creating new attractions in order organisations, as well as other project initiatives in the to increase tourism. Some cross-border committees region. Nevertheless, most of the following themes are work more generally to protect nature in their region, addressed by the cross-border committees to a varying for example by driving the process of inclusion of degree. valuable areas on the UNESCO World Heritage list. Business development is a natural focus for Reinforcing regional identity and culture is all cross-border committees, since economic growth another important function for just about all the is essential to regional development. The individual cross-border committees while the initiatives for and cross-border committees deal with this differently purposes of the projects are many and varied. This – depending on the availability of potential and includes strengthening regional minority cultures, such collaboration partners – but job creation is absolutely as the Sami culture, or historical ties to Finland; running vital to all eleven cross-border regions. The different a complete cultural programme with annual culture days approaches include: dismantling the legislative border and festivals, or publicising cultural institutions and obstacles that prevent companies and commuters in events on both sides of the border. the border region from being active on both sides of Dismantling border obstacles that render cross- the border; fi nancing product development projects in border collaboration and mobility more diffi cult is signifi cant sectors of the region; or organising annual a vital task for all the border region committees. The business fairs for companies in the border region. committees often refer to the mental border obstacles Since the cross-border committees are as the greatest barriers, and all initiatives that involve themselves a network of their member organisations, parties on both sides of the border help to a large network building is an absolutely fundamental activity extent to remove this blind spot regarding the potential for all of them. Above all, the existence of cross- of cross-border cooperation. Border obstacles can also border committees means that a political, and often be understood in a more literal sense as legislative or also administrative, network has been created between administrative border obstacles that prevent or limit the member organisations, a network which is used the opportunities of citizens and companies to operate in working on all of the topics that each individual freely across Nordic borders. cross-border committee has enshrined in its articles of Working within these remits contributes overall to association and action plans. Secondly, a majority of the economic and social development of the individual cross-border committees also regard it as a signifi cant border regions, but several cross-border committees task to build networks among other players on both also put a special focus on producing dedicated sides of the border. Often, business networks are strategic planning for the region. Several of the cross-

38 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 border committees are helping to coordinate local and new committee can appear if they have the opportunity regional plans at a higher strategic level while most of to establish a formal cooperation committee. the infrastructure projects are also closely linked to the The partners involved in the Nordic cross-border strategic potential of border regions. committees have changed slightly over the previous decades. Where the original cross-border committees often consisted of municipal cooperation actors, a Changes in the Nordic cross-border tendency has emerged in terms of the regionalisation committees of cross-border cooperation – probably due to the What is important to bear in mind is that despite most strong EU focus on “regional” cooperation. The latest of the cross-border committees’ long history, a cross- cooperation initiatives that have attained funding for border committee is never a stable entity. Building a their activities from the Nordic Council of Ministers cross-border region is a constant process where the are TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna; Bothinan Arc; and commitment, and perhaps even the formal membership Tornedalsrådet, all of which cover more extensive areas of the committee, must be reinforced. This of course than, for instance, ARKO which to this day remains a happens through the ongoing development of and small municipal cooperation organisation. Participation involvement in projects, working groups, political goals in the INTERREG-programmes has strengthened the etc., but also more concretely when wishing to expand cooperation abilities of the regional level just as the the cross-border committee to neighbouring regions speciﬁ c projects and activities have often had a regional and municipalities. Thus the geography of the Nordic rather than a local focus. cross-border committees’ changes over time, just as a

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 39 Figure 1: Location of the Nordic cross-border committees that receive funding from NMR in 2009

40 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 European cross-border and transnational cooperation programmes

A long-term focus on regional development has been Cross-border cooperation programmes promote one of the core activities of the EU as it is seen as a projects whose partnership is constituted by partners means to achieving the overall EU aim of economic and coming from two or more member states and who are social cohesion across the European Union. Regional located in the border area. There are 52 cross-border policy plays an important role in reducing regional programmes in Europe, eight of which are located disparities with the European Regional Development in the Nordic region. Whether the challenges in the Fund (ERDF) making up one part of the EUs Structural cross-border regions relate to infrastructure, to markets Funds. ERDF funding makes up the bulk of fi nancing and services, or to cultural and linguistic barriers, the for cross-border activities in the Nordic countries. cross-border cooperation programmes are intended to address them. Thus the issues dealt with in the programme include encouraging entrepreneurship, the European Territorial Cooperation objective joint management of natural resources, supporting The INTERREG initiative commenced in 1989 and is links between urban and rural areas, improving access fi nanced under the European Regional Development to transport and communication networks, developing Fund (ERDF). It was launched as INTERREG I for joint use of infrastructure, and promoting employment. the programming period 1989–1993, and continued as The transnational cooperation programmes aim INTERREG II for the subsequent period 1994–1999. to promote cooperation and better integration among It moved on to INTERREG III for the period 2000– large groups of European regions which have similar 2006, with projects from this programming period characteristics. The programme enables regions from closing by the end of 2008. The European Territorial several EU member states to coordinate a strategic Cooperation objective is the new programme period response to, for example, accessibility, the environment, for what was previously termed the INTERREG innovation, and sustainable urban develop ment. Thus, Community Initiative. This fourth programme, which issues covered include telecommunication networks, runs for the period 2007-2013, is currently midway. fl ood management, international business and research The aim of both the previous INTERREG linkages, and polycentric development. There are 13 initiatives and the current European Territorial transnational cooperation programmes; 3 of which Cooperation objective is to stimulate interregional involve Nordic countries. cooperation in the European Union and, similarly to Finally, the interregional cooperation most Cohesion Policy measures projects within these programmes aim to promote the exchange and transfer programmes require co-funding to be provided by of knowledge and best practices among European the Member States, regional authorities or the project regions. As such it functions at the pan-European leaders themselves. The amount of co-funding required level, covering all 27 member states. The intention differs by region, ranging from 50% down to 0% in the is to build networks to develop good practice and poorest regions. The objective involves collaboration showcase what regions do well for the benefi t of those among authorities of two or more Member States, and still learning. Under this banner, the INTERREG IV are not only required to demonstrate a positive impact C programme as well as three additional networking on the development on either side of the border but programmes can be found. The INTERREG IV C their design and their implementation must be carried programme enables EU regions to work together on out on a common cross-border basis. The benefi ciaries two priority areas: innovation and the knowledge of the objective are usually public authorities, interest economy; and environment and risk prevention. The associations and non-profi t organisations, such as three networking programmes are: URBACT II which chambers of commerce, employer organisations, brings together actors at local and regional level to unions or research institutes. In the new programme exchange experience and to facilitate learning on period, private fi rms are eligible if they apply through urban themes; ESPON (the European Spatial Planning a consortium of several fi rms; in previous programme Observation Network) which provides scientifi c periods they were not eligible. information for the development of regions and larger The European Territorial Cooperation territories through applied research, analysis and tools; initiative covers three types of programmes: cross- and the INTERACT II programme which provides border cooperation, transnational cooperation, and training, services and tools to programme managers interregional cooperation. and administrators of cooperation programmes.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 41 Table 2: European Territorial Cooperation, ongoing programmes, 2010

Eligible Nordic countries1 Total programme Programme name budget (in ISL/ NO SE FI DK millions of €) FO/ GL

Transnational cooperation programmes

Baltic Sea Region programme € 293 XXXX

Northern Periphery programme € 59 XXXX

North Sea Region programme € 134 XX X

Cross-border cooperation programmes

North programme € 57 XXX

Botnia-Atlantica programme € 61 XXX

Sweden-Norway programme € 68 XX

Central Baltic programme € 136 XX

South Baltic programme € 75 XX

Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak € 223 XX X

Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N. € 69 X

Fehmarnbelt programme (Denmark- € 31 X Germany programme)

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/index_en.cfm

European Neighbourhood and Partnership long-term twinning arrangements with member states Instrument or participation in EU programmes and agencies. In addition to the internal European interregional and A specifi c and innovative feature of the instrument transnational programmes the EU has set up a number of is its cross-border cooperation component. Under this programmes that target cooperation along the external component, the ENPI will fi nance joint programmes borders of Europe: The European Neighbourhood bringing together regions of member states and partner and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The ENPI targets countries sharing a common border. The approach sustainable development and approximation to EU used here is similar to that taken within the European policies and legislation, and improves the EUs capacity Territorial Cooperation objective with partnerships and to support cross-border cooperation along the EUs co-fi nancing. The cross-border cooperation component external borders – thus giving substance to the aim of of the ENPI is also co-fi nanced by the ERDF. avoiding new dividing lines. The ENPI has replaced the The Nordic countries close proximity to Russia previous instruments of MEDA and TACIS, and the obviously makes this an interesting programme for current programme runs from 2007-2013. regions bordering Russia, particularly in Norway The ENPI is a policy driven instrument that and Finland. With a total budget of €12 billion, this operates in the framework of the existing bilateral programme is yet another way to fi nance cross-border agreements between the EU and the neighbouring activities and also enhance the necessity to cooperate countries. Legislative approximation, regulatory with Russia. There are three ENPI programmes convergence and institution building are supported applicable to the Nordic region, cf. Figure 2. through mechanisms such as the exchange of experience,

42 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Box: European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation The European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) is a new EU legal instrument established in 2006 to enhance and create better conditions for cross-border cooperation throughout the EU. Partners in an EGTC can be member states, regional and local authorities, associations and any other public bodies. The EGTC instrument differs from previous regulations of cross-border cooperation as it makes it possible to create a legal entity across national borders that can own property and have employees. The establishment of an EGTC must be agreed upon by the national governments of each country from where there are partners. The establishment of an EGTC does not require that an international agreement is made by the national parliaments. An EGTC must consist of partners from at least two EU member countries but partners from non-EU member states can also join in if an international agreement is made in relation to their participation.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 43 Figure 2: Current EU programmes in the Nordic region

44 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 The Challenge of Cross-Border Statistics

With the increase in cross-border commuting in recent during the period 2004-2007) was a database containing years an increased level of demand for statistical data on cross-border data for the region from the period 2001- the cross-border labour market has emerged. The local 2006. The project owners were the regional planning and regional labour markets along the Nordic national organisations and it was co-fi nanced by regional borders increasingly spill across those borders creating organisations as well as municipalities and sectoral a need for cross-border statistics on commuter patterns authorities. The partners are currently applying for and other basic statistical measures, such as household further funding to continue the update and development incomes, that are not registered in the national databases. of the database. National statistics display some often signifi cant Other work that has addressed the issue of cross- shortcomings in attempting to gain a clearer picture border commuting statistics is the Nordic Commuter of the border regions. A general problem here is that Maps (Nordiska Pendlingskartan), which describe the national statistics only register data that occurs within commuter fl ows in all Nordic countries. This project national borders. A cross-border commuter who is is fi nanced by the Nordic Council of Ministers, and registered as living in Sweden will, for example, not the reports are created in cooperation between the have his income from across the border registered in four Nordic statistical offi ces, with Statistics Sweden as the same register, which results in too low a level of the coordinator. The fi rst report was initiated when it household income. became clear from the fi rst stages of the Örestat project Since the register-based employment statistics in that it was possible to fi nd a method that could illustrate Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland are similarly these cross-border patterns. It was published in 2005 – built up, it is possible to identify individuals that live based on data from 2001. The report was followed up in one country and work in another by running cross- with new reports in 2007 (2004 data), 2008 (2005 data) checks in all national registers. Several initiatives have and 2009 (2006 data). Another report is due at the end been taken to shed light on the missing statistical of 2010, based on 2008 data. However, this last one will parameters in the border regions. This illustrates how not include Finland. several actors with different funding sources have Simultaneously, with the development of the attempted to solve a common problem. regional databases, a number of regional and local To be able to follow the effect of the building of authorities and organisations question why they have to the Öresund Bridge, Örestat was one of the fi rst projects pay for producing statistics needed for planning, which to address the topic of cross-border commuting. It is freely available for non-border regions. In the autumn originated as two INTERREG IIIA projects (Örestat of 2008, the Nordic Council of Ministers decided to I during the period 1998-2001 and Örestat II during give the statistical offi ces of Denmark, Norway and the period 2002-2005), in a cooperative venture Sweden the task of constructing a Nordic statistical between Statistics Denmark and Statistics Sweden. database – StatNord – with the aim of presenting Region Skåne was the lead partner in partnership with cross-border statistics in respect of migration and City of Copenhagen and with fi nancial contributions labour markets in the Nordic countries. The work of from other regional and local stakeholders. Statistics on producing comparable statistics from all three national cross-border commuting in the Öresund region were frameworks begun in late 2008 and on the 30th produced for the period 1997-2003 and a database – November 2009 the new database was launched. Since Öresundsdatabanken – was set up and made available on the launch, further discussion on the development and the internet. Since the end of the INTERREG project future fi nancing of a continued update of the database periods, the Örestat database continues to be updated. has taken place. Sweden is currently fi nancing the In Denmark this work has become a permanent task of upkeep of the database and is prepared to continue Statistics Denmark, while the Swedish contribution is to do so in addition to fi nancing their part of the data seen as a regional responsibility, and thus Region Skåne development; Norway has committed to fi nance their is responsible for the fi nancing. data part, while Denmark is questioning their need for A similar project was subsequently carried additional cross-border statistics other than those that out in the Swedish-Norwegian border region of are developed in the context of the Örestat database. Västra Götaland-Østfold, where the outcome of the Finland was not part of the initial development process INTERREG-project ‘Gränslöst Samarbete’ (running and is currently not interested in participating.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 45 The status of the cross-border commuting The Öresund region accounts for the majority of in the Nordic countries Swedish-Danish cross-border commuting and is also the Cross-border commuting has steadily increased since the most intensive border region with regard to commuting fi rst quantifi cation of the total number of cross-border in the Nordic countries. In 2006 approximately 13 500 commuters in Norden was made in 2001. In the fi rst individuals commuted across the Öresund, with the Nordic commuter map from 2001, 25 400 individuals fl ow going from Malmö municipality to Copenhagen were classifi ed as cross-border commuters, defi ned as municipality being the most intensive, about 4 100 having their residence in one Nordic country and their commuters. Another 3 600 commuted from Malmö to main workplace in another. In 2006, this number had other parts of Eastern Denmark. increased to a total of 44 000 individuals21. Between Sweden and Norway the pattern is In the period from 2005 to 2006 alone the total more complex. Within the region of the ‘Gränslöst number of cross-border commuters in the Nordic samarbete’ – the region of Västra Götaland in Sweden countries increased by 23%; representing approximately and some municipalities in Østfold and Akershus an additional 8 000 individuals. Swedish commuters regions in Norway – 1 000 individuals commute across accounted for the majority of this increase – 87% or 7 the border. Oslo draws commuters from numerous 000 commuters – while Danish and Finnish commuters parts of Sweden. Approximately 5 770 Swedes commute to Sweden made up the remaining 13%. to Oslo with the largest fl ow coming from Göteborg, Commuting from Sweden to Denmark or about 400 cross-border commuters, which means that Norway is the major commuter fl ow, making up 75% the Oslo in-commuters originate from a large number of total cross-border commuting traffi c. Norway has by of Swedish municipalities. far the largest number of in-commuters, about 19 500 The commuter fl ows between Sweden and individuals, and relatively few out-commuters, about Finland are also increasing even if the numbers are 2 700 individuals, which results in an in-commuting not as dramatic. In the border area of ‘Tornedalen’ surplus of approximately 16 800. Denmark follows in the North of Sweden and Finland, approximately in second place with an in-commuting surplus of 10 530 individuals commuted across the border in both 200 commuters. Sweden is the main provider of cross- directions. The fl ow is larger from Sweden to Finland border labour, with a net surplus of out-commuters of and the largest fl ows went between the municipalities 25 600 individuals, while Finland has only a net total of of Haparanda in Sweden and Tornio in Finland. 1 400 out-commuters, cf. Figure 3.

21 According to the Nordic commuter map 2009

46 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 3: Commuting between the Nordic countries (2006 ﬁ gures)

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 47 A Macro-Regional Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region

June 2009 saw the adoption of a major strategic policy of time, if established attempts at regionalisation are document on the territorial future of the Baltic Sea perceived as being no longer successful. This might, at Region (BSR): The European Union Strategy for the least to some extent, be the case in respect of macro- Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). This document sets the regional strategies, since they try to introduce ‘new framework for the adoption of a number of jointly regions’ by bringing together different stakeholders agreed points of departure designed to strengthen with an interest in responding to certain transnational territorial and thus transnational cooperation around challenges (for example polluted oceans, innovation the Baltic Sea. This marked the beginning of the EUs transfer, security issues) with specifi c pre-defi ned implementation of a macro-regional strategy, since it was projects and actions. subsequently also announced that this strategic policy With regard to policy it is critical how macro- paper for the BSR may be viewed as a forerunner for regions are mobilised to assume (political) power the implementation of further macro-regional strategies in order to better shape and negotiate ‘their futures’. across the European Union22. At the current time of In particular, ‘macro’-regions demand the discursive writing (September 2010) a so-called ‘Danube Strategy’ negotiation of the required coordinating and regulatory is in its consultation and developing phase with the institutional arrangements as they offer a ‘new scale’ for action plan due to be adopted by the end of 2010. This territorial governance. In other words, their production specifi c kind of a macro-regional strategy is currently as new objects for policy attention challenges the also being debated for the North Sea Area, as proposed installation of new modes of governance in order by the North Sea Commission and the Committee of to literally ‘fi ll’ the organisational and institutional the Regions North Sea Intergroup. It is, moreover, vacuum that emerges once a new ‘macro’-region is highly likely that in the future we expect to see more produced (such as the Baltic Sea Region for instance). macro-regional strategies, with different geographical This vacuum emerges at least in terms of the need to scopes and thematic foci. Apparently macro-regions are govern the programmatic focus of such a strategy and seen to constitute a new strategic policy arena within the to manage the implementation of a specifi c action. context of transnational cooperation. Such a project - creating a new level of ‘actorness’ One of the most important elements in the EU in the multi-level political system - is normally a highly Baltic Sea Strategy is its ‘demonstration effect’, where it contested process often precipitating a power struggle, acts as a ‘model’ for further macro-regional strategies. which revolves not only around the content of this new However, the critical question remains, namely, do these level, but also around the relation to existing levels and strategies help to better take into consideration the between different levels (including National States, sub- existing ‘territorial diversity’ and the enormous socio- national regional/district level, municipalities). Macro- economic disparities, on the one hand, and to make regions can thus be considered as a specifi c interface better use of the available ‘territorial capital’ within the between different established levels. Once a macro- EU, on the other? region that is capable of acting is installed and is used as a new channel to implement policies its maintenance and functioning could consume many resources at the What is a Macro-Region? expense of other requirements in respect of politics The defi nition of a macro-region relates to the exercise and planning. of how to defi ne a region regardless of the prefi xes To sum up, regions are ‘constructed, deconstructed - macro, micro, meso, sub-national etc - used. Under and reconstructed’ through the interaction between current usage the term ‘region’ can refer to anything various actors in response to changes in their internal from an administrative unit to a functional area. Regions and external environments. This implies that there are are consequently not pre-given as physical objects. no pre-given conditions or criteria for what constitutes Instead they are formed and framed through specifi c a region, including macro-regions – even though certain practices. They can be considered as products of coherent structures and characteristics, be they political, intended actions by a set of stakeholders. The process geographical, cultural (or mental in terms of identities), of regionalisation itself can be viewed as a strategic can help enormously in the construction of a macro- and interest-led articulation of power. The strategies of region. the stakeholders can, however, change over the course 22 Dubois, A./Hedin, S./Schmitt, P./Sterling, J. (2009) EU macro- regions and macro-regional strategies – A scoping study, Nordregio Electronic Working Paper 2009:4, 43 pp. http://www.nordregio.se/ inc/openitem.asp?id=88929&nid=2112 48 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Since World War II transnational integration has A EU BSR Strategy – A critical appraisal developed from refl ecting a closed intergovernmental The EU BSR Strategy represents a novel approach and geopolitical interpretation of security and to the introduction of the EUs territorial policy international trading agreements, into a more complex agenda. It can be viewed as a comprehensive and and open multidimensional structure, infl uenced inter-sectoral inspirational source built on four central mainly by the process of globalisation. It has gone pillars: environmental protection, economic prosperity, beyond exclusive trade concerns and has started to accessibility and attractiveness, and fi nally, safety and deal with a number of other fi elds of cooperation, as security. The strategy includes, in total, 15 priority well as common challenges and joint interests such as areas, under which 76 so-called fl agship-projects are environmental protection and economic growth. The defi ned plus ten horizontal actions that shall serve the macro-region has become a setting in which several objectives of territorial cohesion. This is important to actors, state and non-state, public and private are equally stress, since the strategy is indeed developed by the interested in the process of transnational integration Directorate General for Regional Policy (DG Regio), and cooperation thus forming a new multi-levelled though a number of other DGs have been involved structure of interaction. In this sense we can distinguish in the elaboration process. Hence it is rather weak in at least four different ‘reasons’ for constructing macro- depicting a spatial perspective for the Baltic Sea Region; regions: its central part is the Action plan and the defi nition of 1. to foster international relations with the National numerous concrete projects. As such it is focused on States as the main actors (e.g. in terms of security implementation and visibility rather than on application issues such as the NATO) and symbolism through coordinating the many actors 2. to foster functional relations with the National and organisations and their numerous programmes, States as the main actors (here in particular trade agendas and available instruments, because the relations such as EFTA) Commission feels that a stronger commitment from 3. to utilise cultural and political homogeneity with the relevant local, regional and national stakeholders is the National States as the main actors (e.g. the required in future to use the already available fi nancial Nordic Council) resources more effi ciently. 4. to utilise cultural and political homogeneity in In this respect, the Strategy has also drawn order to respond to common challenges (e.g. the criticism as some have suggested that the Baltic Sea latest EU macro-regional strategies as discussed in Region is already overburdened and ‘too rich’ in its this chapter). ‘organisational capital’ due to the existing multiplicity of state and non-state stakeholders (the pan-Baltic In view of the latter, it has to be stated that macro- organisations, councils, networks and foundations, regions are not only about the grouping of which have evolved over the past 60 years or so). The homogeneous territories. Indeed, this exercise can also argument here is that there is no need for another player be based on heterogeneity, for instance by facilitating a such as in this case the EU Commission who advocates complementary critical mass of stakeholders. the Strategy backed-up by other EU institutions like the At fi rst glance in a purely EU context, EU macro- European Parliament and the Committee of Regions. regional strategies seem to be very much akin to the Other voices have argued however that the Strategy is to transnational cooperation programmes that started in be welcomed, in the hope that it can better coordinate the end of the 1990s under the labels INTERREG IIC the existing multiplicity of stakeholders and thus can 1996-1999, INTERREG IIIB 2000-2006 and fi nally perhaps make better use of this critical mass and its INTERREG IVB 2007-2013. Having said this, as the ‘organisational capacity’ for transnational cooperation. potential added-value of macro-regional strategies Perhaps the most eye-catching element in the (corresponding to the EUSBSR-type, see below), we EU-strategy is a number of proposed actions/projects can identify, as a minimum, the following aspects: that will not be followed by new legislation, instruments or institutions. This approach is labelled the three • Addressing of joint challenges as a common “No’s” (no new legislation, no new instruments and denominator (such as pollution of the Baltic Sea) no new institutions). Consequently the implementation • Promoting transnational and cross-border of the action plan will require a multi-level and cross- cooperation sectoral coordination approach, diverse partnerships • Establishing a thematically focused process/ and functioning programme-based management and dialogues on territorial cooperation assessment procedures. The strategy itself does not • A new way of thinking about multi-level governance propose any new mode of governance concerning and subsidiarity the management or prioritisation between the many • A globalisation strategy for European macro- proposed actions/projects among the participating regions

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 49 actors/institutions – the Strategy relies on a ‘learning- lies not so much in the main lines of argumentation by-doing’ approach and a strong level of commitment in terms of its ‘strategic’ focus, but rather in the by the responsible stakeholders to implement such identifi cation and prioritisation of the concrete actions proposed actions. that would potentially have the biggest impact on the In addition, it neither demarcates the entire state of the macro-region in general and on its specifi c macro-region nor proposes ‘where’ the intended local territorial characteristics in particular. actions/projects might have the largest impact in terms of improving the territorial capital and/or promoting territorial cohesion within this macro-region. In other Example: Baltic Sea Region climate change words, the strategy will challenge the horizontal as well responses as the vertical coordination between different spatial The eleven countries surrounding the Baltic Sea, entities (for example municipalities, planning regions, including Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, National States) and sectors. cooperate transnationally on various projects on topics In sum, macro-regional strategies seem to have related to regional development. One example here become a central pillar in the EU’s strategic policy is climate change adaptation, which is a particularly approach to territorial policies. In this sense, such macro- demanding topic. This is being refl ected in the EU Baltic regional strategies can mark a turning point in European Sea Region Strategy (EUSBSR) calling for “a regional spatial policy discourses as other strategic documents adaptation strategy at the level of the Baltic Sea Region”. such as the European Spatial Development Perspective The call for action has been converted into a project (ESDP, 1999) or the Territorial Agenda (TA, 2007) have called BaltAdapt which was approved in June 2010 for been jointly developed by the Member States. Now it funding under the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007- is the EU Commission who ‘owns’ this new territorial 2012. The Danish Meteorological Institute is leading policy approach, although it has been elaborated in the process that incorporates all efforts made by the close cooperation with some Member States. In this countries involved. The Nordic countries are important light it is striking that this multi-sectoral strategy with partners in the strategy, since all of them have adopted several actions that might have a signifi cant territorial a National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) or a respective impact are not integrated into any specifi c European document while a number of national projects and territorial perspective. In the EUSBSR, there are neither research programmes are ongoing. explicit references to the ESDP and the TA, nor, what Transnational learning and governance issues is most notable, to the EUs intrinsic desire for territorial related to climate change adaptation are the focus cohesion as manifested in the Lisbon Treaty (art. 3.3). of the project, “Climate Change: Impacts, Costs and Instead the BSR is treated as a homogeneous area since Adaptation in the Baltic Sea Region (BaltCICA)23. almost no intra-regional differentiation in terms of Through the coordination of 24 partners, including territorial characteristics is made (in relation to urban- municipalities, regional authorities and research rural areas, islands - continental areas, dense – sparsely institutes from eight countries, the project is part of the populated areas, level of accessibility to services/ Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 and aims to infrastructures/human capital/markets, economic support both adaptation processes on the local level in performance etc.,) along with the identifi cation and regions and municipalities and pan-Baltic cooperation, descriptions of the proposed actions and projects. for example multi-level and transnational approaches From the Three No’s then it becomes evident in respect of climate change adaptation. Therefore, the that the elaboration of macro-regional strategies needs project assesses the costs and benefi ts of climate change to fi t into the existing dynamics and initiatives within adaptation on both levels. Under the priority “Baltic Sea the macro-region as well as the EUs policy framework. as a common resource” the BaltCICA project runs from Discussions have now, however, begun in respect of 2009 until 2012 and is led by the Geological Survey of whether a specifi c budget line in the EU budget can Finland (GTK) with a total budget of €5.3 million. be allocated to macro-regions in the programme period Within this project a climate change adaptation starting from 2014. For the stakeholders concerned this strategy on the macro-regional level in the Baltic means that a thorough evaluation of the state of affairs Sea Region is being investigated from a multilevel in the Baltic Sea macro-region is a necessary fi rst step. governance perspective, bringing together “top- Indeed, as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region down” and “bottom up” approaches to climate change exemplifi es, one should bear in mind that the most adaptation. promising ‘added-value’ of a macro-regional strategy

23 For more information, see http://www.baltcica.org

50 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 4: State of play for National Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the BSR

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 51 Box: Climate Change for the new Baltic 21 Strategic Action Plan for 2010 to 2015 A preliminary version of the Climate Change Actions to be included in the Portfolio of Actions within the Baltic 21 Strategy 2010-2015 has been produced. The portfolio is seen as a major policy input to the Eco-region project funded under the EU BSR Programme 2007-2013 and will be viewed as a ‘living’ document of actions by which Baltic 21 members and Baltic 21 Lighthouse Projects are committed to implement in the next 5 years. Baltic 21 was initiated by the Prime Ministers of the Baltic Sea countries in 1996 and is a regional expression of the global Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations “Earth Summit” in 1992. Baltic 21 facilitates an open and transparent network for cooperation by linking together a wide range of stakeholders in a common venture for regional sustainable development. Comprising a multinational team, its members include various government ministries and agencies from the eleven Baltic Sea States, the European Commission, numerous intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, academic and ﬁ nancial institutions, as well as local, city and business networks. As of 1 January 2010, Baltic 21 became integrated into the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and operates as one of its expert group focusing on the following strategic areas:

• Climate change • Sustainable urban and rural development • Sustainable consumption and production • Innovation and education for sustainable development

52 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Regional Development Trends

Introduction

Regional development is closely related to a number of Company location and activities inﬂ uence the demand economic, demographic, social, and political processes, for employment and jobs in the region. The total connected by intimate supply and demand relations as number of available jobs affects migration as well as, indicated in Figure 5 below: the regional distribution of population. This, however, has an impact on the age structure, the regional level Figure 5: Relations between GDP, jobs and population of qualiﬁ cations and employment rates. As such it also

Source: Ponnikas et al 2010 (modifi ed) affects household incomes and taxes in the region. In the overview the latest development trends Similarly, the availability of human resources attracts are shown on the national level in order to refl ect the businesses, and provides a basis for new activities. most recent economic changes in this economically On the one hand, the availability of human turbulent period. To provide linkage to labour markets resources and their characteristics, such as age structure, productivity has also been included. Labour markets educational level, mobility, and affi nity to the labour and population structures follow the same logic, with market, and on the other, the economic structures and the general and latest trends on the national level and business characteristics of the regions, with a focus more detailed information down to the municipal level on the individual region’s ability to respond to global provided. market challenges, and with the question of overall And while the main foci lie in the Nordic regions, performance, being measured by Gross Domestic a more general view of Nordic regions in the European Product (GDP) both as a general development over context will be also be provided. Finally it should be time, and to show the differences between the regions. noted that the regional divisions are presented as of 2010.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 53 Human Resources as a base for regional development

As indicated above, human resources are a vital together with West Norwegian Hordaland, Rogaland component in regional development being a supply and Sør-Trøndelag are in this group. In Europe in base for labour markets and a source of economic general, most regions with rising populations are located activities, generating household incomes, taxes and in the old EU 15 countries and in major city regions, the production/consumption of private and public while many regions located beyond the major cities or services. To attract people to and maintain them in a transport corridors - especially in Eastern Europe - are region has becom a critical issu for many regions, just losing population. Similar territorial imbalances can, as a well-functioning infrastructure and new investment at a lesser scale, be found among the Nordic regions, in transportation, housing and education are also especially in Sweden and Finland. For example, the crucial. In this section, therefore, the main focus is sparsely populated Eastern Finnish regions of Kainuu on population characteristics and changes, including and Etelä-Savo were among the EU regions where also the interaction between urban and more rural/ population losses were highest – as indicated on the peripheral regions. map with losses above 0.5% per annum. The overall population change is a combination of births, death and migration to and from the region. Variations in population change Up to the end of the 1980s, natural population increase During the period 2005-2010 the Nordic population was by far the major component of general population grew modestly by approximately 0.67% per annum or increase in Europe. Since then, decreasing fertility rates, a total of 842 000 persons. This was more than the increasing life expectancy and the rising importance average in the European Union, which saw a 0.40% of international migration have changed this picture. growth rate or an increase of 9.9 million persons. Over the last 20 years migration has become the major At the Nordic national level, Denmark, Finland and component of population growth. Approximately two Sweden each saw a total population increase around thirds of the European NUTS 3 regions had a migration average EU rates, in spite of an increasing growth surplus in 2005-2009. At a general level, there is a spatial rate recently in Sweden. Norway had a higher annual polarisation concerning net-migration, between Eastern population increase, above 1% over the last ﬁ ve years. and Western Europe, as well as between metropolitan Nevertheless, it remained below the level of population and more rural and peripheral regions. Regions gaining increase in Luxembourg, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus. population due to migration are located in northern From a European perspective, Iceland had the most Italy central Spain, south-west France, England and dramatic development with a population increase over Wales and some Eastern European capital regions, 2% per annum in 2005-2008. However, as a result of the while regions gaining population due to natural increase more recent economic changes the total population are located in more rural and peripheral regions, decreased by approximately 0.50% between 2009 and including the North Calotte region, but also in some 2010. In the Faroe Islands the population change over more densely populated areas like the Netherlands and the last ﬁ ve years has been modest, with an increase the Copenhagen region of approximately 0.1% per annum and in recent years In general terms and in a European context, the this has actually changed to a minor decrease, similair to Nordic countries have high birth rates, and in respect that of Greenland where the total population has been of the West-Nordic region in particular (Western decreasing on average by 0.5% per annum. Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland) Delving more deeply into the details at the they remain very high. The only countries with regional level, however, differences in the rates of comparably high fertility rates are France, Ireland and change have been much more marked. Between 2005 the United Kingdom. Excluding Sweden, a Nordic and 2009 an increase higher than 2% per annum was trend is discernable where high natural increase is in experienced in 30 EU regions, with this group including some regions compensating for negative net migration, Oslo and Reykjavík regions (Figure 6). Similarily, 12% thus maintaining the trend towards a total population of EU regions have experienced a population increase increase. above 1.0% per annum. Helsinki and Stockholm regions

54 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 6: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009

Changing population trends in recent like Oulu (FI) and Vejle (DK). In Copenhagen, the years increase was not as high, with an annual average increase In the Nordic countries, population development is of 0.5%. At the same time municipalities outside the strongly linked to the urban hierarchy and its functional city areas have experienced signiﬁ cant population losses dimension, gaining population both due to natural in recent decades, mainly in the Danish, Finnish and increase and to net in-migration. Over the last ten Swedish countryside. A few Icelandic and Norwegian years the Nordic capital commuter catchments areas coastal rural settlements have managed to increase their experienced an annual average population increase of populations due to successful tourism and/or ﬁ shing 1.0% or more (Figure 7). The population increase was and aquaculture activities, but the general development even higher in several Nordic second-tier metropolises, has been more or less like that in the other Nordic particularly Stavanger/Sandnes (NO), Malmö/Lund countries. (SE), Reykjanes Peninsula (IS) and some regional centres Similarly, many Nordic city areas have

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 55 experienced population increases both due to crisis have encouraged this development through an immigration and natural increase. The highest natural increased level of migration of young adults to cities increase rates between 2000 and 2010 are found in the with educational possibilities. This concentration is Finnish Sievi and Oulu areas (both located in Northern even clearer in geographical terms: in 2005-2009 72% Ostrobothnia), the Reykjavík and Reykjanes regions in of Danish land area measured on the municipal level Iceland and in the Norwegian Saami Kautokeino-Alta experienced population increase while in 2009 it was area. The role of secondary metropoles and expanded only 43%. capital labour markets becomes even more visible when In Finland, the polarisation between metropoles looking at those Nordic commuter catchment areas that and regional centres with a university on the one hand, are gaining most from migration. Reykjanes peninsula, and other labour markets and municipalities on the Malmö/Lund, Tampere and the expanded Oslo region other from the 2000-2010 perspective, is more striking were those with the highest in-migration rates. than in the other Nordic Countries. Outside metropoles In contrast to this, rural and sparsely populated and regional centres few other municipalities have seen areas in the north have generally experienced population a positive population development in the last ten years. decreases. The largest rate of natural decrease was found Some of these growing small municipalities are located in municipalities in Norwegian East Finnmark and in in the expanded Helsinki commuter catchment area, north-eastern Finland both of which had experienced heading towards Lahti, Tampere and Turku via the main signifi cant levels of out-migration. Exceptions to this transport corridors. Other growth areas are located pattern include places where traditional activities have along the Ostrobothnian coast between Pietarsaari and been supplemented by new initiatives, often in relation Raahe. In this area a high birth rate has kept the total to tourism, renewable energy generation, education and population increasing, and this is even more infl uential other public-sector activities. in 2009 as total fertility has risen in ten years from 2.15 While the above description relates to the general children per female to 2.40. The same pattern is seen in development pattern, considerable changes in Nordic Finland more general as the total fertility rate for whole population development trends occurred in 2009 due country in 2009 was 1.93, the highest rate since 1969. in the main to the economic crisis and to resultant The only deviators from the above path were some small changes in mobility (Figure 8). The effects of this on municipalities with major tourist attractions, such as the the various Nordic countries clearly have not however northern municipalities of Kittilä and Muonio which been uniform in nature. have large ski resorts, which experienced a population In Denmark the population has become increase due to immigration last year. increasingly concentrated to city regions and larger Over the last 20 years the total population increase labour markets with the option of commuting. Over in the Icelandic regions of Reykjavík and Reykjanes was the last ten years the whole of Zealand has become a about 40%, the highest fi gure among the Nordic labour part of the Copenhagen labour market, while the labour markets, and with the municipality of Álftanes in the market with the highest growth has been in the Vejle- capital region exhibiting the highest Nordic extreme Århus urban area in eastern Jutland. The small islands, with a 165% growth rate. This population increase was especially in the South Funen Archipelago and in due to both high birth rates and in-migration. Since the northern part of Jutland have, meanwhile, seen the all regions, and 90% of Icelandic municipalities, have largest population decrease. Previously, all fi ve Danish seen a natural population increase, migration has been regions had a positive population development trend. the most important component in generating regional In 2009, however, changes in this pattern began to differences in population. And as a consequence of occur. Western Jutland which had traditionally benefi ted the migration of the last decade the population had from an increasing population, despite out-migration, concentrated to the expanded capital region, including began to lose population. This is due to declining birth the Reykjanes peninsula, Sellfoss and Akranes and rates in the medium sized cities of Esbjerg, Holstebro the Akureyri region. In addition, construction work and Skjern. Another striking change has been in the in relation to the Alcoa aluminium smelter during the Vest- and Sydsjælland region in the capital commuter 2004-2008 period temporally created a population catchment area, where a previous population increase growth ‘spike’ in Eastern Iceland. However, the onset has turned into a decrease. Among the explanations of the fi nancial crisis from the middle of 2008 resulted for this has been the consequences of declining house in major changes in population development with prices in the Capital area due to the economic crisis in Iceland, for the fi rst time since 1889, experiencing a addition to increasing fuel prices and congested roads decrease in population. Even though natural population during rush hour periods. To a more limited extent, the change remained positive at a level of approximately same phenomenon also occurred in the Århus area. 1%, a negative net migration of as many as 5 000 people Labour market changes relating to the economic in 2009 resulted in an overall population decrease.

56 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Although half of the emigrants were foreign citizens saw a very positive population development during who had been working in Iceland during the ‘economic 2009. As in Denmark, this shift is even more visible in boom’ years, the population change map of Iceland was geographical terms but in the opposite way. When in nevertheless turned upside down. The previous growth 2005-2009 38% of the Norwegian land area measured regions lost population and the few municipalities that on the municipal level saw a population increase, the did see a population increase in 2009 were mostly tiny share in 2009 was up to 62% of the land area. rural municipalities with tourism activities. In Sweden the population continues its Over the previous decade the Norwegian concentration to regional centres and especially to population has continued its concentration to major the Stockholm and Malmö-Lund regions. Some coastal cities, especially the greater Oslo and Stavanger minor labour markets in the traffi c corridors between regions, while large land areas in northern Norway and Gothenburg – Malmö and Gothenburg-Stockholm the inland areas of Oppland, Buskerud and Telemark have also experiences population increase while small have lost population. Still, compared to the other labour markets particularly in northern Sweden have Nordic countries, the Norwegian population change is experiences serious declines. In contrast to other more balanced while some small coastal municipalities Nordic countries, the natural population increase outside the regional centres have even managed not is heavily concentrated to the major city regions of only to maintain but to increase their populations. This Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. In all other relates to high birth rates, but the role of international regions, population has either been relatively stable or migration is also important here. In 2009 the Norwegian is decreasing. Population increase in Sweden is heavily population change on the NUTS3 level was positive related to migration and especially to international in all regions for the fi rst time in over twenty years. migration. The regions that are growing most due to Notable changes can be seen in northern Norway and migration are Malmö-Lund, with important commuter Vestlandet in particular, where the decline in domestic fl ows to Copenhagen, and the municipal labour markets out-migration contributed to a population increase. For of Strömstad and Årjäng, both located in the expanded example, in Sogn and Fjordane region out-migration was Oslo labour market. The role of tourism in some at its lowest level since 1971. Bodø, Tromsø, Lofoten municipalities in northern Sweden and in Dalarna is and Northern Sognefjord regions, including also some becoming more and more visible, resulting in positive municipalities with a signifi cant Saami population, also in-migration.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 57 Figure 7: Population change in the Nordic commuter catchment areas in 2000-2010

58 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Increasing importance of migration migration. Most Nordic municipalities gained from The share of Nordic municipalities with a migration international migration in the period 2005-2009, with surplus has been increasing in recent years. Over the the main exceptions being the Faroe Islands, Greenland last two decades, only 45% of Nordic municipalities and some smaller Icelandic municipalities. Even while saw positive net migration – almost all of which similar in general structure, signifi cant differences were regional centres or in the commuter catchment remain in terms of intensity. In Denmark, Norway areas of such centres. In the period 2005-2009, the and Sweden the overall level and share of international share of municipalities with a migration surplus migration was much higher than in Finland. And the increased to 56%, the most obvious change being in domestic migration patterns follow the overall migration the geographically expanded capital and metropolitan picture, but with an even higher concentration to major growth regions and in relation to the effects of the city regions. In many rural municipalities, especially in tourism industry in northern Finland and Sweden. In Norway and Sweden, negative domestic migration is Iceland and Norway some small coastal communities compensated by extensive international migration. saw positive net migration due to the emergence of In 2009, however, there were some remarkable tourism and various fi shing and aquaculture activities. changes in the migration pattern, especially in Iceland Some isolated municipalities with large multi-year and in the Danish regions of Western Jutland and construction projects placed within them have also seen Zealand. Over 10% of the Nordic population changed a (temporary) migration surplus, for example eastern its place of residence in 2009. Even if most of these Icelandic municipalities with an aluminium smelter, people simply moved to nearby municipalities or to Norwegian Hammerfest with natural gas installations other regions in the same country, 1.6% of the Nordic and Faroese Vágar with a underwater tunnel that population, or slightly more than 400 000 persons, facilitated commuting between the island and the capital nevertheless changed their country of residence. In region on the main island. Part of the explanation relation to total population the population in Finland for this increase is in some cases related to changes and Iceland were most mobile, and mobility was highest in municipal structures where the amalgamation of in city regions with universities and in some tourism- smaller municipalities more sensitive to changes into oriented rural municipalities. When dividing migration larger units – often with a local centre – has provided fl ows after direction, domestic migration fl ows are them with a higher level of stability. highest in the capital regions of Copenhagen, Stockholm When looking at the main components of and Uusimaa (Helsinki), and in the Finnish regions migration, domestic as well as international, about of Pirkanmaa and Pohjois-Pohjanmaa. International one third of Nordic municipalities saw positive net migration fl ows are most intense in the capital regions of migration on both counts. An additional third saw Oslo, Copenhagen-Malmö and Stockholm, Norwegian a migration surplus in respect only of international Vestlandet and Finnmark, Åland and Iceland.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 59 Figure 8: Population change in the Nordic municipalities in 2009-2010

60 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 On the Nordic level one third of all international mostly to other Nordic Countries, whereas the relative migrants are nationals of the origin/destination share of Nordic immigrants is highest in Iceland. More country. Signifi cant differences nevertheless exist than 40% of all Nordic migration is to and from other between immigration and emigration. On average, European countries (Figure 10). Relatively speaking, 23% of immigrants and 48% of emigrants are nationals non-(intra) Norden migration is most important in of origin/destination country. In the Faroe Islands Iceland and least important in Greenland, the Faroe and Greenland, the share of national immigrants and Islands and Sweden. The main (non-Norden) European emigrants varies between 85 and 93%. These high origin and destination countries are the Baltic States and fi gures can be explained by temporary emigration due Poland, and those countries have especially high rates to studies and other short term activities. to and from Iceland and Norway. In Finland, the share On average 25% of all international migration of Russian migration is also signifi cant. The Nordic in Norden occurs within the Nordic countries (Figure share of extra-European migration is around one 9). Internationally total fl ows are highest to and third, Sweden being the country with the highest extra- from Denmark and Sweden, but compared to other European migration rates. international migration fl ows, people in Sweden move

Figure 9: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (a)

International migration in 2009, in persons

70000 Immigration Immigration, % Emigration, % Emigration 2 9 19 22 60000 10 36 2

50000 13 8 8 4 7 40000 8 7 21 23

30000 Intra-Nordic Balticum and Poland other EEA 20000 Other Europé America Africa 10000 Asia Other

0 Asia Africa Other Intra - Nordic America Balticum Balticum other EEA and Poland Other Europé

Over half of all migrations in the Nordic Countries group 30-39 years prefers the capital core cities while occur among population segments aged 20-34 years, the age group 40-54 years prefers the municipalities the age group of 20-24 years being the most mobile. around the capital core cities. As a result, regions Different types of regions attract people in different with the relatively highest shares of mobility among phases of life. The metropolitan core cities and regional children are found in the capital regions outside the centres with a university, for example, are particularly core municipalities. A surprisingly high share of child attractive migration regions for young adults in the mobility can also be found in medium-sized towns and age range 20-24. Five years later the metropolitan core in non-urban areas, just as non-urban areas are also cities are still maintaining their position, but the regional the most mobile region type for population in their university cities have lost their position to capital core late careers, between 50-64 years. Retired population cities. In the age group between 30 and 50 years the migrates primarily to metropolitan regions outside the capital regions are the highest gainers, although the age core municipalities and to small cities in rural areas.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 61 Figure 10: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (b)

62 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Long term population change in West terms of international migration rates where people Norden are either moving (back) to regions in good times or Across West Norden recent major political and voting with their feet due to rapid and negative changes economic phenomena, in addition to ongoing natural in their social conditions in bad times. As West Norden change processes, have had a signifi cant infl uence is characterised by natural resource dependency, and on net migration rates. Due to the small size of the especially by dependence on fi sheries, changes in fi sh domestic markets, such phenomena can clearly be stocks have historically affected migration rates. seen to have acted as either ‘push’ or ‘pull’ factors in

Figure 11: Net migration rate in the West Nordic Countries in 1970-2009

Longterm population changes in West Norden - Annual net migration rate in % 2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00 Bank Crisis Home rule -3.00 Iceland -4.00 Faroe Islands Greenland Bank Crisis -5.00 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

When reviewing the last 40 years it can be seen that Combined with rapidly increased unemployment up to in the 1970s and 1980s the net migration rate was as much as 20% in Tórshavn, and even higher in the rather modest, experiencing both net immigration and outlying islands, and a growing international boycott emigration. In 1973, for the fi rst time in over 35 years, of Faroese produce over the pilot whaling (grindadráp) the Faroes experienced a positive net immigration. issue, many people emigrated. Heavy emigration Some of the major factors in this change were the between 1989 and 1994 saw the population decrease general increase in the standard of living, very low by 10%, from approximately 48 000 to 42 000 persons. unemployment (especially compared to unemployment Emigration was especially high among young people. in Denmark), a rise in the number of jobs for women The measures used to get the Faroes ‘up running again’ and particularly also in the fi shing industry, better largely worked, and in 1996 net immigration was once educational opportunities for young people, and rising again positive. The following economically positive demand for educated people. This precondition was years kept net immigration positive until 2004, while supported in the Faroe Islands as early as 1965 when since then migration has remained rather stable. the University was founded. In Greenland, before Home Rule was The main demographic crisis in the Faroe Islands established in 1979, the importation of workers from is thus related to changes in the fi sheries sector. During Denmark was often used to maintain a stable and viable the 1970s successful skippers managed to accumulated workforce. While the 1950s and 1960s in Greenland capital and invested in new fi lleting plants, and thus were characterised by an infl ux from Denmark of a a highly successful fi sheries industry was established. short term labour force connected to the building This was however soon rocked by a marked decline industry, a number of these people got married to in resources caused by a combination of over-fi shing Greenlanders leading eventually to the out-migration and environmental variation which led to a drastic of both Danes and their Greenlandic spouses during decline in fi sh stocks off the Faroes. At the end of the 1970s. With the establishment of Home Rule in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s the fi sheries 1979 Greenlanders took over many jobs leading to a sector not only collapsed (fi sh made up approximately massive increase in out-migration of Danes especially 90% of exports), but, due to over-investment in new prior to the new government, which, by the 1980s technologies, the major Faroese banks went bankrupt had the knock-on effect of a perceptible decline in and foreign indebtedness rose sharply. Most of the fi sh the volume of international migration. Parallel to processing plants were closed and the Faroese economy this, the establishment of attractive workplaces in was placed directly under Danish administration. Greenland has impacted on migration pattern, as

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 63 did major investments in education. This helped to Nordic countries and the European Union more reduce the emigration rate of native Greenlanders, generally. Low fertility rates, combined with increased while at the same time there was an increase in the life expectancy, have resulted in demographic ageing immigration academically trained Danes to Greenland across the EU population. The share of those in the to provide the qualifi cations needed when management older generations is increasing, while the share of responsibilities moved from Denmark to Greenland. other age categories is decreasing. There are, however, This shift in government change related migration some differences between the European Union and saw a peak in Greenlandic net migration fi gures. The the Nordic age structures. Ageing, in terms of further policy which oversaw native Greenlanders taking over increase in the number of the group of retirement age, the jobs previously held by former colonial power will signifi cantly impact the Nordic countries in the next nationals turned out to be rather successful in the sense fi ve to ten years. Compared to the EU27 average, the age that only ten years after Home Rule was established net group 60-64 years is signifi cantly larger in the Nordic out-migration had ceased. Most of the jobs, however, countries while the age groups 20-54 years are slightly were for men, so the migration pattern is highly gender smaller. In contrast, the share of children aged 0-19 and born-place oriented. For the Greenland born years is higher in Norden than in the EU, which means population, a major share of emigrants are female, that relatively large age cohorts are not only currently and the out-migration of younger people – primarily exiting but also entering Norden’s labour markets. women – looking for educational and job opportunities The demographic dependency ratio refers to has led to a continuous outfl ow since the beginning of persons aged 0-14 and to those over 65 years, compared the 1990s of both Greenlanders and Danes. This has to population aged 15-64. In general, the highest led to a situation where more than 18 000 Greenlanders dependency ratios up to 0.90, meaning that 90 persons (defi ned as persons born in Greenland) are now living in the age groups below 15 and above 64 are depending in Denmark, compared to the total number of just on 100 persons in the age group 15-64, can be found below 50 000 actually living in Greenland. in Finnish Keski-Suomi and in the Swedish Torne Until recently the population development in Valley and Västerbotten mountain areas. The lowest Iceland has been rather stable. In the period 1986-2008 ratios can be found in capital regions, West Norden, up to 79% of Icelandic citizens who migrated returned south-east Norway and in some small municipalities after an average stay of 2.4 years abroad. This pattern of in northernmost Norway and Finland with signifi cant short term employment and study period ‘excursions’ Saami populations, the lowest ratios being around 0.35. kept migration rates rather stable. The diversifi cation There is, however, a signifi cant difference depending on and liberalisation of the Icelandic economy after 1994, whether the high or low dependency ratio is a result when Iceland joined the European Economic Area, of many children or of a high share of elderly people, can clearly be seen as being expressed in an increase especially in a long term perspective. In the Nordic in net immigration rates. In the period 2003-2007 countries, regions with, in relative terms, the most Iceland developed from a nation best known for its children can be found in West Norden, the Finnish fi shing industry into a country providing sophisticated Ostrobothnian coastal rim and in some municipalities fi nancial services. Due to the emergence of new around the capitals. The lowest share of children can business opportunities, beginning in 2004, a huge infl ux be found in eastern Finland, Lappi and in northern of persons came from abroad into Iceland, with 2005 Sweden. The oldest population lives in eastern Finland and 2006 seeing recorded fi gure which were relatively and northern Sweden. higher than any other European country. Part of this The average Nordic citizen is 40.2 years old. undoubtedly related to the building activities connected Looking at the population structure by age, the with the Alcoa aluminium smelter in eastern Iceland in development is rather cohesive across all Nordic 2004-2008, with a 1 500 -person foreign workforce, countries. Nevertheless, differences remain between mostly from Poland. Iceland was hit hard by the 2008 settlement types and countries. A common trend here global fi nancial crisis, which extended into 2009. The is that the population in urban areas is younger, while crisis has resulted in the greatest migration from Iceland in rural and sparsely populated areas the population since 1887. In 2009, net emigration was around 5 000 is older. Among the larger Nordic Countries, the persons, half of those being foreign citizens. However, population in Norway is, in general, younger than in the between January – June 2010, the Icelandic population other countries. In Norway the youngest population can increased by approximately 400 persons. be found in regional centres with a university and in capital core cities. In Denmark, Finland and Sweden the youngest population can be found in capital core cities. Demographic structure This pattern has become even clearer in recent years. Demographic trends are signifi cantly impacting the Many families with children are currently choosing to

64 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 stay in, or move to, the core city areas instead of to In relation to national trends the most noticeable the surrounding municipalities. This trend is particularly development is to be found in the rural and sparsely visible in Stockholm, where the trend has had a populated areas. In addition there is clearly an overall signiﬁ cant impact on the housing market. The price trend towards a relatively older population in the rural gap between one and four-to-ﬁ ve room apartments and peripheral areas of Finland and Sweden. This has become much smaller (per square metre) in central development is not only a consequence of an ageing Stockholm. In the West Nordic region, the population population but also related to the depopulation in these is much younger than in other parts of Norden. In areas. For Norway and Denmark, similar patterns are Greenland, the average age is 33.4 years and in Faroe to be seen although the development here is not so Island and Iceland slightly higher at 37.2 and 36.1 years pronounced. respectively.

Figure 12: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009

Average Age on Nordic Settlement Types in 2010

Denmark

Capitals core cities Finland Capitals Metropoles core cities Metropoles Regional centre with university

Norway Other regional centre Medium-sized town Non-urban area

Sweden

36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00

The gender balance in the Nordic countries is almost to a lack of advanced jobs in northern and rural regions. equal. On average there are 101 females per 100 males The expanded capital regions, together with the Nordic in the Nordic countries. This overrepresentation of the metropoles and regional centres, have, in general, a rather female population is not surprising, since Nordic females balanced gender distribution. In small and medium- on average tend to live between 4 and 6 years longer sized towns and in some more rural regions, especially than Nordic males, the level of difference depending on in West Norden, males predominate. The most male- the place of residence. Considerable regional variations dense regions are some of the Greenlandic and Icelandic do however exist. Generally speaking, the city regions - municipalities, but some striking differences can also be with capitals on top - have the highest share of female found in some rural municipalities in the North Calotte population. The Nordic capital core cities of Helsinki area and in Kainuu region. The out-migration of female and Copenhagen are the most female-dense regions. The population in the rural areas is even more obvious when main reasons for women to move to cities or to the south looking at the labour force aged population where there relate to the existence of educational opportunities and is a Nordic average, 97 females per 100 males.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 65 Economic Development and Business

Over the last decade the Nordic countries have Until 2008 the Danish growth rate was on experienced a period of signifi cant economical a modest level, slightly below the EU average and turbulence and of rapid GDP growth between fi rst a following a similar trajectory as countries like Germany minor and then a major economic depression. Clearly and France. Norway was more or less in line with EU the economic performance of the Nordic countries has average growth, while Finland and Sweden started suffered as a result of the global crisis. The level of the decade some 1-2 percentage points above the EU prosperity remains high but the reduction both in gross average but during the prosperous years of 2007 and domestic product (GDP) and in labour mobilisation 2008 growth rates here were as high as 7-9 percentage rates has been signifi cant. For the Nordic regions points above the EU average. Between 2000 and 2008 this entails the emergence of new challenges to the the Icelandic economy grow reached nearly 40%, a rate maintenance of their hitherto healthy and attractive similar to development in European countries like the economies particularly in relation to maintaining Czech Republic and Slovenia. local welfare and attracting new people and capital. From the 1990s onwards economic development Economic performance, measured as GDP per capita in the Nordic Countries, as in many other advanced in purchasing power standards (PPS), provides an economies, has become increasingly dependent on indication of the value of all market and some non- innovation and growth in knowledge-related activities. market goods and services produced within a region. This is clearly visible in relation to investment The adjustment to local price differences24 shows the patterns, as material investments have decreased, ability of countries to succeed in the global scenario. while immaterial investments in human capital, R&D, The level of production, in turn, sets the sustainable education, organisational development and ‘branding’ level of prosperity that can be earned by an economy - have become more central. more competitive economies tend to be able to produce The main growth engines across all the Nordic higher levels of income for their citizens. countries have been a combination of high domestic This chapter will provide an overview of the consumption, both private and corporate, and high economic changes that have occurred over the last investment rates. The below average growth rate in decade both from a Nordic and from a more general Denmark and, to some extent, Norway can in part be European perspective. explained by the existence of almost full employment during these years. Therefore, economic growth could not be easily boosted by an increase in labour intensive Economic development before the crisis activities as was the case in Finland and Sweden. Housing Global economic growth increased in the middle of markets, especially in some of the larger metropolitan 1990s and, after the minor recession at the beginning of areas, and increasing stock prices have also affected 2000, was historically high until 2008. Between 2002 and economic performance. 2007 the global economy expanded by approximately In 2009, a broad span existed in terms of GDP 5% per annum, the main growth taking place in Asia, per inhabitant expressed in PPS across Europe. The principally in China. This economic growth in Asia is national level varied from 43% to 271% of the EU27 mainly related to the expansion of industrial production average between member states. Norway was at the high and Asia’s share of global industrial production is end at 76 percentage points above the EU27 average, now around 40%, with Europe and North America exceeded only by Luxembourg. The other Nordic having both around 25%. In the period 2000-2008 the countries were in a more modest position. Denmark, annual European GDP growth rate was 1-3% during Iceland and Sweden were between 18 and 20 percentage the peak years of growth around 2007. This increase ponts above the average and Finland 11 percentage was generally shared across all EU countries, despite a points above, indicating a period of modest growth in period of rather unstable development in some minor most Nordic economies. Even if the Nordic countries economies, such as Malta. have maintained their overall position in European Most Nordic countries, however, have seen – terms, however, their relative scores have decreased and relatively speaking - rather modest economic growth only Norway has increased its percentage point score rates, close to the European Union (27 countries) since 2000. average during the last decade (Figure 13).

24 Purchasing power parity or standard

66 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 13: GDP growth at market prices 2000-2010 scores are found in primary production dominated rural regions. In Denmark and, to a lesser extent, Sweden, GDP at market prices 2000-2010 poorly performing regions in terms of these production 140 based GDP fi gures are also found near capital regions. Iceland In these regions, mainly residential, there are no, or very 135 Norway few, industries and a signifi cant share of the population Sweden is out-commuting to other regions where the production 130 Finland of goods and services actually takes place. The economic importance of some Nordic EU 27 125 regions has changed over the last decade. Norway and, Denmark to some extent, Finland managed to increase their 120 percentage share importance of Nordic GDP in PPS per capita during the period 2000-2007. Nevertheless the 115 economic development of the regions tells a number index 2000=100 index of different stories. Norway has seen increasing 110 polarisation between the regions, whereas in Finland regional polarisation is decreasing due to changes 105 in the economic balance between the regions. At the Nordic level the largest increase in regional economical 100 performance has occurred in the regions of western 20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 (est) Norway Rogaland and Hordaland, and in the Finnish regions of Itä-Uusimaa and Keski-Pohjanmaa. The most signifi cant decrease can be found in western Jutland (DK) and in Kymenlaakso (FI). Large regional differences In terms of economic performance on the regional level (Figure 15), signifi cant differences exist between Figure 14: GDP in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) per European regions. GDP per capita is highest in central Capita in 2007 and northern Europe, particularly in the capital regions. Major metropolitan regions generally score well in G DP per capita and per employed person in the Europe, as all those European regions with GDP per N ordic regions in 2007 275.0 capita fi gures at least twice the EU average are regions such as Paris and Brussels or German industrial centres 255.0 National average like Munich and Frankfurt. However, numerous smaller GDP/capita regions in these parts of Europe also score well and 235.0 Productivity altogether 38% of European NUTS3 regions had GDP 215.0 per capita fi gures above the EU average in 2007. At the low end of the scale we fi nd mostly eastern 195.0 European and some southern European regions outside the main cities. Some regions in Bulgaria, Romania and 175.0

Turkey attained only 25% of the EU average. Countrary 155.0 to this, however, some metropolitan regions in Eastern Europe, such as Prague, Warsaw and Budapest were 135.0 actually among the best European performers. Four out of ﬁ ve, or 60 out of 74 Nordic regions, 115.0 had a higher GDP per capita than the EU average and 95.0 varied between 84% and 255% of the EU27 average. In all capital regions and in western Norway the rate was 75.0 0123456789101112131415Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden even 50% or more above the EU average. The lowest Nordic ﬁ gures are found in eastern Finland. And as for When shifting focus from welfare, measured as GDP per the rest of Europe, there is a considerable variation in capita in PPS, to productivity per employed, the Nordic regional performance between capital, industrial and map looks rather different (Figure 14). At the national other regions in the Nordic countries. In all countries, level Iceland, Denmark and Finland are just over the the capital region is performing best, followed by other EU27 average, Sweden score a little higher, while Norway metropolitan regions and industrial areas. The lowest together with Luxembourg are in a class of their own.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 67 While 80% of the Nordic regions have higher GDP per The lowest productivity rates in Norden, apart from capita than the EU average, only 60% of regions score those in Greenland and the Faroe Islands, are found higher in terms of production per employee. Even if in Zealand’s out-commuting regions and in the small the per capita and per employed person rates correlate a rural islands of Gotland and Bornholm. Considerable number of important differences nevertheless remain. differences also exist between the countries. Lower Beyond the well-performing capital regions and western Finnish GDP per capita fi gures are compensated with Norway, signifi cant production per capita fi gures are higher productivity, whereas in Denmark and Sweden also found in regions dominated by natural resource the opposite situation prevails. industries, like Nordland, Norrbotten and Etelä-Karjala.

68 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 15: GDP in PPS per capita and per employed person in 2007. Index, EU27 = 100

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 69 The Financial Crisis development of the global market. Finland and Sweden The fi nancial crisis was ignited in 2007, due to a liquidity each have a large share of capital goods in the makeup shortfall in the United States banking system caused by of their exports. In Norway, the depression was more the overvaluation of assets. The immediate cause of modest, with only a roughly 2 percentage point change the crisis was the bursting of the US housing ‘bubble’ in GDP. Even if the decline in GDP growth in Iceland with subprime loans25, culminating in a global crisis and Finland in 2008-2009 was large, it was still relatively one year later when the bankruptcy of the fi nancial modest compared to the extreme changes in the Baltic services fi rm Lehman Brothers was declared. Questions States. In the Nordic regional context, major centres, regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability, depending on external trade and international economic and damaged investor confi dence had an impact on development, seem to have experienced a deeper global stock markets, where securities suffered large depression than regions more dependent on domestic losses, especially during late 2008 and early 2009. The trade and services. world economy generally shrank by 0.6% in 2009 as a result of the global fi nancial crisis and in European Union by 4.1%. Recovery and the European Debt crisis Consequently, in autumn 2008, Europe (including In 2010 the global economy is still recovering from the Nordic countries) was hit by economic crisis. The the fi nancial crisis of 2008 and 2009. During the fi rst effects of the fi nancial crisis were most profound in quarter of 2010 GDP expanded at an annualised rate Iceland. In 2001, the deregulation of Icelandic banks of over 5%. This - better than expected - result was, opened up the possibility for banks to fi nance their in the main, due to continuing robust growth in Asia. expansion with loans on the interbank lending market More broadly, there were encouraging signs of renewed by attracting deposits from outside Iceland while also growth in private demand. In the European Union and encouraging a signifi cant level of domestic household in the Euro-area countries the economy has started to debt (in Iceland). Between 2000 and 2008 Icelandic GDP recover, although at a moderate pace. In the second grew annually over 10%; incomes increased over 70% quarter of 2010 economic growth was +1.7% higher 26 and the stock market rose 174%. At the same time house than in the second quarter of 2009 in both zones . prices increased over 70% in the Greater Reykjavík area. This was the highest quartile increase in the Euro region While banks and other fi nancial institutes expanded by in three years. A major factor in the general recovery of 554% the increase in industrial production was much the Euro area has undoubtedly been the strong German more modest. The Icelandic bank ‘bubble’ lasted until export-led recovery strategy. the summer of 2008 when the banks became unable The small and open Nordic economies were to refi nance their debts. In September-October 2008 hit hard by a signifi cant decline in external demand. all three of Iceland’s major banks collapsed as a result Given their strong public fi nances, however, the of their inability to refi nance their short-term debt Nordic economies, with the exception of Iceland, had and stem a run on deposits in the United Kingdom. resources available to cushion their contractions, and It is estimated that at the time those three major banks to be among the fi rst economies to recover. From a held foreign debt in excess of €50 billion, compared regional perspective, the larger and economically robust with Iceland’s gross domestic product of €8.5 billion. metropolitan regions are important Nordic growth Relative to the size of its economy Iceland’s banking engines. collapse can be seen as the largest in economic history. Norway’s economy experienced the smallest After a period of strong growth in the middle GDP contraction in the Nordic region in 2009 while of this decade all fi ve Nordic economies were hit by Iceland saw the largest contraction. Norway’s economic the global economic crises in 2008/2009. The GDP recovery began somewhat earlier than in most other growth rate decreased in all the Nordic and indeed all OECD countries. The quick rebound to positive growth EU countries, excluding Poland. In most of the Nordic was made possible by a strong fi scal and monetary Countries the decrease followed the EU average trend. stimulus programme driven by increased household However, as the GDP increase before the crisis had been fi nal consumption expenditure and public demand. higher in Iceland, Finland and Sweden, the following Sizeable reserves of oil revenues also gave it freedom in downturn was more dramatic on average than in the EU economic policy that other countries lacked. In spring more generally. Finland experienced an unprecedented 2010, the export-reliant Nordic countries of Finland drop to -8.0%, its worst economic performance in over and Sweden have recovered, mainly as a result of 90 years, and in Iceland the situation was even worse. increasing levels of demand for their export products. To a great extent, explanations can be found in the Sweden has even taken a lead in European economic recovery. In Finland, economic recovery is export-led 25 A type of loan that is offered at a rate above prime to individuals who do not qualify for prime rate loans. 26 Eurostat

70 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 with forest and metal products in particular doing well. Sweden. One explanation for this is that many people In Sweden the export sector more broadly has increased borrow money at a fl oating rate, which makes rate with even the hard hit automotive industry reporting policy an effi cient instrument to boost consumption. unexpectedly strong second-quarter results in 2010. In Sweden is even among the OECD countries with the Denmark GDP increased by 0.5% in the fi rst quarter of greatest increase in housing loans. Norway, followed by 2010 compared to the previous quarter. Sweden, was the fi rst western European country to raise Iceland’s economy is still in deep recession. interest rates at the beginning of the global recession. According to preliminary fi gures, GDP decreased by This is suggestive of a strong economic recovery in the 3.1% in April-June from the previous quarter, and fell country. by as much as 8.6% units below the second quarter of 2009. It is estimated that the Icelandic contraction will continue in 2010, due in the main to still falling or Different trade patterns low private and public consumption and investment. One reason for GDP decrease in recent years is perhaps Private consumption has fallen dramatically since 2008 suggested by the trade statistics. In 2005-2008 both as households have to balance between increasing debt Nordic exports and imports increased steadily but in and declining disposable income. Most private loans 2009 exports and investment collapsed. The most were indexed to foreign currencies and the dramatic striking values can be found in Finland where the infl ation experienced by the Icelandic krona made loans volume of exports shrunk by 20% and imports by 18%. unbearable. High loans together with historically high The Faroe Islands were however the Nordic exception unemployment at around 9% has led to a situation where, here with an increase in exports to European Union in 2009, almost 40% of all households in Iceland faced countries. some kind of fi nancial problem according to offi cial In 2009 the total value of trade in the Nordic statistics. Positive GDP growth is expected from 2011, Countries was about €540 billion. Around 20% of this if some large scale industrial investments are begun as was intra-Nordic trade and around 50% trade with other planned. The agreement with the government and IMF European Union countries. Geographical location, aims at a positive primary fi scal balance in 2011 and politics and history affect trade pattern. As such, a positive overall fi scal balance in 2013. When looking Denmark and Norway are more connected to Central at specifi c sectors, the best recovery has taken place European markets, such as Germany and France, while in fi sheries, tourism and some parts of the industrial in Finland, the role of Russian trade is very important. sector, especially ICT. In terms of exports the Nordic countries are mostly Recent turbulence in the fi nancial markets, connected to other Nordic Countries and to EU with the 2010 debt crisis in some southern European countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and the countries like Italy and Greece to the fore, could still Netherlands. The United States, China and Russia are slow Nordic recovery. In Italy and Greece the national other important partners. In terms of in imports, the debt in 2010 exceeded 120% of GDP and in Portugal pattern is similair, although China is also among the and Spain the debt was about 94-98% of GDP. Even if Nordic countries main partners. In the small West the high level of national debt is the biggest problem for Nordic Countries the trade pattern is slightly different. Greece, the crisis in Italy is more of a structural problem. Trade connections to North America, and particularly Even if the Nordic Countries have more or less avoided to Canada, are more important, and the role of long the fi scal problems faced by other European nations, distance exports to countries, like Japan and some allowing their governments to contemplate further African countries, is also - relatively speaking - more stimulus spending, the Nordic region is not immune important. from the impact of austerity measures by some of its Differences in trade patterns between the biggest trading partners in the Euro region and beyond. Nordic countries are evident when looking at exports One possible risk relates to the issue of mortgage debt by sectors. All three countries from West Norden show hangover. Interest rates have remained at a record-low high shares of food and live animals exports, primarily level for some time which may eventually contribute due to products from fi shing and the fi sheries sector to a new real estate ‘bubble’. While housing prices are (dark blue in Figure 16) which account for up to 88% going down in most part of the Western Europe and in the Faroe Islands, 72% in Greenland and 41% in the US, they are still accelerating in Finland, Norway and Iceland of total national exports.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 71 Figure 16: Total exports and imports by sector in the Nordic Countries, 2009

Norway has more or less the same situation, but with in Greenland and 39% in Norway. This is followed the sector including mineral fuels, lubricants and related by imports of manufactured goods and miscelanous materiales (related to high levels of oil exportation) manufactured articles in all countries except Greenland accounting for up to 64% of total Norwegian exports. and the Faroe Islands where imports of food and live In Finland and Sweden the highest share of exports animals is higher than in the rest of Nordic countries. corresponds to machinery and transport equipment Intra-Nordic trade linkages are important for all with ﬁ gures between 36% and 41% respectively,followed Nordic countries, each of the countries has at least one by manufactured goods which constitute the second other Nordic Country – Sweden or Norway - among its highest share of commodities exported from Iceland main three most important trade partners, both in terms (38%). In Denmark the highest shares are machinery of exports and imports. Intra-Nordic trade is relatively and transport equipment, food and live animals and most important for Sweden (24%) and Denmark (23%), miscellanous manufactured articles each with shares and least important for Norway (16%), while Faroese between 15% and 25% respectively. and Greenlandic trade is heavily depended on trading Differences between countries are less signiﬁ cant with the other Nordic countries, at 50% and 81%, when looking at imports by sector. For all countries respectively. Of this, however, the major portion is due imports of machinery and transport equipment to trade with Denmark. account for the highest shares varying between 26%

72 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 17: Trade ﬂ ows in the Nordic Countries 2009

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 73 Labour Market

Despite the remarkable upswing after the economic However, the current status of the labour crisis of the 1990s, where a substantial number of jobs force is affected by several factors, such as changes were created in the Nordic labour markets, the global in the population, an ageing population, an increment fi nancial crisis of the late 2000s resulted in a new of vulnerable groups in the labour market, youth increase in unemployment rates in all countries. Iceland, unemployment and long term unemployment. And as Sweden and Finland were especially hard hit. Among the population of the Nordic countries grows older over other factors, the increase has been affected by an ageing the coming years the Nordic labour force will experience population, population changes especially in sparsely a process of ageing which will be characterised by populated areas and the marginalisation of vulnerable an uneven distribution across the Nordic countries. groups such as youth, the long-term unemployed and Similarly young adults tend to move from peripheral immigrants. A strong focus on the need for education areas to metropolitan areas due to the greater availability and training, further cooperation between companies, of ‘opportunities’, adding to the existing reality of the establishment of job centres and educational uneven development. Metropolitan areas will thus have institutions, as well as new activities and occupations are a signifi cantly more favourable age structure, while already initiatives collectively agreed among the Nordic peripheral regions have a larger share of non-active countries, and considered as being the most crucial persons over 50 years. As the employment rate among tools in creating new jobs and reducing unemployment. immigrants tend to be lower than the national average, This section will focus on the state of the Nordic metropolitan regions may have a relatively larger share labour force, including questions of unemployment and of non-active persons of immigrant origin. employment patterns, as well as looking at the various measures used to combat unemployment in recent years across the Nordic countries. Variations in unemployment rates The unemployment rate indicates the effi ciency of the regional labour market. In an effi cient labour market the A positive general state supply and demand of labour is supposed to be relatively The European Council in Lisbon (2000) set the long- balanced. The regional challenge is thus to reach a level term target for national employment to at least 70% of unemployment that secures a dynamic labour market, by 2010. This goal was updated in 2010 in the Europe without creating social or economic problems. Often an 2020 strategy, which sites that 75% of the population unemployment rate of 2% is considered necessary in aged 20-64 should be employed. Total employment for order to be able to respond to structural changes thus people in the EU27 aged 15-64 increased from 62.4% keeping labour markets energised. in 2002 to 65.9% in 2008, but decreased again to 64.6% Unemployment levels are strongly infl uenced in 2009. The employment rate for women fell to 58.6% by the economic situation. During the period 2003- after a continuous increase in the previous years. In 2005 the European unemployment rate was around contrast, the employment rate for people aged 55-64 9%. From the beginning of 2006 unemployment has continued to rise, from 36.9 in 2002 to 46% in 2009. decreased rapidly. Between the summers of 2007 and The global fi nancial crisis of 2008-2009 thus had a 2008 European unemployment reached a minimum of signifi cant impact on EU employment rates. Today, the around 7%. However, the economic crises in the fall original target of 70% has been achieved in only 8 states, of 2008 resulted in a rapid increase in the European including Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden, with unemployment rate. In 2009, the annual average employment rates between 72% and 78%. Finland with unemployment rate of the EU27 was 8.9%. According 68% is just slightly below the target. Thus the Nordic to Eurostat, the rate was still increasing in June 2010 area is performing well with regard to employment rates (Figure 18), but remained unchanged to July (9.6%). in a European perspective. The Baltic States and Spain were still the most affected,

74 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 with rates over 15%. All Nordic national rates remained Unemployment is expected to continue rising below the EU27 average, which indicates a modest level. but it is still uncertain whether it will ﬁ nally turn down Nevertheless, signiﬁ cant changes occurred between in 2010 or 201127. and within countries as a consequence of the crisis.

Figure 18: Unemployment rates in June 2010 compared to 2008 annual rates

As in other advanced economies and in the rest of (Figure 19). Employment growth rates increased at Europe, the development of employment growth rates an average speed of 1% per year, but rapidly declined in the Nordic countries throughout the global fi nancial in 2008-2009 reaching levels even lower than those crisis experienced a signifi cant negative change. In the registered in the middle of the 1990s. From a gender fi rst half of the 2000s, weakening economic growth in perspective, the Nordic female employment rates for the EU and the Nordic countries reduced the demand 2009 are well above the EU27 average of 58.6%. Iceland for labour in the fi rst three years of the century, but (76.5%) registered the highest female employment the emergence of a revitalised economic situation after rate followed by Norway (74.4%), Denmark 2003 shifted the Nordic countries back into growth (73.1%), Sweden (70.2%) and Finland (67.9%).

Figure 19: Total employment growth rate 1995-2009

Among the Nordic countries, Iceland has suffered in both countries already during periods of economic the most dramatic change in unemployment over the growth. In Finland, after a stable recovery after the last ﬁ ve years. Before the crisis, the country had the 1990s recession, unemployment rates rose again in lowest unemployment rate in Europe, less than 2% 2008. In Sweden, the level has ﬂ uctuated over the last in February 2007. However, in less than three years it three years. In Denmark, the unemployment rate almost reached an unprecedented rate of around 8%. Between doubled between 2008 (3.3%) and 2009 (6.0%), though March 2008 and 2009, unemployment in Iceland it still remains well below the EU27 average. Norway increased by a factor of nine, from 1 600 to almost had only shown a moderate increase in unemployment 15 000 persons. Sweden and Finland had the highest and has the lowest unemployment rate in Europe in annual unemployment rates at the end of 2009, 8.5% 2009 (3.1%). and 8.4% respectively. Unemployment was a problem

27 SEB, 2009 & Danske Bank 2009

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 75 Figure 20: Unemployment development in the Nordic countries in the last 10 years (annual change) and during the global ﬁ nancial crisis (quartile change)

Vulnerability of youth, long-term unemployed and immigrants Some groups in the Nordic labour force are more others who have not already been in work, such as those vulnerable to unemployment such as youths, who leave education at an early stage, are among the immigrants and those already suffering from long-term most vulnerable to being excluded from the labour unemployment. Youth unemployment includes persons market. aged 15-24 years. In this group, young graduates and

Figure 21: Total and youth unemployment (2009) and youth unemployment development between 2006 and 2010 (ﬁ rst quarter)

A considerable risk exists that many of these in Denmark and Norway are below the EU27 average, unemployed youths will become marginalised, lacking while Finland, Sweden and Iceland register the highest links to either work or school. Problems often begin rates in Europe along with Spain, Ireland and the Baltic before youths are unemployed and several factors, States. In Finland, for example, problems employing such as family background, income, divorced parents youths after graduation during the current crisis were and fi rst generation immigrants, have to be taken into intensifi ed after the university reform in 2008, when consideration when analysing the risk of marginalisation. thousands of new students with master’s degrees came Annual averages of youth unemployment rates in 2009 onto the labour market in search of jobs. This led to are higher in Sweden and Finland, with rates over a signifi cant increase of the share of highly-educated 21%, followed by Iceland 15.9%, Denmark 11.2% and unemployed, from 18 500 to almost 26 800 persons Norway 8.9%. National rates of youth unemployment between the fi rst half of 2008 and 2010. The situation

76 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 is most diffi cult in the technology, social sciences, and Figure 23: Long term unemployment in Nordic regions at the commercial sectors. end of 2008 According to Figure 22, all Swedish NUTS2 regions, as well as three out the fi ve Finnish regions, are above the EU27 youth unemployment average. Danish and Norwegians regions, on the other hand, have the lowest rates and shares, especially in Danish regions with a low number of youths as a percentage of the total workforce. Following these national patterns, there is also a discernable difference between Nordic capital regions, where Oslo and Copenhagen register low rates, while Stockholm and Etelä-Suomi (which includes Helsinki and other adjacent cities) have intermediate fi gures close to the EU27 average.

Figure 22: Youth unemployment in the Nordic regions at the end of 2008

Another vulnerable group is immigrants. Total unemployment among immigrants in 2009 was highest in Finland and Sweden, with rates over the EU27 average of 16.4%. Iceland and Denmark had rates between 11 and 13% and Norway registered the lowest unemployment rate among immigrants with 7.1%. The low number for non-EU immigrants in Denmark relates to the restrictive policies for this group of immigrants. When looking at the origin of foreigners in the Nordic countries, citizens from outside the EU27 have higher unemployment rates than nationals from other EU27 countries. Metropolitan regions tend to attract more foreign labour than peripheral regions and therefore they have relatively larger shares of non-immigrant persons and faster population change patterns. The category of ‘long-term unemployed’ includes any person who has been outside the labour market for one year or more. The share of long term unemployment Figure 24: Total and immigrant unemployment rates in the as a percentage of the total workforce in the Nordic Nordic countries in 2009 countries is well below the EU level. In 2009, the EU27 average was 33.2% and it was higher for women (34.8%) than for men (31.8%). Among the Nordic countries, the highest share of long-term unemployment is registered in Finland (16.8%) and the lowest in Denmark (9.1%). This is illustrated in Figure 23 showing all Finnish NUTS2 regions, with the exception of Åland, with the highest shares. In terms of long-term unemployment as a percentage of total population in the workforce, Nordic regions are located below the EU27 average of 2%, indicating a low level from a European perspective. All Norwegian regions, Åland and some Danish regions have the lowest rates, followed by the Nordic capital areas and some regions in the northern areas of Finland, Sweden and Denmark.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 77 In terms of numbers, vulnerable groups such as youth, increase in unemployment was related to problems immigrants and the long term unemployed can be in the forestry sector, for example concerning tree expected to vary considerably in different regions. Some custom fees with Russia and export markets for paper regions have business structures that rely more on and pulp. Rates have still not returned to the levels manual and labour-intensive work, while other regions registered before the crisis. The only region with very have business structures that rely on work at the higher low unemployment in Finland is Åland, where all 16 end of the production chain. The marginalisation of municipalities have rates below 3%, among the lowest in different groups in a regional context will depend on Norden. The lowest rates in mainland Finland (between the existence of such differences across regions. 5% and 6%) are found in south and south-eastern regions such as Uusimaa, Itä-Uusimaa and Pohjanmaa In contrast, some of highest rates in Norden (above Regional and municipal unemployment 12%) are found in north and north-eastern regions Substantial regional differences continue to exist in such as Pohjois-Karjala, Kainuu and Lappi. Thus a terms of unemployment between the Nordic countries. clear regional and geographic polarisation, including The lowest fi gures (below 2%) are found in most both some of the highest and lowest municipal rates municipalities in Norway and in Åland, the only Finnish in the Nordic regions, is visible in Finland. Additionally region with rates below 5%. The highest fi gures (above 11 out of the 20 regions currently have unemployment 16%) are found in northern Swedish and Finnish rates above the EU27 average. According to the Labour municipalities, located in Pohjois-Karjala, Lappi and Force Survey, there were 248 000 unemployed in April Norrbotten, in Læsø in Nordjylland (Denmark) and 2010, which was 15 000 more than in April the year Trollhättan in Västra Götaland (Sweden). In Denmark, before. The number of male unemployed increased Iceland and Norway, regional differences are smaller, in comparison with 2009 while female unemployment with only a few municipalities at the EU average level remained stable. or above. In Iceland, when looking at the 2010 regional and In Sweden, more or less all regions experienced municipal unemployment rates, the country does not an increase in unemployment after the crisis. All have rates as high as those shown in Sweden or Finland. municipalities in the traditional manufacturing area of Only 5 out of 76 Icelandic municipalities are above the Blekinge, Västernorrland and Gävleborg exceeded the EU27 average. However, these fi gures hide the reality annual EU 27 average of 2009 (8.9%), with a similar of the considerable change in unemployment that the situation in other northern sparsely populated areas, country experienced in the years subsequent to the such as Norrbotten and Jämtland, and regions adjacent outbreak of the global fi nancial crisis. Unemployment in to Stockholm County, for instance Västmanland and 2010 is 8-9 times higher than 2-3 years before. According Södermanland. Other regions with high unemployment to Statistics Iceland, in the second quarter of 2010, 16 rates above the EU average include Örebro and 200 persons were unemployed, representing 8.7% of Värmland, which have suffered from a permanent the workforce. The unemployment rate was higher for population decrease in recent years. High rates (above men (9.4%) than for women (8%), but highest among 16%) were also found in municipalities bordering Finland persons aged 16-24 years old (21.3%). The highest and in Trollhättan in Västra Götaland, the hardest rates are found in the north-eastern regions and the hit municipality in Sweden in 2009 as a consequence Reykjavik region with some surrounding municipalities, of the automotive industry bankruptcy. In total, 10 for example Reykjanesbær and Sandgerði, the only out of 21 Swedish regions had rates above the 2009 two Icelandic municipalities with rates over 10%. EU27 average. The only municipalities with low rates, Even though the authorities have allocated hundreds about 2-3%, were some high-income municipalities in of millions of Icelandic kronor to measures designed Stockholm County (Vallentuna, Täby, Lidingö, Ekerö, to alleviate the situation, the country still has limited Danderyd and Vaxholm). According to the Labour resources to fi ght unemployment, leaving youths, early Force Survey and Statistics Sweden, 488 000 persons school leavers, recent graduates and those who have not were unemployed in June 2010, of whom 263 000 were already been in work very vulnerable29. men and 225 000 women. In Denmark, after a long period of falling In Finland after the 1990s crisis a constant unemployment which reached the lowest level of recent decline in unemployment was sustained until 2006. times in the middle of 2008, rates began to increase and After that, the already high rates of employment seen continued to climb throughout 2009. The number of from a Nordic perspective rose substantially. This unemployed in 2009 was in comparison double that of indicates that Finland has suffered long-term structural the year before. The highest regional unemployment unemployment on the labour market28. The earlier rates correspond to regions in the Danish periphery

28 Norden, 2010b 29 Nordic Labour Journal, 2010b

78 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 (Bornholm and Nordjylland). A few municipalities its lowest level around the fi rst half of 2008, but the have rates over the EU27 average, while the majority following year it increased to 5.3%. In Greenland, of municipal rates fl uctuate between 4.5% and 6.5% in after a short recovery between 2005 and 2008, 2009. The highest rates are found in the most peripheral unemployment increased to 7.1% in 2009. The islands, such as Læso, Bornholm, Lolland, Samsø and high dependence on fi shing makes the Faroese and Langeland, but also in some of the municipalities in the Greenlandic economies very vulnerable to fl uctuations Greater Copenhagen area. in world demand and world market prices, though the Among all Nordic and European countries, periods of unemployment are often very short due Norway was the only economy that managed to exit to the availability of seasonal jobs. At the same time the global crisis with only relatively minor alterations it may be diffi cult to determine when unemployment and the lowest unemployment rate in Europe. In appears in the small scale fi sheries sector. This has been comparison with the rest of Nordic countries, Norway a general problem in connection with the registration shows a stable and homogenous picture in terms of of unemployment in smaller settlements in Greenland. unemployment. The unemployment rate in Norway Regions with the highest unemployment fi gures include rose from 2.3% in March 2008 to 3.2% in March 2009, Kujalleq (10%) in Greenland and the Norðoya district according to Labour Force Surveys. The 2009 rates (7.3%) in the Faroe Islands. in Norwegian regions ranged between 2% and 3.5%, The geography of the unemployment rate and but all municipalities had unemployment rates below the labour market situation illustrates the situation of the EU27 average and below the rest of the Nordic potential labour shortage in the metropolitan and major municipalities. Only a few municipalities, mainly located city regions and the excess supply of labour in the less in northern areas of the country, had rates over 5%. central regions. The imbalances are particularly large in Around three quarters of all Norwegian municipalities Sweden and Finland. Regions with a less prosperous had very low rates (0.5-3%). According to Statistics development are those that tend to be characterised Norway, a high percentage of the adult population in by an old-fashioned industrial structure based on Norway is in employment, mainly due to the high level manufacturing and natural resources-based industries. of female employment. About 7 out of 10 women and The labour supply in these regions often simply does not almost 8 out of 10 men are currently employed. possess the qualities demanded by modern industries in In the Faroe Islands, unemployment reached central regions.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 79 Figure 25: Harmonised unemployment rates 2009 at municipal level in the Nordic countries

80 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 A service-oriented and highly skilled the regional level. The secondary sector, including labour force employment in manufacturing, industry, construction The sectoral structure of the Nordic labour market has and energy has been most affected. After a period changed considerably in recent decades. The Nordic of relative growth up to 2007, with rates above 2%, countries have shifted from agrarian and industrial there was a signifi cant drop in 2008-2009, this was societies into societies dominated by a large service primarily caused by the collapse of exports in respect sector. While the major shift away from being agrarian of manufactured goods. This is visible particularly in took place already during the decades after World Sweden, which experienced a signifi cant negative change War II, the shift from industries to services being due to the bankruptcy of the automobile industry, and the major contributor to the economy become even in Finland, in the paper and pulp industry. Norway clearer when looking at employment by sector from the suffered least in terms of negative growth, probably beginning of the 1990s onwards. All Nordic countries due to the stable situation of the petroleum market. are characterised by small primary sectors, shrinking The large Nordic tertiary sector also experienced industrial sectors and large – and generally expanding negative growth, although to a much lower extent, - service sectors. while the primary sector, including forestry, mining By looking at its development over the last 5 and agriculture, had already experienced a negative years (Figure 26), all three sectors have experienced a trend as a consequence of the shift in activity across negative trend as a consequence of the global fi nancial the Nordic economies in favour of the services sector. crisis. Figure 43 in the Annex shows this situation at Figure 26: Employment growth by main economic sectors in the Nordic countries 2005-2009

Reviewing the various service sub-sectors employment 6.2%) and Finland (7.6%)31. in transport and communication has declined in An additional asset for the Nordic labour Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but increased in market is its highly skilled labour force, as the Nordic Finland and Iceland. The fi nance, insurance, real estate countries can boast the highest levels of population and business services sub sector has, however, seen with a tertiary education in Europe at a regional a moderate increase in the number of employees. In level. Skilled workers tend to be more productive, all Nordic countries, between 45% and 54% of all less exposed to unemployment; more satisfi ed with employment is found in these particular sectors30. their professional lives and retire at an older age. The Nordic countries are European leaders, along There is, however, something of a trade-off between with Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium, immediately exploiting young persons’ labour potential with regard to persons employed in highly skilled and the benefi ts which accrue with their attainment occupations, including highly educated professionals, of a higher education to meet the requirements of legislators, senior offi cials, managers, technicians and the ‘modern’ labour market. The EU Green Paper on other associated professionals. In Iceland 48.5% of Territorial Cohesion states that the competitiveness and the workforce is employed in such jobs, followed by prosperity of territories increasingly depends upon the Sweden, Denmark and Finland (46.1%) and Norway capacity of the people and businesses located within (45%), all above the 2009 EU27 average of 39%. them to make the best use of all their territorial assets. The Nordic countries also have the lowest shares of Therefore, the level of education and the quality of the employees working in elementary occupations in the entire educational system are crucial elements EU27, with Norway (4.5%), Sweden (6%), Iceland in the construction of a skilled labour force.32 31 Eurostat, 2010 32 Damsgaard, O.; Lindqvist, M.; Roto, J.; Sterling, J. (2009) 30 Norden, 2009 Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 81 Figure 27: Labour force levels of education in the Nordic countries

Paper 2009:6

On average, 23% of the European working age skilled regions in Europe. Not only large metropolitan population has a tertiary level education, with in general areas but also regions with low population densities all Nordic countries being above the EU27 average in northern Norway and Finland have a highly skilled (Figure 27). At the Nordic regional level the highest workforce with a tertiary level educated population percentages are associated with densely populated areas above 30%. and/or major cities. Oslo (46%) and Etelä-Suomi (40%) When it comes to ‘life-long learning’, the are, along with London and Brussels, among the highest tendency is similar and all Nordic countries have ﬁ gures

82 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 well above the EU27 average of 9%, with Finland training and employment within three months of them (29%), Denmark (20%) and Sweden (18%) at the top. losing their previous jobs. The programme is operated Apart from the so-called ‘traditional economic in conjunction with colleges and other educational sectors’, new highly skilled activities and occupations institutions, municipalities, voluntary organisations and in the Nordic countries are expected to emerge driven some companies. In 2010 the Icelandic Directorate by new technologies, innovation and specialisation. of Labour introduced ThOR (ÞOR in the Icelandic A crucial driving force for this is constituted by high alphabet for þekking og reynsla), a programme on schools, universities and other educational or training knowledge and experience, oriented mainly to the long- institutions as they have the potential to fi nd new term unemployed and offering a variety of activities, niches in the labour market for which they can offer an including courses, seminars, education and employment- education. based sessions. In Denmark measures to counter unemployment are based on cooperation between job centres, companies Measures countering unemployment: and educational institutions. In 2009, the Ministry of education and training as the main drivers Employment gathered key social partners, such as trade The Nordic countries have a strong commitment to unions, employers and municipalities, agreed upon the education and assistance on an individual level to bring importance of a highly educated and skilled labour force the young and long-term unemployed people back as one of the main measures to combat unemployment. into working life. The last Nordic meeting of labour A political agreement in February 2009 defi ned a ministers in Reykjavik in November 2009 confi rmed number of changes in the rules for active labour market this by stressing solutions and measures to fi ght programmes, aimed at targeting the need to re-skill the unemployment among the most vulnerable groups, unemployed. Employees could, for example, receive a especially among young persons, with or without training subsidy when they hired unemployed persons education or skills. A big concern regarding the current with at least 3 months of inactivity. Training can last employment situation in the Nordic countries is the up to 6 weeks and is provided by an external services fear of a “lost generation” of young people falling into provider. In August 2009, a reorganisation of the local long-term unemployment33. At the same time the issue job centres took place through the merger of the state of gender-bias in relation to education has also become and municipal branches. This meant that from 2010 full a major concern. There is now a clear discernable economic responsibility was given to the municipalities, pattern developing that a larger proportion of persons with a refund from the state. Job centres were to play a with secondary and tertiary level education are women more active role and offer courses and training. In January (see section on Education for details). This section 2010 a joint set of 23 initiatives between the Ministry describes some of the main measures adopted by the of Employment and the social partners was presented. Nordic countries in this regard. The initiatives were oriented to assisting employers that Iceland was perhaps the most unprepared of the were in the process of restructuring and employees Nordic countries to face the change in unemployment who were about to be dismissed. These measures as the Icelandic benefi ts system was designed at a included extended education and support opportunities time when unemployment was basically unknown. for the unemployed even after the person left the fi rm; However, the government has been trying to address counselling and the development of action plans for the the situation. In January 2009 a new regulation on newly unemployed. Persons not covered by a collective labour market measures, prepared by the Directorate agreement were to get the same right as those working of Labour, was introduced. It included initiatives for under such agreements. In the autumn of 2009, a large the unemployed such as further training subsides, self- parliamentary majority voted in a youth plan (the so- improvement courses, job introduction, vocational called ‘ungepakken’) designed to prevent the emergence training, trial engagements, counselling, employment- of a lost generation. In April 2010, the government also related rehabilitation, and a further promotion of youth introduced an action plan oriented towards increasing entrepreneurship. There were also initiatives to support the recruitment of foreign workers into the Danish companies, such as help with the development of labour market, as part of a long-term effort to improve business plans and economic support to fi rms engaged both the quality and size of the workforce. The Minister in innovation projects. Later in 2009, the Ministry of of Employment will announce later in 2010 a number Social Affairs introduced a programme called “Youth of new initiatives oriented towards reducing long term Action” oriented towards young job seekers under 25 unemployment based on giving education and training years of age, without an education and to early college a high level priority and improving contact between job leavers. The purpose was to offer counselling, job centres and the unemployed34.

33 Nordic Labour Journal, 2010b 34 Based on EEO, 2010a

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 83 In Sweden the main goal is to keep young people people and those who are not in education or work. active while focusing on education and re-activation After overseeing a continuing rise in unemployment, programmes. The measures are conceived within the in early 2010, the Finnish government implemented education system in combination with active labour a series of measures including wage subsides targeted market measures, giving young people a chance to at young school leavers and those who cannot fi nd a increase their competences. New tasks have been given job, as well as the introduction of subsidised salaries to the job centres as they are in charge of executing to encourage employers to hire young people. In May labour market measures aimed at both the short and 2010, the so-called “Sanssi kortti” (Finnish for “Chance the long term unemployed. Already from the fi rst day card”) was launched. This gave employers the right to of unemployment, coaching will be offered and the have some of the employee’s salary covered by the state, youth guarantee (which comes into effect after three lowering the threshold for employing young people for months of unemployment) will be strengthened while both normal jobs and apprenticeships. The main the government has stated that it will also focus on objective was to strengthen employment among new creating new start jobs for the long term unemployed. graduates under 30 years of age. Persons under 25 years There is also an increase in the number of education qualify automatically, but older persons must have been and training places and a modifi cation of some out of work for more than six months. The job centres courses in order to re-attract early school leavers to act as centres for counselling, since every time a card both secondary and college education. As in Iceland, is issued by the Employment and Economic Offi ces entrepreneurship activities will be used to encourage of Finland, a so called ‘employment plan’ has to be young people to start their own businesses. Extensive designed for the job seeker. fi scal measures adopted by the Parliament at the end As noted previously, since the start of the of 2009 were implemented during the fi rst quarter economic crisis Norway has not suffered to anything of 2010 as a way of securing the welfare system by like the same extent in terms of dramatic changes in maintaining levels of employment in the public sector. employment compared to the other Nordic countries. A reduction in the tax levels paid by pensioners and an Nevertheless, labour market measures were implemented increase in the housing supplement support for people to combat unemployment and to help those who were with sickness and activity compensation took effect on deemed to be at risk of being excluded from the labour 1 January 2010. Additionally, eligibility requirements market. In general, these measures aimed at improving for individuals who were long term absentees from the the individual’s chances of fi nding employment through labour market were modifi ed and employment offi ces work training, education and new qualifi cations. In line started a programme oriented to assessing the ability of with the Nordic trend, such measures prioritise target this group to eventually return to the labour market35. groups such as youth, the long-term unemployed, those The Finnish government has developed an with an impaired work capacity, long-term recipients of expansive economic programme and introduced tax social security benefi ts and immigrants, with emphasis cuts as its two main incentives to stimulate growth. on the newcomers for whom a special introductory There is also great interest in the availability of a skilled programme has been drawn up. The Youth Guarantee labour force, including professional skills derived scheme is offered to those below 20 years of age who from education, as an increasingly important element are not in education. Those between 20 and 24 who of future economic growth. Education remains a top have been unemployed for more than three months priority in Finland, in line with the rest of the Nordic are eligible for additional follow-up assistance and help countries. Finland’s main target groups are young with job seeking and personal activity.

35 Based on EEO, 2010c

84 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Combined challenges and future possibilities

When combining the latest total population change regions. The Nordic labour force, moreover, continues in 2005-2010, the level of employment in 2008 and to present a number of favourable characteristics when economic performance in terms of GDP in PPS per compared to the European average. Achievement capita in 2007 on the regional level, the Nordic map of the Lisbon and Europe 2020 targets in terms (Figure 28) shows the existence of a number of rather of employment rates situates the Nordic area in a diverse regional situations. favourable position among advanced economies, while The capital regions, together with some major indicators such as total unemployment and long-term secondary city regions are clearly the best performers unemployment were below the EU27 average in 2009, (dark blue regions). Many of the other regions even though severe changes in national and regional included in this category with increasing populations, rates were evident, especially in 2009. high employment levels and high GDP per capita, such The likely future challenges to the Nordic regions, as western Norway, Jutland, southern Sweden and and their labour markets in particular, relate primarily to Finnish Ostrobothnia, are not however in a similarly the issue of population change. In the coming years the favourable situation. They are suffering from domestic potential labour force will decrease in size in most of out-migration, compensated for by higher birth the Nordic regions as a result of the retirement of large rates, but with the out-migration eventually posing a age-classes - the post-war baby-boomers, worsening challenge for future development as many of the out- the dependency ratio and the depopulation of some migrants are young and skilled persons, often with a sparsely populated peripheral regions. In addition, the tertiary education. In contrast, the Nordic regions with number of persons in those groups deemed as being decreasing population levels, low levels of employment ‘at risk’ of exclusion from the labour market, such as and low GDP per capita (dark red regions) are found the young and immigrants with previous experience of in the most rural regions, like Bornholm in Denmark, unemployment, is still critical in some Nordic regions. Finnmark in Norway and Värmland in Sweden. Similarly Future economic development and growth must in Finland a signiﬁ cant number of eastern and northern therefore be sought through increased employment regions have to cope with combined risks such as these. and productivity. In that light it looks promising that Even if overall regional polarisation in the the overall level of education has risen rapidly in recent Nordic countries slowed during the previous decade decades. This trend is expected to continue, as age Nordic regions still display different preconditions in groups with lesser training leave the labour market, their attempts to meet future challenges. Population although the challenge still remains for young people and job development is still fastest in the major city to ﬁ nd employment. The highly skilled workforce, regions while domestic migration may alter the picture with high levels of education and a high female labour somewhat - though the net migration gains and losses participation rate in the Nordic workforce seems to are smaller. be both a comparative and a competitive advantage In recent years, the overall population increase in relation to other regions in Europe. Moreover, the has smoothed while GDP growth has not been that measures related to the ability to adapt to the changes high compared to many other European – or global – in the global economy should be prioritised.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 85 Figure 28: Regional Development types

86 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Introduction

Approaches to innovation by national authorities defi nition: “new or improved services, products and dealing with the issue in the Nordic countries have processes.” One example shows some divergence from been inspired by the defi nition of innovation used by other defi nitions in its reference to knowledge and the OECD. According to the OECD’s Oslo Manual society. This defi nition is introduced by the Finnish (2005) innovation is the implementation of a new or Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation signifi cantly improved product (good or service) or (TEKES): “Innovation implies that knowledge and process, a new marketing method or a new organisational competence is used in a new way either commercially method in business practices, workplace organisation or or societally.”36 external relations. Similarly, the defi nition used by the Entrepreneurship is, by policy makers, considered Nordic Innovation Centre states: “Innovation covers a an important driver of innovation, economic growth, new product, including a service-product, a new process productivity and employment. This chapter aims to or a new organisational or managerial structure.” The provide an overview of the state of innovation and Swedish government agency VINNOVA uses a briefer entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries.

Knowledge as a resource base

In a globalised world, knowledge is becoming an Some variation can be found between the increasingly important factor in the development signiﬁ cance of sectors in the different countries. In the of regional competitiveness. In a knowledge-based Faroe Islands, the share of employment in agriculture economy, the pressure on the labour force to have a and construction is relatively high compared to the other high level of education and for the state to enable the countries, while in Sweden the share of these two sectors existence of a high quality school system increases. is low. The industrial sector maintains the highest share It also becomes necessary to invest in research and of total employment in Finland, whereas it has the least development as the primary resource base for innovation relative weight in Greenland and Iceland. Financial and and development. However, a high level of research similar activities, compared to other countries, have the expenditures may not be enough. There is also a need highest share of total employment in Sweden. Other for mechanisms to stimulate the commercialisation of service activities, including public administration, have a academic research and the transfer of different types of similarly high weight of approximately 40% in Sweden, knowledge between the public and private sectors. Norway and Denmark, while this share of employment is almost 50% in Greenland.

Occupational structure Figure 29 illustrates the differences in occupational Educated human resources structure in the Nordic countries and two of the The level of education and the quality of the entire autonomous territories, Faroe Islands and Greenland. education system are of high importance in the

36 Hedin, S.; Dubois, A.; Ikonen, R.; Lähteenmäki-Smith, K.; Neubauer, J.; Pettersson, K.; Rauhut, D.; Tynkkynen, V.; Uhlin, Å. (2008) Regionally Differentiated Innovation Policy in the Nordic Countries – Applying the Lisbon Strategy, Nordregio Report 2008:2, Stockholm, Sweden.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 87 Figure 29: Share of employment by sector in Norden 2008

knowledge-based economy. Figure 30 illustrates The increasing signifi cance of knowledge- the average level of education in the regions of the intensive business services Nordic countries, and the location of higher education Firms delivering knowledge-intensive business services opportunities, providing an overview of the gender (KIBS) are increasingly cited as occupying a central distribution at universities and university colleges across role as integrators of various parts of the innovation the Nordic countries. system, e.g. through their inclusion in the knowledge Higher education is clearly concentrated to and innovation infrastructure of society together metropolitan areas in the Nordic countries, as one third with education and research institutions. Research has of students at higher education institutions study in confi rmed that the largest concentration of KIBS the capital regions. On average, 57.7% of students are is found in large metropolitan areas across Europe. female. As depicted on the map, only ten municipalities, For knowledge-intensive fi rms, which operate in Filipstad (with the lowest share of female students - competitive markets, spatial concentration offers 16.7%) followed by Narvik, Lappeenranta, Mariehamn, advantages connected with the production and diffusion Karlskrona, Vaasa, Tampere, Oulu, Trondheim and of knowledge and with individual and collective Kotka, have more male than female students. They all learning processes. Spatial and socio-cultural proximity have either a technical university or a (university) college make access to information and knowledge easier37. focusing on maritime or forestry studies. With regard As illustrated in Figure 30, urban areas also hold the to the level of education in the regions of the Nordic highest concentration of educated human resources, countries, it is clear that the share of the population which is an essential element for the competitiveness with a tertiary level education above 30% exists mainly of KIBS fi rms. in capital regions.

37 Simmie, J.; Strambach, S. (2006) The contribution of KIBS to innovation in cities: an evolutionary and institutional perspective, Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.26-40

88 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 30: Students in Higher Education in Norden

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 89 Knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) are Figure 31: Private/public sector R&D expenditure characterised by employing a large number of highly skilled employees. They operate in sectors such as R&D, IT-consultancy, legal services, management, training, advertising and PR and book keeping and can be deﬁ ned as follows:

“KIBS refer to those services provided by businesses to other businesses or to the public sector in which expertise plays an especially important role38” (Toivonen, 2004).

A recent study which explored the signiﬁ cance of KIBS in Stockholm and the two other larger cities in Sweden, Gothenburg and Malmö, found that relative to the rest of the country, the cities have a high concentration of KIBS. Thus, the share of individuals employed in the KIBS sector is twice as large in the three city regions combined. In a comparison between the three cities, however, it becomes evident that the KIBS sector is mainly concentrated to the capital region of Stockholm.39

Figure 32 illustrates the development of the total Research and development expenditure expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP during High levels of private and public expenditure in the period 2001-2007 for the Nordic countries and research and development (R&D) is considered another the EU27 average. Throughout the period, Sweden signifi cant precondition for innovation. In 2002, the had the highest expenditure on R&D as a percentage goal of spending at least 3% of GDP on R&D by of GDP, ranging from more than 4% in 2001 to 3.5% 2010 was added to the Lisbon Strategy. In a Europe- in 2007. Norway is at the other end of the scale with wide study however it was clearly evident that only the an expenditure rate of approximately 1.5%, which is two Nordic countries of Finland and Sweden have slightly below the EU27 average. reached this goal40. Figure 31 illustrates the position of the Nordic countries relative to a number of EU member states and the EU27 average in the year 2008. Figure 32: Evolution of gross domestic expenditure on R&D The fi gure demonstrates that the fi ve Nordic countries as a percentage of GDP have some of the highest public R&D expenditure as a share of GDP, of which Iceland takes the lead with an expenditure of 1.26% of GDP. Finland, followed by Sweden is ranked highest, compared to all countries, in terms of private sector R&D expenditure in 2008 with respectively 2.56% and 2.50% of GDP. In a comparison of the Nordic countries, Norway has the lowest expenditure on both public and private R&D expenditure. Its share in private sector R&D expenditure, at 0.80% of GDP, is low compared to both the EU countries in general and the other Nordic countries in particular.

38 Toivonen, M. (2004) Foresight in Services: Possibilities and Special Challenges, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.79-98 39 Lindqvist et al (2010), Kunskapsintensiva tjänsteföretag i svenska storstadsregioner: regionala utvecklingsstrategier och påverkan av den ekonomiska krisen, Regionplane- och traﬁ kkontoret, Stockholm, (Forthcoming) 40 Damsgaard, O.; Lindqvist, M.; Roto, J.; Sterling, J. (2009) Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working Paper 2009:6.

90 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Regional Innovation Performance

As indicated above, innovation concerns the performing in Europe. However, Iceland and Norway transformation of resources, e.g. R&D expenditures are categorised as delivering a moderate innovation and human capital, into commercialised products performance. This is also the case in eastern Finland (goods and services), processes and procedures. and the central area of Sweden, while Denmark and the Innovations are often created cooperatively between main parts of Sweden and Finland are categorised as the private and public sectors41. Figure 33 illustrates the high performance regions. Very high performance exists regional innovation performance of European regions only in the capital regions of Finland and Sweden, also in 2006-2007. The ﬁ gure demonstrates that the regions including the city regions of Skåne and Västra Götaland of the Nordic countries are not among the lowest in Sweden. Figure 33: Regional Innovaion Performance in Europe

41 Damsgaard, O.; Lindqvist, M.; Roto, J.; Sterling, J. (2009) Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working Paper 2009:6.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 91 The importance of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is an important mechanism in the countries only Sweden lagged behind. Figure 34 exhibits stimulation of innovation and development. However, the division of enterprise birth rates, by sector, in 2006 a high level of formal education may not be enough to for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. guarantee that innovation takes place. A strong national Based on this fi gure, Denmark, followed by and regional entrepreneurship culture indicates a higher Finland and Sweden, has the highest enterprise birth potential to create growth from new start-up activities42. rate in all sectors except for electricity, gas and water In a global comparison the Nordic countries have not supply. Norway has the lowest level of enterprise birth been found among the highest performers in terms rates. The highest number of enterprise births in the of entrepreneurship. The Nordic Innovation Monitor three leading countries is in the real estate, fi nancial 2009 states that43: intermediation and hotel and restaurant sectors. Moreover, all four countries show a relatively high “In the area of entrepreneurship, the Nordic countries activity rate in the construction sector. lag behind signifi cantly. The Nordic countries have a weak entrepreneurial culture, and there is a shortage of Women’s Entrepreneurship Policies emerging growth entrepreneurs when comparing against Recent developments within international organisations the best performing countries.” like the EU, OECD and the ILO have put a strong emphasis on supporting the development of women Meanwhile, qualitative differences between the Nordic entrepreneurs. The OECD stresses that women’s countries are emphasised. In 2009, Finland had the entrepreneurship relates both to women’s position in highest share of high-growth entrepreneurs of the society and entrepreneurship in general: A weak social Nordic countries, and Denmark has been introduced position for women combined with a weak general as an example of a country where entrepreneurialism (political) interest in entrepreneurship have a very fl ourishes. In 2007, the Global Entrepreneurship negative effect on women’s entrepreneurship. Recent Monitor ranked Iceland as the most entrepreneurial research overviews made by the international research nation. Finland, Norway and Denmark were just below programme Global Entrepreneurship Monitor also the US level of entrepreneurship, and from the Nordic underline the importance of women’s entrepreneurship

Figure 34: Enterprises birth rates by sector in the Nordic countries 2006

42 Damsgaard, O., Lindqvist, M., Roto and Sterling, J. (2009), Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working Paper 2009:6. 43 Andersen, J. B. (2009), Mid-term evaluation of Nordic innovation policy 2005-2010, Nordic Innovation Centre.

92 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 in the development of national economies and national increased support for women’s entrepreneurship since economic growth.44 the mid-1990s, at least in Sweden and Norway, has had Between 2002 and 2008, the respective levels a rather limited impact. Only a short time period is of men and women in the Nordic countries among displayed however and the levels of entrepreneurship the ranks of the self-employed were relatively stable are connected to certain structural conditions, for at around 30%, except for Finland with approximately instance a gender segregated labour market and 35% (Figure 35). Perhaps this is an indication that the education system.

Figure 35: Distribution of self-employed workers in the Nordic countries, 2002-2008.

Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/13/31919215.pdf

In 2007, the GEM-study revealed that entrepreneurial highest level of entrepreneurial activity among men as activity in the working force varies between women well as among women, particularly in terms of early and men in the Nordic countries. Iceland has the stage companies, while Sweden has the lowest levels.

Table 3: Entrepreneurial activity among men and women in the Nordic countries Country Men (%) Women (%) Total Established Early stage Total Established Early stage (nascent+new) (nascent+new) Denmark 14,75 8,54 6,21 8,00 3,43 4,56 Finland 19,27 10,31 8,96 9,60 4,8 4,81 Iceland 30,83 13,43 17,4 11,42 3,98 7,44 Norway 16,79 8,2 8,59 7,78 3,5 4,28 Sweden 12,65 6,87 5,78 4,95 2,48 2,47

Source: GEM, 2007, Report on Women and Entrepreneurship, p. 12.

All Nordic countries, except for Iceland, have a applied vary between the countries and consist of programme or an action plan with the aim of supporting individually focused efforts, as well as more structurally women’s entrepreneurship. However, the measures focused efforts.45

44 Reynolds, P. et al. (2001), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 45 Pettersson, K. & Hedin, S., forthcoming, Support for Women’s Executive Report. Entrepreneurship – a Nordic Spectrum.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 93 Table 4: Measures supporting women´s entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries

Denmark Norway Sweden Finland Iceland

a) Individually focused

networking- and mentoring initiatives x

access to ﬁ nancing x

women role-models (ambassadors) x x

entrepreneurship training and development x x x improve the compilation of statistics on women’s xxxx entrepreneurship and support research Reinforced prioritisation of women in the x existing support system b) Structurally focused parental money with 100% coverage for self- x employed increase fathers quota of the parental leave x

education of business advisors x Support entrepreneurship and family life x development

The programmes vary in their underlying rationales for women entrepreneurs to resemble each other to a large supporting women’s entrepreneurship, from seeing it as degree, but still recognises that the gendered labour a driver of economic growth (neoliberal market paradigm), market and education system segregation inﬂ uences as a way to improve the situation of poor self-employed entrepreneurship and who becomes an entrepreneur. women and workers in the informal sector (feminist At the same time, it promotes measures to overcome empowerment paradigm), or as a tool for socially responsible perceived barriers to women’s entrepreneurship. In growth (interventionist poverty alleviation paradigm).46 Finland, most of the proposed actions focus on The Norwegian policy programme is most clearly individual women. Women’s entrepreneurship is seen inﬂ uenced by a feminist empowerment paradigm, as important for national and regional competitiveness, seeking to transform the existing support system employment and welfare, but also for equality through measures aimed at women. Consequently, between men and women. Iceland simply lacks a more Norway most clearly builds on an understanding and general national strategy for supporting women’s recognition of gendered inequalities, e.g. the gender entrepreneurship. However, there are some public segregated education system and labour market. policy initiatives to support women’s entrepreneurship Norway has launched a policy on parental money with relating in particular to the establishment of two grant 100% coverage for the self-employed, a budget line schemes in the 1990s. The Icelandic approach seems to of NOK 122 million per year, while also encouraging focus on complementing the existing support system men to take more parental leave. This seems quite with special measures for women.47 unique in the context of the Nordic countries, as Clearly also the geographical perspectives, and well as in a larger international context. Denmark, on possible focus on rural and sparsely populated areas, the other hand, focuses more on economic growth vary in the Nordic countries. Sweden seems to have among female business owners, while Sweden uses a shifted focus from rural areas in the north48 to a less mixed approach. Swedish policy considers men and geographically centred policy. Still, in the Swedish 47 Pettersson, K. & Hedin, S., forthcoming, Support for Women’s Entrepreneurship – a Nordic Spectrum. 46 Cf. Mayoux, L. (2001), Jobs, gender and small enterprises: Getting 48 Nilsson, P. (1997), Business counselling services directed towards the policy environment right, SEED WP 15, International Labour female entrepreneurs - some legitimacy dilemmas, Entrepreneurship Organization, Geneva. & Regional Development, 9, p. 239-258.

94 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 programme supporting women’s entrepreneurship for 2010, there is a focus on rural areas and farm-related sectors of the economy, possibly in order to compensate for a certain previous bias. Norway has a clear focus on the more peripheral parts. Interestingly enough, it is concluded that rural conditions can be benefi cial for entrepreneurs as there are less employment opportunities there. At the same time, fi nancial capital sources may be limited. Iceland, through its system of support initiatives, has put in place some efforts directed at rural areas and with a view to counteracting depopulation. Also in Finland there is a focus on women’s entrepreneurship in rural areas. Denmark has no specifi c focus on spatial variations.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 95 96 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Climate Change and Energy Policy

Introduction

Thanks to the growing collaboration between climate change, projected impacts would likely alter the science and policy-makers, governments globally have adaptive capacity of the countries both in institutional commenced making plans to secure developments that and societal terms. The main motivation behind the would contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions preparation of the NASs have been the growing amount (GHGs); stabilizing climate change (mitigation) and of data, as acknowledged by the IPCC´s assessments, take into account the unavoidable consequences; as well as the impacts of extreme weather events that (adaptation). In order to reduce vulnerability to have been experienced around the world. Furthermore, climate change, adaptation efforts are considered to be underlying socio-economic conditions in countries imperative. Thus, the National Adaptation Strategies play an important role in providing opportunities to (NAS) have initiated the start of a new phase in terms implementearly measures against climate change. In of developing new plans and practices for tackling longer-term, these perspectives help to form resilient climate change that are currently being discussed more cities and regions. extensively in European and the Nordic regions as In terms of climate change mitigation the Nordic general plans of actions (EEA 2008). While sharing countries share common policy challenges by being similar goals, the strategic approaches to climate change committed to further reducing greenhouse gas emissions predominantly differ depending on the geographic by increasing their share of energy production from specifi cities, the assessments of the current and future renewable sources and by improving energy effi ciency vulnerability besides the institutional capacity to adapt in all sectors. Today, energy and climate change policy to the likely impacts of climate change. in the Nordic countries is strongly infl uenced by the At the international scale, the most authoritative European energy and climate change package approved body shaping the climate change discourse is the United by the European Parliament in December 2008. The Nations´ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change aims of this policy package are threefold; to reduce (IPCC). The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to provided a scientifi c basis for the climate negotiations at 1990, to increase the share of renewables by at least the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United 20% compared to 1990 and to oversee a 20% reduction Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change in primary energy use compared with projected levels (UNFCCC). It is stated in Article 4 of the UNFCCC by improving energy effi ciency. A central instrument that every effort must be made to adopt national or for reaching these targets is the Emission Trading regional adaptation strategies (NAS). System (ETS).50 The decision to support a mix of The development of such strategies corresponds energy sources and their related support mechanisms to the countries’ individual needs and conditions49. They has however continued to be individually assigned by set the scene for the next steps towards the development each country, mainly determined by access to natural and implementation of adaptation actions by covering resources, industrial structure, political and cultural the key issues especially in vulnerable sectors such as traditions and contexts, trading opportunities, public agriculture, forestry, water and energy management, attitudes and – last but not least - joint international health, biodiversity, fi nance and insurance. Projected agreements. climate change impacts indicate that, depending on Nordic countries differ in their institutional the geographical characteristics, opportunities might settings but share similar targets for their climate emerge in some countries, while possibilities might be policies. A clear deduction from the Nordic climate constrained in others. Without adaptation to climate change policies is that more research and knowledge

49 In the Nordic countries, except Sweden, government authorities 50 The EU Climate and Energy Package. European Commission’s have a central position in steering climate adaptation. In Sweden, webpage. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ responsibility is shared between the local and regional authorities. climat/climate_action.htm (Accessed 2010-06-3)

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 97 are needed to set realistic targets for climate change development of environmentally-friendly technologies adaptation since so little is known about the methods will be at the centre of its activities during the period of dealing with the ongoing changes in the environment of 2009-2013. Research investments will be made in and also coping with the uncertainty of the future. topics such as energy efﬁ ciency, wind power together Accordingly, research and development activities are with other renewable energy sources as well as carbon emphasised as the key strategies in coping with climate capture and storage technology (CCS). challenges according to the Nordic Prime Ministers’ Close cooperation with the private sector will be Declaration on Climate Change51. A recent joint the key in the utilisation of the research results which research programme entitled “Top Level Research may provide international solutions through cross- Initiative (TLI)” established by the Nordic Council border cooperation. The facilitation of dialogue and brought several Nordic organisations and national the exchange of knowledge and experience between the institutions together in 2008 and the signiﬁ cance of various levels of public administration are thus essential the research programme was highlighted in the Nordic in creating synergies and developing effective climate declaration. The programme has its primary focus on adaptation strategies. climate change, energy and the environment where the

The Nordic response to climate change

Climate change poses a common challenge across the from 2012 onwards. Cooperation between the two Nordic countries as the regional level will face similar countries is expected to improve their security of types of problems due the prevalence of similar energy supply. climatic and geographical conditions. It is projected The next section sets out the climate change that with the continuing warming trend there will be measures being taken in the Nordic countries. In Iceland, a signifi cant increase in winter temperatures with a however, the focus seems to be mainly on mitigation considerable reduction in the snow cover and also an while climate change is viewed as an opportunity. The increase in precipitation which may cause fl ooding and strategies point out different institutional approaches the intensifi cation of hydrological cycles. In order to to climate change adaptation in the Nordic countries. avoid the negative impacts of climate change, it is of While Finland considers sectoral adaptation strategies, the utmost importance to integrate these challenges Denmark and Sweden emphasise the role of local or into urban planning. regional actors in carrying out these climate change Nordic cooperation on climate change adaptation adaptation efforts. On the other hand, Norway and and mitigation is well known and is considered to Iceland emphasise adaptation by considering climate improve the region’s ability to cope with these challenges. change as a positive opportunity.52 Similarly, all the Nordic countries started incorporating concerns for climate change into energy policy by instituting a range of relevant policy initiatives such Denmark: Strategies for coordination and information as CO2 taxes in the context of the environmental tax reforms from early 1990s. In addition, carbon pricing Denmark, in line with the UN Kyoto Protocol, aimed has been considered as a challenging but crucial part of to reduce its emission of GHGs by up to 21% by 2012 climate policy. compared to the level in 1990 and its NAS was published A recent example of Nordic cooperation was through Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen) in launched through the creation of a joint strategy in the March 2008. The strategy was initiated by the Ministry fi eld of energy where Sweden and Norway will strengthen of Environment with the Ministry of Climate and their cooperation in relation to climate change with their Energy subsequently taking up the work. ‘green certifi cate’ initiative. On 7 September 2009, the The main objectives are recognised as the energy ministers of Sweden and Norway announced establishment of a platform for the authorities at various their agreement on the establishment of a common levels, industrial sectors and individuals to implement market for green electricity certifi cates. The main goal information initiatives and consider adaptation in their here is to put in place a tradable green certifi cate market planning schemes. The key steps are:

52 Planning for Climate Change: The Adaptation Challenge - 51 The Nordic Prime Ministers’ Declaration on Climate Change was A Nordic Perspective. Conference Report. Lisa Van Well et al. agreed on 16 June 2009, in Egilsstaðir, Iceland. Stockholm 2007. 45pp

98 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 • Assigning inter-ministerial working groups to to do more in this regard. The process was supported function as a coordination forum on adaptation by the research project FINADAPT (assessing the in assessing the realisation of the strategy by adaptive capacity of the Finnish environment and improving the exchange of information on climate Finnish society to a changing climate); a research group change adaptation. coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute. The • Establishment of an information tool located key points regarding energy and climate policy in the under the Ministry of Climate and Energy to NAS were presented to the parliament in 2005. Hence, inform a wider audience and develop planning adaptation in Finland has started at the national level tools for governmental authorities to encourage with the objectives of reducing climate change impacts collaboration among national and international and exploiting potentials. research centres53. The NAS emphasises the synergy between mitigation and adaptation. Land management and Denmark places emphasis on autonomous adaptation planning are outlined as the most important issues in the where authorities, stakeholders and communities are adaptation process. The Ministry of Environment, in seen as the main actors and their initiatives on adaptation cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture prepared will provide the best approach. A “Coordination Unit a comprehensive plan for the implementation of NAS for Research in Climate Change Adaptation” was in various sectors. In November 2008, the government founded for better research coordination; to supply the started to revise the strategy to include “planning” as knowledge required on climate change adaptation and a response to the climate change challenges where the to secure a more consistent climate change research role of planners together with state authorities was to output for the NAS. identify the main risks in fl ood-sensitive areas. Hence, An Information Centre for Climate Adaptation a working group was established under the Ministry has been established in the Ministry of Climate and of Agriculture and currently the fl ood protection Energy and a Coordination Unit for research in climate system is under revision. The Ministry of Transport adaptation established at the National Environmental and Communications and The Finnish Road and Research Institute of the University of Århus. These Rail Administration worked together on the main units are currently working with the challenges posed adaptation challenges and subsequently provided a set by the vulnerable sectors. A shared risk system to of recommendations. The maritime and the aviation cover damage from extreme weather impacts such as administrations are also at work on the strategy. storm surges and windfalls is now also under debate in In October 2009, the government adopted the Denmark. Foresight Report on Long-term Climate and Energy On September 26 2009, The Danish Board of Policy: Towards a Low-carbon Finland.55 The report Technology and the Danish Cultural Institute organised was drafted, in cooperation with sectoral ministries, the fi rst-ever global citizen deliberation “World Wide within the prime Minister’s Offi ce, after a series of Views (WW Views)-Global Citizen Consultation on consultations with experts, specialists and stakeholders. Climate Policy”; an innovative methodology coordinated It defi nes the goal for this work as enabling Finland by The Danish Board of Technology in a network of to be the leader in climate protection work and setting 44 countries to utilise public participation in climate an ambitious target for reducing Finland’s GHGs change discussions. It aims to provide a democratic emissions by at least 80% from the 1990 level by 2050 channel for the involvement of citizens who were asked as part of a wider international effort. to share their opinions on climate change. The results According to a recent report, Èvaluation of the were incorporated into the COP 15 sessions54. implementation of Finland´s NAS to climate change 2009´ conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (4a/2009) preparatory actions in respect of Finland: Exemplary initiative in implementation should be considered. The report comprehensive climate change adaptation also states that the experiences of sector based The Finnish NAS was prepared by the Ministry of perspectives such as forestry and agriculture should be Agriculture and Forestry and published in March vital for improving the adaptive capacity of Finland to 2005. Being the fi rst country in the EU to adopt a climate change while taking advantage of the unique NAS, Finland has, to some extent, inspired both the opportunities peculiar to Northern regions. Nordic countries and the other European countries

53 www.klimatilpasning.dk/da-dk/sider/forside.aspx 54 www.wwviews.org 55 http://www.vnk.ﬁ /hankkeet/tulevaisuusselonteko/en.jsp

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 99 Iceland: Leader on Climate friendly Norway: A distinctive energy and industry technology profi le Iceland’s climate change strategy (2007) puts forward Norway has adopted a comprehensive approach the government’s long-term vision which includes to addressing the need for energy effi ciency. The a primary focus on mitigation plans and a 50-75% country has focused on renewable energy sources and reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, compared to also joined the EU’s trading scheme in 2008. Energy 1990 fi gures. Iceland is a recognised leader in clean relevant research and development activities have been technologies, especially regarding geothermal and prioritised within Norwegian climate policy. hydrogen power generation. There are almost no GHG On 15 May 2008, the government presented its emissions from stationary energy production thanks report, “Climate Change Adaptation in Norway - A to the extensive use of renewable energy sources. government initiative on climate change adaptation”, Currently, the government aims to further prioritise highlighting common challenges in adaptation. It the development and use of renewable energy, while emphasised that climate change adaptation does not improving energy effi ciency and other climate-friendly demand changes in administrative setups; each sector technologies. The next step involves tackling emissions and administrative level should be responsible for in relation to the transport industry. The government adaptation within their own areas of responsibilities. has set fi nancial incentives for low emission cars. A draft consultation paper “the Norwegian The Icelandic Strategy has statistical indicators climate change Adaptation Programme” prepared by which will work as a registry to monitor the effectiveness the Ministry of Environment in 2008, addressed 3 of the strategy and the progress made on tackling key points to reduce society’s vulnerability to climate emissions as well as increasing carbon sequestration. change: The main objectives are: • Mapping vulnerability to climate change and • To focus on international commitments under the incorporating climate change considerations into UN Framework Convention on climate change social planning (UNFCCC) as well as the Kyoto Protocol by • Integrating climate change adaptation improving its infrastructure. considerations into research programmes • Further reduction of fossil fuel usage and • Stimulating the exchange of information and more emphasis on renewable energy sources & capacity building. environment-friendly fuels. • Increasing carbon sequestration through re- Norway’s adaptation strategy (Offi cial Norwegian vegetation, afforestation, wetland recovery and Report (NOU) on climate change adaptation) is still land use change. in the process of being drafted by the Directorate for • More investment in climate change research Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (DSB) and activities. Promoting the transfer of Icelandic is due to be published in the autumn of 2010. The expertise in renewables and environmentally- strategy aims at assisting information exchange between friendly technology. different sectors and the state and local administrations, Despite Iceland’s vulnerability to climate change, guiding local and regional planners in the utilisation of the melting of glaciers undoubtedly presents an “Klimatilpasning Norge (Climate Adaptation Norway)57 ”. opportunity for the economy as extra water fl ow will The Norwegian government has a long-term boost the country’s hydroelectric industry according to vision for reducing GHG emissions and considers the Icelandic Meteorological Offi ce and the Icelandic mitigation an effective instrument for addressing Scientifi c Committee on climate change. This expert adaptation. Based on the report, “The most crucial committee published its fi rst report, “Global climate adaptation approach for Norway is to reduce the GHG change and its Impact on Iceland” in August 2008, emissions.” Accordingly, Norway’s climate policy is to stating that climate change is already demonstrable in reduce emission fi gures for 1990 by 30% by 2020 and to Iceland as the country has experienced an unprecedented become carbon neutral by 2050. The Government also period of warmth during the 20th century (Ministry for seeks the possibility of using other policy instruments the Environment, 2009). The committee will continue such as the promotion of Carbon Capture and Storage its feasibility studies based on the strategy, calculating (CCS) and hydrogen technologies by setting all new the cost-effectiveness of different options to reduce gas plants on CCS technologies, supporting renewable emissions, improve carbon sequestration and use energy development and setting climate friendly fl exibility mechanisms56. building regulations besides improving public transport and railways. 56 National Energy Authority of Iceland (2009) 57 www.klimatilpasning.no

100 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Sweden: A decentralised approach to 2007, presenting the challenges and regional scenarios climate change which emphasised that strategic planning and policy The Swedish agenda on climate change was formulated development are crucial in reducing vulnerability. between 1996 and 2003 within the context of the According to the report, Sweden is likely to face Swedish Regional Climate Modelling Programme challenges in Baltic Sea ecosystems such as the (SWECLIM). SWECLIM undertook several regional increasing risk of fl oods, landslides and erosion. climate change projections to provide a platform to However, opportunities may arise from forest growth, help planners and decision-makers within industry, improved agricultural production, reduced need for public administration and political bodies to assess heating and hydropower potential as in Iceland. The climate change. The process led to a broad process report addresses the potential role of each sector in of communication among Swedish stakeholders. reducing vulnerability. Moreover, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological In 2009, the Swedish Government submitted Institute (SMHI) under the Ministry of Environment its proposals in the form of two government bills, provided scientifi c information58 to the process while the climate policy bill targeting reductions in GHG the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions and the energy policy bill, presenting was responsible for the dissemination of information proposals for the energy sector. These two bills were and for raising awareness of climate change and constituted into “An Integrated climate and energy adaptation59. policy”, setting an ambitious target of a 40% reduction Sweden’s approach is not to develop a NAS, in emissions by 2020 (i.e. activities not included in the but to facilitate adaptation by integrating long-term EU emissions trading scheme). The mitigation-oriented planning into sectoral responsibilities. The County measures proposed for 2020 are as follows: Administrative Boards were assigned the task of • steering climate change adaptation work. 50% renewable energy • In June 2005, an advisory committee, “Klimat 20% more effi cient energy usage • och sårbarhetsutredningen - The Swedish Commission on 10% renewable energy in the transport sector. Climate and Vulnerability” was established within the Ministry of Environment to develop assessments on The fund allocated to Swedish climate research strategy 61 the regional and local impacts of climate change on the has been increased and the Swedish Energy Agency society. Its fi rst report “Sweden facing climate change – assigned to support these research activities. threats and opportunities60” was published in October

Energy policy in the Nordic Context

An understanding of the three pillars of energy policy, Norway, the abundance of hydropower resulted in namely energy efﬁ ciency, security of supply and the the extensive use of that resource. During the 1970s, environmental impact of energy usage has clearly been Iceland witnessed an expansion of not only hydropower a part of the discourse in the Nordic countries. Over but also of geothermal energy, a source that has been the last three decades, the Nordic countries have sought exploited for district heating since the 1930s. As a to respond to economic and environmental challenges result of environmental concerns during the 1980s and through the implementation of various national policy 1990s, renewable energy sources have progressively frameworks for the energy sector. Starting in the 1970s, substituted coal - mainly wind power in Denmark in the wake of the ‘oil crises’ security of supply was and district heating based on biomass in Sweden and top of the political agenda, which materialised into Denmark. However, in Finland and Norway, increases power generation from coal in Denmark, while in in renewable energy usage have been modest during this Sweden and Finland nuclear power was chosen. In period, except in heat generation by Finnish industries,

58 www.smhi.se 59 www.naturvardsverket.se 60 Regeringen (2007), Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities , SOU 2007:60 61 www.energimyndigheten.se/en/Research/

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 101 where biomass became an important energy source. 62 Sweden and Finland are the Nordic countries The success of generating electrical power and which have nuclear power as a major source for electricity heat from renewable sources in the Nordic countries generation. In the last two decades, development in has also been the results of various support schemes the energy sector in Sweden aimed at the progressive for these technologies, for example feed-in-tariffs phasing out of nuclear power capacity up to June 2010 (Denmark), green certiﬁ cates (Sweden), taxation of when the ban on building new nuclear reactors was fossil fuels in heat production (Finland, Sweden and removed by the Swedish Government. This decision

Denmark), CO2 emission trading and R&D support. In has opened the possibility to continue operating a Iceland, state subsidies or other support schemes for maximum of ten reactors in Sweden in the future by electricity generation have however not been applied replacing phasing out reactors, but only in sites where given the abundance of, and easy access to hydro- and they currently are located. Nevertheless, new reactors geothermal power. 63 shall be built without government subsidies at the same Progressive deregulation towards the market- time as an increased responsibility for damages in the based trade of electric power has also been taking place event of an accident shall rest on nuclear plant owners. in the Nordic countries, a successful process that has In Finland, a new nuclear construction received signiﬁ cant political support from the national programme has been up and running since 2002, when authorities. The Nordic power sector acts today as a the building of Olkiluoto 3 was approved in order to single integrated market and transmission operation complement the already four existing reactors in the managed by independently regulated operators that country. The construction of Olkiluoto 3 has, however, initially cooperated in Nordel. Since its foundation in been delayed by three years, and is currently projected to 1963 Nordel had a common ground for cooperation be completed in 2012. In 2010, the Finnish government between the Transmission System Operators (TSO) also approved the construction of Olkiluoto 4 while in the Nordic countries, and aimed at developing a an additional reactor is projected for construction in harmonised Nordic electricity market. This cooperation northern Finland. has undoubtedly enhanced the competitiveness advantages of energy-intensive Nordic industry. In 2009 the European Network of Transmission System Energy supply and demand Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) took over the Despite the fact that the Nordic countries are generating operational tasks of Nordel together with ﬁ ve other only moderate emissions of greenhouse gases compared TSO associations in Europe. The ENTSO-E pursues to other developed countries of a similar size (due to a coordinated, reliable and secure operations in relation lower dependency on fossil fuels), their consumption to the electricity transmission network, and promotes of energy per capita is among the highest in the world. the development of the interconnected European grid Relatively high heating demand due to the cold climate, and investment to create a sustainable power system. combined with a sparse population distribution, greater It also offers a platform for the electricity market by needs for individual transportation and generally high proposing and implementing standardised market levels of income are considered the main factors behind integration and facilitates the integration of new energy this high level of energy demand. In spite of continuous sources, particularly in respect of renewable energy.64 economic growth in the region, however, the demand for energy has remained stable over the last ten years.

62 Tennbakk Berit, Rydén Bo and Sköldberg Håkan (2006) The energy policies in the Nordic countries. In: Ten Perspectives in Nordic Energy. Final report for the ﬁ rst phase of the Nordic Energy Perspectives Project. Available online: http://www. nordicenergyperspectives.org/Ten%20perspectives%20introd.pdf 63 Tennbakk Berit, Rydén Bo and Sköldberg Håkan (2006) The energy policies in the Nordic countries. In: Ten Perspectives in Nordic Energy. Final report for the ﬁ rst phase of the Nordic Energy Perspectives Project. Available online:: http://www. nordicenergyperspectives.org/Ten%20perspectives%20introd.pdf 64 ENTSO-E webpage. Available online: https://www.entsoe.eu

102 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 36: Total energy consumption and total primary energy production in the Nordic countries 1997-2007

The most important energy sources for the Nordic energy sources among these countries. Norway, and countries, in order of importance, are oil, renewable to lesser degree Denmark, are oil and gas exporters. energy sources (mainly hydro-, geothermal and wind Norway produces over 600% more energy than its energy), nuclear power, coal and gas. The Nordic region domestic demand, while Denmark has a production of has been privileged to have good access to renewable approximately 50% above its own demand. Finland and energy sources as well as a high innovation capacity and Sweden are however dependent on foreign imports of efﬁ cient national energy policies. This has resulted not fossil fuels. Norway, Iceland and Sweden each have a only in the region’s capacity to supply its own energy signiﬁ cant ability to generate hydropower. Geothermal needs but has also led to the export of primary energy. energy is also a substantial contributor to Iceland’s However, both at national and regional level, there are energy supply, while nuclear power is an important important differences in terms of the availability of energy source in Sweden and Finland.

Figure 37: Generation of electrical energy by source 2008

At the regional level the differences in terms of the power plants. In Denmark, thermoelectric generation geographical distribution of energy supply and demand is the main source of electric energy while wind become even more pronounced. For the generation energy corresponds to a share of approximately 20% of hydropower, the Norwegian regions, especially in of the total energy supply. In Finland, nuclear energy the south, are dominant thanks to the availability of is dominant in the south along with thermoelectric large amounts of hydrological sources. Sweden has, generation from natural gas and biomass. Hydropower on the contrary, a more heterogeneous supply mix, as generation is however rather modest in Finland and is hydropower dominates in the north, while the major mainly found in its northern regions. urban regions in the south are supplied by nuclear

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 103 Figure 38: Electricity generation by source in NUTS 3 regions

104 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 39: Electricity consumption by consumer group and per capita in NUTS 3 regions

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 105 The metropolitan regions in the Nordic countries with Renewable energy the highest level of consumption of electric power The Nordic countries have made considerable progress are Stockholm (20.5 TWh), Västra Götaland (19.8 in the use of renewable sources of energy during the TWh), Oslo og Akershus (16.1 TWh), Hordaland (13.4 last two decades. On average, the Nordic countries TWh), Uusimaa (13.2 TWh) and Skåne (12.6 TWh). generate electricity from renewable sources at four Services are the most intensive sectors in these regions times the level of the OECD countries. However, in particular Stockholm (49.8 %), Oslo og Akershus there are considerable variations between countries (42.1%) and Uusimaa (42.7%). Households also stand and regions mainly as a result of the availability of for a considerable proportion of the total consumption natural resources as shown in Figure 41 and Figure of electricity in the metropolitan regions, primarily Oslo 42. Iceland and Norway almost exclusively base their og Akershus (48.5%), Skåne (35.9%), Uusimaa (35.6%), electricity generation on renewable energy sources. Stockholm (31.5%) and Västra Götaland (28.5%). While, in Norway hydropower stands for almost 100% The industrial sector is the major consumer in Iceland of all the electricity generation from renewable, in (76.8%), followed by Finland (52.6%), Norway (45.8%) Iceland hydropower stands for approximately 76% of and Sweden (41.2%). The mining industry is among the the total supply of electricity while the rest comes from most energy intensive, particularly in Iceland, but also in geothermal power. Denmark produces approximately Norway and Sweden. The pulp and paper industry also 30% of its electricity from renewables of which consumes a considerable share of electricity particularly approximately 64% is generated from wind power with in Sweden and Finland. As a consequence of the the rest coming from solid biomass and municipal waste. availability of natural resources for these industrial In Finland and Sweden biomass and hydropower are activities the regions with high energy consumption the main sources of renewable energy, which combined patterns by industrial sector are often located in the stand for approximately 35.5% in Finland and 55% northern regions of Sweden, across Finland or along in Sweden of the total generation of electrical power. the west coast of Norway. Hydropower in Sweden stands for approximately 84.6% of the total electric power generated from renewables Figure 40: Consumption of electric energy by while in Finland this ﬁ gure is approximately 58%. sector in Gwh. Considering that its ﬁ rst hydropower plant became operational in 1993 Greenland is a relative newcomer in terms of renewable energy production. Due to the expansion of capacity, mainly through the construction of three additional hydropower plants during the last years, Greenland has reached a situation where 11% of the total energy consumption is based on renewable energy and almost 50% of the electricity generation is based on hydropower.

Figure 41: Share of renewables and non-renewables for electricity generation

106 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 42: Electricity generation by renewable energy source in the Nordic Countries

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 107 In Finland and Sweden, the supply of renewable energy technology. Innovation in bio-energy is also energy has been fairly stable over the last ten years. strong with a share of almost 30% of all biomass-based Common to all the Nordic countries however is the generation of heat and power in the industrialised increase in the use of biomass for heat generation. world and around 10% of the total scientiﬁ c knowledge Denmark has in particular made a signiﬁ cant production. Energy innovation is a very important improvement in this respect by increasing the ratio economic activity in the Nordic countries assuming between the electricity generated from renewable energy approximately 6% of total revenues and employment sources and the gross national electricity consumption in the region while exports of energy technology and - from 5.8% in 1995 to 28.2% in 2005 mainly thanks to equipment accounts for approximately 5 to 9% of total the fast development and deployment of wind energy industrial exports. 65 technologies. Energy innovation systems in the Nordic Because certain renewable energy sources have countries vary with respect to the energy resources been exploited to the extent that further expansion available, technology regimes, institutional structures possibilities are limited, as is the case now in Denmark in and the political commitments on energy and climate respect of wind energy, and in Norway and Sweden with change. Sweden, Finland and Denmark each exhibit hydropower, future developments in terms of renewable strong positions on bio-energy innovation; particularly sources of energy are expected to take new directions in terms of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) towards the utilisation of unexploited resources. This technologies. The main reason that Sweden and Finland is the case in Norway and Sweden, where wind power are strong in bio-energy is their well developed forestry appears to be the currently preferred option and the and paper pulp industries, as well as the easy availability one with the highest potential for expansion. of biomass. Denmark is an innovation leader in the wind energy sector which has become an important exporter of technology. Norway on the other hand has gained Nordic energy innovation a reputation in the solar energy industry through the The Nordic countries have a strong position worldwide development and production of components. Norway in energy innovation thanks to strong national support is also stronger in small-hydro technology relative to its for this sector. These countries stand for more than Nordic neighbours. 66 30% of the word’s market in the production of wind

65 Mads Borup, Per Dannemand Andersen, Steffan Jacobsson and Atle Midttun (2008). Nordic Energy Innovation Systems –Patterns of need integration and cooperation. Nordic Energy Research. Available Online: http://www.nordicenergy.net/download. cfm?ﬁ le=1240-A9078E8653368C9C291AE2F8B74012E7 66 Mads Borup, Per Dannemand Andersen, Steffan Jacobsson and Atle Midttun (2008). Nordic Energy Innovation Systems –Patterns of need integration and cooperation. Nordic Energy Research. Available Online: http://www.nordicenergy.net/download. cfm?ﬁ le=1240-A9078E8653368C9C291AE2F8B74012E7

108 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Bibliography

Reports and studies

Aalbu, H., Böhme, K. and Uhlin, Å. (2008), Administrative reform eu-employment-observatory.net/resources/reports/Denmark- – Arguments and Values, Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008: AdHocRequest-LTU.pdf Report: 6, Nordregio. EEO European Employment Observatory (2010b), Long term An Agenda For a Reformed Cohesion Policy-A Place-based unemployment in Iceland, Prepared by Sveinn Agnarsson, approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations, SYSDEM Correspondent for Iceland, June 2010. http://www. Independent Report , prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, eu-employment-observatory.net/resources/reports/Iceland- Commissioner For Regional Policy by Fabrizio Barca, April 2009, LabourMarketDevelopmentandPolicy.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/pdf/report_ barca_v0306.pdf, accessed 19th October 2010. EEO European Employment Observatory (2010c), Quarterly Reports, June 2010, Executive Summary. http://www.eu- Andersen, J. B. (2009), Mid-term evaluation of Nordic innovation employment-observatory.net/resources/quarterly_reports_exec_ policy 2005-2010, Nordic Innovation Centre. summary/QRES-June2010.pdf

Baldersheim, H. and Fimreite, A. L. (2005), Norwegian Centre- European Commision (04.11.2010), Regional Periphery Relations in Flux: Abolition or Reconstruction of Development Programmes 2007-2013. Regional Governance? West European Politics, Vol. 28, No.4, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/ pp.764-780. search.cfm?gv_pay=ALL&gv_reg=ALL&gv_obj=11&gv_ the=ALL&lan=EN&gv_per=2 Baldersheim, H. et al. (eds) (2009), The rise of the networking region: The challenges of regional collaboration in a globalized world. European Commision (05.08.2010), Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008: Internationalisation of External Cooperation Programmes. regional development policies – Needs and demands in the Nordic http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/overview/ countries. Report: 10, Nordregio. index_en.htm

Borup, M., Dannemand Andersen P., Jacobsson S, and Midttun, European Commision (2009), EU strategy on the Baltic Sea Region. A. (2008), Nordic Energy Innovation Systems –Patterns of need integration and cooperation. Nordic Energy Research. http://www. European Commision (17.12.2009), nordicenergy.net/download.cfm?ﬁ le=1240-A9078E8653368C9C2 European Territorial Cooperation. 91AE2F8B74012E7 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm

CEC (2005), Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005- European Commission (2008), Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/ 2008), Brussels April 12, 2005. COM (2005) 141 ﬁ nal 200572007 environment/climat/eccp_impacts.htm (CNS). European Environment Agency (2008), National adaptation Damsgaard, O., Lindqvist, M., Roto, J. and Sterling, J. (2009), strategies. http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/national- Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working adaptation-strategies Paper 2009:6. Eurostat (2010), Euro area and EU27 GDP up by 1.0% . Eurostat Danske Bank (2010), Nordic Outlook Economic and news release 120/2010 - 13 August 2010. http://epp.eurostat. Financial Trends, July 2010. http://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/ ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-13082010-BP/EN/2- Reports/59314939-0f46-4712-ba6c-10abb0f69bec/e2c10868- 13082010-BP-EN.PDF c9cd-4a5a-a8b9-7fe2cb4c4d33.pdf Eurostat (2010), European Union Labour Force Survey – Annual Dubois, A., Hedin, S., Schmitt, P. and Sterling, J. (2009), EU macro- results 2009. July 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ regions and macro-regional strategies – A scoping study, Nordregio ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-10-035/EN/KS-QA-10-035-EN.PDF Electronic Working Paper 2009:4, 43 pp. http://www.nordregio.se/ inc/openitem.asp?id=88929&nid=2112 Eurostat (2010), GDP per inhabitant in the Member States varied between 41% and 268% of the EU27 average. Eurostat news release EEO European Employment Observatory (2010a), Long term 91/2010 - 21 June 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ unemployment in Denmark, Prepared by Per Kongshøj Madsen, ITY_PUBLIC/2-21062010-AP/EN/2-21062010-AP-EN.PDF SYSDEM Correspondent for Denmark, May 2010. http://www.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 109 Evaluation of the implementation of Finland´s National Strategy Moxnes Steineke, J. (2009), Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal for Adaptation to CC (2009). http://www.mmm.ﬁ /attachments/ politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og mmm/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/2009/5IEsngZYQ/Adaptation_ sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working Strategy_evaluation.pdf Paper 2009:2.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2007), Report on Women and Entrepreneurship. Moulaert, F. and Mahmood, A. (2010), Analysing Regional development and Policy: A Structural-Realist Approach. Regional Government Offi ces of Sweden (2009), Energy and Climate. Studies, Vol. 44, No.1, pp. 103-118. http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/5745/a/116401 Mörck, J. (2008), Regionalt samhällsbyggande i otakt. En studie av Green Paper from the Commission to the Council, The European den varierande framväxten av samverkansorgan, Örebro: Örebro Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and universitet. The Committee of the Regions: Adapting to CC in Europe – options for EU action {SEC(2007) 849}. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ Neittaanmäki, P. and J. Ärje (2010), Suomen ja Keski-Suomen LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0354:FIN:EN:PDF korkeakoulutetut työttömät koulutusaloittain ja –asteittain 2005– 2010. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Computer Sciences. Hagstova Ìslands (2010), Economic forecast 2010–2015. Hagtíđingi https://www.jyu.fi/hallintokeskus/tilastot/muut/suomen-ja- 2010:8. Published in June 15. 2010. http://www.statice.is/lisalib/ keski-suomen-korkeakoulutetut-tyottomat-koulutusaloittain-ja- getfi le.aspx?ItemID=11197 asteittain-2005-2010.pdf/at_download/fi le

Hedin, S., Dubois, A., Ikonen, R., Lähteenmäki-Smith, K., Neubauer J., Dubois A., Hanell T. et al (2007), Regional Development Neubauer, J.;, Pettersson, K., Rauhut, D., Tynkkynen, V. and Uhlin, in the Nordic Countries 2007, Nordregio, Stockholm Å. (2008), Regionally Differentiated Innovation Policy in the Nordic Countries – Applying the Lisbon Strategy, Nordregio Report 2008:2, Norden (2010a), Nordic Statistical Yearbook 2010, Nordic Council Stockholm, Sweden. of Ministers, Copenhagen 2010

Hedin, S. (Ed.) (2009), Higher education institutions as drivers of Norden (2010b), Labour Market Mobility in Nordic Welfare States, regional development in the Nordic countries, Nordregio working Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 2010 paper 2009:3. Norden (2009), Nordisk pendlingskarta 2009, Nordic Council Hedström, M. (2010), Politics of Nordic rural development, Journal of Ministers, Copenhagen 2009, http://www.norden.org/sv/ of Nordregio, No. 2 September, Volume 10 2010. publikationer/publikationer/2009-555

Hörnström, L. (2010), Redistributive regionalism. Narratives on Nordic Insurance Survey (2009), Best Practice on Climate Assessing regionalization in the Nordic periphery, Umeå: Umeå university, Risks and Implementing, Nordic Nature Indicators of CC. (NICC- Doctoral Thesis. http://www.nicc.dk)

IMF (2010). World Economic Outlook Update - Restoring Nordic Labour Journal (2010a), Labour ministers up the Confi dence without Harming Recovery. http://www.imf.org/ fi ght to prevent a lost generation, January 2010. http://www. external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/update/02/pdf/0710.pdf nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/theme-nordic-meeting-of-labour- minister-with-focus-on-youth/labour-ministers-up-the-fight-to- Karlsson, A., Lindström, B., och Van Well, L. (2009), Mot den tredje prevent-a-lost-generation generationens regionpolitik – Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner. Nordregio report 2009:1. Nordic Labour Journal (2010b), Youth unemployment: Iceland fi ghts in every font, July 2010. http://www.nordiclabourjournal. Kahila, P. (2009), Deliverable Deliverable 1.1 Country profi le on org/i-fokus/theme-youth-outsiders/youth-unemployment- rural characteristics, Finland, RuDI project. http://www.rudi-europe. icelands-fi ght-on-many-fronts net Nordic Labour Journal (2010c), Employers offered wage subsides to Kahila, P., Steineke, Moxnes. J. and Copus, A. C. (2009), Deliverable hire young people in Finland, July 2010. http://nordiclabourjournal. 2.2 National report on RD policy design Sweden, RuDI project. org/i-fokus/theme-youth-outsiders../employers-offered-wage- http://www.rudi-europe.net subsidies-to-hire-young-people

Kuntaliitto (2010), Rakennemuutoskatsaus 2010. http://hosted. Nordic Prime Ministers’ Declaration on CC (2009), http://www. kuntaliitto.ﬁ /intra/julkaisut/pdf/p20100304143639181.pdf sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/12/84/35/2b4ed090.pdf

Larsen Wilgaard, P. (forthcoming), Partnerskab og regional Nordiska Ministerrådet (2009), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2009. erhvervsfremme i Danmark, PhD dissertation, Aalborg University. http://www.norden.org/da/publikationer/ publikationer/2009-555/ Lindqvist, M. (Ed), forthcoming, Kunskapsintensiva tjänsteföretag i svenska storstadsregioner: regionala utvecklingsstrategier och Nordiska Ministerrådet (2008), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2008. påverkan av den ekonomiska krisen, Regionplanekontoret, http://www.eda.se/UserFiles/Archive/620/Dokument/ Stockholm. pendlingskarta05.pdf

110 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Nordiska Ministerrådet (2007), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2007. http://www.norden.org/fi/julkaisut/julkaisut/2007-584/at_ Statistiska Centralbyrån (2005), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2005. download/publicationfi le http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/OV9999_2001A01_ BR_AM76ST0502.pdf Nordiska Ministerrådet (2009), Nordiskt regionalpolitiskt samarbetsprogram 2009-2012. St meld 25. 2008-2009; Lokal vekstkraft og framtidstru. Om distrikts- og regionalpolitikken Nordiska Ministerrådet: Grenseregional strategi 2009-2012. http://www.norden.org/da/nordisk-ministerraad/ministerraad/ Statistics Finland (2010), Output of the national economy grew in nordisk-ministerraad-for-erhvervs-energi-og-regionalpolitik-mr- May from the year before. Published 6 August 2010. http://www. ner/strategi/grenseregional-strategi-2009-2012/ stat.fi/til/ktkk/2010/05/ktkk_2010_05_2010-08-06_tie_001_ fi .html Nordregio (2010), Nordiska gränskommittéer och gränsöverskridande myndighetsintegration. SOU 2007:60 (2007), Sweden facing climate change-threats and opportunities, Final report from the Swedish Commission on Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (2007), Norwegian Climate and Vulnerability. http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/ climate policy, Report 2006-2007:34 http://www.regjeringen.no/ c6/09/60/02/56302ee7.pdf pages/2065909/PDFS/STM200620070034000EN_PDFS.pdf Swart, R. et al. (2009), Europe Adapts to Climate Change Comparing OECD (2010), Investment in US dollars - Gross fi xed capital National Adaptation Strategies, Partnership for European formation at current prices and current PPPs. http://www.oecd- Environmental Research (PEER) Report No 1, www.peer.eu ilibrary.org/content/table/2074384x-table5 Swedish Government Bill (2009), Climate and energy policy Pettersson, K. and Hedin, S., forthcoming, Support for Women’s for a sustainable future, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Entrepreneurship – a Nordic Spectrum. Communications, 2009-03-11. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/ d/2023/a/123252 Ponnikas Jouni, Timo Tiainen, Johanna Hätälä & Jarmo Rusanen (2010), Suomi ja alueet 2030 – toteutunut kehitys, ennakointia ja Syntyneet 2009 (2010), Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi /til/ skenaariot. Kunnallisalan kehittämissäätiön tutkimusjulkaisut, nro synt/2009/synt_2009_2010-04-15_fi .pdf 60. http://www.kaks.fi /sites/default/fi les/Tutkjulk_60_1.pdf The Economic Times (2010), IMF raises 2010 world GDP forecast, Rauhut, D. and Kahila, P (2008), The Regional Welfare Burden in fl ags Europe risks. Published 8 Jul 2010. http://economictimes. the Nordic Countries. Nordregio Working Paper 2008:6. indiatimes.com/News/International-Business/IMF-raises-2010- world-GDP-forecast-flags-Europe-risks/articleshow/6142266. Rauhut, Daniel & Eðvarðsson, Ingi Rúnar (2009), The Potential cms?curpg=2 Labour Supply in the Nordic Countries, Nordregio, Stockholm 2009 The Icelandic Government Information Centre (2010), Economic Reynolds, P. et al. (2001), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 programme in cooperation with IMF. Accessed August 2010. Executive Report. http://www.iceland.org/info/iceland-imf-program/

Regional centre programmes. http://www.intermin.fi /intermin/ The Top Level Research Initiative (2008), A major Nordic hankkeet/aky/home.nsf/pages/indexsve, accessed 23th June 2010 venture for climate, energy and the environment. http://www. toppforskningsinitiativet.org/en?set_language=en&-C Report of the Special Investigation Commission (Chapter 2: Summary of the Reports Main Conclusions). http://sic.althingi.is/, Tennbakk, B., Rydén, B. and Sköldberg H. (2006), The energy accessed 9th July 2010 policies in the Nordic countries. In: Ten Perspectives in Nordic Energy. Final report for the fi rst phase of the Nordic Energy Riché, M. (2010), Regional Focus: Regional Innovation Governance. Perspectives Project. http://www.nordicenergyperspectives.org/ Papers on regional research and indicators produced by the Ten%20perspectives%20introd.pdf Directorate-General for Regional Policy. No. 2/2010. Toivonen, M. (2004), Foresight in Services: Possibilities and Special SEB (2010), Nordic Outlook, February 2010, http://www.sebgroup. Challenges, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.79-98 com/pow/content/pdf/NOFeb2010_Eng.pdf Ylä-Anttila Pekka (2008), Maailmantalous ja Suomi – keskeisiä Simmie, J. and Strambach, S. (2006), The contribution of KIBS to megatrendejä. Etlatieto 25.8.2008. http://www.tekes.fi /fi / innovation in cities: an evolutionary and institutional perspective, document/42719/412594_maailmantalous_art_pdf Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.26-40

Sixth progress report on economic and social cohesion. http:// ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docofﬁ c/ofﬁ cial/reports/ interim6/com_2009_295_en.pdf, accessed 19th October 2010.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 111 Data sources used in maps & ﬁ gures

NSIs - National statistical institutes:

Danmarks Statistik (Statistics Denmark) - http://www.dst.dk/

Hagstova Føroya (Statistics Faroe Islands) - http://www.hagstova.fo/

Hagstofa Íslands (Statistics Iceland) - http://www.hagstofa.is/

Kalaallit Nunaanni Naatsorsueqqissaartarﬁ k (Statistics Greenland) - http://www.stat.gl/

Statistiska centralbyrån (Statistics Sweden) - http://www.scb.se/

Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway) - http://www.ssb.no/

Tilastokeskus (Statistics Finland) - http://www.stat.ﬁ /

Eurostat - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home

ILO – International Labour organisation - http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Statistics/lang--en/index.htm

UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe - http://www.unece.org/

Homepages www.statnord.org www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/13/31919215.pdf. www.orestat.scb.se www.vgregion.se/grensestatistikk www.regiondalarna.se/Verksamhet/Vara-projekt/TRUST/ www.nordkalottradet.nu www.bothnianarc.net www.tornedalen.org www.skargarden.com www.kvarken.org www.arko-regionen.org www.oresundskomiteen.dk www.mittnorden.net www.granskommitten.com www.nora.fo www.regjeringen.no www.os.is

112 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Technical Annex

The statistical material used in this report was obtained the previous years. In this way we have been able to add mainly from the National Statistics Institutions (NSIs) change rates over time i.e. for Denmark where the new of the Nordic Countries and Autonomous Territories. regional structure was introduced on January 1st 2007. Material from other National Statistical Institutes In the West Norden countries the regional throughout Europe as well as from Eurostat (the representation varies from the other Nordic countries. Statistical Offi ce of the European Communities), the The commuting catchment areas are not defi ned to OECD and national labour market authorities has also these regions and regional values have instead been been widely used. In most cases the raw data comes used. In Iceland two regional divisions have been used; from the stated sources while all of the calculations one with eight regions (landafræði) and another one with of indicators, changed rates etc., have been made by two regions (NUTS3), depending on data availability. In Nordregio. the Faroe Islands the six Faroese regions (sýsla) are the The analysis of regional development trends base unit for the analysis whenever the regional data is in terms of population and labour markets is mainly available. The municipal division is not used because of based on the latest available ‘state-of-the-region’ data data availability issues and the small geographical and and change data on timeframes of long-term changes demographic size of many municipalities. In Greenland from the 1990s to the short timeframe changes of a recent municipal reform in 1.1.2009 reduced the last year or the last fi ve-years. In the Nordic countries previous 18 municipalities to a total of 4 units. One the change data of fi ve-year averages is provided in of these – the municipality of Sermersooq – includes order to produce a stable and accurate picture. In the on the one hand the former capital municipality of smallest municipalities and commuter catchment areas Nuuk and the two other municipalities on the west in particular however annual change rates may vary coast, and on the other hand the two former East from year to year and therefore changes occurring Greenland municipalities, Ittoqqortoormiit and within a single year may give an inaccurate impression Tasiilaq. The regional differences between the eastern of the regional state. Additional resources have been and the western part of Greenland are among the most used in order to render the Nordic and European-level marked differences in the country – and in the Nordic data more comparable between countries. The change countries, so it has been advantageous to operate with data has, in relative terms, been used in calculating the the eastern and the western part as individual regions in so-called ‘crude’ rates. In most cases the data has been the analysis. related i.e. to the size of the total population. The European regional division is based on NUTS (The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) nomenclature. Based primarily on the Regional Divisions administrative divisions currently in force in the Member In the Nordic countries four different administrative States, NUTS serves as a reference for the collection of divisions have been used, namely municipalities, regional statistics and for regional analysis. The data and commuter catchment areas, regions (NUTS3) and the indicators are mainly shown on NUTS3 level (counties national level. All the administrative divisions used in in the Nordic context) though the NUTS 2 -level has this report are ‘as of ’ 1.1.2010 with the exception of also been used in some indicators. the Icelandic municipality of Arnarneshreppur which was merged into Hörgárbyggð after the Municipality election in June 11, 2010. Changes and mergers Population between municipalities in recent years across the Nordic Data for population is as of January 1st for Denmark, countries are therefore already incorporated into all Norway and Greenland and as of 31st December for maps and analyses used in this report. In the case of Finland, Sweden, Iceland and the Faroe Islands for the now merged municipalities we have simply added respective year. The total population change is a result them together for the previous years. In the case of of two components: the natural change which is defi ned municipalities that have been divided we have used the as the difference between the numbers of live births ratio of them from the fi rst year after the split (separate and deaths, and net migration, which represents the ratio for each ‘item’), and adjusted this backwards for difference between inward and outward migration fl ows.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 113 The migration data includes all migration over 2010). Trade fi gures were taken from two different municipal boundaries (intra-municipal migration is not sources: in the case of the total value of trade and included in the statistics). The international migration bilateral trade fl ows between the Nordic Countries, data data is based on national civil registration systems in was obtained from the IMF (International Monetary each country. To be registered as an immigrant a person Fund) database; in the case of total imports and is intended to live in the country for a specifi c time. exports by country by sectors, data was obtained from This specifi c time is, for Denmark, three months, UN-COMTRADE, the United Nations Commodity for Norway six months and for the other Nordic Trade Statistics Database which uses the so-called SITC countries 12 months. Due to the existence of these classifi cation, accepted by the UN in the analysis of statistical differences between the Nordic countries, international merchandise trade. For more information migration fl ows between two countries can appear and a detailed structure of the SITC classifi cation by to be unbalanced. This difference in the statistics is sectors and sub-sectors, visit the following link: http:// solved in two different ways. In the fi gure and analysis unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=28 of intra-Nordic migration fl ows, the total number of migrants shows the average number of migrants between two named countries. For other international Labour market moves the national criteria is used. Another important The two main sources used for the labour market issue related to international migration is that refugee section include the European Union Labour Force migration is not separated from i.e. labour immigrants. Survey (or EU LFS) and Eurostat’s online datasets Therefore some very rural and peripheral areas, like and press releases. The EU LFS is a quarterly sample Ånge in Swedish Västernorrland or Kontiolahti in survey across the 27 Member States of the EU and Finnish Pohjois-Karjala appear to be very attractive two countries (Norway and Iceland) from EFTA, the to immigrants, especially if immigration is measured European Free Trade Association. It provides annual in terms of immigrants per 1000 inhabitants, while and quarterly results on the labour participation of in reality these regions are in fact very unattractive to persons aged 15+ and also registers persons outside immigrants. The logic behind this is that when refugees the workforce and their characteristics. The sample receive their permit to stay, they become registered as covers population in private households and provides immigrants in that municipality/region in which the data on employment, unemployment and inactivity refugee centre is located. The fi rst thing the refugees representing an important resource in respect of the do when they have their permit to stay is to move to the current situation and trends pertaining to the various larger cities where they can improve their chances of European labour markets. The national statistical getting a job. It is at that point that they are registered as institutions are responsible for conducting the sample, domestic migrants. selecting and preparing the questionnaires, driving the interviews among households and forwarding the results to Eurostat in accordance with the common coding Economic development scheme. Each of the national statistics institutions Two GDP concepts were used in this report: the publishes the results on a monthly basis. The samples fi rst, GDP at market prices, shows the fi nal result of are also published annually in order to make regional the production activity of all producer units within a estimates even though margins of error might exist. certain territory, no matter whether the units are owned At the national level, fi gures were obtained by nationals or foreigners (Eurostat, 2010); while from Eurostat and confi rmed with NSIs data. The the second, GDP in PPS (PPS = Purchasing Power quarterly EU LFS also forms the basis for Eurostat’s Standards) has been employed to make international own calculation of monthly unemployment fi gures, comparisons of the national/regional production values complemented either by monthly estimates of the and to discern their variations. The Purchasing Power unemployment rates or from additional sources such as Standard (PPS) is an artifi cial reference currency unit the unemployment register. The resulting harmonised that eliminates price level differences between countries. fi gures are published in the form of news releases in the One PPS buys the same volume of goods and services online database67. The latest annual fi gures correspond in all countries. This unit allows meaningful volume to 2009 according to Eurostat’s newsletter 25/2010 comparisons of economic indicators across countries. recently published (July 2010). Data on employment Aggregates expressed in PPS are derived by dividing and unemployment rates in general, national youth aggregates in current prices and national currency by unemployment, long term-unemployment, immigrant the respective Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) (Eurostat, unemployment as well as employment by occupation/

67 Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/ employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction

114 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 skills was obtained from this source. of concepts were revised. For example the defi nition Regional fi gures for Nordic NUTS2 regions of ‘employed’ is revised as regards persons who were regarding youth and long-term unemployment shares absent from work during the survey week (Statistics and rates were obtained from Eurostat’s LFS databases Finland). and correspond to the latest annual averages registered in 2008. Regional fi gures for the qualifi cations of the labour force (persons with tertiary level education Commuter catchment areas ISCED 5-6) and national fi gures for life-long learning In Denmark, Finland and Sweden the given regional were also obtained by Eurostat’s Labour Force Survey divisions of commuter catchment areas are based adjusted series. on existing national defi nitions of the regions. When it comes to unemployment at the municipal Each of these commuter catchment areas includes level, data was collected from the Nordic countries’ simultaneously several municipalities from different system of register-based labour markets available from NUTS 3 regions (i.e. län in Sweden or fylke in Norway) the national labour market authorities. This includes including also municipalities not necessarily adjacent public databases from Arbetsförmedlingen (Sweden), to the main regional centre but rather those with a Employment and Economy Ministry (Finland), regional commuting relation with it. offi ces newsletters of NAV or The Norwegian Welfare When defi ning commuter catchment areas and Labour Administration (Norway), Vinnumálastofnun a number of important steps have to be followed. (Iceland) and the Register-based Labour Force Statistics In step 1 there is a defi nition of self-standing or (RAS) of Statistics Denmark. Data for the Faroe independent municipalities containing a regional centre. Islands and Greenland was obtained directly from the Those municipalities should have a) a total share of LFS’s registers from the national statistics institutions. out commuters under 20% of the total number of In the case of Greenland, unemployment corresponds employees of the municipality and b) an individual to fi gures registered only in villages. share of commuters to other municipalities under 7.5%. Other supporting sources include the ILO In step 2 there is a defi nition of which local centre (International Labour Organisation) and UNECE the non-independent municipalities belong to. This (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). is defi ned according to the municipality to which the With effect from January 2006, some changes largest commuting fl ow is directed. And in step 3 there were made in the Norwegian Labour Force Survey is a defi nition of multi-core areas where more than (LFS) following International Labour Organisation one regional centre is identifi ed; that is municipalities (ILO) recommendations. The changes improve with connections with several other municipalities. the level of comparability with other EU countries An example of this is the multi-core commuter and consist of some minor revisions in defi nitions, catchment area of Stockholm-Solna, divided between adjustments to questions about working hours, and the three different sub-local market areas where Uppsala, classifi cation of lay-offs and of lowering the lower age Södertälje and Stockholm act as main centres in its limit from 16 to 15 years (Statistics Norway). Statistics respective sub-area with commuting from surrounding Denmark adjusted the unemployment statistics as from municipalities. In total there are 36 municipalities in this the publication of unemployment fi gures for January commuter catchment area (5 depending on Södertälje, 2008. The underlying primary data has been edited and 6 on Uppsala and 25 on Stockholm-Solna). In Norway changes made to the concept of unemployment, which the commuter catchment areas are defi ned on the basis implies that the Danish concept of unemployment is of these three steps and commuting data from 2009. now closer to the defi nition of unemployment applied by the ILO. All changes have been backdated to the Regional typologies year 2000 (Statistics Denmark). In October 2007 Statistics Sweden introduced some changes in relation A Nordic regional typology is used in this report to measuring unemployment in accordance with the as a spatial analytical tool to distinguish regional international standards of the LFS. Previous to this development trends between different types of change, people who have been studying full-time at any regions in a Nordic comparable manner. The typology time during the three weeks before the reference week includes (1) Nordic capital regions; (2) Other Nordic have been classifi ed as ‘not in the labour force’ instead metropolises; (3) Nordic regional centres with a of as simply ‘unemployed’ (Statistics Sweden). Statistics university; (4) Other Nordic regional centres and (5) Finland also revised the data content and data collection Nordic medium-sized towns. The approach is built method of the LFS from the beginning of 2002 to on the size of the LLM (Local Labour Markets) in comply with the EU Regulation concerning the LFS. population numbers refl ecting the range of variation The data content was extended and some defi nitions in four Nordic countries leading to a classifi cation of

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 115 Metropoles, Regional centres and Medium-sized towns. Factors considered here include population density, the number and density of localities within each of them and distance to neighbouring LLM’s. The location of universities as sources of knowledge production and enhancement of human resources and the primary characteristic function of the region (in terms of the range of services provided) leads to the categories, Nordic regional centres with university and Other Nordic regional centres. To show further results in a more detailed way, some sub- categories were created, including exclusively core areas in the case of capital regions and metropoles as often core areas have different patterns when extracted from their regional surroundings.

116 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Annex of ﬁ gures

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 117 Figure 43: Dominant branch of employment in Nordic Local Labour Market Areas

118 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 44: Total age dependency 2010

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 119 Figure 45: Young age dependency 2010

120 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 46: Old age dependency rate 2010

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 121 Figure 47: Domestic net migration 2005-2009

122 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 48: Natural population change 2005-2009

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 123 Figure 49: Gross domestic product per capita and productivity in 2007

124 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 Figure 50: Regions and municipalities in the Nordic Countries in 2010

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 125 Demographic and economic indicators for Nordic regions and municipalities 2010

Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

Region Population Area Population Population structure 2010 Population change 2005-2010 Labour market 2009 GDP 2007 Municipality Number density Age composition Age dep. Ratio (3) Total change Net Natural Employment Unempl. GDP/ 2010 0-14 15-64 65+ Total Young Old Persons, Relative, migration, change, Number of Empl. rate capita annual annual annual annual persons rate in PPS, average average average average employed 15-64 Index EU27= (km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%) 100

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6) EU27 497 670 577 4 231 551 118 15 64 20 55 23 32 1 991 616 4.0 3.1 1.0 213 883 000 64.6 9.0 100 Nordic Countries 25 507 906 1 579 694 16 17 66 17 52 26 25 170 943 6.7 4.5 2.2 12 450 616 74.2 6.8 132

DENMARK - DANMARK (excl. Faroe Islands and Greenland)

Whole country 5 534 738 43 098 128 18 65 16 52 28 25 24 668 4.5 3.3 1.0 2 776 000 76.5 6.0 117

Region Hovedstaden - København by 678 873 180 3 769 15 73 12 37 21 16 7 116 9.6 5.1 5.8 367 086 74.3 7.4 170 155 Dragør 13 564 18 748 19 61 20 65 32 33 83 6.1 7.3 -1.1 6 919 84.2 3.7 147 Frederiksberg 96 718 9 11 028 15 69 16 45 22 23 1 093 10.2 7.2 4.5 52 207 78.2 5.6 101 København 528 208 88 5 985 15 74 10 34 20 14 5 769 10.0 4.6 6.7 287 067 73.0 7.8 185 Tårnby 40 383 65 622 18 64 17 55 28 27 171 4.0 5.2 -0.9 20 893 80.4 7.1

Region Hovedstaden - Københavns omegn 512 692 340 1 508 19 64 17 55 29 26 1 908 3.2 2.6 1.1 261 414 79.2 5.4 102 165 Albertslund 27 730 23 1 204 20 67 14 50 29 20 -73 -3.0 -7.4 4.7 13 719 74.0 9.2 151 Ballerup 47 652 34 1 398 19 63 19 59 30 30 184 3.8 2.5 1.4 23 848 79.6 3.8 153 Brøndby 33 795 21 1 637 18 64 18 55 27 28 -133 -4.2 -4.6 0.7 16 403 75.4 6.6 157 Gentofte 71 052 26 2 782 20 63 18 59 31 28 460 5.9 6.5 0.2 35 813 80.1 3.8 159 Gladsaxe 64 102 25 2 564 19 65 16 54 29 25 440 6.6 6.1 1.0 32 399 77.7 6.5 161 Glostrup 21 296 13 1 600 17 65 18 54 26 28 107 4.9 5.1 0.1 11 086 80.0 5.9 163 Herlev 26 556 12 2 206 18 64 18 57 28 29 -116 -4.5 -1.5 -2.8 13 698 81.0 4.7 167 Hvidovre 49 724 22 2 269 18 65 16 54 28 25 10 -0.6 -0.9 1.1 26 285 81.2 4.1 169 Høje-Taastrup 47 664 78 608 20 66 14 52 30 22 446 9.1 4.6 4.9 24 899 79.3 7.5 183 Ishøj 20 606 26 794 20 68 12 47 29 18 -6 -0.6 -6.3 6.0 10 662 76.1 9.5 173 Lyngby-Taarbæk 52 237 39 1 344 18 63 19 58 28 30 234 2.4 6.7 -2.2 26 751 81.1 3.6 175 Rødovre 36 233 12 2 990 18 64 19 57 28 29 0 -0.4 -0.4 0.4 18 797 81.5 4.7 187 Vallensbæk 14 045 9 1 535 20 64 16 56 32 24 356 27.2 23.8 4.1 7 054 78.3 2.8

Region Hovedstaden - Bornholm 42 154 588 72 16 63 22 60 25 35 -233 -5.6 -0.3 -5.1 18 800 71.3 9.6 90 400 Bornholm 42 154 588 72 16 63 22 60 25 35 -233 -5.6 -0.3 -5.1 18 800 71.3 9.6

Region Hovedstaden - Nordsjælland 446 451 1 459 306 20 62 18 61 32 29 2 135 4.5 3.9 1.0 229 500 82.6 4.4 102 201 Allerød 24 089 67 357 22 62 16 62 36 26 125.8 5.3 1.3 4.0 12 908 86.7 3.0 240 Egedal 41 513 73 566 22 64 14 57 35 22 463.0 11.1 5.4 6.0 23 130 87.6 1.9 210 Fredensborg 39 226 112 350 20 64 16 57 31 26 15.2 0.2 -0.5 0.9 20 820 83.3 3.1

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 126 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

250 Frederikssund* 44 182 126 351 19 63 18 60 31 29 261.0 5.7 4.8 1.2 23 444 84.8 3.9 190 Furesø 38 232 57 675 21 61 18 64 34 29 196.2 4.9 4.0 1.2 19 104 81.7 5.4 270 Gribskov 40 694 280 145 18 63 19 59 29 30 77.8 1.4 2.7 -0.8 20 978 82.0 5.1 260 Halsnæs 31 077 255 122 18 63 19 58 28 30 168.6 5.4 6.0 -0.6 15 758 80.3 4.7 217 Helsingør 61 143 121 505 19 63 19 59 30 30 -4.0 -0.5 0.6 -0.7 29 828 77.8 6.7 219 Hillerød* 47 473 122 390 21 63 16 58 33 25 585.0 12.8 8.8 3.9 24 954 83.0 4.8 223 Hørsholm 24 378 214 114 19 59 23 70 32 39 23.4 0.7 3.1 -2.2 11 966 83.6 4.6 230 Rudersdal 54 444 31 1 735 20 60 20 67 33 34 222.6 3.0 5.5 -1.3 26 609 81.5 3.8

Region Sjælland - Østsjælland 234 574 965 243 20 64 16 55 31 25 1 233 5.1 2.6 2.7 121 000 80.2 4.3 94 253 Greve 47 826 249 192 20 64 16 56 31 25 41 0.6 -1.8 2.7 24 732 80.8 5.3 259 Køge 57 125 60 949 20 64 16 56 31 24 448 7.9 5.2 2.7 29 175 79.6 4.0 350 Lejre 26 794 405 66 21 63 16 58 33 25 176 6.2 3.5 3.2 14 031 82.9 3.9 265 Roskilde 81 947 212 387 19 65 16 54 29 25 534 6.2 4.6 2.0 42 118 79.1 3.9 269 Solrød 20 882 40 522 21 64 15 56 33 23 33 1.7 -2.9 4.5 10 945 81.6 5.5

Region Sjælland - Vest- og Sydsjælland 585 990 6 301 93 18 64 18 56 27 29 1 857 3.0 4.9 -1.7 279 800 74.6 5.6 91 320 Faxe 35 306 604 58 19 64 17 56 29 26 207 5.7 6.1 -0.2 17 868 78.7 4.8 376 Guldborgsund 62 912 903 70 16 63 21 58 25 34 -115 -2.0 3.8 -5.6 29 031 73.1 4.3 316 Holbæk 69 550 579 120 19 65 16 53 29 24 619 8.6 7.5 1.5 34 745 76.6 4.9 326 Kalundborg 49 265 295 167 18 64 18 56 28 28 122 2.3 3.5 -1.0 23 887 75.8 4.3 360 Lolland 46 984 892 53 15 62 23 61 24 37 -499 -10.3 -2.6 -7.7 19 405 66.3 8.8 370 Næstved 81 112 684 119 18 65 17 54 28 26 541 6.7 6.5 0.2 40 054 75.9 5.9 306 Odsherred 33 030 355 93 16 62 22 62 25 36 61 1.8 6.7 -4.8 14 976 73.3 4.6 329 Ringsted 32 584 567 57 20 66 15 52 30 22 355 11.1 8.4 2.8 16 736 78.2 3.9 330 Slagelse 77 475 250 310 18 65 18 55 27 27 264 3.4 4.0 -0.5 36 007 71.8 9.1 340 Sorø 29 522 240 123 19 64 17 56 30 26 245 8.2 8.6 -0.1 14 640 77.4 3.8 336 Stevns 21 931 310 71 18 63 19 58 28 30 44 1.4 3.0 -1.0 11 142 80.1 3.7 390 Vordingborg 46 319 621 75 17 62 21 60 27 33 12 0.1 4.5 -4.2 21 309 73.7 5.2

Region Syddanmark - Fyn 484 862 3 486 139 18 65 18 54 27 27 1 810 3.4 3.3 0.4 228 200 72.7 6.7 102 492 Ærø 6 679 90 74 13 59 28 69 22 47 -50 -7.6 4.5 -11.8 2 709 68.6 7.3 420 Assens 42 054 512 82 19 63 18 58 30 28 184 4.1 4.8 -0.4 19 957 75.1 6.5 430 Faaborg-Midtfyn 52 085 637 82 18 63 19 60 29 31 192 3.6 4.7 -1.0 24 502 75.2 5.2 440 Kerteminde 23 770 206 115 18 62 19 61 30 31 153 6.0 7.8 -1.3 11 221 76.1 5.9 482 Langeland 13 510 291 46 13 60 26 66 22 43 -139 -10.3 -1.4 -8.7 5 466 67.0 11.4 410 Middelfart 37 661 300 126 19 63 18 59 31 28 325 8.4 8.8 0.0 18 429 77.9 4.1

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 127 480 Nordfyns* 29 638 452 66 19 63 18 58 30 28 205 6.7 6.6 0.4 14 212 75.8 7.1 450 Nyborg 31 690 276 115 18 63 19 60 29 31 144 4.3 5.7 -1.1 14 833 74.8 5.4 461 Odense 188 777 304 620 17 68 15 48 25 23 646 3.1 0.4 3.0 89 732 70.3 7.5 479 Svendborg 58 998 417 142 17 65 18 54 26 28 151 2.2 3.2 -0.6 27 139 71.0 7.2

Region Syddanmark - Sydjylland 715 415 8 720 82 19 64 17 56 29 27 1 880 2.3 1.5 1.1 351 400 76.4 5.7 120 580 Aabenraa 59 978 942 64 18 64 18 56 29 28 -6 -0.6 0.2 -0.3 28 062 73.2 8.4 530 Billund 26 160 537 49 19 64 17 57 30 27 35 0.6 0.1 1.2 13 194 79.2 5.7 561 Esbjerg* 115 114 791 146 18 66 16 51 27 24 95 0.8 -0.6 1.4 56 461 74.1 5.6 563 Fanø 3 219 56 58 15 62 22 61 25 36 11 4.3 8.6 -5.1 1 560 78.0 5.8 607 Fredericia 49 849 134 371 18 64 17 55 29 27 151 2.8 2.6 0.5 23 941 74.5 7.4 510 Haderslev* 56 346 813 69 18 64 18 56 28 28 9 -0.1 0.4 -0.3 26 801 74.3 8.3 621 Kolding* 89 071 612 146 19 65 16 53 29 24 639 6.7 4.0 3.3 45 769 78.6 4.1 540 Sønderborg 76 439 497 154 18 62 20 61 29 32 55 -0.1 0.8 0.0 35 657 74.9 6.3 550 Tønder* 39 710 1 252 32 17 64 19 57 27 30 -260 -7.0 -3.7 -2.7 18 622 73.7 8.9 573 Varde* 50 378 1 208 42 19 63 17 58 30 28 66 1.1 0.1 1.2 25 707 80.6 3.7 575 Vejen 42 768 814 53 20 63 17 59 32 27 287 6.7 5.0 1.8 21 663 80.5 2.2 630 Vejle* 106 383 1 066 100 20 64 16 55 31 25 797 7.7 4.8 2.9 53 964 78.7 4.1

Region Midtjylland - Vestjylland 427 075 7 217 59 19 64 16 56 30 26 1 579 3.4 1.5 2.2 204 200 74.4 11.0 120 657 Herning 85 548 1 324 65 19 65 15 53 30 23 546 6.2 2.9 3.6 41 226 73.8 10.5 661 Holstebro 57 056 800 71 19 65 16 54 29 25 192 3.0 0.8 2.6 28 343 76.5 9.1 756 Ikast-Brande 40 312 736 55 20 64 16 56 31 25 200 4.7 2.6 2.4 18 817 72.6 13.0 665 Lemvig 21 790 508 43 18 63 19 60 29 31 -187 -8.7 -6.4 -2.1 10 234 74.9 10.9 760 Ringkøbing-Skjern 58 439 1 489 39 20 63 17 58 31 27 148 2.1 0.9 1.6 28 438 76.9 10.1 779 Skive 48 137 691 70 18 64 18 57 29 28 -32 -1.0 -1.1 0.5 21 997 71.8 13.5 671 Struer 22 483 251 90 19 63 18 58 30 28 -52 -2.4 -2.2 -0.1 10 631 74.5 10.8 791 Viborg* 93 310 1 419 66 20 65 16 55 30 25 764 8.0 4.7 3.6 44 514 73.9 11.2

Region Midtjylland - Østjylland 826 923 5 892 140 19 67 15 50 28 22 7 417 8.4 5.7 3.5 431 600 78.3 3.1 113 710 Favrskov* 46 529 541 86 22 64 14 57 35 22 573 12.2 7.3 5.4 24 775 83.8 2.1 766 Hedensted* 45 982 552 83 21 63 16 58 33 25 490 10.8 7.9 2.9 24 787 85.3 1.3 615 Horsens* 81 957 515 159 19 66 15 52 29 23 1 162 13.4 11.4 3.2 42 674 78.9 2.5 707 Norddjurs* 38 148 721 53 17 64 19 56 26 30 -27 -1.2 2.3 -3.0 19 062 78.0 3.4 727 Odder 21 721 225 96 19 63 17 58 31 27 123 5.5 4.6 1.1 11 261 81.8 2.5 730 Randers* 94 750 731 130 18 65 17 54 28 26 559 6.1 5.4 0.6 48 331 78.8 2.8 741 Samsø 4 010 114 35 15 60 26 67 25 43 -21 -5.7 4.4 -9.6 1 794 74.9 6.7 740 Silkeborg 88 481 865 102 20 65 15 55 31 24 899 10.0 6.6 3.8 46 896 82.1 2.2 746 Skanderborg* 57 303 462 124 22 64 13 56 35 21 650 11.4 6.1 5.6 30 743 83.4 2.1 706 Syddjurs 41 392 696 59 19 63 19 60 30 30 266 5.9 6.8 -0.3 20 682 79.8 4.0 751 Århus 306 650 469 654 17 71 13 42 24 18 2 742 7.8 3.6 5.5 160 596 74.2 4.0

Region Nordjylland - Nordjylland 579 628 7 949 73 18 65 18 54 27 27 658 0.8 0.9 0.2 283 000 75.2 7.0 110 810 Brønderslev 35 804 633 57 19 63 18 59 30 29 98 2.7 2.0 0.8 16 592 73.9 9.7 813 Frederikshavn 62 007 649 96 16 63 20 58 26 32 -351 -5.7 -3.1 -2.5 29 777 75.8 8.2 860 Hjørring 66 803 930 72 18 64 18 57 28 29 -196 -3.0 -2.4 -0.5 31 954 74.9 8.4 849 Jammerbugt 38 927 873 45 19 63 18 58 29 29 14 0.2 -0.2 0.6 19 020 77.2 6.6 825 Læsø 1 969 114 17 13 59 28 70 22 48 -34 -17.1 -7.5 -9.2 735 63.4 25.4 846 Mariagerfjord* 42 604 736 58 18 64 17 56 29 27 111 2.0 3.0 -0.4 21 121 77.3 5.7 773 Morsø 21 833 368 59 17 63 20 59 27 32 -131 -5.8 -2.6 -3.3 10 514 76.5 5.4 840 Rebild* 28 852 625 46 21 64 16 57 33 25 111 3.5 1.0 2.9 15 138 82.5 4.0 787 Thisted 45 297 1 102 41 18 64 18 57 28 29 -164 -3.8 -2.5 -1.1 22 687 78.6 5.4 820 Vesthimmerland* 38 106 776 49 18 63 19 58 29 29 60 1.6 2.4 -0.8 18 601 77.4 7.0 851 Ålborg 197 426 1 144 173 17 68 16 48 24 23 1 141 5.2 3.9 2.0 96 863 72.5 6.7

411 Christiansø 101 0.22 459 23 66 11 51 34 16 1 6.0 12.5 0.0 : : :

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 128 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

THE FAROE ISLANDS - FØROYAR - FÆRØERNE

Whole country 48 778 1 396 35 22 64 14 57 34 22 88 1.3 -3.7 5.6 26 420 84.9 5.2 82

Norðoy 5 878 241 24 22 64 16 58 34 24 -20 -3.9 -7.1 3.8 2 880 76.1 8.6 Eysturoy 10 826 285 38 22 64 14 57 35 22 23 1.7 -3.5 5.6 5 810 83.9 4.8 Streymoy 22 717 391 58 23 64 13 55 35 20 116 4.6 -2.7 7.9 13 010 89.5 3.5 Vágar 3 081 187 16 22 62 16 62 36 26 36 11.5 6.5 5.5 1 530 80.4 8.9 Sandoy 1 385 125 11 21 63 19 64 33 31 -15 -11.5 -9.3 -1.0 630 71.8 6.0 Suðuroy 4 763 167 29 19 65 17 56 30 27 -53 -11.1 -9.7 -1.1 2 560 82.6 8.6

GREENLAND - KALAALLIT NUNAAT - GRØNLAND

Whole country 56 452 2 415 100 <0.5 23 70 7 42 32 10 -103 -1.8 -8.8 7.0 25 796 64.8 7.4 74

Qaasuitsup Kommunia 17 749 68 400 <0.5 24 68 8 46 35 12 -159 -8.7 -15.3 6.5 7 599 62.6 8.3 Qeqqata Kommunia 9 677 34 000 <0.5 22 70 7 42 32 10 -1 -0.4 -9.3 9.2 4 650 68.2 6.6 Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq, West 17 737 25 000 1 21 74 5 35 28 7 163 8.4 1.7 7.8 8 808 67.1 4.8 Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq, East 3 495 66 000 <0.5 31 64 5 56 49 8 -16 -4.6 -15.9 11.3 1 260 56.4 8.9 Kommune Kujalleq 7 589 13 500 1 22 69 9 44 31 13 -58 -7.9 -12.2 4.6 3 479 66.1 11.9 Kommuneqarfiit avataanni 205 203 549 <0.5 0 99 1 1 0 1 -9 -42.0 -36.6 -4.5 : : :

FINLAND - SUOMI

Whole country 5 351 427 303 899 18 17 66 17 51 25 26 22 830 4.3 2.4 1.9 2 457 299 69.2 8.3 111

Uudenmaan maakunta - Landskapet Nyland 1 423 576 6 395 223 17 70 13 43 24 19 14 794 11.1 5.5 5.2 733 092 73.8 6.3 162 49 Espoo - Esbo 244 330 312 783 20 70 11 44 28 16 3 328 14.3 4.4 9.7 128 175 75.5 5.3 78 Hanko - Hangö 9 597 117 82 15 64 21 55 23 32 -63 -6.3 -4.7 -1.8 4 564 73.8 10.1 91 Helsinki - Helsingfors* 583 350 213 2 739 14 72 15 39 19 20 4 433 7.8 5.4 2.4 303 266 72.3 6.7 106 Hyvinkää 45 270 323 140 17 67 16 49 26 23 353 7.9 5.0 2.9 22 060 72.8 7.0 149 Ingå - Inkoo 5 609 350 16 19 64 17 55 29 27 91 17.0 15.6 1.3 2 717 75.3 4.5 186 Järvenpää 38 708 38 1 030 18 70 11 42 26 16 275 7.3 0.5 6.7 20 241 74.2 6.5 223 Karjalohja 1 504 121 12 18 61 21 63 29 34 2 1.7 6.5 -5.0 674 73.0 5.9

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 129 224 Karkkila 9 109 242 38 17 65 18 54 26 28 61 6.9 7.3 -0.5 4 318 73.2 7.8 235 Kauniainen - Grankulla 8 617 6 1 465 19 63 18 59 30 29 31 3.6 2.7 0.9 3 879 71.7 3.8 245 Kerava 33 833 31 1 105 17 70 13 43 25 18 494 15.2 8.8 6.3 17 927 75.7 5.6 257 Kirkkonummi - Kyrkslätt 36 509 366 100 23 67 10 50 35 15 739 21.6 11.6 9.7 18 467 75.8 5.7 444 Lohja - Lojo 39 334 349 113 19 66 15 52 28 23 373 9.8 6.6 3.1 19 238 74.1 6.9 505 Mäntsälä 19 747 581 34 22 64 13 55 35 21 373 19.7 13.8 6.1 9 436 74.2 5.3 540 Nummi-Pusula 6 125 468 13 17 63 19 58 28 30 42 7.1 7.0 -0.1 2 746 70.9 6.7 543 Nurmijärvi 39 628 362 110 24 65 11 53 36 17 614 16.1 7.8 8.3 20 022 77.2 4.0 611 Pornainen 5 067 147 35 26 63 10 58 42 16 100 20.7 11.0 9.6 2 410 75.2 4.4 710 Raseborg - Raasepori 28 944 1 148 25 16 63 20 58 26 32 109 3.7 5.3 -1.5 13 340 72.8 7.3 755 Siuntio - Sjundeå 6 024 241 25 22 66 12 51 33 17 143 25.2 17.6 7.7 3 036 76.0 4.1 858 Tuusula 36 766 220 167 22 67 11 50 33 17 448 12.6 6.4 6.1 18 704 76.1 4.4 92 Vantaa - Vanda 197 636 238 829 18 70 12 43 26 16 2 383 12.8 4.0 8.4 103 949 75.0 7.3 927 Vihti 27 869 522 53 21 67 12 49 31 18 467 17.3 10.9 6.5 13 922 74.6 6.0

Itä-Uudenmaan maakunta - Landskapet Östra Nyland 93 966 2 736 34 18 66 16 53 28 25 732 3.3 5.7 2.1 47 533 77.2 4.4 121 18 Askola 4 831 212 23 21 66 13 51 31 20 60 12.9 9.8 3.1 2 473 77.4 4.2 407 Lapinjärvi - Lappträsk 2 926 330 9 15 63 22 58 24 34 -11 -3.6 1.8 -5.4 1 336 72.1 4.9 434 Loviisa - Lovisa 15 549 854 18 15 64 21 57 24 33 9 -1.5 3.4 -2.9 7 629 77.2 5.2 504 Myrskylä - Mörskom 2 021 200 10 17 62 21 61 27 34 -3 -1.5 1.9 -3.4 929 74.1 5.2 638 Porvoo - Borgå 48 599 655 74 18 67 15 50 27 22 362 7.6 3.9 3.6 24 998 77.0 4.7 616 Pukkila 2 004 145 14 20 62 18 62 32 30 3 1.2 1.0 0.4 969 78.3 3.6 753 Sipoo - Sibbo* 18 036 340 53 21 65 14 54 33 22 312 16.8 12.6 4.2 9 199 78.8 2.9

Varsinais-Suomen maakunta - Landskapet Egentliga Finland 462 914 10 663 43 16 66 18 51 24 27 1 844 4.0 3.3 0.7 219 491 71.7 7.4 116 19 Aura 3 840 95 40 21 66 14 53 32 21 43 11.8 5.4 6.1 1 909 75.9 6.1 202 Kaarina 30 760 150 205 20 65 15 53 30 22 470 15.9 10.1 5.7 15 004 74.6 5.0 322 Kimitoön - Kemiönsaari 7 298 687 11 14 61 25 65 23 42 -39 -5.2 2.5 -7.8 3 265 73.8 4.9 284 Koski Tl 2 450 191 13 15 59 26 69 25 44 -18 -7.6 -0.2 -7.0 1 089 75.1 5.2 304 Kustavi 881 166 5 12 60 28 65 19 46 -12 -13.2 -2.8 -10.3 399 75.0 5.4 400 Laitila 8 442 532 16 17 63 20 59 27 32 -25 -3.0 -3.1 0.2 3 936 74.1 6.1 423 Lieto 16 011 199 81 22 65 14 55 33 21 199 13.0 7.5 5.3 7 840 75.7 4.3 430 Loimaa 17 005 848 20 15 62 23 61 24 36 -72 -4.2 -0.1 -4.1 7 571 71.6 7.5 445 Väst-Åboland - Länsi-Turunmaa 15 490 882 18 17 63 20 58 27 31 42 2.7 4.9 -2.2 7 375 75.4 4.6 480 Marttila 2 019 195 10 16 62 22 62 25 36 -16 -7.6 -1.9 -5.7 968 77.4 5.3 481 Masku 9 516 203 47 23 65 13 54 35 19 218 24.7 18.8 5.5 4 641 75.3 4.5 503 Mynämäki 8 039 520 15 17 63 19 58 28 30 -2 -0.2 1.1 -1.4 3 807 74.6 5.4 529 Naantali 18 544 283 65 18 66 16 52 27 25 192 10.9 8.7 1.9 9 038 74.0 5.3 538 Nousiainen 4 824 199 24 22 65 14 55 33 22 79 17.3 10.9 6.0 2 378 76.3 4.6 561 Oripää 1 403 118 12 19 60 21 68 32 35 12 8.7 8.7 0.0 640 76.4 6.4 577 Paimio 10 334 238 43 18 66 16 50 27 23 104 10.4 7.9 2.5 5 120 74.6 4.0 631 Pyhäranta 2 233 143 16 16 64 20 56 25 31 -4 -1.6 1.3 -2.9 1 069 74.7 6.1 636 Pöytyä 8 459 750 11 18 62 20 62 30 32 22 2.9 4.5 -1.9 3 831 73.3 6.1 680 Raisio 24 191 49 497 17 66 17 51 26 25 124 5.0 2.1 3.1 12 027 74.9 6.1 704 Rusko 5 822 127 46 22 65 13 53 33 19 47 7.8 4.1 4.2 2 885 75.8 5.2 734 Salo 54 889 1 987 28 17 64 19 56 26 30 327 6.1 5.3 0.7 25 618 72.6 8.6 738 Sauvo 3 040 253 12 17 65 18 55 27 28 28 9.7 11.2 -1.8 1 412 71.9 3.5 761 Somero 9 402 668 14 15 59 26 69 26 43 -58 -5.9 -1.8 -4.3 4 042 72.7 7.2 833 Taivassalo 1 692 140 12 12 62 25 61 20 41 -13 -8.1 -1.2 -6.1 771 73.3 5.2 838 Tarvasjoki 1 970 102 19 21 62 17 62 34 28 7 3.0 5.4 -2.1 899 74.0 5.5

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 130 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

853 Turku - Åbo 176 087 246 717 13 69 18 44 19 26 276 1.4 0.9 0.6 83 537 68.5 9.4 895 Uusikaupunki 15 873 503 32 14 66 20 52 22 30 -77 -4.8 -3.7 -1.1 7 322 70.1 7.6 918 Vehmaa 2 400 189 13 16 62 22 61 26 35 -10 -4.0 -1.5 -2.5 1 093 73.2 5.2

Satakunnan maakunta - Landskapet Satakunda 227 386 7 957 29 15 64 21 56 24 32 -665 -2.7 -1.5 -1.2 102 159 70.2 8.3 104 50 Eura 12 554 579 22 17 62 22 62 27 35 -50 -3.8 -2.6 -1.4 5 699 73.6 5.1 51 Eurajoki 5 874 345 17 18 64 18 57 28 29 16 2.7 1.1 1.6 2 681 71.6 6.8 79 Harjavalta 7 548 123 61 15 62 23 61 24 36 -40 -5.2 -2.7 -2.5 3 309 70.4 8.1 99 Honkajoki 1 889 331 6 13 65 22 54 21 33 -28 -13.7 -7.1 -7.0 874 71.4 7.4 102 Huittinen 10 700 533 20 15 63 22 58 23 35 -30 -2.8 0.4 -3.2 4 749 70.2 6.4 181 Jämijärvi 2 063 214 10 16 60 24 66 27 39 -33 -15.2 -11.2 -4.2 918 73.7 8.6 214 Kankaanpää 12 224 690 18 15 66 19 52 24 29 -93 -7.5 -6.5 -1.0 5 574 69.4 9.4 230 Karvia 2 672 502 5 14 60 26 66 23 43 -41 -14.6 -7.0 -7.9 1 166 72.3 9.7 254 Kiikoinen 1 270 138 9 16 60 24 68 27 41 -8 -6.7 -0.3 -5.7 529 70.0 9.8 271 Kokemäki 8 080 481 17 14 62 24 61 23 38 -68 -8.2 -3.8 -4.4 3 478 69.3 8.0 319 Köyliö 2 852 246 12 16 62 23 62 26 37 -21 -6.9 -3.4 -3.7 1 311 74.6 4.4 413 Lavia 2 058 321 6 12 60 27 66 20 45 -31 -15.0 -4.5 -10.1 837 67.4 9.8 442 Luvia 3 315 169 20 17 63 19 58 27 30 2 0.5 -1.6 2.1 1 488 70.8 7.2 484 Merikarvia 3 411 446 8 13 59 28 70 23 47 -46 -13.5 -5.0 -8.2 1 302 64.9 10.5 531 Nakkila 5 716 183 31 17 62 20 60 28 33 -29 -4.9 -4.2 -0.8 2 494 70.0 8.8 608 Pomarkku 2 482 301 8 16 59 25 70 28 42 -18 -7.6 -2.6 -4.7 1 007 69.1 9.6 609 Pori 82 786 834 99 15 65 20 54 23 31 108 1.2 1.7 -0.4 36 486 68.0 9.4 684 Rauma 39 793 496 80 15 66 19 53 23 29 -136 -3.3 -3.7 0.3 18 918 72.6 8.2 747 Siikainen 1 686 463 4 14 58 28 73 25 48 -26 -14.9 -7.9 -7.1 683 70.1 11.8 783 Säkylä 4 721 161 29 15 64 21 56 23 33 -43 -8.7 -5.8 -3.0 2 329 76.8 3.9 886 Ulvila 13 692 401 34 18 64 18 57 28 29 -49 -3.5 -5.0 1.5 6 327 72.5 7.7

Kanta-Hämeen maakunta - Landskapet Egentliga Tavastland 173 828 5 200 33 17 65 18 55 26 29 1 237 7.3 7.1 0.19 77 676 69.1 7.5 92 61 Forssa 17 807 249 72 14 65 21 55 22 33 -55 -3.0 -1.0 -2.1 7 694 66.9 11.3 82 Hattula 9 625 358 27 19 66 15 52 29 23 72 7.3 5.1 2.5 4 426 70.1 5.9 86 Hausjärvi 8 826 356 25 20 65 15 54 31 24 65 11.3 5.7 1.9 4 021 70.4 5.4 103 Humppila 2 524 148 17 17 62 21 61 28 33 -14 -5.5 -3.8 -1.8 1 131 72.1 9.4 109 Hämeenlinna 66 455 1 820 37 16 65 20 55 24 31 496 7.2 7.8 -0.2 29 414 68.5 7.4 165 Janakkala 16 795 547 31 19 63 18 58 30 28 225 14.0 13.8 0.0 7 477 70.2 6.7

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 131 169 Jokioinen 5 753 180 32 19 63 17 58 30 28 2 0.8 -1.9 2.3 2 648 72.7 7.5 433 Loppi 8 244 598 14 20 62 18 60 32 28 84 10.5 10.3 0.1 3 653 70.9 5.6 694 Riihimäki 28 587 121 236 17 67 16 50 26 24 351 12.6 10.7 1.9 13 119 68.8 7.6 834 Tammela 6 628 640 10 18 63 19 60 30 30 30 4.4 5.2 -0.7 2 931 70.6 6.9 981 Ypäjä 2 584 183 14 15 64 20 56 24 32 -18 -7.1 -1.6 -5.3 1 163 70.1 8.7

Pirkanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Birkaland 484 436 12 447 39 16 67 17 50 25 26 4 123 9.2 6.5 2.7 219 220 68.0 9.7 113 20 Akaa 16 858 293 58 19 64 17 56 29 27 103 6.4 5.3 0.9 7 435 68.9 10.5 108 Hämeenkyrö 10 436 464 23 18 63 18 58 29 29 66 6.8 7.2 -0.7 4 428 67.0 9.9 143 Ikaalinen 7 424 750 10 14 63 23 58 22 36 -26 -3.9 1.1 -4.6 3 200 68.3 8.1 177 Juupajoki 2 116 258 8 16 61 23 64 27 37 -31 -14.5 -10.3 -4.0 919 71.2 9.5 211 Kangasala 29 522 658 45 20 64 15 55 32 24 441 15.6 9.1 6.4 13 665 71.9 7.0 250 Kihniö 2 257 357 6 13 63 24 59 21 38 -21 -9.4 -4.9 -4.3 929 65.5 8.9 418 Lempäälä 20 178 269 75 23 65 13 55 35 19 490 25.8 17.0 8.8 9 256 71.0 7.5 508 Mänttä-Vilppula 11 496 534 22 14 62 24 61 22 39 -122 -10.6 -5.6 -4.8 4 925 68.8 9.4 536 Nokia 31 357 288 109 20 66 15 52 30 22 554 18.4 12.3 6.1 14 228 69.2 9.2 562 Orivesi* 9 634 800 12 16 62 22 62 26 36 32 2.7 5.6 -2.3 3 983 66.9 9.3 581 Parkano 7 069 852 8 15 63 23 59 23 36 -82 -11.1 -7.4 -4.0 2 940 66.3 8.2 604 Pirkkala 16 515 81 203 22 66 13 52 33 19 392 25.2 16.3 8.9 7 734 71.2 7.3 619 Punkalaidun 3 333 361 9 13 59 28 71 23 48 -38 -11.1 -1.2 -9.9 1 356 69.4 5.0 635 Pälkäne 7 012 561 13 17 61 23 65 28 37 55 8.0 10.2 -2.1 2 949 69.3 7.1 702 Ruovesi 5 101 776 7 13 59 28 69 22 47 -65 -12.5 -3.5 -8.9 2 095 69.4 7.0 790 Sastamala 24 476 1 292 19 16 62 22 62 27 35 -18 -0.6 1.4 -2.1 10 422 68.8 6.2 837 Tampere 211 507 525 403 14 71 16 42 19 22 1 715 8.3 5.1 3.1 98 743 66.2 11.2 887 Urjala 5 362 475 11 14 61 25 63 22 41 -33 -6.0 -0.4 -5.5 2 297 69.7 10.4 908 Valkeakoski 20 631 272 76 16 64 20 56 25 31 32 1.5 2.8 -1.2 8 985 68.0 11.8 922 Vesilahti 4 365 301 15 24 61 15 63 39 24 141 34.4 29.8 5.1 1 802 67.4 7.0 936 Virrat 7 612 1 162 7 13 61 26 64 22 42 -64 -8.5 -2.0 -6.3 3 107 66.9 8.3 980 Ylöjärvi 30 175 1 115 27 22 64 13 55 34 21 603 20.9 12.9 8.1 13 820 71.1 7.5

Päijät-Hämeen maakunta - Landskapet Päijänne-Tavastland 201 270 5 127 39 16 65 19 53 24 29 518 2.6 3.0 -0.4 89 005 67.7 8.1 91 16 Asikkala 8 551 564 15 15 62 23 62 25 37 1 0.1 4.6 -4.5 3 720 70.3 6.1 81 Hartola 3 388 543 6 12 61 27 63 19 44 -61 -17.2 -7.2 -9.9 1 403 67.5 7.6 111 Heinola 20 374 676 30 14 63 23 58 22 36 -105 -5.2 -1.2 -3.9 8 807 68.4 9.2 98 Hollola 21 845 463 47 20 65 15 55 31 24 174 8.2 3.7 4.4 10 008 71.0 5.7 283 Hämeenkoski 2 126 188 11 15 62 23 60 24 37 -14 -6.8 -3.9 -2.7 930 70.0 5.8 316 Kärkölä 4 875 257 19 17 65 18 53 26 27 -28 -5.8 -3.1 -2.7 2 226 69.8 7.6 398 Lahti 100 854 135 747 14 67 18 49 22 27 515 5.2 4.7 0.5 44 687 66.0 9.1 532 Nastola 15 065 324 46 19 67 15 50 28 22 56 3.7 0.1 3.7 7 083 70.4 7.1 560 Orimattila 16 353 785 21 18 64 18 57 28 29 79 5.0 6.1 -1.2 7 133 68.6 6.7 576 Padasjoki 3 448 523 7 13 58 29 72 22 49 -38 -10.7 -2.4 -8.3 1 327 66.1 6.8 781 Sysmä 4 391 667 7 12 57 31 75 21 54 -61 -13.5 -2.0 -11.3 1 680 67.0 7.6

Kymenlaakson maakunta - Landskapet Kymmenedalen 182 617 5 112 36 15 65 21 55 23 32 -613 -3.2 -0.4 -2.9 78 324 66.4 9.9 105 75 Hamina 21 483 610 35 15 64 21 57 23 34 -80 -3.7 -0.8 -2.8 9 206 67.2 10.7 142 Iitti 7 061 588 12 15 63 22 59 24 35 -58 -7.6 -2.3 -5.7 3 123 70.2 8.9 285 Kotka 54 775 271 202 15 65 20 54 23 31 7 0.1 3.0 -2.9 23 108 64.8 11.3 286 Kouvola 88 174 2 560 34 15 65 20 54 23 31 -408 -4.6 -2.1 -2.5 38 275 66.8 9.2 489 Miehikkälä 2 278 422 5 13 59 29 71 22 49 -34 -14.3 -4.8 -9.5 857 64.2 8.4 624 Pyhtää - Pyttis 5 316 290 18 17 64 20 57 26 31 -3 5.7 1.9 -2.4 2 278 67.5 7.4 935 Virolahti 3 530 372 9 14 63 24 60 22 38 -38 -10.4 -3.4 -7.0 1 477 66.8 8.9 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 132 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

Etelä-Karjalan maakunta - Landskapet Södra Karelen 134 019 5 613 24 14 65 21 55 22 32 -346 -2.6 0.1 -2.7 57 678 66.5 8.6 108 153 Imatra 28 676 155 185 13 64 23 57 21 35 -208 -7.2 -3.4 -3.8 11 977 65.4 9.7 405 Lappeenranta 71 814 1 452 49 15 67 18 50 22 27 115 1.4 2.0 -0.4 31 819 66.3 8.6 416 Lemi 3 041 218 14 18 62 20 60 28 32 -14 -4.4 -2.0 -2.5 1 342 70.6 6.9 441 Luumäki 5 179 750 7 14 61 25 64 23 41 -19 -3.6 3.5 -7.1 2 120 67.1 7.8 580 Parikkala 5 885 593 10 11 60 29 66 18 48 -76 -12.7 0.0 -12.5 2 332 66.0 8.2 689 Rautjärvi 4 037 352 11 12 61 27 65 20 45 -60 -14.3 -5.9 -8.4 1 589 64.9 7.9 700 Ruokolahti 5 733 925 6 14 61 25 65 23 42 -44 -7.0 -1.9 -5.7 2 362 67.9 7.5 739 Savitaipale 3 957 540 7 13 58 29 73 22 51 -40 -10.1 -1.3 -8.6 1 579 68.9 8.8 775 Suomenniemi 809 284 3 13 56 30 78 24 54 -6 -7.0 3.4 -11.0 292 64.4 8.9 831 Taipalsaari 4 888 345 14 19 64 17 57 30 27 7 1.8 -0.7 2.0 2 267 72.6 5.7

Etelä-Savon maakunta - Landskapet Södra Savolax 155 568 13 986 11 14 63 23 58 22 36 -1 155 -7.3 -2.9 -4.4 63 329 64.4 9.6 88 46 Enonkoski 1 617 306 5 13 60 27 68 22 46 -24 -14.4 -3.8 -10.2 610 63.3 12.4 90 Heinävesi 3 975 1 030 4 13 59 29 70 22 49 -87 -20.5 -10.2 -10.5 1 475 63.1 9.7 97 Hirvensalmi 2 436 465 5 13 59 28 69 22 47 -29 -11.4 3.2 -14.6 895 61.9 8.9 171 Joroinen 5 423 575 9 15 64 21 57 24 33 -44 -8.0 -4.2 -3.8 2 257 65.3 9.4 178 Juva 7 064 1 164 6 14 61 25 65 23 42 -71 -9.4 -2.8 -6.9 2 923 68.3 7.0 213 Kangasniemi 6 024 1 070 6 13 60 28 68 21 46 -57 -9.4 -1.3 -8.0 2 206 61.5 10.3 246 Kerimäki 5 658 558 10 15 61 23 63 25 38 -52 -8.5 -3.6 -5.3 2 279 65.6 10.6 491 Mikkeli 48 688 1 702 29 15 66 19 53 23 29 -25 -0.6 -0.4 -0.1 21 007 65.8 8.8 507 Mäntyharju 6 475 982 7 13 61 26 64 22 43 -87 -13.1 -3.3 -9.8 2 548 64.7 7.8 588 Pertunmaa 1 983 375 5 14 58 28 71 24 47 -27 -12.9 -2.9 -10.5 724 62.5 8.3 593 Pieksämäki 20 151 1 570 13 13 63 24 58 21 37 -189 -9.5 -4.4 -4.8 7 973 62.5 9.3 618 Punkaharju 3 804 471 8 13 61 26 64 21 43 -56 -14.2 -7.2 -6.9 1 582 68.2 9.8 623 Puumala 2 549 795 3 9 61 29 63 15 48 -63 -23.3 -9.3 -13.9 961 61.5 10.1 681 Rantasalmi 4 076 560 7 13 61 26 63 21 42 -67 -15.7 -6.5 -9.1 1 602 64.1 10.9 696 Ristiina 4 938 566 9 16 61 22 63 26 36 -30 -6.3 -1.7 -4.3 2 002 66.0 8.3 740 Savonlinna 27 742 1 211 23 14 64 22 56 21 35 -186 -6.8 -3.4 -3.2 11 179 62.8 11.8 768 Sulkava 2 965 585 5 13 58 29 72 22 50 -59 -18.8 -7.9 -11.1 1 107 64.2 10.2

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 133 Pohjois-Savon maakunta - Landskapet Norra Savolax 248 182 16 771 15 16 65 19 53 24 29 -599 -2.3 -1.5 -0.9 102 718 63.4 9.4 93 140 Iisalmi 22 169 763 29 15 66 19 52 23 29 -91 -4.2 -3.9 -0.2 9 365 64.4 11.5 174 Juankoski 5 273 465 11 14 64 23 57 21 36 -70 -12.8 -7.7 -5.0 2 083 62.0 12.1 204 Kaavi 3 429 674 5 15 60 26 68 24 44 -41 -11.4 -2.8 -8.8 1 158 56.7 11.8 239 Keitele 2 563 482 5 13 62 25 61 20 41 -48 -17.9 -10.8 -6.9 1 033 65.0 8.4 263 Kiuruvesi 9 318 1 328 7 16 61 23 63 26 38 -109 -11.4 -5.5 -5.9 3 465 60.8 10.1 297 Kuopio 96 135 1 597 60 16 69 16 45 23 23 410 4.4 1.7 2.6 41 309 62.5 8.9 402 Lapinlahti 10 477 1 097 10 17 63 21 60 26 33 -43 -3.9 -1.0 -3.0 3 995 60.8 10.8 420 Leppävirta 10 633 1 136 9 15 62 23 61 24 36 -68 -6.2 -2.4 -3.9 4 189 63.2 9.8 476 Maaninka 3 870 467 8 18 61 21 64 29 35 15 4.0 8.6 -4.6 1 608 68.0 9.5 534 Nilsiä 6 521 712 9 15 62 23 62 24 37 -13 -2.0 2.5 -4.5 2 542 63.0 7.0 595 Pielavesi 5 147 1 154 4 15 57 28 74 26 48 -82 -15.1 -7.2 -8.1 1 794 60.7 9.4 686 Rautalampi 3 520 539 7 14 59 27 69 24 45 -37 -10.4 -2.6 -7.8 1 265 60.9 8.7 687 Rautavaara 1 918 1 151 2 11 59 30 70 19 51 -43 -21.6 -8.3 -13.1 630 55.8 9.6 749 Siilinjärvi 20 964 401 52 21 65 14 53 32 21 145 7.1 0.6 6.4 9 268 67.6 6.5 762 Sonkajärvi 4 694 1 466 3 14 63 23 60 22 37 -61 -12.4 -5.9 -6.6 1 800 61.2 10.7 778 Suonenjoki 7 611 714 11 15 61 25 65 24 41 -47 -5.8 0.2 -6.4 2 915 63.3 8.8 844 Tervo 1 744 348 5 11 62 27 62 18 44 -29 -16.1 -3.7 -12.7 653 60.6 8.1 857 Tuusniemi 2 864 543 5 13 61 26 64 21 43 -34 -11.3 -1.1 -10.5 1 055 60.3 9.8 915 Varkaus 22 935 386 59 14 65 21 54 22 32 -266 -11.3 -8.3 -2.9 9 158 61.7 12.3 921 Vesanto 2 412 423 6 12 58 30 72 21 51 -57 -21.7 -12.0 -10.4 886 63.1 8.7 925 Vieremä 3 985 925 4 15 64 21 57 24 33 -31 -7.8 -2.4 -5.3 1 657 65.4 8.7

Pohjois-Karjalan maakunta - Landskapet Norra Karelen 165 962 17 763 9 15 65 19 53 23 30 -529 -3.2 -1.6 -1.6 64 769 59.6 13.0 86 146 Ilomantsi 6 022 2 764 2 11 60 28 66 19 47 -103 -16.4 -5.8 -10.7 2 127 58.7 14.1 167 Joensuu 72 704 2 382 31 15 68 17 46 22 24 154 2.0 0.2 2.0 29 227 58.7 13.5 176 Juuka 5 705 1 502 4 14 61 25 63 22 40 -95 -15.9 -8.1 -8.0 2 060 58.7 12.6 248 Kesälahti 2 460 388 6 13 59 28 70 22 47 -52 -19.5 -11.9 -7.9 910 62.8 13.3 260 Kitee 9 401 866 11 13 64 23 56 21 35 -94 -9.9 -5.5 -4.3 3 693 61.4 13.2 276 Kontiolahti 13 677 800 17 23 66 11 52 35 17 265 20.6 12.9 7.3 5 851 65.1 9.7 422 Lieksa 12 788 3 418 4 11 63 26 60 18 42 -263 -19.2 -9.9 -9.8 4 632 57.9 14.8 426 Liperi 12 133 727 17 19 65 16 55 30 25 98 8.3 6.3 1.9 4 851 62.0 9.5 541 Nurmes 8 573 1 601 5 13 62 25 61 21 40 -121 -14.0 -6.7 -7.0 3 124 58.6 13.0 309 Outokumpu 7 492 446 17 13 64 22 56 21 35 -61 -8.1 -3.9 -4.1 2 745 57.0 14.7 607 Polvijärvi 4 821 804 6 14 63 22 58 23 35 -48 -9.2 -4.1 -5.6 1 806 59.2 14.0 707 Rääkkylä 2 625 428 6 12 60 27 65 20 45 -64 -22.4 -11.4 -11.8 912 57.4 14.6 848 Tohmajärvi 5 079 838 6 14 63 23 60 23 37 -87 -16.3 -7.7 -8.7 1 933 60.8 14.4 911 Valtimo 2 482 800 3 13 61 27 65 21 44 -58 -21.9 -15.4 -6.8 898 59.6 12.6

Keski-Suomen maakunta - Landskapet Mellersta Finland 272 784 16 707 16 17 66 18 52 25 27 897 3.3 1.4 1.9 114 090 63.7 11.2 97 77 Hankasalmi 5 514 572 10 15 61 24 64 25 39 -20 -3.1 1.6 -5.1 2 060 61.3 10.3 172 Joutsa 5 093 867 6 12 60 28 66 20 46 -37 -4.5 1.1 -8.4 1 952 63.7 11.3 179 Jyväskylä 129 623 1 171 111 16 70 14 44 24 20 1 341 10.5 4.6 6.1 57 002 63.1 11.1 182 Jämsä* 22 949 1 571 15 15 63 22 60 25 35 -193 -8.1 -6.1 -2.1 9 435 65.6 12.1 216 Kannonkoski 1 587 445 4 15 56 28 77 27 50 -10 -5.3 0.7 -7.0 562 62.8 11.8 226 Karstula 4 564 887 5 15 61 24 65 25 40 -58 -12.5 -7.7 -4.6 1 742 63.0 12.0 249 Keuruu 10 757 1 258 9 15 62 23 61 23 38 -101 -9.1 -4.9 -4.3 4 265 63.9 11.3 256 Kinnula 1 820 460 4 17 61 23 65 27 38 -24 -12.8 -11.9 -1.1 654 59.3 11.2

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 134 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

265 Kivijärvi 1 365 484 3 16 55 29 82 30 53 -17 -12.4 -8.5 -3.3 412 55.0 11.6 275 Konnevesi 2 971 513 6 14 61 25 64 23 41 -36 -12.0 -5.9 -5.9 1 164 64.2 11.2 291 Kuhmoinen 2 589 661 4 11 56 33 78 19 59 -49 -18.4 -4.5 -13.5 927 63.8 14.0 312 Kyyjärvi 1 536 448 3 15 61 23 63 25 38 -32 -19.5 -13.3 -6.5 611 64.8 10.3 410 Laukaa 17 975 649 28 22 64 14 56 34 23 184 10.4 6.2 4.3 7 673 66.7 9.5 435 Luhanka 834 215 4 11 53 37 90 20 70 -11 -13.7 -0.9 -12.4 292 66.3 10.2 495 Multia 1 919 733 3 15 55 29 81 28 53 -23 -11.8 -5.3 -6.3 656 61.8 11.8 500 Muurame 9 231 144 64 23 65 12 54 35 18 124 14.2 6.7 7.3 4 099 68.3 8.4 592 Petäjävesi 3 979 457 9 19 62 19 62 31 31 60 15.5 17.8 -2.0 1 587 64.5 8.9 601 Pihtipudas 4 613 1 075 4 17 59 24 69 29 40 -75 -15.5 -12.1 -3.4 1 752 64.2 11.2 729 Saarijärvi 10 666 1 252 9 15 61 23 63 25 38 -91 -8.5 -5.5 -2.9 4 036 61.5 13.2 850 Toivakka 2 379 362 7 17 62 21 61 28 33 2 0.5 1.9 -0.8 970 65.5 10.6 892 Uurainen 3 382 348 10 23 61 16 63 37 26 56 17.7 13.3 4.0 1 280 61.9 12.1 931 Viitasaari 7 195 1 249 6 14 60 26 66 22 43 -65 -8.9 -2.0 -6.8 2 753 63.4 11.0 992 Äänekoski 20 243 885 23 17 64 19 57 27 30 -28 -1.4 -1.9 0.6 8 206 63.8 12.8

Etelä-Pohjanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Södra Österbotten 193 524 13 444 14 17 64 19 57 27 30 -116 -0.6 -0.8 0.2 86 157 70.1 7.4 90 5 Alajärvi 10 573 1 009 10 19 61 20 64 30 33 -90 -8.4 -8.8 0.5 4 308 66.7 7.9 10 Alavus 9 395 791 12 17 61 22 64 28 36 -57 -5.7 -5.0 -1.0 3 967 69.3 7.0 52 Evijärvi 2 772 354 8 16 61 23 63 25 37 -33 -11.4 -9.1 -2.3 1 197 70.3 6.6 145 Ilmajoki 11 744 577 20 19 64 17 57 30 27 45 3.9 3.0 0.9 5 360 71.6 6.8 151 Isojoki 2 406 642 4 14 58 28 72 24 48 -37 -14.9 -6.6 -8.2 1 001 71.4 5.1 164 Jalasjärvi 8 277 819 10 15 62 22 60 24 36 -84 -9.8 -5.7 -4.3 3 643 70.4 7.0 218 Karijoki 1 529 186 8 13 60 27 65 21 44 -34 -20.4 -11.4 -9.4 671 72.6 6.4 232 Kauhajoki 14 384 1 299 11 16 65 19 54 25 29 -32 -2.2 -1.2 -1.0 6 456 68.9 8.4 233 Kauhava 17 545 1 314 13 17 62 21 62 28 34 -182 -10.1 -9.1 -1.0 7 833 72.3 5.8 300 Kuortane 3 983 462 9 15 60 25 67 25 42 -48 -12.0 -8.0 -3.7 1 747 73.5 5.0 301 Kurikka 14 626 906 16 16 64 20 57 25 32 -105 -6.8 -4.8 -2.2 6 418 68.7 10.2 403 Lappajärvi 3 495 421 8 13 61 26 65 22 43 -50 -13.9 -7.4 -6.6 1 420 66.9 7.2 408 Lapua 14 326 737 19 18 62 19 60 30 31 58 4.4 4.1 0.0 6 287 70.4 6.0 743 Seinäjoki 57 024 1 431 40 18 67 15 50 27 23 759 13.6 8.6 5.2 26 678 70.2 7.5 759 Soini 2 429 552 4 17 59 24 69 28 41 -47 -18.7 -12.3 -6.4 952 66.1 10.4 846 Teuva 5 962 555 11 15 60 25 67 25 42 -69 -11.3 -6.3 -4.9 2 575 72.0 7.1 863 Töysä 3 191 298 11 19 61 19 63 31 32 -4 -1.2 -3.3 1.9 1 386 70.8 9.3

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 135 934 Vimpeli 3 298 287 11 17 62 21 61 27 34 -23 -7.0 -3.0 -3.9 1 390 67.7 7.9 989 Ähtäri 6 565 805 8 15 63 22 60 25 35 -81 -11.8 -8.5 -3.4 2 868 69.8 9.3

Pohjanmaan maakunta- Landskapet Österbotten 177 038 7 749 23 17 64 19 56 27 29 722 4.1 2.0 2.2 83 475 73.7 6.5 112 152 Isokyrö 4 953 354 14 18 61 21 64 29 35 -26 -4.8 -3.3 -1.8 2 224 73.6 7.0 231 Kaskinen - Kaskö 1 442 10 137 12 66 23 53 18 35 -15 -10.4 -6.1 -4.2 722 76.4 9.1 280 Korsnäs 2 239 236 10 14 62 24 61 23 38 9 3.6 9.7 -5.9 1 055 75.6 5.9 287 Kristinestad - Kristiinankaupunki 7 254 682 11 12 63 25 60 20 40 -99 -13.5 -7.5 -5.8 3 284 72.4 6.9 288 Kronoby - Kruunupyy 6 720 712 9 18 62 20 63 29 33 -20 -2.7 -2.4 -0.5 3 242 78.4 5.7 399 Laihia 7 794 504 15 18 64 17 56 29 27 54 7.1 4.1 2.9 3 785 75.6 6.3 440 Larsmo 4 719 142 33 29 59 12 68 49 20 76 17.5 1.9 15.0 1 981 70.7 5.6 475 Malax - Maalahti 5 614 521 11 15 61 23 63 25 38 12 2.1 4.7 -2.6 2 499 72.6 4.5 499 Korsholm - Mustasaari 18 338 848 22 19 64 17 57 30 27 216 12.3 6.6 5.5 9 379 80.3 3.9 545 Närpes 9 464 977 10 14 61 25 63 22 41 -10 -1.1 4.7 -5.7 4 647 80.2 4.9 599 Pedersöre - Pedersören kunta 10 821 794 14 24 61 14 63 40 23 68 5.8 -1.9 8.3 4 967 74.7 5.5 598 Jakobstad - Pietarsaari 19 627 88 222 17 62 21 60 27 33 30 1.6 -0.5 2.1 8 811 71.9 9.3 893 Nykarleby - Uusikaarlepyy 7 452 732 10 17 62 21 60 27 33 1 0.4 -0.5 0.6 3 674 79.1 4.7 905 Vaasa - Vasa 59 175 189 313 16 67 17 48 24 25 443 7.4 4.1 3.5 28 708 71.9 7.3 942 Vähäkyrö 4 740 176 27 20 63 17 60 32 27 8 1.7 -1.1 2.9 2 203 74.2 6.5 945 Vörå- Vöyri 6 686 781 9 16 62 22 63 27 36 -25 -2.6 -1.0 -2.7 3 184 77.4 4.0

Keski-Pohjanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Mellersta Österbotten 68 131 5 018 14 19 64 17 57 30 27 148 2.2 -1.6 3.8 31 847 73.3 7.2 105 74 Halsua 1 323 413 3 16 60 25 67 26 41 -28 -19.2 -14.1 -5.7 578 73.1 7.0 217 Kannus 5 793 468 12 20 63 17 58 31 27 -36 -5.7 -7.3 1.2 2 705 73.8 6.8 236 Kaustinen 4 298 354 12 18 64 18 56 28 28 -21 -4.4 -6.2 1.3 2 116 76.7 6.2 272 Kokkola - Karleby 45 896 1 444 32 19 65 17 55 29 26 319 7.1 2.1 4.9 21 635 72.9 7.5 421 Lestijärvi 860 481 2 14 62 23 61 23 38 -19 -21.2 -14.8 -5.5 361 67.4 7.4 584 Perho 2 986 748 4 25 58 17 74 44 30 -4 -1.3 -10.0 8.8 1 187 69.0 8.5 849 Toholampi 3 493 608 6 19 61 20 64 31 32 -33 -9.6 -11.6 2.5 1 635 76.6 4.3 924 Veteli 3 482 502 7 16 62 22 61 26 35 -31 -8.7 -9.1 0.3 1 630 75.3 6.6

Pohjois-Pohjanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Norra Österbotten 392 110 35 490 11 21 65 14 53 31 22 2 826 7.3 0.3 7.1 166 444 65.1 9.8 105 9 Alavieska 2 776 251 11 21 60 19 67 35 32 -25 -8.3 -9.9 1.1 1 106 66.5 9.8 69 Haapajärvi 7 714 766 10 21 62 18 62 34 28 -61 -7.6 -9.5 1.7 3 065 64.4 8.3 71 Haapavesi 7 396 1 050 7 21 62 17 61 34 27 -74 -9.4 -12.1 2.3 3 012 65.4 8.5 72 Hailuoto 1 019 197 5 14 61 26 65 23 42 7 6.6 12.2 -5.2 381 61.6 8.8 84 Haukipudas 18 654 439 42 26 64 10 57 41 16 311 17.5 5.8 11.5 7 819 65.8 10.5 139 Ii 9 294 1 551 6 23 61 16 65 39 26 128 14.1 8.0 6.1 3 477 61.7 12.1 208 Kalajoki 12 540 922 14 19 62 19 60 30 30 53 4.4 0.2 4.0 5 392 68.9 8.8 244 Kempele 15 652 110 142 25 65 10 54 39 15 337 22.6 8.6 14.0 7 163 70.4 8.0 255 Kiiminki 12 966 327 40 29 63 8 59 46 13 236 19.2 4.5 14.6 5 612 68.7 8.9 305 Kuusamo 16 669 4 979 3 17 64 19 55 26 29 -106 -6.2 -7.7 1.4 6 930 64.5 9.9 317 Kärsämäki 2 918 695 4 18 61 21 64 30 34 -35 -11.5 -11.3 -0.4 1 149 64.5 11.0 425 Liminka 8 861 637 14 35 57 8 74 61 13 365 46.0 25.7 19.6 3 442 67.6 7.2 436 Lumijoki 1 994 212 9 28 58 14 72 48 24 39 20.7 10.4 9.9 720 62.0 9.4 483 Merijärvi 1 209 230 5 22 59 18 69 38 31 -18 -15.0 -18.8 4.3 442 61.6 9.1 494 Muhos 8 856 784 11 25 61 14 64 41 23 133 15.6 8.3 7.3 3 555 66.0 8.1

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 136 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

535 Nivala 11 023 528 21 23 60 16 66 39 27 40 3.4 -3.4 7.0 4 402 66.5 9.4 563 Oulainen 7 931 588 13 20 62 18 62 32 30 -39 -4.9 -8.7 3.9 3 230 66.2 9.5 564 Oulu 139 133 1 410 99 17 70 13 42 24 18 1 716 12.7 4.2 8.5 62 860 64.2 10.5 567 Oulunsalo 9 596 84 115 29 63 8 58 45 13 83 8.6 -8.8 17.7 4 226 69.8 7.9 615 Pudasjärvi 8 947 5 639 2 17 61 22 63 27 36 -122 -13.3 -11.4 -1.9 3 215 58.7 13.3 625 Pyhäjoki 3 373 542 6 18 62 19 60 29 31 -26 -7.5 -6.1 -1.3 1 391 66.0 8.8 626 Pyhäjärvi 6 001 1 311 5 15 61 25 65 24 41 -54 -9.2 -4.3 -4.5 2 184 60.0 12.7 630 Pyhäntä 1 648 811 2 22 63 15 59 34 24 -34 -19.9 -23.7 4.5 693 66.8 8.7 678 Raahe 22 501 528 43 19 66 14 51 29 22 -2 -0.2 -5.4 5.3 9 708 65.1 10.1 691 Reisjärvi 3 020 474 6 20 60 20 66 34 33 -19 -7.0 -6.0 -0.2 1 219 67.1 5.8 746 Sievi 5 278 786 7 27 58 15 72 47 25 15 2.6 -8.6 11.4 1 962 64.0 7.7 748 Siikajoki 5 776 1 046 6 22 62 16 62 36 26 -11 -1.9 -5.2 3.3 2 262 63.3 9.1 791 Siikalatva 6 293 2 171 3 16 60 23 66 27 39 -98 -15.0 -11.4 -3.6 2 546 67.0 8.8 832 Taivalkoski 4 491 2 438 2 17 63 20 59 27 31 -57 -12.4 -10.0 -2.2 1 644 58.0 15.1 859 Tyrnävä 6 320 492 13 31 58 11 72 53 19 142 23.6 7.6 16.1 2 420 65.8 8.4 889 Utajärvi 3 014 1 671 2 17 61 22 63 28 35 -43 -13.9 -10.3 -3.3 1 131 61.2 10.5 926 Vihanti 3 173 487 7 18 60 22 66 30 36 -41 -12.6 -13.3 0.6 1 225 64.2 9.5 972 Yli-Ii 2 179 769 3 24 57 20 76 41 35 -22 -10.4 -12.9 3.0 782 63.2 9.8 977 Ylivieska 13 895 568 24 21 65 15 55 32 23 109 8.1 1.2 6.8 6 079 67.7 8.9

Kainuun maakunta - Landskapet Kajanaland 82 634 21 504 4 15 64 21 55 23 32 -669 -7.9 -5.6 -2.3 32 184 60.6 13.8 84 105 Hyrynsalmi 2 791 1 421 2 12 61 27 64 19 45 -71 -24.1 -12.4 -11.5 965 56.7 15.7 205 Kajaani 38 211 1 835 21 17 66 17 51 25 26 -23 -0.6 -3.6 3.0 15 607 61.6 13.3 290 Kuhmo 9 636 4 807 2 13 63 24 59 20 38 -164 -16.2 -11.3 -5.0 3 507 57.8 17.5 578 Paltamo 3 917 919 4 15 63 22 59 24 36 -62 -14.9 -8.3 -6.8 1 467 59.6 12.9 620 Puolanka 3 123 2 462 1 12 62 26 62 20 42 -69 -21.2 -10.2 -10.9 1 098 57.0 15.4 697 Ristijärvi 1 521 836 2 10 60 29 66 17 49 -28 -17.4 -4.5 -13.3 569 62.1 11.7 765 Sotkamo 10 703 2 650 4 16 64 20 57 25 32 0 0.0 2.2 -2.2 4 302 63.0 10.4 777 Suomussalmi 9 332 5 271 2 12 63 25 59 20 39 -182 -18.7 -9.8 -8.9 3 465 59.0 15.0 785 Vaala 3 400 1 303 3 15 60 26 68 25 43 -69 -19.6 -11.1 -8.1 1 204 59.4 15.4

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 137 Lapin maakunta - Landskapet Lappland 183 748 92 664 2 16 66 19 52 24 28 -544 -2.9 -2.9 0.0 73 710 60.9 11.8 96 47 Enontekiö - Eanodat 1 882 7 946 <0.5 12 69 19 46 18 28 -23 -12.0 -7.1 -4.7 800 62.0 16.8 148 Inari - Anár 6 863 15 052 <0.5 14 69 18 46 20 26 -44 -6.3 -6.3 -0.1 2 960 63.0 11.7 240 Kemi 22 580 95 237 14 66 19 51 22 29 -67 -2.9 -1.6 -1.4 8 559 57.2 13.0 320 Kemijärvi 8 519 3 505 2 11 62 28 62 18 45 -203 -22.4 -14.2 -8.5 3 167 60.4 13.8 241 Keminmaa 8 606 625 14 19 65 16 54 29 25 -52 -5.9 -8.9 2.9 3 659 65.3 10.2 261 Kittilä 6 115 8 095 1 16 66 18 51 24 27 53 9.4 10.7 -1.8 2 606 64.5 9.4 273 Kolari 3 854 2 559 2 12 67 20 49 19 31 -4 -0.4 1.5 -2.5 1 557 60.3 12.5 498 Muonio 2 377 1 904 1 16 65 20 54 24 30 -15 -5.4 -5.6 -0.6 956 62.0 12.7 583 Pelkosenniemi 1 025 1 837 1 10 64 26 55 15 40 -26 -23.4 -13.3 -10.4 383 58.0 16.4 854 Pello 4 021 1 738 2 11 62 27 62 18 45 -102 -23.6 -15.6 -8.1 1 444 58.3 13.1 614 Posio 3 945 3 039 1 12 63 25 58 19 39 -75 -18.1 -9.3 -8.8 1 467 58.6 12.9 683 Ranua 4 407 3 454 1 20 60 19 65 34 32 -94 -20.0 -21.5 1.0 1 496 56.2 13.0 698 Rovaniemi 59 848 7 582 8 17 68 15 47 25 22 476 8.0 4.0 4.1 25 099 61.5 11.2 732 Salla 4 231 5 730 1 11 61 28 64 18 46 -91 -20.3 -11.2 -9.2 1 460 56.6 17.8 742 Savukoski 1 181 6 439 <0.5 10 65 25 54 16 38 -30 -23.6 -14.8 -9.1 485 63.3 14.4 751 Simo 3 496 1 445 2 18 61 21 63 29 35 -31 -8.9 -8.0 -0.7 1 314 61.4 11.5 758 Sodankylä - Soađegilli 8 801 11 696 1 14 66 20 51 21 30 -109 -11.8 -9.9 -2.1 3 604 62.0 10.6 845 Tervola 3 462 1 562 2 16 58 26 74 28 45 -49 -13.8 -9.9 -3.8 1 237 62.1 10.9 851 Tornio 22 426 1 187 19 18 67 15 50 27 23 49 2.0 -0.9 3.1 9 139 61.2 11.0 890 Utsjoki - Ohcejohka 1 302 5 144 <0.5 14 64 21 56 22 33 -14 -9.7 -13.4 3.0 573 68.6 7.8 976 Ylitornio 4 807 2 029 2 13 60 27 66 21 45 -93 -18.6 -10.3 -8.3 1 742 60.2 11.6

Landskapet Åland - Ahvenanmaan maakunta 27 734 1 553 18 17 66 18 53 26 27 224 8.9 7.2 1.1 14 400 79.3 5.3 143 35 Brändö 498 108 5 13 63 24 58 20 38 -4 -7.1 2.3 -10.5 251 79.6 5.5 43 Eckerö 924 108 9 15 65 21 54 23 32 5 5.9 4.8 0.2 453 75.5 7.6 60 Finström 2 486 123 20 19 64 18 57 30 28 16 7.1 2.9 3.8 1 285 81.3 5.2 62 Föglö 561 135 4 14 60 25 66 24 42 -9 -15.8 -6.8 -8.2 295 87.3 2.1 65 Geta 457 84 5 13 61 26 64 22 42 -2 -1.7 5.3 -9.7 219 78.5 7.0 76 Hammarland 1 463 138 11 17 65 17 53 27 26 13 10.7 5.6 3.8 747 78.1 4.5 170 Jomala 4 022 143 28 21 67 12 50 31 18 101 27.3 20.7 6.1 2 092 78.0 3.7 295 Kumlinge 372 99 4 11 62 27 60 18 43 -1 0.5 3.8 -6.0 178 76.7 3.4 318 Kökar 261 64 4 15 61 24 63 24 39 -7 -25.2 -14.1 -9.9 123 77.1 7.7 417 Lemland 1 782 113 16 22 64 14 57 34 23 17 10.1 5.4 4.1 944 83.1 3.8 438 Lumparland 391 36 11 18 62 20 62 30 32 2 6.2 0.5 5.2 200 82.6 4.0 478 Mariehamn 11 123 12 943 15 68 18 48 21 26 75 7.5 6.7 0.1 5 899 78.4 6.3 736 Saltvik 1 792 152 12 17 63 19 58 28 31 15 7.9 7.5 0.9 915 80.7 3.5 766 Sottunga 125 28 4 11 59 30 69 19 50 -2 -9.4 0.0 -14.7 59 80.3 6.5 771 Sund 1 032 108 10 17 63 20 58 27 31 2 1.6 0.4 1.5 536 82.3 5.1 941 Vårdö 445 102 4 16 59 26 70 26 44 3 9.2 8.7 -2.3 203 77.9 5.7

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 138 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

ICELAND - ÍSLAND

Whole country 317 630 102 806 3 21 67 12 49 31 18 4 408 15.7 5.5 8.8 166 300 78.1 7.2 121

Höfuðborgarsvæði 200 907 1 062 189 21 68 12 48 30 17 3 059 17.3 6.2 9.6 107 038 78.6 7.8 1603 Álftanes 2 523 6 421 28 66 6 51 42 9 97 43.3 26.3 15.5 1 324 79.1 7.2 1300 Garðabær 10 643 39 273 21 65 14 54 32 22 308 32.4 23.9 7.4 5 568 80.4 5.7 1400 Hafnarfjörður 25 913 144 180 23 67 9 48 34 14 755 32.7 19.1 12.1 13 732 78.6 7.8 1606 Kjósarhreppur 197 288 1 14 73 13 37 19 18 11 64.0 52.6 7.8 113 78.7 7.7 1000 Kópavogur 30 357 113 269 22 66 12 51 34 18 868 32.5 19.4 11.4 15 808 78.8 7.5 1604 Mosfellsbær 8 553 197 43 25 68 7 48 37 11 341 45.4 30.6 13.3 4 607 79.5 6.7 0000 Reykjavík 118 326 273 433 19 69 12 46 28 18 711 7.7 -2.5 8.6 63 461 78.2 8.2 1100 Seltjarnarnes 4 395 2 2 198 18 68 14 48 27 21 -31 -6.8 -12.5 5.5 2 425 81.5 4.4

Suðurnes 21 359 829 26 23 68 9 48 34 13 811 44.3 30.5 11.0 10 567 73.0 11.2 2504 Garður 1 515 23 66 23 68 8 47 35 12 35 26.2 17.4 6.9 763 74.0 10.0 2300 Grindavík 2 837 434 7 24 67 8 49 36 12 65 25.8 11.1 12.8 1 477 77.4 5.9 2000 Reykjanesbær 14 091 142 99 22 68 10 47 33 14 599 50.4 37.2 10.2 6 900 72.1 12.3 2503 Sandgerði 1 710 65 26 23 69 7 45 34 11 59 40.3 21.5 14.6 844 71.4 13.1 2506 Sveitarfélagið Vogar 1 206 165 7 27 65 8 53 41 12 53 50.4 32.7 14.8 583 73.9 10.1

Vesturland 15 370 9 555 2 22 66 13 52 33 19 170 12.7 3.6 7.6 7 935 78.4 4.6 3000 Akranes 6 549 9 728 23 65 12 55 36 19 171 29.3 19.1 8.6 3 247 76.7 6.7 3609 Borgarbyggð 3 542 4 925 1 21 66 13 52 32 21 13 5.5 -1.8 5.4 1 832 78.7 4.3 3811 Dalabyggð 694 2 439 <0.5 20 63 18 60 31 29 -4 -4.8 -8.5 3.1 351 80.8 1.8 3713 Eyja- og Miklaholtshreppur 139 378 <0.5 17 73 11 38 23 15 0 0.0 -16.2 16.2 82 81.3 1.2 3709 Grundarfjarðarbær 904 152 6 19 71 10 40 26 14 -8 -7.4 -16.5 8.4 517 80.1 2.6 3710 Helgafellssveit 63 250 <0.5 19 60 21 66 32 34 3 58.5 35.3 24.7 30 78.9 4.0 3511 Hvalfjarðarsveit 624 495 1 21 70 9 42 30 12 12 21.6 8.7 11.0 348 79.5 3.4 3506 Skorradalshreppur 61 208 <0.5 26 54 20 85 48 36 -1 -9.6 -33.1 19.8 27 80.3 2.3 3714 Snæfellsbær 1 702 689 2 23 68 9 47 34 13 -6 -2.0 -14.2 10.7 932 80.5 2.1 3711 Stykkishólmur 1 092 10 109 18 65 17 53 27 26 -12 -8.8 -12.3 2.0 570 80.1 2.6

Vestfirðir 7 362 9 409 1 20 66 13 50 31 20 -73 -9.0 -16.0 6.1 3 948 80.7 1.9 4901 Árneshreppur 50 724 <0.5 14 66 20 52 21 30 -1 -26.2 -31.7 4.0 27 81.4 1.0 4908 Bæjarhreppur 96 511 <0.5 25 57 18 75 44 31 -1 -14.1 -28.0 14.0 45 81.4 1.1 4100 Bolungarvík 970 111 9 18 70 12 43 26 17 8 8.4 -0.9 9.0 548 80.7 1.9

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 139 4200 Ísafjarðarbær 3 899 2 416 2 21 66 13 51 31 20 -50 -11.7 -17.9 5.5 2 086 80.8 1.7 4902 Kaldrananeshreppur 112 459 <0.5 18 72 10 38 25 14 -1 -8.7 -16.5 7.3 64 79.1 3.8 4502 Reykhólahreppur 291 1 103 <0.5 21 63 16 60 34 26 6 21.0 13.5 8.2 148 81.6 0.8 4911 Strandabyggð 508 1 810 <0.5 22 61 17 64 36 27 -2 -3.9 -9.1 5.2 251 80.9 1.6 4803 Súðavíkurhreppur 202 761 <0.5 23 62 15 60 37 24 -7 -30.3 -34.3 4.5 95 75.2 8.5 4604 Tálknafjarðarhreppur 299 180 2 23 66 12 53 35 18 -6 -16.7 -32.4 11.2 160 81.5 0.9 4607 Vesturbyggð 935 1 334 1 18 69 13 44 26 18 -18 -17.2 -23.0 3.8 524 80.7 1.9

Norðurland vestra 7 394 12 581 1 21 64 16 57 33 24 -45 -5.4 -10.3 4.3 3 671 78.0 2.6 5706 Akrahreppur 209 1 361 <0.5 22 59 19 69 37 31 -1 -4.7 -9.3 4.6 : : : 5604 Blönduóssbær 882 181 5 21 61 18 64 34 30 -8 -7.8 -13.1 3.8 426 79.4 3.4 5508 Húnaþing vestra 1 116 2 505 <0.5 20 63 17 58 31 27 -13 -10.3 -15.1 4.2 567 80.3 2.4 5612 Húnavatnshreppur 431 3 823 <0.5 18 67 14 49 27 21 -11 -24.0 -25.6 0.9 235 81.2 1.3 5611 Skagabyggð 106 494 <0.5 26 56 18 80 47 32 1 9.7 11.8 -2.0 48 80.8 1.7 5200 Sveitarfélagið Skagafjörður 4 131 4 168 1 21 64 15 55 32 23 -4 -0.7 -5.9 4.8 2 130 80.1 2.6 5609 Sveitarfélagið Skagaströnd 519 49 11 24 65 11 55 37 18 -8 -14.5 -21.0 5.2 266 79.3 3.6

Norðurland eystra 28 900 22 735 1 22 65 14 54 33 21 81 3.3 -3.7 6.5 14 323 76.6 6.9 6000 Akureyri 17 573 138 127 22 65 13 54 34 19 194 11.8 2.6 8.7 8 598 75.3 8.4 6400 Dalvíkurbyggð 1 949 595 3 23 64 13 56 36 20 -1 0.5 -6.7 6.0 996 79.8 3.0 6513 Eyjafjarðarsveit 1 025 1 795 1 25 65 10 55 39 15 6 6.3 -0.6 6.5 521 78.6 4.4 6250 Fjallabyggð 2 066 364 6 17 62 21 60 27 33 -62 -27.5 -27.2 -0.7 1 021 79.2 3.7 6602 Grýtubakkahreppur 337 438 1 25 61 14 63 41 22 -10 -27.7 -35.1 6.7 159 76.6 6.8 6514 Hörgárbyggð 607 893 1 19 68 13 47 28 19 7 11.9 7.5 3.8 320 77.8 5.4 6709 Langanesbyggð 521 1 341 <0.5 26 61 13 65 44 21 -6 -10.1 -16.2 5.4 244 77.4 5.9 6100 NorðurÞing 2 926 3 755 1 19 65 16 54 29 25 -35 -11.2 -15.2 3.4 1 472 77.5 5.8 6607 Skútustaðahreppur 374 6 034 <0.5 14 71 15 41 20 21 -13 -31.1 -31.6 -1.0 207 78.2 4.9 6706 Svalbarðshreppur 111 1 131 <0.5 22 68 11 48 32 16 -1 -8.8 -7.2 -1.8 59 78.2 4.9 6601 Svalbarðsstrandarhreppur 413 50 8 21 70 8 42 30 12 9 24.2 16.5 7.2 229 79.1 3.8 6612 Þingeyjarsveit 942 6 005 <0.5 18 62 20 60 29 31 -4 -4.2 -6.3 2.3 464 78.9 4.0 6611 Tjörneshreppur 56 196 <0.5 0 70 30 44 0 44 -2 -26.7 -23.3 -3.3 31 80.3 2.4

Austurland 12 459 22 007 1 21 67 13 50 31 19 16 2.7 -4.3 5.5 6 578 79.3 3.6 7509 Borgarfjarðarhreppur 134 444 <0.5 16 66 18 52 25 27 -1 -4.4 2.8 -7.0 70 79.5 3.3 7613 Breiðdalshreppur 210 452 <0.5 13 65 22 53 20 34 -8 -34.0 -27.6 -7.1 102 74.5 9.4 7617 Djúpavogshreppur 443 1 153 <0.5 18 68 14 47 26 21 -8 -16.0 -32.4 14.4 239 79.1 3.9 7300 Fjarðabyggð 4 641 1 069 4 21 67 12 49 31 17 98 22.9 13.4 6.7 2 482 79.5 3.3 7620 Fljótsdalshérað 3 467 8 916 <0.5 23 66 11 51 34 17 13 5.7 -3.6 7.0 1 805 78.5 4.6 7505 Fljótsdalshreppur 89 1 528 <0.5 15 73 12 37 20 17 -40 -198.8 -134.2 -1.4 50 76.3 7.2 7000 Seyðisfjörður 706 214 3 16 66 18 51 24 27 -2 -2.3 -4.5 1.4 365 78.2 4.9 7708 Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður 2 086 6 317 <0.5 20 67 13 50 30 20 -27 -12.5 -15.1 2.4 1 127 80.9 1.6 7502 Vopnafjarðarhreppur 683 1 914 <0.5 19 62 19 61 31 30 -9 -12.8 -18.8 6.0 338 79.4 3.4

Suðurland 23 879 24 525 1 21 66 13 52 32 20 389 18.3 9.1 7.7 12 240 77.9 5.3 8610 Ásahreppur 190 2 966 <0.5 19 67 13 48 29 20 8 48.6 36.8 9.5 102 79.6 3.2 8721 Bláskógabyggð 935 3 278 <0.5 20 68 12 47 30 18 7 9.2 -2.1 9.2 502 79.1 3.8 8722 Flóahreppur 602 291 2 22 68 10 47 32 15 17 30.4 16.7 12.8 325 79.5 3.4 8719 Grímsnes- og Grafningshreppur 415 891 <0.5 18 69 12 44 26 18 14 36.3 25.9 9.3 228 79.1 3.9 8710 Hrunamannahreppur 788 1 214 1 22 63 14 58 35 23 4 8.8 -4.1 9.2 399 79.8 2.9 8716 Hveragerði 2 291 11 208 20 64 15 56 32 24 54 25.1 21.0 3.4 1 122 76.2 7.4

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 140 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

8508 Mýrdalshreppur 510 761 1 20 62 18 62 33 29 0 0.8 -4.8 4.8 256 81.2 1.3 8613 Rangárþing eystra 1 745 1 727 1 19 67 14 49 29 21 17 11.1 2.3 7.4 938 80.2 2.5 8614 Rangárþing ytra 1 543 3 177 <0.5 20 67 13 49 30 19 17 13.0 8.6 2.6 816 78.9 4.1 8509 Skaftárhreppur 445 6 905 <0.5 12 65 23 54 19 35 -13 -26.1 -23.5 -3.8 235 81.3 1.1 8720 Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur 517 2 404 <0.5 21 68 10 46 31 15 -3 -4.6 -14.1 9.2 284 80.3 2.4 8200 Sveitarfélagið Árborg 7 811 157 50 24 64 12 56 37 19 248 35.8 22.7 11.0 3 778 75.6 8.1 8717 Sveitarfélagið Ölfus 1 952 726 3 21 70 9 43 30 13 40 24.8 11.2 10.4 1 051 77.1 6.3 8000 Vestmannaeyjar 4 135 17 243 20 67 13 50 30 20 -20 -3.8 -9.7 4.9 2 206 80.0 2.7

NORWAY - NORGE - NOREG

Whole country 4 858 199 307 498 16 19 66 15 51 29 22 50 327 10.6 6.9 3.7 2 499 379 78 3.1 176

Østfold fylke 271 662 3 890 70 18 65 16 53 28 25 2 602 9.9 8.7 1.2 130 149 73.3 4.3 101 0118 Aremark 1 424 285 5 18 63 19 60 29 31 0 -0.1 1.4 -1.7 694 78.0 3.0 0124 Askim 14 864 66 225 19 66 15 51 29 22 153 10.7 7.7 2.9 7 137 72.5 4.1 0125 Eidsberg 10 821 230 47 19 65 16 54 29 25 119 11.8 10.0 1.4 5 333 76.0 3.1 0106 Fredrikstad 73 638 282 261 18 65 16 53 28 25 630 8.9 8.0 0.8 34 573 71.8 5.0 0101 Halden 28 776 597 48 18 65 17 54 27 26 239 8.5 8.3 0.2 13 245 70.8 4.6 0138 Hobøl 4 742 140 34 19 68 13 47 28 19 37 8.0 3.2 4.8 2 555 79.4 3.4 0111 Hvaler 4 085 87 47 16 67 17 49 23 26 62 15.9 16.6 -0.8 2 076 75.7 3.0 0119 Marker 3 471 368 9 17 63 20 58 27 32 9 1.9 6.8 -4.3 1 687 76.8 3.0 0104 Moss 30 030 58 520 18 66 17 53 27 25 392 13.7 11.7 1.8 13 991 71.1 5.1 0128 Rakkestad 7 517 420 18 18 65 17 54 28 26 49 6.3 7.7 -1.1 3 905 80.0 2.9 0136 Rygge 14 293 69 207 19 65 16 55 30 24 118 8.3 6.8 1.6 6 996 75.7 3.7 0135 Råde 6 882 105 66 18 65 17 54 28 26 86 12.5 12.4 0.5 3 556 79.4 3.0 0121 Rømskog 688 159 4 16 61 23 63 27 37 5 6.2 16.2 -9.3 344 81.7 2.2 0105 Sarpsborg 52 159 369 141 19 65 16 53 28 25 477 9.4 7.5 1.9 24 429 71.9 4.5 0127 Skiptvet 3 541 93 38 20 66 14 52 30 22 38 10.8 8.2 2.8 1 854 79.7 2.6 0123 Spydeberg 5 167 134 39 20 65 16 54 30 24 74 14.8 13.2 1.6 2 702 80.6 2.8 0122 Trøgstad 5 092 189 27 18 66 16 51 27 24 25 5.2 6.4 -1.4 2 697 80.1 2.5 0137 Våler 4 472 239 19 20 67 13 49 29 19 91 21.3 17.0 4.5 2 377 78.9 2.9

Akershus fylke 536 499 4 587 117 21 66 14 52 31 21 8 450 16.4 11.3 5.1 289 072 81.8 2.7 121 0220 Asker 54 623 97 564 21 65 14 54 33 21 762 14.3 9.4 5.1 29 184 82.3 2.1 0221 Aurskog-Høland 14 294 897 16 18 66 16 52 28 25 202 14.8 15.6 -0.9 7 674 81.8 3.1 0219 Bærum 111 213 189 588 21 64 15 55 32 23 1 292 12.1 7.1 4.9 59 321 82.9 2.3 0237 Eidsvoll 20 689 387 53 19 67 14 50 29 21 409 20.9 17.4 3.5 10 892 79.0 3.4

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 141 0229 Enebakk 10 176 196 52 21 68 11 47 32 16 177 18.1 10.6 7.5 5 709 82.5 3.0 0227 Fet 10 238 138 74 20 67 14 50 29 21 134 13.6 9.4 4.1 5 733 84.0 3.0 0215 Frogn 14 622 87 169 20 66 15 53 30 23 254 18.1 15.3 2.8 7 799 81.4 2.9 0234 Gjerdrum 5 821 82 71 23 66 12 52 34 18 155 27.9 21.8 6.8 3 208 83.7 2.4 0239 Hurdal 2 617 261 10 17 64 19 57 27 30 4 1.1 2.8 -1.4 1 386 83.1 3.2 0230 Lørenskog 32 730 68 485 20 67 13 48 30 19 405 13.0 6.8 6.0 17 886 81.0 3.1 0238 Nannestad 10 927 325 34 21 67 12 50 32 18 155 14.9 9.4 5.4 5 964 81.9 3.0 0236 Nes 18 827 611 31 19 67 14 48 28 21 159 8.7 6.7 2.0 10 170 80.2 2.9 0216 Nesodden 17 348 60 291 21 67 12 49 31 18 226 13.3 9.3 4.1 9 134 78.5 3.3 0233 Nittedal 20 939 181 116 22 66 12 52 34 18 276 13.4 7.7 5.9 11 413 82.8 2.5 0217 Oppegård 24 882 34 725 20 65 15 53 31 22 257 10.7 6.0 4.6 13 381 82.5 2.3 0228 Rælingen 15 591 57 275 20 68 12 46 29 18 156 10.5 2.2 8.1 8 863 83.1 3.0 0231 Skedsmo 47 723 75 636 20 66 14 51 30 21 1 129 25.1 19.3 5.8 25 556 80.6 3.3 0213 Ski 28 023 162 173 21 66 13 53 32 20 243 8.9 3.0 5.9 14 974 81.5 3.2 0226 Sørum 15 369 199 77 21 66 12 50 32 18 491 34.6 29.4 5.4 8 490 83.1 2.8 0235 Ullensaker 29 088 250 116 22 67 12 50 33 18 904 33.9 26.1 7.9 15 825 81.7 3.0 0211 Vestby 14 373 133 108 21 66 12 51 32 18 276 20.2 14.9 5.3 7 794 81.6 2.9 0214 Ås 16 386 101 162 20 67 13 50 31 20 384 24.8 18.9 6.3 8 717 80.0 2.6

Oslo fylke 586 860 427 1 376 17 71 12 41 24 17 11 499 20.4 11.7 9.0 319 928 77.0 4.4 258 0301 Oslo 586 860 427 1 376 17 71 12 41 24 17 11 499 20.4 11.7 9.0 319 928 77.0 4.4

Hedmark fylke 190 709 26 120 7 17 64 19 56 26 29 458 2.5 4.5 -2.0 92 441 75.4 2.7 98 0438 Alvdal 2 441 921 3 19 61 19 63 31 31 5 2.1 0.2 1.9 1 341 89.4 1.0 0420 Eidskog 6 327 605 10 16 64 20 57 25 32 -36 -5.4 1.8 -7.4 2 768 68.8 4.2 0427 Elverum 19 834 1 210 16 18 65 17 53 27 26 196 10.2 8.7 1.4 9 878 76.4 2.4 0434 Engerdal 1 434 1 921 1 17 60 23 66 29 38 -13 -8.9 -2.3 -6.8 710 82.3 1.3 0439 Folldal 1 669 1 257 1 16 62 22 62 27 35 -10 -5.7 -3.0 -2.7 844 81.9 2.7 0423 Grue 5 078 778 7 15 63 22 59 24 36 -38 -7.6 1.3 -8.8 2 328 73.1 2.8 0403 Hamar 28 344 333 85 16 65 19 54 25 29 175 6.5 7.6 -1.3 13 976 75.9 2.7 0402 Kongsvinger 17 377 964 18 17 65 18 53 25 28 20 1.1 3.5 -2.3 7 959 70.2 3.6 0415 Løten 7 272 363 20 17 66 18 53 26 27 -1 0.0 1.5 -1.6 3 587 75.3 2.7 0418 Nord-Odal 5 118 474 11 16 63 20 59 26 32 8 1.8 6.2 -4.5 2 354 72.9 3.0 0441 Os 2 033 1 007 2 19 62 19 60 30 30 -10 -5.2 -3.0 -1.9 1 072 84.4 1.9 0432 Rendalen 1 998 3 060 1 14 61 25 65 24 41 -21 -10.4 0.1 -10.3 988 81.5 1.5 0412 Ringsaker 32 524 1 130 29 18 65 17 55 29 26 140 4.4 4.0 0.4 16 032 76.2 2.6 0417 Stange 19 104 641 30 18 65 17 54 27 27 134 7.2 7.7 -0.6 9 320 75.0 2.7 0430 Stor-Elvdal 2 679 2 130 1 15 63 22 60 24 36 -30 -11.1 -3.1 -7.8 1 234 73.6 2.5 0419 Sør-Odal 7 791 478 16 17 66 17 52 26 26 36 4.4 6.7 -2.1 3 818 74.7 3.1 0436 Tolga 1 671 1 098 2 19 62 20 62 30 32 -21 -12.4 -10.4 -2.1 847 82.1 1.0 0428 Trysil 6 763 2 948 2 15 62 22 60 24 36 -25 -3.5 0.4 -4.0 3 181 75.3 3.0 0437 Tynset 5 490 1 825 3 19 64 17 57 30 27 17 3.1 4.6 -1.5 2 883 82.7 1.2 0426 Våler 3 870 679 6 15 64 22 57 23 34 -11 -2.8 3.9 -6.8 1 811 73.6 3.8 0429 Åmot 4 285 1 295 3 18 62 20 61 29 32 -20 -5.2 -1.9 -2.9 1 992 74.8 2.8 0425 Åsnes 7 607 1 005 8 14 62 23 61 23 38 -37 -4.5 2.9 -7.7 3 520 74.4 3.5

Oppland fylke 185 216 24 073 8 17 64 18 55 27 28 410 2.2 3.3 -1.1 92 354 77.4 2.3 100 0511 Dovre 2 776 1 422 2 16 62 22 62 26 35 -21 -7.0 -2.9 -4.5 1 416 82.5 2.1 0541 Etnedal 1 389 433 3 17 59 24 70 29 41 -2 -1.1 4.0 -5.5 679 83.2 1.2 0522 Gausdal 6 142 1 150 5 17 63 20 58 27 31 -6 -1.1 0.4 -1.4 3 127 80.5 2.2 0502 Gjøvik 28 807 643 45 17 65 17 53 27 27 233 8.2 7.4 0.9 14 104 75.0 2.6 0534 Gran 13 363 660 20 18 64 18 56 28 28 69 5.4 7.3 -2.1 6 706 78.1 1.8

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 142 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

0532 Jevnaker 6 268 197 32 19 65 16 54 29 25 -13 -2.1 -1.4 -0.6 3 005 73.8 2.6 0512 Lesja 2 174 2 172 1 18 62 20 60 28 32 -3 -0.9 -0.4 -1.2 1 187 87.4 1.3 0501 Lillehammer 26 381 453 58 17 65 18 53 26 27 265 10.2 9.4 0.9 13 228 76.8 2.2 0514 Lom 2 410 1 890 1 17 63 20 58 27 31 -14 -4.7 -2.5 -3.1 1 295 84.8 1.4 0533 Lunner 8 600 272 32 19 67 14 49 28 21 19 2.2 0.1 2.2 4 509 78.0 1.9 0542 Nord-Aurdal 6 415 861 7 17 66 18 53 26 27 -3 -0.8 0.7 -1.2 3 453 82.1 1.4 0516 Nord-Fron 5 800 1 113 5 17 64 19 57 27 30 -21 -3.3 -1.7 -1.9 2 897 78.5 2.9 0538 Nordre Land 6 672 935 7 16 63 20 58 26 32 -34 -5.2 -0.9 -4.3 3 201 75.6 2.3 0520 Ringebu 4 540 1 226 4 16 63 21 59 26 33 -9 -2.0 3.9 -5.9 2 214 77.5 2.9 0517 Sel 5 999 866 7 17 63 20 59 27 32 -11 -2.0 -1.3 -0.6 2 842 75.4 3.1 0513 Skjåk 2 265 2 066 1 16 62 21 61 26 34 -26 -11.1 -5.5 -5.8 1 171 83.0 1.7 0536 Søndre Land 5 811 662 9 17 64 19 55 26 29 -39 -6.7 -1.8 -4.8 2 604 69.7 3.1 0540 Sør-Aurdal 3 186 1 072 3 18 61 21 63 29 34 -13 -4.9 -0.4 -3.6 1 594 81.8 1.7 0519 Sør-Fron 3 175 693 5 17 62 21 61 28 33 -20 -6.0 -3.0 -3.2 1 533 77.6 3.1 0545 Vang 1 590 1 466 1 16 64 19 56 25 30 -3 -2.9 0.8 -2.9 859 84.1 1.4 0543 Vestre Slidre 2 225 427 5 17 64 19 56 27 30 -5 -1.8 -1.1 -1.2 1 176 82.6 1.0 0529 Vestre Toten 12 770 252 51 17 66 17 53 26 26 44 3.5 3.6 -0.2 6 135 73.3 3.4 0515 Vågå 3 722 1 258 3 17 62 21 62 27 34 -10 -2.7 0.1 -2.7 1 836 79.8 2.4 0528 Østre Toten 14 518 474 31 17 64 19 56 27 29 -19 -1.2 1.1 -2.4 7 187 77.2 2.5 0521 Øyer 5 002 619 8 17 66 17 52 26 26 33 6.6 7.1 -0.4 2 589 78.8 2.2 0544 Øystre Slidre 3 216 793 4 18 64 18 55 28 27 20 6.4 5.2 0.9 1 807 87.2 1.0

Buskerud fylke 257 673 13 928 19 18 66 16 52 28 24 2 829 11.3 9.2 2.1 132 751 78.1 2.5 114 0602 Drammen 62 566 137 458 18 66 16 51 27 23 1 088 18.1 15.0 3.2 30 944 74.5 3.1 0631 Flesberg 2 578 540 5 19 63 18 58 29 28 9 4.8 2.8 0.9 1 382 84.4 1.9 0615 Flå 998 658 2 16 59 24 69 27 41 -3 -3.2 4.0 -7.2 500 84.5 2.1 0617 Gol 4 479 515 9 18 64 18 57 28 29 21 4.7 3.2 1.4 2 468 86.4 1.8 0618 Hemsedal 2 087 726 3 20 66 14 52 30 21 35 17.8 12.5 5.1 1 210 87.9 1.8 0620 Hol 4 422 1 691 3 16 65 18 53 25 28 -27 -6.0 -5.0 -1.1 2 535 87.8 1.7 0612 Hole 5 976 136 44 19 66 14 51 29 22 149 26.7 23.6 3.2 3 159 79.8 2.0 0628 Hurum 9 045 157 58 19 66 16 53 29 24 48 5.5 5.9 -0.6 4 460 75.2 3.3 0604 Kongsberg 24 714 767 32 18 66 15 51 27 23 294 12.3 8.6 3.8 13 324 81.2 2.0 0622 Krødsherad 2 117 342 6 15 68 18 48 22 26 -6 -3.2 0.6 -3.5 1 137 79.5 2.5 0626 Lier 23 267 282 82 20 66 14 51 30 21 303 13.7 10.4 3.1 12 119 78.8 2.0 0623 Modum 12 911 463 28 17 66 17 51 26 25 73 5.8 5.7 0.1 6 543 76.5 2.9 0625 Nedre Eiker 22 687 116 196 20 67 13 50 30 20 232 10.5 6.0 4.5 11 491 75.9 2.8 0616 Nes 3 420 781 4 16 64 20 56 25 31 -12 -3.8 -1.3 -2.2 1 824 83.3 2.3

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 143 0633 Nore og Uvdal 2 514 2 304 1 17 62 21 61 27 33 -25 -9.4 -5.0 -4.6 1 386 88.6 1.7 0605 Ringerike 28 806 1 430 20 16 66 17 51 25 26 146 5.1 6.1 -0.9 14 625 76.5 2.7 0632 Rollag 1 390 419 3 17 62 21 61 27 34 -10 -7.2 -3.0 -4.2 728 84.2 3.5 0627 Røyken 18 894 111 170 22 66 12 51 33 19 323 17.9 12.7 5.1 10 006 80.2 2.0 0621 Sigdal 3 514 833 4 17 63 20 58 27 31 -5 -1.3 1.2 -2.6 1 984 89.1 1.2 0619 Ål 4 672 1 098 4 18 63 18 58 29 29 1 0.1 1.0 -0.7 2 562 86.7 1.5 0624 Øvre Eiker 16 616 422 39 19 66 15 52 28 23 195 12.2 9.6 2.5 8 366 76.4 2.5

Vestfold fylke 231 286 2 140 108 18 66 16 52 28 24 2 096 9.3 8.1 1.2 113 569 74.8 3.1 104 0719 Andebu 5 294 183 29 20 66 13 51 30 20 45 8.1 5.2 3.5 2 733 77.7 2.5 0714 Hof 3 064 149 21 20 65 15 53 30 23 3 1.0 -1.1 2.0 1 593 79.7 2.6 0702 Holmestrand 10 065 84 120 17 66 17 52 27 26 94 9.4 9.4 0.1 4 849 73.4 3.4 0701 Horten 25 678 68 380 18 66 16 53 28 25 181 7.2 6.6 0.6 11 999 71.3 3.8 0728 Lardal 2 409 272 9 17 65 18 54 26 27 -2 -0.8 -0.1 -0.7 1 247 79.6 2.0 0709 Larvik 42 412 497 85 18 65 17 53 27 26 254 6.1 5.7 0.4 20 813 75.2 2.8 0722 Nøtterøy 20 713 59 350 18 65 17 54 28 26 132 6.8 6.9 -0.5 10 238 76.0 2.7 0716 Re 8 710 223 39 21 67 13 50 31 19 107 12.5 7.1 5.6 4 631 79.9 2.7 0713 Sande 8 303 174 48 20 65 14 54 31 22 121 15.3 11.9 3.3 4 225 78.2 2.7 0706 Sandefjord 43 126 119 361 18 65 16 54 28 25 360 8.7 7.7 0.9 20 540 73.1 3.7 0720 Stokke 10 994 115 96 19 68 12 47 28 18 193 18.7 14.5 3.9 5 676 75.6 2.6 0711 Svelvik 6 466 56 115 18 66 15 51 28 23 4 0.8 0.2 0.5 3 110 72.4 3.4 0723 Tjøme 4 685 38 125 16 66 17 51 25 26 20 4.4 5.9 -1.6 2 246 72.3 3.4 0704 Tønsberg 39 367 105 376 18 66 16 51 27 25 585 15.4 13.7 1.8 19 669 75.7 3.1

Telemark fylke 168 231 14 186 12 17 65 17 53 27 26 381 2.3 2.9 -0.6 82 831 75.3 3.8 114 0814 Bamble 14 107 281 50 18 67 15 50 27 23 -11 -0.7 -2.5 1.7 6 974 73.9 3.9 0821 Bø 5 595 261 21 18 65 17 53 28 25 70 12.8 10.9 2.0 2 761 75.7 3.3 0817 Drangedal 4 159 998 4 17 63 20 59 27 31 2 0.8 3.3 -2.8 1 952 74.5 3.8 0831 Fyresdal 1 381 1 133 1 18 64 18 56 29 27 6 4.1 5.3 -1.0 738 83.3 2.8 0827 Hjartdal 1 587 750 2 16 62 22 62 26 36 -10 -5.7 -1.5 -4.7 820 83.9 3.1 0815 Kragerø 10 620 291 37 16 66 18 51 25 27 20 1.7 3.4 -1.6 5 138 73.3 3.9 0829 Kviteseid 2 522 627 4 16 64 20 56 25 32 -16 -5.9 -1.4 -4.8 1 367 84.7 2.7 0830 Nissedal 1 404 789 2 16 66 17 51 25 26 -1 -0.6 1.1 -1.6 747 80.4 3.6 0819 Nome 6 527 390 17 17 65 19 55 26 29 -8 -1.2 1.6 -2.9 3 147 74.7 3.9 0807 Notodden 12 390 851 15 17 64 20 57 26 31 6 0.5 2.7 -2.2 5 798 73.5 3.6 0805 Porsgrunn 34 623 158 220 18 66 17 52 27 25 247 7.2 7.7 -0.4 16 911 74.2 3.9 0822 Sauherad 4 270 286 15 18 64 18 56 28 28 -13 -2.5 -2.8 -0.1 2 115 77.1 3.0 0828 Seljord 2 966 670 4 16 64 20 57 26 31 10 3.2 5.0 -1.6 1 595 84.3 2.3 0811 Siljan 2 412 205 12 19 66 14 50 29 21 8 3.3 0.7 2.5 1 231 76.8 3.0 0806 Skien 51 668 722 72 18 66 16 51 27 24 192 3.9 3.4 0.4 25 197 73.8 4.5 0826 Tinn 6 022 1 915 3 17 63 20 58 27 32 -73 -11.5 -8.4 -3.5 3 050 80.2 2.4 0833 Tokke 2 337 932 3 17 63 20 59 26 32 -24 -10.5 -4.8 -5.3 1 237 84.0 2.8 0834 Vinje 3 641 2 929 1 17 65 18 53 26 27 -24 -6.3 -5.1 -1.3 2 052 86.5 2.6

Aust-Agder fylke 108 499 8 485 13 19 66 15 52 29 23 973 9.2 7.3 1.9 53 075 74.5 2.7 100 0906 Arendal 41 655 254 164 18 66 15 51 28 23 393 9.7 7.6 2.1 20 258 73.4 3.0 0928 Birkenes 4 689 670 7 22 65 13 54 33 20 70 15.5 9.9 5.7 2 273 74.4 2.1 0938 Bygland 1 223 1 186 1 17 64 19 56 27 29 -21 -16.3 -13.0 -3.8 646 82.3 1.7 0941 Bykle 970 1 305 1 20 70 11 44 28 15 22 24.8 20.1 3.7 584 86.5 1.6 0937 Evje og Hornnes 3 397 520 7 19 63 17 58 31 27 18 5.5 4.7 0.7 1 687 78.3 3.1 0919 Froland 5 002 582 9 21 66 12 51 32 19 66 13.6 9.7 4.0 2 533 76.3 2.9

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 144 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

0911 Gjerstad 2 478 315 8 18 65 17 54 28 26 -5 -1.8 1.7 -3.8 1 185 73.5 2.9 0904 Grimstad 20 497 274 75 21 66 13 52 32 21 322 16.4 11.1 5.3 10 002 74.3 2.4 0935 Iveland 1 254 246 5 20 68 11 46 30 17 19 16.6 12.7 2.8 618 72.1 2.3 0926 Lillesand 9 465 175 54 20 66 15 52 30 22 84 9.1 6.0 3.1 4 751 76.3 2.2 0901 Risør 6 894 174 40 17 65 18 55 26 29 -3 -0.4 3.1 -3.5 3 230 72.4 3.0 0914 Tvedestrand 5 939 205 29 17 66 17 53 26 26 10 1.7 3.6 -1.9 2 801 72.0 3.5 0940 Valle 1 289 1 170 1 17 64 19 57 27 30 -19 -14.2 -9.0 -5.6 698 85.2 1.3 0912 Vegårshei 1 886 322 6 20 63 16 58 32 26 6 3.4 3.7 -0.4 946 79.2 2.4 0929 Åmli 1 861 1 089 2 19 63 18 58 29 28 12 6.6 11.1 -4.5 865 73.3 1.7

Vest-Agder fylke 170 377 6 817 25 20 65 15 53 31 22 1 815 11.0 6.6 4.4 85 623 76.8 2.8 128 1027 Audnedal 1 670 239 7 23 62 15 62 37 25 18 11.7 9.6 1.4 858 83.4 2.5 1003 Farsund 9 410 251 38 20 63 17 59 32 28 -15 -1.5 -3.0 1.3 4 551 77.1 3.2 1004 Flekkefjord 9 003 540 17 19 63 18 58 29 29 23 2.8 0.9 1.7 4 641 81.4 1.9 1034 Hægebostad 1 624 425 4 21 64 15 56 32 24 6 3.7 2.0 1.7 869 83.7 2.2 1001 Kristiansand 81 295 260 313 19 67 14 50 29 21 1 044 13.3 8.2 5.1 41 161 76.1 3.0 1037 Kvinesdal 5 776 916 6 19 64 17 56 30 26 39 6.8 4.3 2.6 2 850 77.2 3.1 1029 Lindesnes 4 661 298 16 20 64 16 56 32 25 35 7.7 5.6 2.1 2 302 77.2 2.5 1032 Lyngdal 7 739 373 21 22 64 14 57 35 21 98 13.2 6.9 6.2 3 821 77.3 2.8 1002 Mandal 14 696 208 71 20 65 15 54 31 23 136 9.6 5.5 4.0 7 141 74.9 2.7 1021 Marnardal 2 231 380 6 21 65 14 54 32 22 13 5.8 6.2 -0.2 1 101 76.0 3.0 1046 Sirdal 1 790 1 380 1 20 64 17 57 31 26 6 3.4 6.2 -2.5 1 019 89.2 1.5 1017 Songdalen 5 940 207 29 22 66 12 51 33 18 76 13.4 7.7 5.6 2 980 75.7 2.8 1018 Søgne 10 509 142 74 22 65 13 53 34 20 193 19.2 12.6 6.8 5 395 78.7 2.4 1014 Vennesla 13 116 365 36 21 65 14 53 32 21 139 10.8 5.1 5.8 6 461 75.2 2.6 1026 Åseral 917 834 1 22 62 16 61 35 26 4 2.2 6.6 -2.2 474 83.5 1.0

Rogaland fylke 427 947 8 735 49 21 67 12 50 31 19 6 946 17.0 9.8 7.2 226 302 79.4 1.9 150 1114 Bjerkreim 2 583 586 4 22 64 14 56 35 21 23 9.5 6.1 3.2 1 463 88.5 0.7 1145 Bokn 831 45 18 21 60 18 66 36 30 13 15.5 13.3 2.5 407 81.2 1.4 1101 Eigersund 14 170 394 36 20 65 14 53 31 22 151 11.1 6.7 4.3 7 421 80.0 1.9 1141 Finnøy 2 824 105 27 20 64 17 57 31 27 10 3.7 3.1 0.6 1 614 89.9 0.9 1129 Forsand 1 149 712 2 23 62 14 61 38 23 9 8.4 5.4 2.3 602 84.2 0.9 1122 Gjesdal 10 208 561 18 23 68 8 47 34 12 186 19.2 10.2 8.9 5 753 82.7 1.5 1106 Haugesund 34 049 68 504 19 67 15 50 28 22 500 15.4 11.9 3.4 16 921 74.6 3.2 1133 Hjelmeland 2 744 1 008 3 21 63 17 60 33 27 0 0.6 0.1 -0.1 1 522 88.7 1.3 1119 Hå 16 342 248 66 23 65 12 54 36 18 311 20.0 10.0 10.2 9 081 85.6 1.3

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 145 1149 Karmøy 39 624 217 182 21 65 14 53 32 21 408 10.7 5.0 5.6 19 463 75.2 2.6 1120 Klepp 16 918 106 160 24 66 10 52 36 16 478 30.3 20.2 10.4 9 218 82.8 1.5 1144 Kvitsøy 527 6 92 18 59 23 69 31 38 3 6.2 6.1 -0.4 254 81.5 1.8 1112 Lund 3 139 357 9 21 64 15 56 33 24 -1 0.6 -3.8 3.7 1 594 79.3 2.5 1127 Randaberg 9 997 24 420 23 65 12 53 35 18 179 18.8 10.2 8.5 5 343 81.9 0.9 1142 Rennesøy 4 035 65 62 24 64 11 56 38 18 136 37.2 28.7 8.6 2 216 85.5 0.9 1102 Sandnes 64 671 284 228 22 67 11 49 32 16 1 407 23.1 13.6 9.4 34 670 79.6 1.9 1135 Sauda 4 695 507 9 17 63 20 59 26 32 -24 -5.2 -1.1 -4.0 2 401 81.2 2.2 1111 Sokndal 3 285 266 12 20 62 18 61 32 29 -5 -1.5 -2.1 0.7 1 581 77.5 1.7 1124 Sola 22 831 68 334 23 66 11 50 34 16 591 28.2 18.2 9.7 12 210 80.4 1.5 1103 Stavanger 123 850 66 1 865 20 69 12 46 28 17 1 977 16.6 8.8 7.9 66 107 77.8 1.8 1130 Strand 11 206 193 58 22 64 14 55 34 21 151 14.1 7.9 6.1 5 805 80.4 1.9 1134 Suldal 3 849 1 673 2 19 62 18 60 31 29 -9 -2.7 -2.7 0.4 2 090 87.1 0.9 1121 Time 16 077 169 95 22 66 12 50 33 17 322 21.2 11.6 9.5 8 949 83.7 1.2 1146 Tysvær 9 928 393 25 24 64 12 56 37 19 112 11.6 3.1 8.6 5 117 80.6 1.6 1151 Utsira 218 6 36 18 63 19 58 28 30 1 4.6 10.3 -3.8 115 83.6 0.8 1160 Vindafjord 8 197 608 13 21 62 17 60 33 27 13 1.9 -0.9 2.5 4 386 85.7 1.2

Hordaland fylke 477 175 14 771 32 20 66 14 51 30 22 5 752 12.5 7.3 5.2 252 261 80.0 2.4 141 1247 Askøy 24 993 93 268 24 65 11 54 36 17 594 25.3 15.6 9.8 12 975 79.7 2.5 1244 Austevoll 4 571 112 41 21 64 14 55 33 22 24 5.3 0.5 4.8 2 543 86.3 1.1 1264 Austrheim 2 738 55 49 18 66 17 52 27 25 42 16.0 14.7 1.8 1 454 80.9 2.1 1201 Bergen 256 600 445 577 18 68 14 48 27 21 3 474 14.0 8.3 5.8 137 000 79.0 2.6 1219 Bømlo 11 275 219 51 22 64 14 56 34 21 87 8.1 1.8 6.1 5 860 80.9 1.5 1232 Eidfjord 958 1 459 1 16 66 18 52 24 28 9 9.4 13.4 -4.1 548 86.8 1.5 1211 Etne 3 882 678 6 19 62 19 60 31 30 -5 -1.1 -0.5 -0.9 2 161 89.3 1.5 1265 Fedje 594 9 67 19 58 23 72 32 40 -13 -21.4 -14.3 -7.1 284 82.3 2.8 1222 Fitjar 2 931 152 19 22 64 14 57 35 22 8 2.5 -2.0 4.7 1 552 82.9 1.5 1246 Fjell 21 823 141 154 24 66 10 50 36 14 354 17.0 8.2 8.7 11 396 78.6 2.8 1241 Fusa 3 823 355 11 20 61 18 63 33 30 21 6.1 4.9 0.8 2 023 86.2 1.5 1234 Granvin 947 205 5 16 63 21 59 25 34 -13 -12.5 -6.4 -6.6 507 84.9 1.4 1227 Jondal 1 036 190 5 17 61 22 64 27 37 -8 -7.9 -3.0 -5.0 518 82.0 1.8 1238 Kvam 8 360 584 14 18 63 19 60 29 31 4 0.6 0.5 0.1 4 323 82.5 1.8 1224 Kvinnherad 13 187 1 093 12 20 63 17 60 32 28 12 1.0 -1.6 2.5 6 769 82.0 2.2 1263 Lindås 14 286 454 31 21 65 14 54 32 21 251 18.2 11.4 6.9 7 620 81.9 2.0 1266 Masfjorden 1 635 528 3 18 61 22 65 29 36 -11 -7.0 -4.1 -2.4 846 85.3 1.5 1256 Meland 6 631 86 77 23 66 11 52 35 16 153 24.7 17.1 7.6 3 527 80.7 2.2 1252 Modalen 344 377 1 21 65 15 55 32 23 -3 -9.6 -10.7 1.7 197 88.7 1.0 1228 Odda 7 047 1 584 4 17 62 21 61 27 34 -67 -9.2 -4.8 -4.5 3 562 81.2 2.6 1243 Os 16 684 133 125 22 66 12 52 33 18 353 22.5 14.0 8.3 8 934 81.2 2.5 1253 Osterøy 7 421 248 30 20 63 16 58 32 25 43 5.9 3.8 2.1 3 882 82.6 2.3 1260 Radøy 4 825 106 46 19 65 16 55 30 25 34 7.1 6.4 0.8 2 495 80.0 2.1 1242 Samnanger 2 375 256 9 19 65 16 54 29 25 10 4.5 2.2 2.0 1 201 77.8 3.1 1221 Stord 17 565 138 128 22 66 13 53 33 20 209 12.3 5.0 7.3 9 284 80.6 2.2 1245 Sund 6 079 94 64 21 67 12 50 32 18 109 18.7 12.4 6.5 3 094 76.3 3.2 1216 Sveio 4 999 224 22 22 65 13 55 34 21 66 13.5 8.5 5.3 2 623 81.1 2.1 1223 Tysnes 2 779 245 11 17 61 22 63 28 35 -9 -3.3 -1.7 -1.7 1 421 83.4 1.7 1231 Ullensvang 3 382 1 306 3 17 61 22 64 28 35 -29 -7.8 -5.1 -3.2 1 854 89.8 1.3 1233 Ulvik 1 129 682 2 17 60 23 67 28 38 -7 -5.9 -5.0 -1.2 558 82.2 3.4 1251 Vaksdal 4 107 717 6 18 61 21 65 30 35 -11 -2.3 -1.3 -1.3 1 939 78.0 2.5 1235 Voss 13 902 1 739 8 18 62 19 61 30 31 10 0.7 0.7 0.0 7 235 83.6 2.0 1259 Øygarden 4 267 64 66 21 65 14 55 33 22 62 14.2 8.9 6.0 2 078 75.5 3.5

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 146 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

Sogn og Fjordane fylke 107 080 17 925 6 19 64 17 57 31 27 9 0.1 -2.0 2.1 56 453 82.9 1.6 114 1428 Askvoll 2 999 268 11 17 60 23 66 28 38 -46 -14.8 -10.6 -4.2 1 505 83.4 1.9 1421 Aurland 1 682 1 419 1 17 65 18 54 26 28 -20 -11.7 -10.0 -1.6 926 84.8 1.2 1418 Balestrand 1 344 724 2 18 65 17 55 28 27 -18 -12.5 -10.4 -2.5 705 81.2 1.4 1438 Bremanger 3 908 805 5 18 59 23 70 31 39 -24 -6.2 -4.0 -2.1 1 837 80.0 2.8 1443 Eid 5 849 416 14 20 65 15 55 31 24 16 2.9 -0.1 2.9 3 118 82.5 1.6 1429 Fjaler 2 846 464 6 16 64 20 55 24 31 -14 -4.9 -1.8 -3.1 1 354 73.9 1.1 1401 Flora 11 586 668 17 21 66 13 53 32 21 45 3.9 -0.9 4.9 6 019 79.3 1.9 1432 Førde 12 035 565 21 23 67 10 48 33 15 176 15.3 4.2 11.0 6 898 85.0 1.3 1430 Gaular 2 778 514 5 20 63 18 59 31 28 5 2.1 2.0 0.0 1 509 86.5 1.1 1445 Gloppen 5 696 1 013 6 19 62 19 62 30 31 -20 -3.4 -4.3 0.8 3 011 85.5 1.0 1411 Gulen 2 302 578 4 18 62 20 61 29 32 -32 -13.2 -9.8 -3.8 1 216 84.9 0.9 1444 Hornindal 1 227 177 7 21 61 18 63 34 29 6 5.0 1.7 3.3 665 88.5 1.1 1413 Hyllestad 1 502 250 6 18 62 21 62 28 34 -5 -3.2 0.7 -4.0 738 79.8 1.7 1416 Høyanger 4 256 861 5 19 62 19 61 30 31 -49 -11.2 -8.8 -2.3 1 945 73.5 5.6 1431 Jølster 2 981 620 5 21 62 16 61 34 27 12 4.3 1.6 2.4 1 607 86.8 1.0 1422 Lærdal 2 199 1 235 2 18 63 18 58 29 29 8 3.8 2.7 1.0 1 181 85.1 1.0 1419 Leikanger 2 182 472 5 20 63 17 58 31 27 -5 -2.5 -5.2 3.0 1 227 89.1 0.9 1426 Luster 4 945 2 637 2 20 62 19 62 32 30 4 0.7 0.2 0.6 2 571 84.2 1.1 1433 Naustdal 2 675 354 8 20 64 16 56 31 25 -1 -0.5 -3.5 3.0 1 488 86.7 1.0 1441 Selje 2 821 228 12 18 62 20 62 30 32 -37 -12.2 -10.9 -1.8 1 434 82.2 2.6 1420 Sogndal 7 035 435 16 20 65 15 53 30 23 50 7.0 1.1 6.2 3 800 82.6 1.1 1412 Solund 867 220 4 16 62 21 60 26 34 -1 -1.8 4.1 -5.7 449 82.9 2.0 1449 Stryn 6 967 1 329 5 20 63 17 59 32 26 25 3.6 0.4 3.3 3 799 86.6 1.5 1417 Vik 2 768 569 5 17 60 23 67 29 38 -23 -8.0 -5.7 -2.3 1 460 88.3 1.2 1439 Vågsøy 5 996 162 37 19 63 18 59 30 29 -44 -7.3 -7.9 0.6 3 036 80.7 2.4 1424 Årdal 5 634 942 6 16 64 20 56 25 31 1 0.1 0.9 -0.7 2 953 81.7 1.0

Møre og Romsdal fylke 251 262 14 597 17 19 65 16 55 29 25 1 311 5.3 3.2 2.1 129 000 79.5 2.7 128 1547 Aukra 3 196 58 55 21 62 17 62 34 28 29 9.4 5.2 3.9 1 664 84.4 1.8 1576 Aure 3 502 624 6 17 63 21 60 27 33 -25 -7.0 -3.8 -3.2 1 742 79.5 2.9 1554 Averøy 5 477 172 32 19 64 17 56 29 27 7 1.1 1.4 -0.1 2 784 79.3 2.8 1551 Eide 3 382 146 23 21 64 15 57 33 24 11 4.7 -0.8 4.2 1 729 80.0 2.1 1548 Fræna 9 336 360 26 20 65 15 53 31 22 68 6.8 3.4 4.0 4 819 79.0 2.8 1532 Giske 7 029 39 179 23 63 14 59 36 23 86 12.9 6.6 6.1 3 646 82.3 2.2 1557 Gjemnes 2 599 372 7 19 64 17 56 30 27 -20 -7.6 -7.9 0.4 1 357 81.7 2.3 1571 Halsa 1 650 296 6 16 61 23 64 26 37 -9 -5.6 0.5 -5.6 818 81.1 2.4

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 147 1534 Haram 8 739 250 35 19 63 18 57 29 28 4 0.6 -0.8 1.2 4 505 81.2 2.3 1517 Hareid 4 859 77 63 20 65 16 55 30 24 42 8.4 6.0 2.9 2 426 77.2 4.1 1515 Herøy 8 383 120 70 20 64 16 57 31 26 -1 -0.1 -2.5 2.3 4 284 80.3 2.4 1503 Kristiansund 23 238 86 270 18 67 15 50 27 23 180 8.0 6.7 1.3 11 415 73.7 3.8 1545 Midsund 1 952 94 21 20 60 20 68 34 33 2 1.3 1.9 -1.0 967 83.1 2.4 1502 Molde 24 795 355 70 18 66 16 51 27 24 134 5.5 3.2 2.3 13 136 80.2 2.2 1543 Nesset 3 074 990 3 17 64 19 57 27 30 -22 -6.8 -4.6 -2.4 1 534 78.5 4.3 1524 Norddal 1 801 901 2 20 60 20 66 34 33 -3 -1.8 0.6 -2.2 909 84.1 1.9 1539 Rauma 7 413 1 443 5 18 63 19 59 28 31 15 2.1 3.0 -1.0 3 768 80.8 3.7 1567 Rindal 2 041 621 3 19 59 22 70 32 38 -12 -5.8 0.8 -6.4 1 045 87.2 1.2 1514 Sande 2 518 131 19 17 62 20 61 28 33 -12 -4.6 -2.9 -1.7 1 248 79.8 1.9 1546 Sandøy 1 320 20 67 19 60 21 66 32 34 9 7.1 8.7 -1.6 707 88.7 1.8 1529 Skodje 3 944 111 36 21 66 12 51 32 18 68 18.4 12.6 5.4 2 097 80.2 2.1 1573 Smøla 2 143 265 8 15 62 23 62 25 37 -10 -4.8 -1.3 -3.5 1 043 78.7 2.9 1526 Stordal 1 030 246 4 22 60 18 66 36 30 5 4.5 3.6 1.2 477 76.9 5.4 1525 Stranda 4 531 847 5 18 61 20 63 30 33 -15 -3.2 -3.7 0.4 2 360 84.9 2.3 1531 Sula 7 931 58 138 22 64 15 57 34 23 94 12.4 6.4 5.9 4 105 81.3 2.5 1563 Sunndal 7 289 1 652 4 17 64 19 55 27 29 -17 -2.2 -0.2 -2.1 3 532 75.3 3.4 1566 Surnadal 5 956 1 316 5 18 63 19 59 29 30 -40 -6.7 -3.3 -3.2 3 033 80.8 2.1 1528 Sykkylven 7 589 329 23 20 65 15 55 31 24 28 3.8 0.4 3.3 4 067 82.9 2.8 1560 Tingvoll 3 071 323 10 17 62 22 62 27 35 -7 -2.2 -0.1 -2.0 1 491 78.5 2.6 1516 Ulstein 7 461 94 79 22 65 13 53 33 20 132 18.7 12.4 6.5 3 938 80.7 1.5 1511 Vanylven 3 471 322 11 16 63 21 59 25 33 -44 -12.4 -9.2 -3.3 1 741 79.6 2.5 1535 Vestnes 6 506 349 19 18 66 16 52 27 25 26 3.6 3.0 1.1 3 307 77.2 2.6 1519 Volda 8 573 526 16 20 64 17 57 31 26 46 5.2 2.2 3.3 4 221 77.2 2.0 1504 Ålesund 42 982 93 463 19 66 14 51 29 22 536 12.9 7.9 4.9 22 807 79.9 2.8 1523 Ørskog 2 138 127 17 19 65 17 54 29 26 4 1.6 1.6 0.3 1 148 83.0 2.0 1520 Ørsta 10 343 785 13 19 63 17 58 30 27 22 2.1 -0.1 2.3 5 131 78.3 2.6

Sør-Trøndelag fylke 290 547 17 839 16 19 67 14 49 28 22 3 607 12.8 8.3 4.5 149 955 77.1 3.7 126 1622 Agdenes 1 719 324 5 15 63 22 60 25 35 -16 -9.1 -3.2 -6.0 897 83.3 2.2 1627 Bjugn 4 548 354 13 18 62 20 61 28 32 -24 -5.9 -3.3 -1.8 2 063 73.0 3.9 1620 Frøya 4 314 221 20 18 64 19 57 28 29 41 9.5 11.1 -1.2 2 180 79.4 3.1 1612 Hemne 4 207 626 7 19 63 18 59 30 29 -15 -3.3 -4.3 0.8 1 991 75.2 5.1 1617 Hitra 4 256 647 7 17 65 18 55 26 29 47 11.2 14.9 -3.5 2 192 79.8 3.1 1644 Holtålen 2 064 1 171 2 16 60 24 68 27 41 -12 -6.5 -0.7 -5.1 1 036 84.1 3.1 1662 Klæbu 5 801 174 33 24 65 10 53 37 15 104 18.9 10.0 8.8 2 962 78.0 3.3 1663 Malvik 12 550 165 76 22 67 11 50 33 17 91 7.4 0.4 7.0 6 406 76.6 3.4 1636 Meldal 3 920 613 6 16 62 22 61 26 35 -2 -0.7 3.9 -4.5 1 874 76.9 3.3 1653 Melhus 14 841 655 23 21 65 14 53 32 21 175 12.0 7.2 5.0 7 497 77.5 3.7 1648 Midtre Gauldal 6 012 1 809 3 17 64 18 56 27 29 42 7.3 8.2 -1.1 3 168 82.2 3.5 1634 Oppdal 6 603 2 203 3 18 64 18 57 29 28 25 4.0 3.6 0.3 3 516 83.5 2.5 1638 Orkdal 11 276 562 20 19 65 16 53 29 24 152 14.0 9.4 4.6 5 613 76.3 4.1 1633 Osen 1 033 370 3 17 59 24 71 29 42 -4 -3.6 -2.7 -0.8 512 84.6 3.5 1635 Rennebu 2 622 921 3 17 61 22 63 28 35 -8 -2.9 -1.4 -1.5 1 344 83.5 2.1 1624 Rissa 6 442 587 11 19 63 18 59 30 29 0 0.3 0.8 -0.7 3 128 77.3 4.1 1632 Roan 999 356 3 15 61 24 65 25 40 -14 -14.5 -6.0 -8.0 501 82.9 3.8 1640 Røros 5 576 1 757 3 17 63 20 60 27 32 -13 -2.1 -0.7 -1.6 2 994 85.7 2.4 1664 Selbu 4 004 1 144 4 18 62 20 62 29 32 3 0.8 2.1 -1.5 2 089 84.4 2.9 1657 Skaun 6 626 213 31 22 65 13 54 34 20 111 17.8 11.4 6.2 3 459 80.3 3.3 1613 Snillfjord 998 462 2 17 62 21 60 27 34 -6 -5.5 1.0 -6.7 503 80.9 2.9

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 148 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

1601 Trondheim 170 936 321 532 18 69 13 45 27 18 2 963 18.1 11.5 6.6 89 477 75.9 3.8 1665 Tydal 859 1 215 1 15 60 25 66 24 41 -8 -9.8 -4.1 -4.6 469 90.4 1.6 1630 Åfjord 3 220 898 4 17 61 22 64 28 36 -24 -7.1 -2.9 -4.5 1 642 83.5 2.2 1621 Ørland 5 121 71 73 18 64 17 55 28 27 -2 -0.6 -3.6 3.2 2 442 74.1 4.7

Nord-Trøndelag fylke 131 555 21 056 6 19 64 17 57 30 26 614 4.8 3.0 1.7 64 645 76.9 3.9 90 1749 Flatanger 1 104 433 3 16 62 21 61 27 35 -20 -17.5 -10.9 -6.6 529 77.3 4.7 1748 Fosnes 670 480 1 15 62 22 60 24 36 -8 -13.6 -6.6 -5.5 321 76.7 3.1 1717 Frosta 2 495 73 34 20 61 19 63 32 31 0 0.2 0.5 -0.6 1 160 75.8 4.2 1742 Grong 2 361 1 101 2 18 62 21 62 28 33 -25 -9.9 -5.6 -4.8 1 206 82.7 2.4 1743 Høylandet 1 270 729 2 20 60 20 68 34 34 5 3.7 1.9 2.2 685 90.5 2.0 1729 Inderøy 5 879 146 40 20 64 16 56 31 24 -8 -1.0 -3.4 2.1 2 945 78.0 3.4 1755 Leka 593 106 6 14 60 26 66 23 43 -4 -5.3 -4.7 -1.7 300 84.1 1.3 1718 Leksvik 3 528 403 9 19 63 18 59 30 29 5 1.1 0.7 0.7 1 747 78.7 4.2 1719 Levanger 18 580 618 30 20 65 15 54 30 24 115 6.3 2.0 4.3 9 220 76.2 3.6 1738 Lierne 1 435 2 672 1 17 61 21 63 28 35 -15 -10.1 -4.2 -5.8 767 87.0 2.6 1711 Meråker 2 471 1 240 2 17 62 21 60 27 34 -18 -7.1 -2.4 -4.9 1 096 71.2 5.5 1723 Mosvik 810 205 4 17 63 21 59 26 33 -15 -18.4 -13.7 -3.3 403 79.4 3.4 1751 Nærøy 4 990 1 027 5 19 62 19 61 30 30 -52 -9.5 -8.2 -2.1 2 409 77.5 3.4 1725 Namdalseid 1 697 751 2 18 61 21 63 29 34 -16 -9.7 -7.3 -2.0 856 82.4 2.6 1703 Namsos 12 795 784 16 20 64 16 56 32 24 58 4.7 1.6 3.0 6 348 77.5 3.6 1740 Namsskogan 928 1 368 1 17 58 24 72 30 42 -3 -2.8 -2.6 -0.6 463 85.6 3.5 1744 Overhalla 3 577 683 5 20 64 17 57 31 26 19 5.7 3.4 2.2 1 885 82.6 4.0 1739 Røyrvik 495 1 371 0 17 61 21 63 28 35 -9 -18.1 -15.8 -1.2 262 86.0 2.9 1736 Snåsa 2 164 2 172 1 18 61 22 65 29 36 -19 -8.7 -5.5 -3.3 1 100 83.8 3.3 1702 Steinkjer 21 080 1 435 15 18 64 18 57 28 28 107 5.3 4.2 1.0 10 161 75.5 4.5 1714 Stjørdal 21 375 928 23 21 64 15 56 33 23 364 17.7 13.0 4.7 10 636 77.5 3.6 1721 Verdal 14 222 1 468 10 20 65 15 53 30 23 82 5.8 2.3 3.5 6 751 72.8 5.0 1724 Verran 2 914 556 5 14 66 20 51 21 30 48 17.5 25.1 -8.0 1 262 65.3 4.8 1750 Vikna 4 122 311 13 20 64 16 56 32 24 23 5.4 3.7 2.0 2 135 80.8 3.6

Nordland fylke 236 271 36 302 7 18 65 17 55 28 26 -138 -0.5 -1.5 0.9 113 941 74.6 4.0 106 1820 Alstahaug 7 196 405 18 18 66 16 51 27 23 -43 -5.5 -6.4 0.5 3 574 74.7 3.5 1871 Andøy 5 002 625 8 18 61 21 63 29 34 -68 -13.1 -10.3 -3.0 2 337 76.0 3.2 1854 Ballangen 2 616 849 3 17 63 21 59 26 33 -25 -9.0 -7.6 -1.8 1 119 68.2 4.1 1839 Beiarn 1 114 1 194 1 13 62 25 62 22 40 -10 -9.0 -0.4 -8.8 535 77.7 3.0 1811 Bindal 1 601 1 208 1 16 61 23 65 27 38 -36 -21.0 -14.6 -6.8 703 72.3 3.5

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 149 1804 Bodø 47 282 1 305 36 20 67 13 48 29 19 569 12.5 5.2 7.2 24 681 77.3 3.1 1813 Brønnøy 7 660 1 002 8 20 65 16 55 31 24 16 2.0 -0.1 2.1 3 683 74.5 3.3 1867 Bø 2 789 237 12 15 58 27 74 27 47 -43 -14.8 -5.5 -9.4 1 139 71.0 6.8 1827 Dønna 1 431 187 8 20 61 20 65 32 32 -20 -13.1 -11.4 -2.3 664 76.4 4.5 1853 Evenes 1 357 231 6 17 61 22 64 28 36 -12 -8.7 -2.0 -6.4 585 70.7 2.3 1841 Fauske 9 552 1 115 9 18 65 17 54 27 27 2 0.1 -0.3 0.5 4 467 72.0 5.0 1859 Flakstad 1 369 171 8 17 61 22 64 28 36 -19 -14.2 -9.3 -4.2 629 75.2 5.3 1838 Gildeskål 1 996 627 3 16 61 23 64 26 38 -38 -17.5 -11.7 -6.5 940 77.3 2.8 1825 Grane 1 496 1 904 1 17 62 21 61 27 34 -9 -6.3 -2.0 -4.1 693 74.8 4.3 1866 Hadsel 7 981 552 14 18 64 19 57 28 29 -13 -1.4 -1.0 -0.6 3 658 71.9 4.9 1849 Hamarøy 1 752 935 2 14 64 22 57 22 35 -18 -9.4 -1.3 -8.5 825 74.0 3.6 1826 Hattfjelldal 1 444 2 434 1 17 61 22 64 29 36 -17 -11.6 -8.3 -3.5 720 82.0 2.2 1832 Hemnes 4 584 1 470 3 18 62 20 62 30 32 2 0.8 0.2 0.2 2 008 70.8 4.5 1818 Herøy 1 618 61 26 15 63 22 60 24 35 -25 -14.4 -11.4 -3.3 754 74.4 4.8 1822 Leirfjord 2 140 443 5 17 66 18 53 26 27 -4 -1.5 -0.1 -1.9 1 011 72.1 4.1 1834 Lurøy 1 900 256 7 17 62 21 62 28 35 -26 -13.0 -8.4 -4.9 945 80.7 3.7 1851 Lødingen 2 181 514 4 14 62 24 62 23 39 -36 -14.8 -8.7 -7.0 974 72.5 5.8 1837 Meløy 6 639 820 8 19 63 18 58 30 29 -22 -3.6 -3.7 0.4 3 215 76.6 2.6 1874 Moskenes 1 130 112 10 16 60 24 67 26 41 -15 -12.2 -6.2 -6.4 530 78.4 4.9 1805 Narvik 18 402 1 942 9 17 66 17 53 26 26 -26 -1.2 -2.7 1.3 8 785 72.8 3.8 1828 Nesna 1 786 202 9 18 64 18 57 29 28 -2 -1.7 1.2 -2.4 794 69.6 5.0 1833 Rana 25 282 4 295 6 19 65 17 55 29 26 -9 -0.3 -2.1 1.7 12 076 73.9 4.3 1836 Rødøy 1 281 686 2 20 61 19 64 32 31 -33 -23.8 -21.2 -3.4 615 78.7 2.8 1856 Røst 612 11 57 18 66 16 52 27 25 2 3.3 2.3 1.7 316 78.5 6.4 1840 Saltdal 4 692 2 093 2 16 66 18 53 25 28 -21 -4.6 -3.0 -1.5 2 329 75.7 3.4 1870 Sortland 9 819 560 18 20 66 14 51 30 22 59 5.8 3.8 2.3 4 784 73.8 4.9 1848 Steigen 2 619 976 3 16 63 21 59 25 34 -37 -13.5 -6.3 -7.3 1 246 75.6 4.2 1812 Sømna 2 041 189 11 19 63 18 59 30 29 -7 -3.3 -1.3 -1.9 990 77.2 2.9 1845 Sørfold 1 984 1 521 1 17 62 21 61 27 34 -37 -16.3 -12.0 -5.9 849 68.8 6.4 1852 Tjeldsund 1 345 312 4 16 61 24 65 26 39 -16 -11.0 -8.6 -2.9 577 70.9 3.8 1835 Træna 489 15 33 22 61 16 63 36 27 9 19.3 24.5 -4.4 236 78.6 5.4 1850 Tysfjord 2 007 1 365 1 16 64 20 57 26 31 -28 -13.8 -11.0 -2.6 831 64.9 6.3 1857 Værøy 761 18 43 17 64 19 55 27 29 3 4.8 5.6 -1.1 367 74.9 8.1 1824 Vefsn 13 388 1 617 8 17 65 18 55 27 28 -21 -1.5 -1.8 0.2 6 565 75.9 3.7 1815 Vega 1 288 156 8 17 62 21 61 27 34 -13 -10.3 -4.4 -5.8 620 77.6 3.2 1860 Vestvågøy 10 674 404 26 19 63 18 58 30 28 -22 -1.7 -2.8 0.7 5 000 74.1 4.7 1816 Vevelstad 510 517 1 17 63 20 59 27 32 -3 -5.4 2.8 -7.9 232 72.3 5.0 1865 Vågan 9 023 460 20 18 65 17 54 28 26 -3 -0.2 -0.8 0.5 4 279 73.0 4.8 1868 Øksnes 4 438 308 14 19 63 18 58 30 28 -24 -5.0 -5.2 -0.1 2 059 73.2 4.6

Troms fylke - Romssa fylka 156 494 25 121 6 19 67 15 50 28 22 754 4.9 1.0 3.9 79 662 76.5 3.5 102 1933 Balsfjord 5 515 1 442 4 18 61 21 63 29 35 -10 -1.6 0.0 -1.8 2 578 76.4 3.9 1922 Bardu 3 949 2 543 2 20 64 16 56 31 25 15 3.8 -3.2 7.1 2 114 83.4 2.0 1929 Berg 926 271 3 12 67 21 50 19 31 -16 -18.2 -9.3 -7.5 496 80.3 3.0 1915 Bjarkøy 482 75 6 18 56 26 77 31 46 -10 -20.9 -4.7 -15.2 218 80.1 1.7 1926 Dyrøy 1 233 279 4 16 61 24 65 26 39 -11 -8.7 -2.9 -6.1 514 68.9 5.4 1940 Gáivuotna - Kåfjord 2 207 923 2 16 63 21 58 25 33 -17 -7.2 -4.8 -2.8 1 018 72.9 6.4 1919 Gratangen 1 150 307 4 16 59 25 69 27 42 -23 -19.5 -10.8 -8.5 491 72.1 2.0 1901 Harstad 23 257 349 67 18 66 15 50 27 23 31 1.3 -1.2 2.5 11 650 75.4 3.0 1917 Ibestad 1 408 236 6 13 58 29 71 22 49 -48 -31.6 -15.9 -15.1 600 72.9 4.3

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 150 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

1936 Karlsøy 2 371 1 004 2 16 63 21 59 26 33 -11 -0.1 -2.1 -2.4 1 108 74.2 6.1 1911 Kvæfjord 3 049 643 5 18 65 16 53 28 25 -5 -1.5 0.7 -2.4 1 454 73.0 3.2 1943 Kvænangen 1 316 2 058 1 16 60 24 67 27 39 -18 -12.5 -7.2 -5.9 611 77.3 3.6 1920 Lavangen 1 012 299 3 18 58 24 72 31 41 -2 -3.3 -1.2 -1.0 427 72.3 4.0 1931 Lenvik 11 243 855 13 21 63 16 58 32 26 42 3.7 0.3 3.5 5 386 75.7 2.9 1938 Lyngen 3 152 879 4 18 62 20 61 29 32 -2 -0.4 0.1 -0.8 1 510 77.3 3.8 1924 Målselv 6 510 3 219 2 18 65 17 54 28 26 -29 -4.5 -6.9 2.6 3 525 83.3 2.0 1942 Nordreisa 4 757 2 903 2 18 65 17 54 28 26 2 0.5 0.5 -0.2 2 321 75.2 3.9 1923 Salangen 2 211 439 5 17 65 17 53 27 27 -7 -3.0 -0.8 -2.2 1 051 72.9 3.5 1941 Skjervøy 2 881 883 3 18 64 17 55 28 27 -25 -8.3 -7.1 -1.3 1 349 72.7 5.4 1913 Skånland 2 855 465 6 15 65 20 53 23 31 -17 -6.8 -4.6 -1.4 1 396 75.0 3.2 1939 Storfjord 1 888 1 445 1 18 67 15 50 28 22 -10 -4.8 -4.9 -0.2 948 75.3 2.8 1925 Sørreisa 3 366 345 10 20 63 16 58 32 26 6 2.2 0.5 1.4 1 626 76.1 3.1 1928 Torsken 899 239 4 13 63 24 59 21 38 -26 -27.8 -15.8 -11.7 431 76.4 4.8 1927 Tranøy 1 552 501 3 17 60 23 66 27 38 -16 -10.1 -4.9 -5.3 704 75.2 2.7 1902 Tromsø 67 305 2 520 27 20 70 11 43 28 15 961 14.6 5.8 9.0 36 138 76.9 3.7

Finnmark fylke - Finnmárkku fylka 72 856 46 499 2 19 66 14 51 29 22 -42 -0.6 -4.0 3.4 35 366 73.1 3.9 101 2012 Alta 18 680 3 699 5 22 67 11 50 33 16 212 11.6 3.1 8.6 9 034 72.5 3.4 2024 Berlevåg 1 044 1 094 1 16 63 21 58 25 33 -18 -16.4 -11.4 -4.8 458 69.5 6.2 2028 Båtsfjord 2 070 1 431 1 18 68 14 47 27 20 -23 -10.8 -12.8 2.0 1 000 71.2 5.4 2025 Deatnu - Tana 2 912 3 865 1 17 65 18 55 27 28 -26 -8.4 -8.1 -0.7 1 415 75.1 4.0 2023 Gamvik 1 009 1 378 1 16 65 19 55 25 30 -21 -19.8 -14.6 -5.3 438 67.1 5.6 2011 Guovdageaidnu - Kautokeino 2 949 9 082 <0.5 20 69 12 46 29 17 -9 -3.2 -13.3 10.2 1 359 67.2 8.7 2004 Hammerfest 9 724 844 12 19 68 13 47 28 19 93 9.8 3.2 6.7 5 130 77.4 3.4 2015 Hasvik 934 541 2 15 65 20 55 24 31 -22 -23.2 -16.0 -6.4 422 69.8 5.4 2021 Kárášjohka - Karasjok 2 789 5 244 1 20 66 14 51 30 21 -16 -6.1 -8.3 2.8 1 344 72.8 5.1 2017 Kvalsund 1 026 1 775 1 16 60 24 66 27 40 -9 -10.3 -3.6 -5.2 448 72.7 5.5 2022 Lebesby 1 342 3 288 <0.5 18 63 19 58 29 29 -18 -12.7 -8.7 -4.4 601 70.9 4.5 2014 Loppa 1 087 684 2 15 61 24 63 24 39 -38 -30.5 -21.9 -10.8 488 73.2 4.2 2018 Måsøy 1 267 1 325 1 15 64 21 57 24 34 -25 -19.0 -13.2 -5.4 582 72.3 4.3 2019 Nordkapp 3 185 653 5 17 66 17 53 27 26 -47 -13.9 -12.1 -2.2 1 472 70.5 5.7 2020 Porsanger - Porsáŋgu - Porsanki 3 991 4 697 1 17 67 16 48 25 23 -62 -14.9 -16.0 1.0 1 925 71.5 2.9 2030 Sør-Varanger 9 738 3 670 3 19 67 15 50 28 22 54 5.7 2.2 3.5 4 952 76.4 2.0 2027 Unjárga - Nesseby 884 1 405 1 14 63 22 58 22 35 -4 -3.8 -0.5 -4.1 413 73.6 3.1 2003 Vadsø 6 101 1 240 5 20 67 14 50 29 21 -16 -2.6 -6.1 3.4 3 036 74.6 3.0 2002 Vardø 2 124 585 4 15 66 19 52 23 30 -48 -21.6 -17.3 -4.3 849 60.8 9.4

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 151 SWEDEN - SVERIGE

Whole country 9 340 682 410 942 23 17 65 18 53 25 28 66 115 7.2 5.5 1.7 4 499 400 73.8 8.3 120

Stockholms län 2 019 182 6 490 311 18 67 15 48 27 22 29 363 15.0 9.0 6.1 1 052 400 77.4 6.8 165 127 Botkyrka 81 195 196 413 20 68 12 48 30 18 1 071 13.7 5.2 8.5 40 851 74.4 10.1 162 Danderyd 31 150 26 1 177 22 59 19 68 36 32 215 6.9 5.0 2.1 14 801 80.0 2.8 125 Ekerö 25 095 216 116 22 64 14 57 35 22 299 12.3 5.3 6.9 12 717 79.6 3.2 136 Haninge 76 237 454 168 19 67 14 48 28 20 974 13.2 6.5 6.8 39 273 76.4 7.6 126 Huddinge 95 798 129 740 20 67 12 48 30 18 1 623 17.7 10.3 7.5 49 472 76.7 7.4 123 Järfälla 65 295 54 1 219 19 65 16 54 29 25 743 11.8 6.2 5.5 32 505 76.6 7.3 186 Lidingö 43 445 30 1 431 20 61 19 64 32 31 417 9.6 7.3 2.5 21 223 79.9 3.4 182 Nacka 88 085 95 923 21 65 14 54 32 21 1 884 22.5 15.3 7.3 45 003 78.6 5.1 188 Norrtälje 55 927 2 000 28 15 63 22 60 24 36 313 5.7 7.4 -1.7 27 292 78.0 5.8 140 Nykvarn 9 227 153 60 22 64 14 56 35 21 178 20.5 13.9 6.5 4 676 78.9 4.0 192 Nynäshamn 25 781 356 72 17 65 18 55 26 28 223 8.8 7.8 1.1 12 868 77.1 6.7 128 Salem 15 313 55 280 22 63 15 59 35 24 237 16.1 9.0 7.0 7 506 77.8 5.4 191 Sigtuna 39 219 327 120 19 67 14 50 28 22 579 15.3 9.4 6.0 20 025 76.4 7.5 163 Sollentuna 63 347 53 1 193 21 64 15 56 33 23 894 14.6 7.9 6.7 31 652 77.8 5.8 184 Solna 66 909 19 3 438 14 70 16 42 19 23 1 568 24.8 18.0 7.0 37 455 79.6 4.9 180 Stockholm 829 417 187 4 429 16 70 14 43 23 20 12 946 16.2 9.8 6.5 448 419 77.3 7.2 183 Sundbyberg 37 722 9 4 277 16 71 13 41 22 19 781 21.9 15.2 7.0 20 786 77.4 7.3 181 Södertälje 85 270 523 163 18 67 15 50 27 23 974 11.7 7.3 4.5 41 292 72.7 12.2 138 Tyresö 42 602 69 618 21 64 15 56 33 23 398 9.6 2.8 6.8 21 495 78.7 4.6 160 Täby 63 014 60 1 043 20 62 17 60 32 28 526 8.4 4.3 4.3 31 276 79.7 3.5 139 Upplands-Bro 23 202 236 98 19 67 13 48 29 20 374 16.7 10.3 6.6 12 051 77.0 7.1 114 Upplands-Väsby 38 641 75 513 18 67 15 50 27 22 222 5.9 -0.2 6.1 19 907 77.1 6.9 115 Vallentuna 29 361 360 82 22 65 13 55 34 21 493 17.6 10.8 6.8 15 124 79.6 3.5 187 Vaxholm 11 001 57 192 23 62 15 61 36 24 221 21.0 14.6 6.6 5 489 80.3 2.9 120 Värmdö 37 756 439 86 22 65 13 54 34 20 748 20.8 12.8 7.9 19 321 78.8 4.5 117 Österåker 39 173 310 126 21 64 15 56 32 23 459 12.1 5.3 6.7 19 921 79.1 4.0

Uppsala län 331 898 8 166 41 17 67 16 49 25 24 3 111 9.6 5.9 3.7 166 600.0 74.8 7.5 105 381 Enköping 39 360 1 179 33 17 64 19 56 27 29 229 5.9 5.5 0.4 18 598 73.8 8.6 331 Heby 13 355 1 169 11 16 63 21 59 25 34 -82 -6.1 -3.9 -2.2 6 089 72.5 10.2 305 Håbo 19 452 142 137 21 66 13 52 32 20 217 11.4 4.0 7.5 9 735 76.0 5.5 330 Knivsta 14 477 284 51 24 65 11 55 37 18 279 20.6 11.2 9.1 7 212 77.0 4.7 360 Tierp 20 044 1 543 13 16 62 22 60 25 35 -5 -0.2 2.7 -3.0 8 948 71.5 11.3 380 Uppsala 194 751 2 189 89 16 69 14 44 24 21 2 538 13.5 7.8 5.8 101 658 75.3 7.2 319 Älvkarleby 9 068 209 43 16 64 21 57 25 33 6 0.6 3.2 -2.6 4 136 71.7 11.4 382 Östhammar 21 391 1 451 15 15 63 22 59 24 35 -70 -3.2 -1.1 -2.2 10 224 75.8 5.9

Södermanlands län 269 053 6 062 44 17 63 20 58 26 31 1 607 6.0 6.4 -0.4 125 400 73.5 8.9 102 484 Eskilstuna 95 577 1 097 87 17 65 18 54 26 28 885 9.4 8.9 0.6 44 258 71.4 11.6 482 Flen 16 139 718 22 16 61 23 63 26 37 -77 -4.8 -0.8 -3.9 7 205 73.0 9.3 461 Gnesta 10 318 461 22 17 64 19 57 27 30 77 7.6 8.3 -0.7 5 023 76.3 5.3 483 Katrineholm 32 303 1 018 32 16 63 21 59 26 33 11 0.3 2.5 -2.2 14 808 72.7 9.8 480 Nyköping 51 209 1 421 36 16 62 21 60 26 34 329 6.5 6.7 -0.2 23 889 74.8 7.4 481 Oxelösund 11 126 34 330 14 61 25 64 23 41 -32 -2.6 -0.2 -2.6 5 079 74.7 7.7 486 Strängnäs 32 024 736 44 18 63 19 58 28 30 302 9.6 8.4 1.3 15 381 75.8 5.9 488 Trosa 11 446 208 55 18 64 18 57 28 29 166 14.8 12.9 2.1 5 606 77.0 4.1 428 Vingåker 8 911 370 24 16 62 22 60 26 35 -53 -5.9 -1.7 -4.1 4 151 74.8 7.0

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 152 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

Östergötlands län 427 106 10 562 40 16 65 19 53 25 28 2 229 5.3 4.6 0.7 196 800 70.7 9.9 105 560 Boxholm 5 248 528 10 15 63 22 59 24 34 -8 -1.5 1.2 -2.6 2 350 71.0 9.1 562 Finspång 20 733 1 060 20 15 62 22 61 25 36 -51 -2.5 0.5 -3.0 9 122 70.7 9.6 513 Kinda 9 811 1 133 9 16 61 23 64 27 37 -28 -2.9 0.3 -3.1 4 309 72.1 7.6 580 Linköping 144 690 1 431 101 16 67 16 48 24 24 1 558 11.1 7.8 3.3 70 366 72.2 8.2 586 Mjölby 25 770 549 47 17 64 20 57 26 31 89 3.5 3.7 -0.2 11 437 69.8 10.9 583 Motala 41 843 986 42 16 64 20 56 25 31 -43 -1.0 0.1 -1.1 18 453 68.9 12.1 581 Norrköping 129 254 1 491 87 17 66 18 52 25 27 971 7.6 6.3 1.3 58 735 69.2 11.9 582 Söderköping 14 042 672 21 17 63 20 58 27 32 -12 -0.8 -0.3 -0.5 6 507 73.4 6.2 584 Vadstena 7 420 183 40 14 60 26 66 23 43 -29 -3.8 2.0 -5.8 3 207 71.9 8.0 563 Valdemarsvik 7 811 734 11 14 62 25 62 22 40 -69 -8.7 -2.9 -5.7 3 463 71.8 8.6 512 Ydre 3 672 678 5 15 61 24 65 25 40 -45 -11.7 -6.9 -4.9 1 643 73.7 6.2 561 Åtvidaberg 11 498 685 17 17 61 22 64 28 36 -63 -5.5 -3.2 -2.2 4 893 69.8 10.8 509 Ödeshög 5 314 432 12 16 62 23 62 25 36 -41 -7.6 -3.4 -4.2 2 315 70.5 10.0

Jönköpings län 336 044 10 475 32 17 64 19 56 27 30 1 352 4.1 3.2 0.8 168 600 78.5 7.4 114 604 Aneby 6 446 519 12 15 65 20 54 23 31 -35 -5.4 -3.6 -1.8 3 307 79.1 6.6 686 Eksjö 16 353 802 20 15 62 23 60 24 36 -44 -2.6 0.7 -3.3 8 193 80.3 5.4 662 Gislaved 29 212 1 141 26 18 64 18 55 27 28 -105 -3.6 -5.0 1.4 14 354 76.3 9.7 617 Gnosjö 9 536 422 23 18 66 16 52 27 25 -54 -5.7 -7.8 2.2 4 800 76.7 9.2 643 Habo 10 674 330 32 22 64 15 57 34 23 182 17.9 10.1 7.8 5 466 80.6 4.9 680 Jönköping 126 331 1 485 85 17 65 18 53 26 27 1 284 10.4 7.8 2.6 65 242 79.1 6.9 642 Mullsjö 7 027 201 35 18 64 18 57 28 29 -15 -2.1 -4.2 2.1 3 479 77.8 7.7 682 Nässjö 29 489 934 32 16 63 21 59 26 33 21 0.8 2.9 -2.1 14 520 78.2 7.4 684 Sävsjö 10 871 679 16 17 62 21 62 28 35 -19 -1.9 0.8 -2.6 5 235 78.1 7.5 687 Tranås 18 043 404 45 17 61 23 65 27 37 59 3.3 5.4 -2.1 8 626 78.7 7.2 665 Vaggeryd 12 959 830 16 18 63 18 58 29 29 60 4.7 3.5 1.2 6 305 76.8 9.2 685 Vetlanda 26 350 1 506 17 16 62 21 61 26 34 -38 -1.4 0.2 -1.7 12 905 78.8 6.9 683 Värnamo 32 753 1 222 27 17 63 19 58 27 31 57 1.8 0.9 0.8 16 168 77.8 8.1

Kronobergs län 183 162 8 458 22 16 64 19 56 26 30 977 5.4 4.8 0.6 88 800 75.6 8.2 115 764 Alvesta 18 757 975 19 17 63 20 59 26 32 -23 -1.1 -1.4 0.2 9 041 76.4 7.0 761 Lessebo 8 165 410 20 17 62 21 61 28 33 -7 -0.8 2.1 -3.0 3 713 73.1 11.2 781 Ljungby 27 410 1 755 16 16 64 21 57 25 33 81 3.0 3.7 -0.7 13 273 76.2 7.3 767 Markaryd 9 559 519 18 15 62 23 62 25 38 -14 -1.6 1.4 -2.9 4 472 76.0 7.8 763 Tingsryd 12 358 1 048 12 14 60 26 66 23 43 -105 -8.5 -2.4 -5.9 5 682 76.5 7.0

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 153 760 Uppvidinge 9 320 1 183 8 16 61 23 63 26 37 -40 -4.1 0.0 -4.2 4 310 75.3 8.6 780 Växjö 82 023 1 674 49 17 66 17 51 26 26 1 057 13.3 9.3 4.0 40 773 75.2 8.9 765 Älmhult 15 570 894 17 17 63 20 59 27 32 28 1.9 3.2 -1.4 7 536 76.9 6.3

Kalmar län 233 639 11 171 21 15 63 22 58 24 35 -170 -0.7 2.0 -2.7 106 000 71.7 9.0 103 885 Borgholm 10 806 675 16 13 59 28 70 23 48 -65 -6.0 2.5 -8.4 4 724 74.5 5.7 862 Emmaboda 9 223 689 13 14 62 25 62 22 40 -84 -8.9 -3.5 -5.4 4 093 71.8 8.8 860 Hultsfred 13 855 1 126 12 13 62 25 62 22 40 -147 -10.4 -4.2 -6.1 5 895 68.8 12.6 821 Högsby 5 873 754 8 14 62 24 62 23 39 -75 -12.3 -5.4 -7.1 2 616 72.1 8.3 880 Kalmar 62 388 956 65 15 67 18 50 23 27 346 5.7 4.5 1.1 30 090 72.3 8.4 861 Mönsterås 12 980 596 22 15 62 23 61 24 36 -50 -3.8 0.0 -3.9 5 740 71.0 9.9 840 Mörbylånga 13 834 667 21 17 62 22 63 27 36 86 6.3 8.5 -2.1 6 277 73.8 6.6 881 Nybro 19 576 1 182 17 14 62 24 61 23 38 -61 -3.1 0.4 -3.6 8 705 71.5 9.2 882 Oskarshamn 26 232 1 047 25 16 63 21 59 25 34 -12 -0.5 1.8 -2.2 12 094 73.2 7.1 834 Torsås 7 044 469 15 15 61 23 63 25 38 -44 -6.1 -0.3 -5.8 3 046 70.4 10.6 884 Vimmerby 15 538 1 139 14 16 63 21 58 25 34 -11 -0.7 1.6 -2.3 6 931 70.6 10.1 883 Västervik 36 290 1 871 19 14 62 24 61 23 38 -54 -1.5 2.7 -4.2 15 790 70.1 11.0

Gotlands län 57 221 3 140 18 15 65 21 54 23 32 -90 -1.5 -0.16 -1.4 28 400 76.7 9.0 98 980 Gotland 57 221 3 140 18 15 65 21 54 23 32 -90 -1.5 -0.16 -1.4 28 400 76.7 9.0

Blekinge län 152 591 2 941 52 16 63 21 59 25 34 453 3.0 3.9 -0.9 68 400 71.1 9.2 111 1082 Karlshamn 30 918 491 63 15 63 23 60 24 36 14 0.5 2.5 -2.0 13 900 71.9 8.0 1080 Karlskrona 63 342 1 043 61 17 64 19 56 26 30 439 7.1 6.4 0.7 29 148 72.0 8.0 1060 Olofström 13 102 392 33 14 62 24 61 22 38 -84 -6.3 -2.2 -4.1 5 633 69.1 11.5 1081 Ronneby 28 416 829 34 15 63 22 59 24 35 28 0.9 2.5 -1.5 12 459 69.6 11.1 1083 Sölvesborg 16 813 186 90 15 62 23 62 25 37 56 3.2 4.8 -1.5 7 259 70.0 10.5

Skåne län 1 231 062 11 027 112 17 65 18 53 25 28 14 107 11.7 9.7 2.1 581 100 72.3 8.6 110 1260 Bjuv 14 813 115 128 19 64 17 55 29 26 185 12.8 10.2 2.7 6 834 71.6 9.3 1272 Bromölla 12 285 165 75 16 63 21 60 26 34 41 3.4 1.3 2.0 5 468 71.1 10.0 1231 Burlöv 16 509 19 874 19 65 17 55 29 26 245 15.3 12.2 3.3 7 523 70.6 10.6 1278 Båstad 14 269 218 65 14 60 27 67 23 45 48 3.5 7.2 -3.8 6 362 74.5 5.6 1285 Eslöv 31 269 422 74 18 65 17 55 28 27 309 10.0 7.3 2.8 14 718 72.9 7.5 1283 Helsingborg 128 359 346 371 16 66 18 52 25 28 1 448 11.5 9.8 1.8 60 440 71.7 9.4 1293 Hässleholm 50 036 1 276 39 16 63 21 59 25 33 217 4.4 5.2 -0.8 22 505 71.4 9.4 1284 Höganäs 24 480 144 170 17 60 22 66 29 37 268 11.3 12.1 -0.9 10 817 73.3 7.1 1266 Hörby 14 762 422 35 16 64 20 55 25 30 111 7.5 8.2 -0.6 6 994 73.5 6.9 1267 Höör 15 261 293 52 18 64 18 57 28 29 145 10.0 9.0 0.8 7 143 73.3 7.0 1276 Klippan 16 382 376 44 16 64 20 56 25 31 77 4.7 6.3 -1.5 7 523 71.8 9.0 1290 Kristianstad 78 788 1 250 63 16 64 19 56 26 30 642 8.3 7.3 1.0 36 094 71.4 9.6 1261 Kävlinge 28 638 154 187 21 64 16 57 32 24 524 19.1 12.9 6.2 13 614 74.5 5.6 1282 Landskrona 41 226 140 294 17 64 19 55 26 30 445 10.9 10.6 0.4 18 269 68.8 13.1 1262 Lomma 21 065 55 381 21 60 19 67 35 32 495 24.9 21.3 3.8 9 570 75.8 3.6 1281 Lund 109 147 431 253 16 70 14 42 22 20 1 553 14.7 10.0 4.8 57 705 75.1 5.4 1280 Malmö 293 909 154 1 913 16 68 16 46 23 23 4 995 17.6 13.4 4.5 143 367 71.4 10.1 1273 Osby 12 656 578 22 16 62 22 62 26 36 5 0.5 2.6 -2.2 5 570 71.4 9.4 1275 Perstorp 6 983 160 44 17 63 20 60 27 33 19 2.6 4.0 -1.3 3 129 71.5 9.3 1291 Simrishamn 19 328 393 49 13 59 28 69 22 47 -29 -1.5 5.0 -6.5 8 138 71.4 9.5 1265 Sjöbo 18 153 496 37 16 65 20 55 24 30 150 8.4 8.4 0.0 8 556 73.0 7.6 1264 Skurup 14 867 196 76 18 65 17 55 28 27 125 8.6 7.1 1.4 6 959 72.5 8.1 1230 Staffanstorp 21 949 108 204 20 63 17 59 32 27 310 14.7 9.0 5.7 10 222 74.1 5.8 1214 Svalöv 13 290 390 34 18 65 17 54 28 26 62 4.8 2.5 2.2 6 234 72.4 8.1 1263 Svedala 19 625 219 90 20 65 15 54 31 23 218 11.4 6.4 5.0 9 489 74.5 5.4

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 154 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

1270 Tomelilla 12 936 399 32 16 62 22 61 25 36 76 5.9 7.6 -1.6 5 712 71.0 10.1 1287 Trelleborg 41 891 342 123 17 64 20 57 27 31 484 11.9 11.6 0.3 19 142 72.0 9.0 1233 Vellinge 33 162 142 233 20 61 19 63 32 31 315 9.7 6.3 3.4 15 321 75.2 4.4 1286 Ystad 28 109 352 80 14 62 24 61 23 38 243 8.8 11.1 -2.3 12 766 73.3 7.4 1277 Åstorp 14 667 93 158 19 64 16 55 30 25 256 18.2 14.1 4.1 6 663 70.6 10.5 1292 Ängelholm 39 083 423 92 16 63 21 58 25 33 190 4.9 5.1 -0.2 17 878 72.4 8.1 1257 Örkelljunga 9 639 322 30 16 63 21 59 25 34 27 2.9 4.1 -1.2 4 377 72.3 8.2 1256 Östra Göinge 13 526 434 31 16 63 21 59 25 33 -91 -6.6 -5.5 -1.1 5 999 70.3 10.8

Hallands län 296 825 5 454 54 17 64 19 57 27 30 2 609 9.0 7.3 1.7 147 800 78.3 6.7 103 1382 Falkenberg 40 739 1 115 37 16 62 21 61 26 34 263 6.5 6.7 -0.1 19 712 77.7 7.4 1380 Halmstad 91 087 1 018 89 16 65 19 54 24 29 632 7.1 5.7 1.4 45 909 77.4 7.9 1315 Hylte 10 277 951 11 17 63 20 59 27 32 -34 -3.0 -2.8 -0.5 5 023 77.9 6.8 1384 Kungsbacka 73 938 610 121 20 63 17 59 32 27 1 050 14.7 10.4 4.4 36 992 79.5 4.8 1381 Laholm 23 345 887 26 16 63 21 59 25 34 79 3.4 4.6 -1.1 11 383 77.4 7.8 1383 Varberg 57 439 873 66 17 64 20 57 26 31 619 11.1 9.5 1.6 28 782 78.8 6.2

Västra Götalands län 1 569 458 23 942 66 17 66 18 52 25 27 9 501 6.2 4.2 2.0 748 100 72.4 9.0 122 1440 Ale 27 394 318 86 19 65 16 54 29 24 220 8.2 4.3 3.9 13 004 73.0 8.0 1489 Alingsås 37 515 477 79 17 64 19 57 27 30 353 9.6 8.4 1.3 17 323 72.6 8.7 1460 Bengtsfors 9 841 890 11 13 61 26 63 21 42 -99 -9.8 -2.7 -7.2 4 277 71.0 11.0 1443 Bollebygd 8 253 265 31 18 65 17 54 28 26 54 6.9 3.3 3.3 3 966 74.2 6.5 1490 Borås 102 458 915 112 16 65 18 53 25 28 716 7.1 6.1 1.0 48 280 72.3 9.1 1438 Dals-Ed 4 729 728 6 15 62 22 60 24 36 -41 -8.8 -6.1 -2.3 2 105 71.2 10.5 1445 Essunga 5 601 236 24 16 63 21 59 25 33 -30 -5.3 -2.0 -3.2 2 576 72.9 7.9 1499 Falköping 31 419 1 059 30 16 62 21 60 26 34 55 1.7 3.2 -1.4 14 255 72.7 8.6 1439 Färgelanda 6 691 592 11 15 63 22 59 24 34 -37 -5.7 -1.5 -4.0 2 964 70.2 11.1 1444 Grästorp 5 857 265 22 16 63 20 58 26 32 13 2.2 3.6 -1.4 2 683 72.2 9.1 1447 Gullspång 5 335 313 17 13 62 25 61 21 41 -65 -11.6 -4.4 -7.6 2 353 71.2 10.8 1480 Göteborg 507 330 449 1 131 16 70 15 44 22 21 5 180 10.5 5.5 5.0 254 539 72.1 9.8 1471 Götene 13 186 405 33 17 63 20 58 27 31 47 3.6 3.7 -0.1 6 125 73.2 7.6 1466 Herrljunga 9 348 501 19 16 64 20 56 25 31 -14 -1.5 0.2 -1.7 4 354 72.8 8.4 1497 Hjo 8 859 299 30 16 63 22 60 25 35 7 0.8 1.7 -0.9 4 007 72.3 8.8 1401 Härryda 34 007 270 126 21 65 14 54 33 21 466 14.2 7.6 6.6 16 584 75.1 5.1 1446 Karlsborg 6 784 433 16 13 61 25 63 22 41 -23 -3.5 2.0 -5.4 3 062 73.6 7.4 1482 Kungälv 40 727 365 112 18 64 18 56 28 28 492 12.5 9.1 3.4 19 600 75.0 5.5 1441 Lerum 38 301 259 148 21 63 16 58 33 25 415 11.2 6.4 4.8 18 220 75.1 5.0 1494 Lidköping 37 989 689 55 16 64 20 57 26 31 147 4.0 3.9 0.0 17 772 73.2 7.8 1462 Lilla Edet 12 773 318 40 16 66 17 51 25 27 -26 -2.0 -2.9 0.9 6 130 72.7 8.4 1484 Lysekil 14 535 210 69 14 62 24 62 23 39 -46 -3.2 1.1 -4.2 6 449 72.1 9.2 1493 Mariestad 23 799 603 39 15 62 23 61 24 36 -20 -0.8 1.6 -2.5 10 407 70.3 11.6

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 155 1463 Mark 33 821 936 36 17 63 20 59 28 32 89 2.8 2.8 -0.1 15 623 73.6 7.3 1461 Mellerud 9 261 514 18 14 61 25 64 23 41 -94 -9.8 -5.0 -4.8 4 016 71.2 10.4 1430 Munkedal 10 246 637 16 16 62 23 62 26 37 -14 -1.4 1.3 -2.6 4 546 72.0 9.4 1481 Mölndal 60 381 147 412 19 66 15 51 28 23 533 8.9 4.2 4.8 29 786 74.5 6.3 1421 Orust 15 308 388 39 15 63 22 59 24 36 28 1.9 4.1 -2.3 7 178 74.7 5.9 1402 Partille 34 382 57 601 19 65 15 53 29 24 222 6.5 3.4 3.2 16 728 74.5 6.0 1495 Skara 18 455 439 42 16 65 20 55 25 30 -12 -0.6 0.0 -0.6 8 548 71.7 9.6 1496 Skövde 50 984 678 75 16 66 18 50 24 27 225 4.5 3.3 1.2 24 061 71.0 10.8 1427 Sotenäs 9 112 140 65 13 61 26 65 22 43 -45 -4.9 2.1 -6.9 4 085 73.8 7.1 1415 Stenungsund 23 983 253 95 19 64 17 56 30 26 247 10.6 5.0 5.6 11 533 74.8 5.7 1486 Strömstad 11 690 482 24 15 64 21 56 23 33 65 5.5 8.4 -2.8 5 609 75.0 5.8 1465 Svenljunga 10 291 924 11 16 63 21 59 25 34 -37 -3.4 -0.3 -3.3 4 748 73.3 7.5 1435 Tanum 12 253 909 13 14 62 24 61 23 38 -14 -1.0 2.9 -4.1 5 589 73.3 7.8 1472 Tibro 10 611 220 48 16 62 22 61 26 35 8 0.7 1.6 -0.9 4 504 68.3 13.6 1498 Tidaholm 12 632 521 24 15 63 22 59 24 34 19 1.4 3.6 -2.2 5 653 71.0 10.5 1419 Tjörn 14 961 167 89 15 63 21 58 24 33 -12 -0.8 -1.9 1.1 7 167 75.6 4.9 1452 Tranemo 11 622 745 16 16 63 21 59 26 33 -54 -4.6 -2.5 -2.0 5 382 73.8 6.7 1488 Trollhättan 54 873 411 133 17 65 18 53 26 27 338 6.4 5.0 1.2 24 467 68.1 14.2 1473 Töreboda 9 255 545 17 15 63 22 58 24 34 -39 -4.1 -0.3 -3.8 4 137 70.5 11.3 1485 Uddevalla 51 518 642 80 16 64 20 56 26 31 291 5.7 6.2 -0.4 23 462 71.3 10.4 1491 Ulricehamn 22 753 1 051 22 17 62 21 60 27 34 80 3.6 4.5 -1.0 10 430 73.6 7.6 1470 Vara 15 771 701 22 15 63 21 58 24 34 -51 -3.2 -0.3 -2.9 7 332 73.4 7.5 1442 Vårgårda 10 967 429 26 18 65 17 54 28 26 58 5.3 2.4 3.0 5 148 72.3 8.7 1487 Vänersborg 36 871 642 57 17 63 21 59 26 33 -44 -1.3 -1.3 0.1 16 469 71.2 10.3 1492 Åmål 12 434 481 26 15 61 24 64 24 40 -78 -6.2 -1.4 -4.7 5 223 68.9 13.2 1407 Öckerö 12 292 25 483 18 63 19 60 29 30 28 2.4 1.5 0.8 5 648 73.3 7.2

Värmlands län 273 257 17 586 16 15 64 21 57 24 33 -48 -0.2 2.2 -2.4 122 600 70.5 9.5 103 1784 Arvika 26 100 1 659 16 15 63 22 59 24 35 -36 -1.3 2.7 -4.1 11 494 70.0 10.2 1730 Eda 8 577 825 10 14 63 23 60 23 37 -11 -1.6 2.7 -4.0 3 820 71.1 8.4 1782 Filipstad 10 626 1 546 7 14 61 26 64 22 42 -90 -8.4 -1.1 -7.2 4 415 68.3 12.2 1763 Forshaga 11 401 350 33 17 63 20 59 27 31 -12 -1.0 -1.4 0.3 5 030 70.0 9.7 1764 Grums 9 142 385 24 15 63 22 58 23 35 -56 -6.1 -3.3 -2.7 4 022 69.5 10.6 1783 Hagfors 12 636 1 835 7 13 60 27 66 22 45 -172 -13.2 -4.7 -8.5 5 257 69.1 11.2 1761 Hammarö 14 833 57 262 20 64 16 56 30 25 90 6.1 4.3 1.9 6 847 71.9 7.4 1780 Karlstad 84 736 1 167 73 15 67 18 50 22 27 599 7.1 5.6 1.6 40 260 71.1 8.8 1715 Kil 11 717 359 33 17 63 19 58 27 31 -28 -2.2 -3.0 0.6 5 165 69.7 10.5 1781 Kristinehamn 23 963 747 32 14 63 23 59 23 36 -5 -0.2 4.5 -4.7 10 507 69.8 10.3 1762 Munkfors 3 793 142 27 13 59 28 69 22 47 -49 -12.6 -4.4 -8.2 1 518 67.7 12.6 1760 Storfors 4 363 394 11 15 62 22 60 24 36 -43 -9.2 -3.7 -5.8 1 852 68.1 12.3 1766 Sunne 13 345 1 297 10 15 63 22 59 24 35 -52 -3.8 0.8 -4.6 5 934 70.7 8.9 1785 Säffle 15 602 1 219 13 15 61 25 65 24 40 -93 -6.0 -1.4 -4.5 6 654 70.3 9.4 1737 Torsby 12 508 4 187 3 13 61 26 64 22 42 -115 -9.0 0.2 -9.2 5 374 70.5 9.0 1765 Årjäng 9 915 1 417 7 16 62 22 61 26 36 25 2.4 6.1 -3.7 4 451 72.5 6.8

Örebro län 278 882 8 517 33 16 64 19 55 25 30 995 3.6 3.8 -0.2 123 100 68.6 10.9 112 1882 Askersund 11 307 821 14 15 62 24 63 24 38 -33 -3.0 0.5 -3.4 4 933 70.9 8.0 1862 Degerfors 9 709 386 25 14 62 23 61 23 37 -79 -8.0 -2.8 -5.1 4 158 68.8 10.5 1861 Hallsberg 15 235 639 24 16 64 20 57 25 32 -32 -2.2 -0.1 -1.9 6 626 68.4 11.2 1863 Hällefors 7 333 996 7 13 60 27 67 22 44 -71 -9.5 -2.7 -6.7 2 950 67.1 12.7 1883 Karlskoga 29 742 471 63 15 62 23 62 25 37 -120 -4.0 -0.2 -3.8 12 632 68.9 10.5 1881 Kumla 20 214 206 98 19 64 17 57 30 27 167 8.4 7.3 1.1 8 887 69.2 9.8 1860 Laxå 5 786 577 10 13 61 25 63 22 41 -96 -16.0 -9.8 -6.2 2 431 68.6 10.9 1814 Lekeberg 7 123 467 15 18 63 19 58 28 30 12 1.7 -1.5 3.1 3 247 71.9 6.8 1885 Lindesberg 23 029 1 382 17 15 63 21 58 24 34 -56 -2.3 1.4 -3.8 9 906 67.9 11.6 1864 Ljusnarsberg 5 055 579 9 13 61 27 64 21 44 -67 -12.8 -2.3 -10.5 2 127 69.2 10.0

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 156 Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

1884 Nora 10 343 622 17 16 62 22 62 26 35 -38 -3.5 -1.1 -2.6 4 411 68.9 10.3 1880 Örebro 134 006 1 371 98 17 66 17 51 26 25 1 409 10.8 7.7 3.1 60 792 68.3 11.4

Västmanlands län 251 353 5 132 49 16 64 20 56 25 31 827 3.3 3.3 0.0 119 800 74.2 9.3 108 1984 Arboga 13 302 324 41 16 61 23 63 26 37 -19 -1.6 2.4 -3.8 5 993 73.5 10.0 1982 Fagersta 12 249 271 45 15 62 23 61 24 38 2 0.3 3.6 -3.4 5 610 73.9 9.8 1961 Hallstahammar 15 127 171 88 16 62 22 61 26 35 18 1.2 3.1 -2.0 6 917 73.5 10.0 1960 Kungsör 8 116 203 40 16 63 21 60 26 33 -34 -4.2 -3.2 -1.0 3 769 74.2 9.0 1983 Köping 24 847 607 41 15 64 21 57 24 33 35 1.4 3.4 -2.0 11 384 72.1 11.9 1962 Norberg 5 730 421 14 14 63 22 58 23 35 -45 -7.5 -5.1 -2.6 2 702 74.6 8.4 1981 Sala 21 499 1 173 18 15 64 21 57 24 33 -10 -0.5 1.2 -1.7 10 260 74.9 8.4 1904 Skinnskatteberg 4 567 662 7 14 62 24 60 22 38 -52 -11.2 -6.5 -4.4 2 155 75.6 7.6 1907 Surahammar 9 980 345 29 16 63 21 59 26 33 -53 -5.3 -4.0 -1.3 4 690 74.7 8.6 1980 Västerås 135 936 956 142 17 66 18 53 25 27 986 7.4 5.5 1.9 66 320 74.4 9.0

Dalarnas län 276 454 28 193 10 15 63 21 58 24 33 85 0.3 2.3 -2.0 128 900 73.5 8.5 117 2084 Avesta 21 762 615 35 14 63 23 58 22 36 -66 -3.1 1.2 -4.2 10 089 73.2 9.0 2081 Borlänge 48 681 586 83 17 65 18 54 26 28 339 7.1 5.5 1.6 23 021 72.6 9.5 2080 Falun 55 685 2 052 27 16 65 18 54 25 28 139 2.5 1.5 1.0 26 582 73.3 8.8 2026 Gagnef 10 071 772 13 18 62 20 60 28 32 -4 -0.4 0.6 -1.0 4 663 74.1 7.4 2083 Hedemora 15 195 838 18 15 63 22 58 23 34 -62 -4.1 0.1 -4.2 7 176 74.5 7.3 2029 Leksand 15 303 1 227 12 15 61 24 63 24 38 -39 -2.6 0.5 -3.0 7 053 75.1 6.7 2085 Ludvika 25 650 1 501 17 15 62 24 61 23 38 -28 -1.0 3.3 -4.4 11 824 74.4 7.6 2023 Malung 10 408 4 107 3 15 63 23 59 23 36 -29 -2.8 1.9 -4.7 4 816 73.8 8.4 2062 Mora 20 146 2 827 7 15 63 22 58 24 35 14 0.6 2.6 -1.9 9 312 73.1 9.1 2034 Orsa 6 934 1 744 4 15 62 23 61 24 37 -19 -2.8 1.3 -4.0 3 082 71.5 10.9 2031 Rättvik 10 797 1 933 6 13 59 27 69 23 46 -13 -1.2 6.9 -8.1 4 696 73.3 8.5 2061 Smedjebacken 10 758 953 11 14 63 22 58 23 35 -33 -3.0 1.1 -4.1 5 041 74.1 7.8 2082 Säter 10 900 574 19 16 64 20 56 24 32 -16 -1.5 -0.4 -1.0 5 297 75.7 5.7 2021 Vansbro 6 876 1 550 4 15 61 24 65 25 40 -50 -7.0 -1.8 -5.3 3 017 72.5 9.6 2039 Älvdalen 7 288 6 914 1 15 61 24 63 24 39 -48 -6.1 0.4 -6.9 3 232 72.4 9.9

Gävleborgs län 276 220 18 192 15 15 64 21 57 24 33 -60 -0.3 2.4 -2.6 124 000 70.4 10.1 104 2183 Bollnäs 26 175 1 827 14 15 62 23 61 24 37 -15 -0.6 3.3 -3.8 11 477 70.6 9.7 2180 Gävle 94 352 1 604 59 16 66 18 52 24 28 462 4.9 4.5 0.5 43 719 70.3 10.3 2104 Hofors 9 873 411 24 15 61 24 63 24 39 -74 -7.2 -1.2 -6.2 4 283 70.7 10.0 2184 Hudiksvall 36 848 2 496 15 16 63 21 58 25 33 -23 -0.7 1.6 -2.3 16 644 71.3 9.1 2161 Ljusdal 19 077 5 295 4 15 62 23 62 24 38 -100 -5.3 0.2 -5.4 8 305 70.5 10.3 2132 Nordanstig 9 646 1 379 7 15 62 23 60 24 36 -45 -4.6 -0.5 -4.1 4 337 71.9 8.2 2101 Ockelbo 5 982 1 070 6 14 63 23 58 22 35 -13 -2.2 3.5 -5.6 2 701 71.2 8.7 2121 Ovanåker 11 530 1 882 6 15 62 23 61 23 37 -90 -7.7 -2.6 -5.0 5 058 70.5 9.8

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 157 2181 Sandviken 36 978 1 165 32 15 63 21 58 24 34 30 0.8 4.4 -3.6 16 334 69.9 10.6 2182 Söderhamn 25 759 1 062 24 14 63 23 59 22 37 -192 -7.4 -1.6 -5.8 11 142 69.0 11.8

Västernorrlands län 243 042 21 678 11 16 63 21 59 25 34 -225 -0.9 1.5 -2.4 107 000 69.9 9.0 111 2280 Härnösand 24 675 1 065 23 15 62 22 60 25 36 -119 -4.8 -1.2 -3.6 10 808 70.2 8.7 2282 Kramfors 19 214 1 703 11 13 61 25 63 22 41 -234 -11.8 -2.7 -9.2 8 141 69.1 10.3 2283 Sollefteå 20 442 5 434 4 14 60 25 66 24 42 -152 -7.3 -0.7 -6.6 8 464 68.5 10.9 2281 Sundsvall 95 533 3 206 30 16 64 19 55 25 30 370 3.9 3.3 0.6 43 390 70.4 8.5 2262 Timrå 17 902 787 23 17 63 20 59 28 31 9 0.5 2.2 -1.7 7 755 68.9 10.1 2260 Ånge 10 148 3 065 3 14 61 25 65 24 41 -134 -12.8 -4.0 -8.8 4 274 69.5 9.5 2284 Örnsköldsvik 55 128 6 418 9 16 62 22 60 25 35 35 0.7 2.6 -1.9 24 167 70.2 8.6

Jämtlands län 126 666 49 443 3 15 64 21 57 24 32 -146 -1.2 0.7 -1.9 60 700 75.0 8.7 103 2326 Berg 7 447 5 748 1 14 60 25 66 24 42 -67 -8.7 -2.2 -6.6 3 355 74.7 8.8 2305 Bräcke 6 865 3 454 2 15 61 25 65 24 40 -84 -11.8 -4.5 -7.3 3 023 72.6 11.3 2361 Härjedalen 10 585 11 405 1 13 61 26 65 22 43 -72 -6.8 1.4 -8.1 4 900 76.2 7.4 2309 Krokom 14 460 6 211 2 19 63 18 60 30 30 68 4.7 4.5 0.3 6 917 76.3 7.0 2303 Ragunda 5 609 2 527 2 13 59 27 68 23 46 -56 -9.9 -3.0 -6.8 2 405 72.1 12.0 2313 Strömsund 12 286 10 545 1 13 61 26 64 22 42 -166 -13.0 -3.9 -9.1 5 353 71.5 12.9 2321 Åre 10 278 7 331 1 16 67 17 50 24 25 92 9.1 9.0 0.2 5 286 77.0 6.2 2380 Östersund 59 136 2 222 27 15 66 18 51 23 28 138 2.3 0.7 1.7 29 461 75.4 8.4

Västerbottens län 258 548 55 401 5 16 66 19 52 24 29 348 1.3 0.4 0.9 123 300 72.7 8.1 108 2403 Bjurholm 2 500 1 317 2 15 56 29 78 26 52 -18 -6.9 0.5 -7.4 1 033 73.6 6.2 2425 Dorotea 2 900 2 803 1 13 58 29 73 22 50 -51 -16.9 -8.2 -8.7 1 207 71.8 9.5 2481 Lycksele 12 427 5 639 2 15 63 22 59 24 35 -71 -5.7 -4.0 -1.6 5 684 72.7 8.1 2418 Malå 3 295 1 608 2 16 61 24 64 25 39 -33 -10.0 -3.3 -6.5 1 450 72.2 8.3 2401 Nordmaling 7 205 1 234 6 15 61 24 65 25 40 -61 -8.3 -6.2 -2.1 3 133 71.5 9.4 2417 Norsjö 4 361 1 753 2 15 60 25 66 25 41 -24 -5.5 -1.1 -4.3 1 866 71.0 10.1 2409 Robertsfors 6 880 1 298 5 16 62 22 62 26 36 -46 -6.5 -3.6 -3.0 3 080 72.3 8.4 2482 Skellefteå 71 770 6 838 10 16 63 21 58 25 33 -1 0.0 1.2 -1.2 32 423 71.3 9.8 2422 Sorsele 2 743 7 493 <0.5 13 59 28 70 23 47 -43 -15.0 -6.2 -8.8 1 169 72.4 8.1 2421 Storuman 6 227 7 485 1 14 59 26 69 24 45 -65 -10.2 -5.4 -4.8 2 704 73.2 7.3 2480 Umeå 114 075 2 317 49 16 70 14 43 23 20 945 8.4 2.9 5.6 58 836 73.6 7.1 2462 Vilhelmina 7 156 8 120 1 16 61 23 65 27 38 -53 -7.3 -3.0 -4.3 3 094 71.3 9.7 2404 Vindeln 5 519 2 648 2 14 60 25 66 24 42 -50 -9.0 -3.8 -5.1 2 418 72.7 7.8 2460 Vännäs 8 357 534 16 17 63 19 58 27 31 -33 -4.0 -2.8 -1.2 3 934 74.4 5.5 2463 Åsele 3 133 4 315 1 14 57 28 74 25 50 -48 -14.9 -4.5 -10.3 1 268 70.5 10.9

Norrbottens län 249 019 98 911 3 15 64 21 55 23 32 -711 -2.8 -1.3 -1.6 111 600 69.5 9.7 123 2506 Arjeplog 3 143 12 945 <0.5 13 62 25 61 20 41 -15 -5.1 2.6 -7.5 1 360 69.8 9.4 2505 Arvidsjaur 6 622 5 708 1 14 60 26 66 23 42 -54 -8.1 -0.4 -7.5 2 756 69.1 10.2 2582 Boden 27 408 4 297 6 15 64 21 56 24 32 -174 -6.2 -3.9 -2.4 12 452 70.7 8.1 2523 Gällivare 18 533 16 000 1 14 64 22 56 21 35 -134 -7.1 -3.6 -3.5 8 334 70.3 8.6 2583 Haparanda 10 112 918 11 15 64 22 57 23 34 -17 -1.9 2.5 -4.2 4 161 64.8 16.2 2510 Jokkmokk 5 210 18 143 <0.5 13 63 24 59 20 38 -77 -14.4 -6.9 -7.4 2 329 71.0 7.7 2514 Kalix 16 926 1 799 9 15 61 24 63 24 39 -148 -8.4 -4.8 -3.7 6 940 67.0 13.1 2584 Kiruna 22 969 19 447 1 16 65 19 54 25 30 -56 -2.5 -2.6 0.2 10 565 71.0 7.7 2580 Luleå 73 950 1 807 41 15 67 17 48 23 26 275 3.8 1.2 2.5 34 853 69.9 9.4 2521 Pajala 6 309 7 886 1 14 56 30 79 25 55 -123 -18.6 -6.0 -12.7 2 320 65.9 14.5 2581 Piteå 40 860 3 086 13 16 65 19 54 24 30 8 0.1 0.5 -0.3 18 634 70.3 8.7 2560 Älvsbyn 8 387 1 713 5 15 61 23 63 25 38 -78 -9.0 -4.6 -4.4 3 537 68.6 10.9 2513 Överkalix 3 670 2 787 1 11 59 29 69 19 50 -52 -13.8 -1.9 -11.7 1 438 66.1 14.0 2518 Övertorneå 4 920 2 374 2 14 60 27 68 23 45 -66 -12.8 -3.8 -9.1 1 921 65.6 14.1

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 158 Footnotes (1) Administrative divisions as of 1.1.2011. Regions = NUTS3 regions. In Denmark both NUTS2 regions (administrative) and NUTS3 regions (statistical) are included. In Iceland NUTS3 division is Höfuðborgarsvæði/Reykjavík region and Landsbygð/rest of the country. The Greenlandic municipality of Sermersooq is divided between between East (Ittoqqortoormiit and Tasiilaq districts) and West (Ivittuut, Nuuk and Paamiut districts). In the Faroe Islands national regions (sýsla) are included instead of municipalities included. Municipal names in Finland after language law (423/2003) adjusted to 2011 division. In bi-lingual municipalities (both Finnish and Swedish) both municipal names given (main language first). In Saami language area (in Finland and Norway) both municipal names given (2) For the Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, the population figures for 2010 refer to the population on the 31.12.2009; for Denmark, Greenland and Norway on the 1.1.2010. (3) Denmark: total area; Finland and Sweden: land area; Norway: land area excluding Svalbard and Jan Mayen; Greenland: ice free area (the total area of Greenland is 2.2 million km²), Iceland: total area. Iceland is covered by 23 805 km² of vegetation area, of which the Reykjavík region comprises 552 km², and the other parts 23 253 km². (4) Total age dependency ratio defined as persons aged 0-14 and aged 65 and over / persons aged 15-64 years; Young age dependency ratio defined as persons aged 0-14 / persons aged 15-64 years; Old age dependency ratio defined as persons aged 65 and over / persons aged 15-64 years. (5) Registered un- & employment figures adjusted with Eurostat Labour Force Survey (LFS) figures in order to render comparison between countries possible. Employment rate = employed persons at place of residence / resident population aged 15-64. Register based data on employed persons at place of residence. Greenland: persons employed between 15-62 years, living in towns Faroes: Unemployed as % of labour force; The data is compiled from a labour force survey among residents in the Faroe Islands in the aged 15-74 years years. Greenland: unemployment registered in towns 2009. (6) Norway excluding offshore industries * Due to changes in municipal structure during the period 2005-2011, the population change figures are based on estimations. Denmark: Aalestrup divided between Viborg, Vesthimmerland and Mariagerfjord; Brædstrup divided between Horsens and Skanderborg; Christiansfeld divided between Haderslev and Kolding; Egtved divided between Kolding and Vejle; Helle divided between Esbjerg and Varde; Langå divided between Favrskov and Randers; Mariager divided between Randers and Mariagerfjord; Nørager divided between Rebild and Mariagerfjord; Nørre Rangstrup divided between Haderslev and Tønder; Slangerup divided between Hillerød and Frederikssund; Sønderhald divided between Norddjurs and Randers; Tørring-Uldum divided between Vejle and Hedensted. Finland: Längelmäki divided between Jämsä and Orivesi.

Data source: National Statistics Offices, Eurostat, Nordregio Estimates.

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 159