Case Study Bayern
Contract No. 2008.CE.16.0.AT.020 concerning the ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000‐2006 co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund (Objectives 1 and 2)
Work Package 4 “Structural Change and Globalisation”
CASE STUDY
BAYERN (DE)
Prepared by: Christian Hartmann (Joanneum Research)
for: European Commission Directorate General Regional Policy Policy Development Evaluation Unit
CSIL, Centre for Industrial Studies, Milan, Italy Joanneum Research, Graz, Austria Technopolis Group, Brussels, Belgium
In association with Nordregio, the Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, Stockholm, Sweden KITE, Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise, Newcastle, UK
Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Acronyms
BERD Business Expenditure on R&D
DG REGIO Directorate General for Regional Policy
EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
EC European Commission
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF European Social Fund
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FIFG Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance
GERD Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GVA Gross Value Added
ICT Information and Communication Technology
LFS Labour Force Survey
NDP National Development Programme
NGO Non‐governmental Organisation
NTI New Technologies of Information
OECD Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development
PPS Purchasing Power Standard
RCA Revealed Comparative Advantage
RDP Bayern Regional Development Plan
RTDI Research, Technological Development and Innovation
R&D Research and Development
SME Small and Medium Enterprise
SPD Single Programming Document
TOR Terms of Reference
WP Work Package
III Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Table of contents
Executive summary 1 Introduction 5
1. Structural change and globalisation in perspective 7 1.1 The region at a glance 7 1.2 Searching for the roots of change: socio‐economic history of the region 12 1.3 Regional structural change and globalisation issues in 2000‐2006 14
1.3.1 Dimensions of structural change 14
1.3.2 Understanding the geography of structural change 20
2. Regional policy 2000‐2006: strategy and objectives 21 2.1 Regional policy mix for structural change and globalisation 21 2.2 Overall strategy of the 2000‐2006 Objective 2 programme 24 2.3 Selected fields of intervention and measures 25
2.3.1 Selection logic 25
2.3.2 Detailed description of the selected measures 32
3 Effects of the selected ERDF measures on the process of structural change and adaptation to globalisation 35 3.1 Assessment of the structural and socio‐economic effects 35
3.1.1 Performance of selected measures 36
3.1.2 Contribution of selected measures to structural change and globalisation 40 3.2 Assessment of the effects on institutional capacity and policy learning 47
4. Conclusions: key findings and main message 49 5. Annexes 51 5.1 Additional statistical tables 51 5.2 References 61 5.3 Links 62 5.4 List of persons interviewed 63
IV Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
List of tables
Table 1.1 – Migration in Objective 2 border region and Objective 2 cities 15
Table 1.2 – Employment by sector (% of employment in the manufacturing industry) in Objective 2 districts
and cities in 2006 18
Table 2.1 ‐ ERDF intervention in the regional (national) policy context 23
Table 2.2 ‐ Overview of the Objective 2 programme 24
Table 2.3 ‐ Measures relevant to structural change and globalisation: main features 27
Table 3.1 ‐ Overview of allocations/expenditures as of 31st December 2008 36
Table 3.2 ‐ Measure 2.2 ‐ Comparison of selected planned and realised financial and material indicators 37
Table 3.3 ‐ Measure 2.3 ‐ Comparison of selected planned and realised financial and material indicators 38
Table 3.4 ‐ Measure 3.3 ‐ Comparison of selected planned and realised financial and material indicators 38
Table 5.1 ‐ Taxonomy of Objective 2 eligible areas (NUTS3) 51
Table 5.2 ‐ Regional performance in comparative perspective (NUTS1)‐Basic data 54
Table 5.3 ‐ Socio‐economic change and human capital (NUTS1) 54
Table 5.4 ‐ Employment by sector on NUTS1 level in comparison to Germany and EU15, 2000 and 2006 55
Table 5.5 ‐ Regional specialisation (NUTS1) 56
Table 5.6 ‐ Geography of structural change (NUTS3) 57
Table 5.7 ‐ Geography of structural change (NUTS3) 57
Table 5.8 ‐ Geography of structural change (NUTS3) 59
V Case Study – Bayern (DE)
List of figures
Figure 1.1 ‐ Bayernʹs location within Germany and Europe 7
Figure 1.2 ‐ Administrative districts of Bayern 7
Figure 1.3 ‐ Objective 2 eligible area in Bayern 2000 ‐ 2006 8
Figure 1.4 – Development of population in the Objective 2 area 15
Figure 3.1 – Projects by branches 39
Figure 3.2 – Development of R&D personnel in the eligible area (1997‐2007) 45
VI Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Bayern case study
Executive summary
Scope and research methods
This report has been prepared in the framework of the ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000‐2006 co‐financed by the European Regional Development Fund (Objectives 1 and 2). It is part of the Work Package 4: Structural Change and Globalisation. This case study focuses on analysing the results and outcomes of a set of specific measures of the ERDF 2000‐ 2006 Objective 2 programme implemented in the Bayern region and considered particularly relevant in the context of structural change and adaptation to globalisation: measure 2.2 dealing with the promotion of enhanced competitiveness of SMEs’, projects, the measure 2.3 supporting service centres for SMEs’ and measure 3.3 dealing with the promotion of innovation and R&D at firm’s level’. The study is based on various information sources: an in‐depth analysis of available documents (programming documents, programme complement, annual implementation reports, mid‐term and final evaluations, regional studies); monitoring data of the programme; phone interviews with regional authorities, representatives of the governmental bodies in the region; with final beneficiaries of the specific measures under review, including companies; as well as data from Bayern regional statistical office and Eurostat.
Key research question and hypothesis tested in the case study
The main research question addressed by this case study is the extent to which regional policy measures, co‐ financed by the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund), supporting structural change and adaptation to globalisation1 have helped to overcome and old and inflexible production system in the eligible areas of Bayern (Germany). In particular, was the ERDF support able to promote the creation of favourable conditions for the formation of new firms, the creation of regional job opportunities with improved skill levels, and to develop interventions that are addressing the stimulation of regional supply chains and to foster technology adoption by regional firms? Given the emphasis of the programming document, the case study focuses on three specific types of measures that have been supported: the offer of service activities for SMEs’, the support of incubators and inter‐firm networks, and the promotion of Innovation and R&D at firm’s level’. The assessment of the effects of the selected ERDF measures aims to highlight the contribution of the Objective 2 programme to structural change in the region, and in doing so tests two of the working hypotheses proposed in the conceptual model developed by the study. Firstly socio‐economic change and human capital is addressed: structural rigidities in the accumulation and change of regional human capital have negative effects on firms’ responses to globalisation challenges and on the adoption of economic innovation. An
1 By measures “supporting structural change and enabling adaptation to globalisation”, the study refers to public intervention to promote the reallocation of resources (labour and capital) towards more efficient ends, either directly (e.g., promoting start ups, or favouring SMEs’ technological intake) and/or indirectly, by minimising possible adverse effects of structural change.
1 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
inadequate skill‐base can be due to a lack of flexibility in education, rigid labour institutions, or other socio‐institutional constraints to mobility and to the improvement of human capital. Secondly the production system is under scrutiny: regional production systems are embedded in the regional firm structure and labour markets. The lack of strong local supply‐chain linkages and of intra‐industry collaborative modes between large firms and SMEs may hinder the speed of new technology adoption and the spread of flexible modes of production.
Regional context and key findings
Bayern as a whole shows a very favourable economic development since 1945, but persistent regional disparities do nevertheless remain. In particular the border region next to the Czech Republic is suffering from its peripheral geographical position, i.e. severe problems with socio‐economic change and the regional endowment with human capital have to be noted for the period from 2000 to 2006. The region is still dominated by regional production systems in the sectors of ceramics, and textiles, concentrated in the districts of Wunsiedel, Hof and the city of Hof. The market dominance of a few large firms has hampered the adaptation of the sectors to international market and technology trends in the period from 2000 to 2006. The roots of these problems can be traced back to the past. The border region next to the Czech Republic (that forms the major part of the Bayern Objective 2 region) became after 1945 a typical rural peripheral region. Because of the Iron Curtain old economic links across the border were cut off after World War II and endogenous potential for renewal remained poor. The regional skill base remained underdeveloped and knowledge infrastructures were established only recently. Policy tried to bring forth adequate responses to these challenges: in particular the measures ‘promotion of enhanced competitiveness of SMEs’, ‘service centres for enterprises’, and ‘promotion of innovation and R&D at firm’s level’ can be seen as addressing the problems of the border region. These measures have been accordingly selected (in agreement with regional experts) for further assessment. The key findings of this case study are the following:
ERDF interventions were able to stimulate an adequate response to structural change challenges arising from the problem of inflexible regional production systems in the low technology sectors
The evidence collected in this case study demonstrates how regional inter‐firm linkages and industry‐science co‐operation were stimulated by selected measures in the programming period. While the districts of Hof and Wunsiedel am Fichtelgebirge have been traditionally dominated by the textiles and ceramics industry, policy measures co‐financed by ERDF helped to provide impulses for the development of new open value chains in the automotive sector. Thus structural change in the industry sector could be supported. As the case of the ‘Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern’ suggests, intermediaries, like regional chambers of commerce and industries, played a particularly important role in channelling industries needs into concrete funded projects.
2 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
ERDF interventions had a positive effect of the regional R&D capacities in the Objective 2 border region. and on firm’s capabilities to adopt new technologies
ERDF support was enabling the technological reorientation and diversification of existing competences among regional enterprises and helped thus to overcome existing challenges in the regional production system. Regional firms’ R&D capacities could be improved and the innovation potential was stimulated by public interventions in the framework of ERDF. Nevertheless it has to be noted that ‐ due to the size of the intervention in terms of available funding ‐ total effects of the intervention will at any rate remain moderate compared to regionally funded programmes.
ERDF interventions have to be seen in this context as complementary and not as providing pivotal strategic orientations for policy
Bayern like other German Bundesländer has a long tradition in regional planning and policy development, going back more than 30 years, while ERDF programming is present only since 1994. As a consequence a complex and sophisticated system of regional policy programmes and interventions, was in place during the programming period. Individual ERDF funded measures were either aligned to existing strategy programmes on the level of whole Bayern (e.g. Bayern Programme for Co‐operations of Medium‐Sized Businesses, Bayerisches Technologieförderungsprogramm – BayTP etc.); or matched with programmes and interventions addressing the geographical space of the border region to the Czech Republic (.e.g. Initiative for Upper Franconia, Improvement Programme for Eastern Bayern etc.).
Main message
The analysis of this case study suggests that the working hypotheses to be tested can be seen as valid for the Objective 2 border region of Bayern. However, is the example of Bayern to be seen as an ‘untypical case’ for ERDF interventions. While the region as a whole can be regarded as an economic power house compared to other German and European regions, the districts next to the border of the Czech Republic (Objective 2 border region) face severe structural and economic problems suffering severely from its unfavourable peripheral geographical position. The key findings of the case study demonstrate that public interventions in the framework of the 2000‐2006 Objective 2 Programme provided adequate responses to the specific problems of this region. Regional policy responded to structural change challenges in these districts with a policy mix comprising ERDF interventions and measures with regional funding. The measures analysed in this case study proved to be effective in stimulating the adoption of new technologies, the diversification of existing product portfolios and the development of new regionally integrated supply chains. Although problems induced by structural change were addressed properly by policy they will not be solved in short time. E.g. as the population figures show, the process of negative migration continues further after the end of the programming period. Thus it may be suggested that long term efforts will be needed to tackle the current problems.
3 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
4 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Introduction
Although Bayern as a whole shows a very favourable economic development since 1945, persistent regional disparities do remain. In particular the border region next to the Czech Republic is suffering from its unfavourable geographical position. Low population density negative migration trends and inflexible regional production systems in low technology sectors such as ceramics and textiles are representing strong challenges to Regional policy. The following case study will show in Bayern in the period 2000 to 2006 how Regional policy and in particular ERDF programming responded to these challenges, and also how quantitative and qualitative evidence on the effects of policy interventions was collected and assessed. The case study is divided into four Sections: Section 1 first provides a brief introduction of the region in focussing on basic indicators such as regional income, population and employment. Second, the roots of structural change are explored and discussed. Third, a discussion of the relevant dimensions of regional structural change for the period of 2000 to 2006 is presented, based on statistical indicators for socio economic trends and regional economic structure. Based on the two main challenges described above conclusions are drawn and policy intervention needs are formulated. These address the negative migration trend and its effect of the regional knowledge base in the Objective 2 border region, and the need to overcome inflexible production systems with low technology orientation. This naturally leads to discussion of specific dimensions of structural change such as the issues of regional specialisation, regional innovation potential, and the geography of structural change are discussed. Section 2 then sheds light on Regional policy and its strategies, objectives and instruments for the programming period 2000 to 2006. After brief discussions of the relevant Regional policy mix and the overall strategic outline of the programme, the related measures for the dimensions of structural change are presented. Three measures are selected for further analysis. The measures have been selected in the light of the working hypotheses established in Section 2, i.e. according to their potential to tackle the challenges of socio economic change, and their contribution to the fostering of knowledge flows in the regional production system. Finally the selected measures are discussed in terms of the background context comprising information on the respective intervention logic, the concrete instruments applied, and the beneficiaries addressed. Section 3 provides a detailed discussion of each selected measure. First, the measures are discussed on the basis of available monitoring data. Insights into performance and leverage effects (in terms of total and private investments induced) are provided. Also, a discussion of output indicators collected in the course of programme monitoring is included. Second, the measures are discussed and assessed on the basis of the complementary field work. Third, effects on institutional capacity building and policy learning are discussed on a qualitative level. The qualitative discussion of the effects of the measures is as far as possible complemented by regionalised data in order to provide comparable quantitative evidence. In particular, the following data sources have been used: • Regionalised data on employment by sectors (NACE 2 digit level) in manufacturing at district level provided by the Bayern State Office for Statistics and Data Processing.
5 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
• Regionalised data on R&D personnel provided by the department for spatial planning of the Technical University Dortmund. • Complementary qualitative information has been collected from 7 interviews with beneficiaries and 6 interviews with regional experts and policy makers. Section 4 then draws conclusions from the findings collected addressing both the dimension of each measure and of the whole programme.
6 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
1. Structural change and globalisation in perspective
1.1 The region at a glance
The Free State of Bayern (Freistaat Bayern) is one of 16 federal states (Bundesländer) in Germany, covering an area of 70,549 km². It is located in the south‐east of Germany, and has borders with Austria and the Czech Republic (Erawatch Rip‐Watch 2007).
Figure 1.1 ‐ Bayernʹs location within Germany and Figure 1.2 ‐ Administrative districts of Bayern Europe
Source: ERAWATCH RIP‐WATCH 2007 Source: http://www.fw‐bayern.de
Eligible areas in Bayern extend from the northern and eastern part of the federal state and altogether take up an area of 41,000 km2. Within the Structural Fund Programme 2000‐2006 this area is divided into two different eligible areas: the Objective 2 and Phasing out areas (see Figure 1.3). The Objective 2 area covered from 2000 to 2006 an area of 7,000 km2 with 770,900 inhabitants. Objective 2 regions are the districts bordering the Czech republic: i.e. Hof, Wunsiedel, Regen, Freyung‐Grafenau as well as parts of the districts Kronach, Tirschenreuth, Neustadt (Waldnaab), Schwandorf, Cham and the independent city Hof. In addition, the independent city Schweinfurt and parts of the cities Nuremberg and Fürth were from 2000 to 2006 part of the Objective 2 eligible area. These are united in the subgroup ‘Objective 2 cities’ (StMWIVT 2006b).
7 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Figure 1.3 ‐ Objective 2 eligible area in Bayern 2000 ‐ 2006
Source: Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie
Figure 1.3 shows the Objective 2 areas for 2000 to 2006 at NUTS3 level. As can seen some administrative districts, officially counted as part of the Objective 2 region did this, in terms of inhabitants and area covered, only to a limited extent (see Table 5.1): Schwandorf for instance, is counted as a district within the Objective 2 area, even though the share of Objective 2 population is less than 12%. NUTS3 districts with a
8 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
population share within the Objective 2 area of 100% of the regional population were: Freyung‐Grafenau, Regen, the independent city Hof, the district Hof, Wunsiedel and the independent city Schweinfurt.
Description of Bayern’s economic structure
Bayern as a whole, with about 12.5 million inhabitants is after North‐Rhine‐Westphalia, the second most populous federal state in Germany (ERAWATCH RIP‐WATCH 2007). In Bayern the population increased by 2.4% from 2000 to 2006, i.e. from 12,187 to 12,480 million inhabitants. This change was 0.5 percentage points higher, than in the years 1995 to 2000, where there was an increase of 1.9% (see Table 5.2). Population growth at the national level was a little bit slower (0.2%) for the period 2000 to 2006. According to international forecasts, the increase in population in Bayern is expected to continue at about 4% p.a. until the year 2030. For the same period in Germany, negative growth is expected. With regard to the population, we have to mention population ageing, as population ageing in Bayern is having considerable impact. From the year 2000 until 2006 the share of the population between 15 and 64 decreased by 1.8% (from 67.6% in the year 2000 to 66.4% in the year 2006). International forecasts assume that by 2030 this share in Bayern will fall to 60.6%. By contrast, the share of those older than 65, is changing more dynamically: from 2000 until 2006 this population group grew by 15%. The ageing of the population has a noticeable impact on the structure of the labour market in general (see Table 5.3). When analysing macro‐economic indicators for Bayern, we find that both, economic growth and GDP per capita in Bayern were higher than for Germany or the EU15 in the years 1995, 2000 and 2006. GVA figures tell a similar story. Here, the growth rate between 2000 and 2006 was 15.7%, higher than 12.8% for Germany in the same period. This growth in GVA was borne by the service sector (with an increase of 2.6% in the years 2000 to 2006), especially by the sector ‘Financial intermediation; real estate, renting and business activities’ (with an increase of 11.8% within the same period). The highest loss from 2000 to 2006 occurred in the sectors agriculture (‐28.7%), and construction ‐17.8% (Table 5.5). With respect to employment in Bayern. Thus, the employment rate from 2000 to 2006, was stagnant or only increased slightly (0.35%), while the unemployment rate increased by 62.5%. In the same period long‐term unemployment increased by 9.7%. In general one has to say that unemployment in Bayern is very low. The unemployment rate in 2006 of 6.5% was well below the German average of 10.2%. In addition, long term unemployment (despite the increasing between 2000 and 2006) remained below the German average (2006: Bayern 48.02%, Germany 56.38%). When analysing the employment rate at sectoral level in Bayern as a whole, we find that Bayern is in line with the trends for Germany and the EU15. In the sectors agriculture and industry the ratios of employment to total employment in the years 2000 to 2006 decreased (agriculture: by ‐18.6%, industry by ‐9.6%), while the employment rate in the service sector increased by 6.8% (see Table 5.4). It is also worth noting that the share of female employees at total employees is nearly 3 percentage points higher than at national level, and the share of young employees between 15 and 25 years old, is 5.3 percentage points higher than in Germany as a whole.
9 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Description of the economic structure in the Objective 2 area
Compared to Bayern, Objective 2 cities show an increase in population as well, Objective 2 border regions in contrast show a further decrease in population (since 1999: ‐4.3 percentage points). Looking at age structure within the Objective 2 border region and Objective 2 cities, we find that the share of the 0‐40 group is decreasing, while that of the 40‐65 group is increasing. This change is occurring faster in Objective 2 border regions than in the rest of Bayern. Since 1999, the share of the 0‐40 year old group has decreased, an indication of out‐migration of the border regions labour force. The rate of change (group: 0‐40) in Objective 2 cities at ‐1.7%, was relatively low compared to the rest of the eligible area. When analysing macro‐economic indicators for the Objective 2 eligible area, we find that in 2006, GDP figures for districts varied considerably. All independent cities (Hof, Fürth, Nuremberg and Schweinfurt) showed the same picture than Bayern, as they had a higher GDP than the German average of €28,200 and the EU15 average of €26,652 (in 2005). The independent city of Schweinfurt, was unique in having a GDP per capita more than twice that of the Bayern average (2006: Schweinfurt €70,600, Bayern €33,200) and which increased by 26% from the year 2000 to 2006. However, GDP per capita in Objective 2 administrative districts (Landkreise) were well below the German and the EU15 average (i.e. Freyung‐Grafenau €19,500 in Lower Bayern, Neustadt a. d. Waldnaab €18,700 in Upper Palatinate, Hof €23,900 in Upper Bayern 2006). In the Objective 2 area there prevailed in the programming period 2000 to 2006 also a clear mismatch between supply and demand of labour, aggravated particularly by the low level of prevailing skills and the high share of unemployed with only minimum education. One has to consider, that all eligible regions had a higher total employment than at the beginning of the programming period, especially Objective 2 cities gained. Alone in 2008, employment increased by 2.2% (an increase of 5.2% over 1999). Growth in the service sector was also evident: Objective 2 cities have a relatively high employment share within the service sector. While Objective 2 border regions show a relatively low employment share within the service sector, there was a definite upward trend for the period under observation (1996‐2006) (Table 5.2). Structural changes in sectors dominating regional manufacturing glass, textile, porcelain, machinery and electrical engineering, are extremely difficult to combat and the labour market remains a central weakness within the Objective 2 area (StMWIVT 2006b). The unemployment rate in the Objective 2 eligible area (data at NUTS3 level are available only for the administrative district Hof and the independent cities Fürth and Nuremberg) is significantly above the average for Bayern (6.5% in 2006), but in line with the average for the whole of Germany (10.2% in 2006). With 11.4%, Nuremberg had the highest unemployment rate in 2006 (Table 5.7). Since 1991 the level of unemployment has constantly increased, the mostly affected are young persons under 25. Before the programme period 2000‐2006, it only proved possible to reduce the rate of adolescent unemployment to a very small extent. From 2005 to 2008 (according to the annual report, 2009), the unemployment rate decreased: In 2008 the Objective 2 border region had an unemployment rate of 5.2%, lower than in 2005, but even higher than in the rest of Bayern (4.3.%). Objective 2 cities in 2008 still have the highest unemployment rate compared to the total eligible area. Thus, the Objective 2 border region is weak in terms of economic power and income earning opportunities. Three key indicators for this are the high share of manufacturing industry, the relatively low productivity, and the low skills base. In the Objective 2 cities the situation seems to be better, but compared to other urban agglomerations in the federal territory employment and income earning opportunities are relatively low as well (StMWIVT 2006b), i.e. northern districts of Upper Franconia have the highest shares of employees in the
10 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
ten weakest growing branches. The drop in employment within traditional industries such as glass, fine ceramics, textile and clothing could not be offset by the service sector. Thus, the population in this border region has decreased, while in other parts of Bayern, population has grown. To sum up, when talking about the main problems of the eligible area, we have to differentiate between the Objective 2 border region, the Phasing out area and ‘Objective 2 cities’, which are partly Objective 2 urban areas. The Objective 2 area is a structurally and economically weak region: in the North it is characterized by a traditional industrial structure; the South is more agrarian. The share of the labour force employed in industry is very high, while the share of those in services, in comparison with Bayern, with Germany, and with the EU15, is very low. Adverse effects can also be noticed with regard to the qualification and occupation structure. Low‐skilled work is common. The relatively low skill level makes it difficult for the workforce to offset the impact of redundancies in manufacturing; women are harder hit than men. The main problem of Objective 2 cities lies in the high unemployment rate, stemming from the loss of employees in manufacturing. Teenagers, foreigners and women are among the worst affected. In addition there is a high rate of employees with no training qualification. Compared to urban agglomerations in old German states, the productivity in Objective 2 cities is very low and the skills level poor (StMWIVT 2003). Apart from the above mentioned problem, there are also differences concerning districts and cities within the Objective 2 area: Upper Franconia for example, with its districts Kronach (partly within the Objective 2 area) and its independent cities Hof, the district Hof and the district Wunsiedel (with 100% of their population within the Objective 2 area), plus the area Hof‐Bayreuth‐Kulmbach, is one of the most important textile centres of Germany, while the district Wunsiedel is the centre for the German ceramic industry (porcelain for domestic and hotel use as well as technical ceramics). Despite its relative development compared with other Objective 2 areas, Upper Franconia has become particularly vulnerable as a result of past EU enlargement and the accession of the Czech Republic.
11 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
1.2 Searching for the roots of change: socioeconomic history of the region
Bayern as a prototype of a successful macroregion
Bayern as a whole provides an economic success story that contrasts to the development of its Objective 2 region. Before 1945, Bayern had very little industry, and its economic activities were mainly related to forestry (StMWIVT 2004) and to the agricultural sector, with no strong links to international markets. At that time the economic performance of Bayern was very poor, especially when compared with the industrial centres of North‐Rhine‐Westphalia (ERAWATCH RIP‐WATCH 2007). The economic weakness of Bayern before World War II, arose from comparatively low levels of industrialisation: Due to a scarcity of raw materials in the 19th century and the pre‐war period, Bayern had only a few industrial areas with electrical and mechanical engineering, such as the triad Nuremberg/Erlangen/Fürth or the axis Munich‐Augsburg. Most industries such as the glass, textile, porcelain, precision engineering, paper and pulp industries concentrated on a few small regional or industrial centres in Swabia, Franconia and northern Upper Palatinate. These industrial centres were located in the middle of structurally weak regions, with bad transport infrastructure and a lack of secondary schools, modern hospitals as well as adequate electricity and water supply. When talking about Bayern’s past, we can therefore speak about the agrarian south and the medium‐sized industrial north. After World War II, industrialization in Bayern expanded. The structural change of Bayern’s economy is reflected in the sectoral labour force employment: at the beginning of the 1950s in some administrative districts (Regierungsbezirke) almost every second person was employed in the agricultural sector whereas in 1990 only approx. 10% of the regional labour force were employed in agriculture. In 2006 this number had dropped to less than 3% (see Table 5.4), (Berger 2002, Schlemmer 2001). On the other hand the share of employees in industry, crafts and services increased. In 1970 up to 47% of the labour force was employed in industry and crafts and 39% in services. In short: in just four decades Bayern had turned from an agricultural region to a leading region for industry and services. To this day Bayern has higher growth rates than any other free state in Germany2.
Structural problems at regional level
Although Bayern as a whole shows a very favourable economic development since 1945, persistent regional disparities do remain. As the analysis of the competiveness of Bayern regions shows, the division of Bayern districts between those with “positive” and those with “negative” economic structures is nearly balanced. In terms of the development in the 1990s the economic structure of 45 out of 96 Bayern districts was better than the average in the Federal Republic, while 51 districts showed an economic structure below average. Positive
2 In terms of value added, in 1970, in Bayern as well as in Germany, about half of the value added was generated by the secondary sector. Since 1995, the tertiary sector in Bayern has grown in importance and reduced the rate of the value added in the secondary sector. In terms of gross value added in 2006 the primary sector contributed 1.0% (1.5% in 1995), the secondary sector contributed 30.5% (33% in 1995) and the tertiary sector 68.6% (65.5% in 1995). In Germany as a whole the contribution of the tertiary sector is very high. In short, sectoral structural change was especially strong in agriculture with, a relative decrease of about 50%, and in the sectoral shift from the secondary to the tertiary sector.
12 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
structural factors existed in towns which are administrative districts on their own, in Greater Munich and in most of the Upper Bayern districts; negative structural factors can be found mainly in Franconian, Swabian and Lower Bayern districts, particularly along the former German‐German and present Bayern‐Czech border (Alecke et al. 2001, p. 18). The analysis of the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) of the regions in focus is also supporting these findings: The spatial distribution of “regional” RCA values shows great differences between Bayern districts. Relatively more employees in industries with comparative advantages can be found in southern districts of Swabian, Upper Bayern and Upper Franconia, in the surroundings of Nürnberg and in most administratively independent towns. In contrast it appears that in the districts of the former border regions and along the Bayern‐Czech border relatively more employees work in comparatively disadvantaged branches, profoundly pronounced in the districts Rhön‐Grabfeld, Coburg and Lichtenfels as well as in Wunsiedel in the Fichtelgebirge and in Freyung‐Grafenau (Alecke et al. p. 20). These structural disparities can be traced back to several factors: • First, the border region next to the Czech Republic (that forms the major part of the Bayern Objective 2 region) became after 1945 a typical rural peripheral region. Because of the Iron Curtain old economic links across the border were cut off after World War II and endogenous potential for renewal remained poor. The regional skill base remained underdeveloped and knowledge infrastructures were established only recently. • Second, the region has been traditionally dominated by factor intensive low technology industry (i.e. textiles and porcelain production). First firm formations can be traced back to the industrialisation of the region. Firm settlements after the World War II profited from public subsidies, but were not in need of highly skilled workers. Thus until today the border region remained heavily depended on labour intensive industry branches that are very vulnerable to international competition. • Third, the collapse of the Warsaw treaty system and the subsequent steps towards the eastern enlargement of the European Union put additional pressure on the region. Although the opening of borders improved the regional accessibility somewhat, the presence of large wage differentials to the Czech Republic posed a threat to the regional labour intensive industries.
Regional policy responses
In the 70s and 80s, the Bayern Regional policy concentrated on structurally weak regions, with an emphasis on Bayern’s border regions. This support was provided as part of the ‘Improvement of the regional economic structure’ (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‘Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’ GA) policy and the law for promotion of the area adjacent to the Soviet Zone: East‐West‐German border regions received support in terms of regional business development, public benefits, tax reductions, better depreciation possibilities, traffic development etc. Thus, the government tried – in terms of structural policy – to reduce the disadvantage of the border region. However, Eastern Bloc isolation of the border region meant that existing infrastructure and economic arrangements were neglected and relegated to the periphery. Even despite strong Western support, economic development in the border region could not keep up with the rest of the federal territory. For the border region we have to mention, that the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1990, was a positive force for structural change. However following German reunification promotion of the East‐West‐German border region was ended and the Czech Republic was able to offer better investment incentives. Companies, which
13 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
had previously received subsidies, faced enormous difficulties. Zonal border development (Zonenrandförderung) and several branches (i.e. specialised on textile and porcelain) had no further ambition to adjust to the development in the Eastern part of Bayern.
The history of past ERDF interventions in regional structural change in the region
For about 15 years Bayern has received support from the European Regional Development Fund. Starting with the Objective 2 programme (1994‐1996) for industrial areas in decline, such as the city of Schweinfurt and the city of Hof, and the Objective 5b programme (1994‐1999) in 1994, in 1995 Bayern developed specific initiatives such as RESIDER II (to create jobs by developing industrial estates in the Amberg‐Sulzbach district), KONVER II Bayern (with the objective to improve the labour market situation in Bayern by diversifying the industrial structure in areas heavily dependent on the defence and armaments sector), and SME Bayern (to increase the economic competitiveness of SMEs). The Objective 2 programme in 1997 continued in the same vein as the funding period before (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/reg_prog/po/prog_556.htm). Behind the 2000‐2006 Objective 2 programme, Bayern was involved in the three strands of the INTERREG programme for interregional cooperation, in LEADER+ for the development of rural areas, and also in the Community initiative EQUAL for combating discrimination and inequalities on the labour market (StMWIVT 2004).
1.3 Regional structural change and globalisation issues in 20002006
1.3.1 Dimensions of structural change
In this Section, structural change in Bayern’s Objective 2 region is explored along two dimensions: • socio‐economic change and human capital, • regional production systems.
1.3.1.1 Socioeconomic change and human capital
As the conceptual model in the intermediate report shows, structural rigidities in the accumulation and change of regional human capital have negative effects on firms’ responses to globalisation challenges and on the adoption of economic innovation. An inadequate skill‐base can be due to a lack of flexibility in education, rigid labour institutions, or other socio‐institutional constraints to mobility and to the improvement of human capital. The following Section presents statistical evidence for the presence of such challenges in the Objective 2 border region.
14 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Figure 1.4 – Development of population in the Objective 2 area
Development of population in the EU‐eligible area of Bavaria (1997 – 2007) Percentage change 1999 = 0% Rest of Bavaria 5%
4% Objective 2 cities 3%
2% West Germany 1% Phasing‐Out Eligible area (total) 0%
-1%
-2%
-3% Objective‐2‐border region -4%
-5% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Bade/Bergmann (2009)
Source: Annual Update; Bade/Bergmann (2009)
We first discuss the population development in the Objective 2 region: as Figure 1.4 shows, the Objective 2 border region suffered severely from de‐population in the period from 2000 to 2006. While the rest of Bayern and the Objective 2 cities had net gains in terms of migration, the number of inhabitants in the Objective 2 border region decreased in comparison by 4.3 percentage points from 1999 to 2007. The process of depopulation increased in the period from 2000 to 2006 as the absolute numbers in Table 1.1 reveal.
Table 1.1 – Migration in Objective 2 border region and Objective 2 cities
Objective 2 border region Total Male Female
Total Foreigners Germans Total Foreigners Germans Total Foreigners Germans 2000 209 13 196 113 ‐80 193 96 93 3 2001 2,340 1,448 892 1,290 723 567 1,050 725 325 2002 648 599 49 189 96 93 459 503 ‐44 2003 ‐1,211 ‐294 ‐917 ‐997 ‐511 ‐486 ‐214 217 ‐431 2004 ‐1,255 74 ‐1,329 ‐751 ‐223 ‐528 ‐504 297 ‐801 2005 ‐1,740 357 ‐2,097 ‐839 78 ‐917 ‐901 279 ‐1,180 2006 ‐3,530 248 ‐3,778 ‐1,702 51 ‐1,753 ‐1,828 197 ‐2,025 Objective 2 cities Total Male Female
Total Foreigners Germans Total Foreigners Germans Total Foreigners Germans 2000 3,881 3,278 603 1,763 1,212 551 2,118 2,066 52 2001 5,462 3,126 2,336 2,566 1,305 1,261 2,896 1,821 1,075 2002 4,309 2,172 2,137 2,139 687 1,452 2,170 1,485 685 2003 2,044 1,785 259 530 408 122 1,514 1,377 137
15 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
2004 3,326 1,307 2,019 1,446 334 1,112 1,880 973 907 2005 6,424 1,314 5,110 2,660 167 2,493 3,764 1,147 2,617 2006 2,870 397 2,473 1,390 ‐13 1,403 1,480 410 1,070 Source: The Bayern State Office for Statistics and Data Processing
Table 1.1 also sheds light on another phenomenon: while the regional number of inhabitants with German nationality decreased dramatically, comparative figures for foreigners (i.e. migrant workers) remained remarkably stable. Since these workers usually have only low training levels, it may be concluded, that the depopulation of the border region led to a degradation of the regional skill base in the period 2000 to 2006. Second, the issue of commuters needs to be addressed: as a high level of (outbound) commuters has a negative effect on the regional labour supply, the balance of commuters of the Objective 2 border region will be examined (figures are discussed for 2006). While Objective 2 cities showed a positive commuter’s balance with an inbound commuters’ share of 41% of the regional labour force (compared to 15% outbound commuters), the Objective 2 border region exhibits a different picture. In 2006 on average 22% of the regional labour force was commuting to another region, while the share of inbound commuters accounted only for a respective value of 16%. Third it is very important to underline the poor qualification structure of employment in the Objective 2 region. As mentioned already in Section 1.1, the structure is still based on jobs with low qualification requirements. Therefore the Objective 2 border region has not only a high rate of jobs within manufacturing, stock and transport, but also a high rate of employees without vocational education. Regional structural change has led to a strong reduction in job opportunities for those with low qualifications and insufficient growth in other sectors to compensate for the loss; hence, in the Objective 2 area there is a big mismatch between labour supply and demand, and a relatively high share of unemployed persons without adequate training or education. As stressed in the mid‐term evaluation of the Objective 2 programme, the share of employees without training qualification is higher in the Objective 2 border region, while the share of employees with a higher education degree (universities and universities of applied sciences) is the lowest. The comparative advantage of the Objective 2 border region lies definitely within the sphere of intermediate qualifications (vocational education), since more than 70% of employees belong to this qualification category. For Objective 2 cities the share of graduates as a percentage of all employees is above 9%, a figure in line with that of Bayern as a whole. However, the real problem of Objective 2 cities lies in the field of employees without vocational education, an area which is strongly skewed towards employees with foreign nationality, thus also likely to be linked to specific social problems (see the case of Nuremberg, above). Conclusion 1 Due to its peripheral geographic position, the Objective 2 border region faced severe problems with socio‐ economic change and its endowment with human capital in the period from 2000 to 2006. The negative balance of commuters shows that attractive job opportunities were sought after elsewhere. The increasing trend of depopulation of the region weakened the already low regional skill base even further. Policy needs to respond to these challenges by promoting the creation of favourable conditions for the formation of new firms and the creation of regional job opportunities with improved skill levels.
16 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
1.3.1.3 Production system
As the conceptual model points out, regional production systems are embedded in the regional firm structure and labour markets. The lack of strong local supply‐chain linkages and of intra‐industry collaborative modes between large firms and SMEs may hinder the speed of new technology adoption and the spread of flexible modes of production. The following Section shows that Bayern’s border region is facing challenges of structural change in the domain of regional production systems. An analysis of the regional (NUTS3 level) employment structure of the manufacturing sector (at NACE 2 digit level) can help to identify local production systems in the Objective 2 border region. Table 1.2 presents respective figures for 2006. A first strong concentration is observable in the sector ‘Manufacture of other non‐ metallic mineral products’ (i.e. ceramics) in the districts Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge (53%) and Tirschenreuth (33%). ‘Manufacturing of textiles’ is concentrated in the district (25%) and the city of Hof (34%). These local production systems also show highly concentrated firm structures, both sectors are dominated by a small number of firms. For example, the firms in the ceramic industry are: BHS tabletop AG, Rosenthal GmbH and NETZSCH‐Feinmahltechnik GmbH in Selb, ARZBERG‐PORZELLAN GmbH in Schirnding and CeramTec AG in Marktredwitz (all based in the district Wunsiedel). The dominating companies in the textile sector are: Textilgruppe Hof AG (in the city of Hof), Sandler AG in Schwarzenbach a.d.Saale, eswegee Vliesstoff GmbH in Hof (based in the district Hof). From 2002 to 2006 the share of employees in these two sectors decreased compared with all other employees in manufacturing industries (ceramics: Tirschenreuth ‐17.7%, Wunsiedel ‐6.7% ∆ 2002‐2006; textile: Hof city ‐ 9.6% and Hof district ‐11% ∆ 2002‐2006).
17 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Table 1.2 – Employment by sector (% of employment in the manufacturing industry) in Objective 2 districts and cities in 2006
Employment by sector Neustadt Freyung‐ Fürth, Hof, Nurmberg, Schwan‐ Schwein‐ Tirschen‐ Wunsiedel i. Indicator Cham Hof Kronach a.d. Regen Bayern Grafenau city city city dorf furt, city reuth Fichtelgebirge Waldnaab Mfr. of wearing apparel; 3.63 ‐ ‐ 15.58 10.09 1.40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.02 dressing; dyeing of furniture Mfr. of food products and 6.04 8.46 18.64 15.72 2.28 5.99 5.35 7.64 14.99 13.34 1.37 17.84 9.33 8.49 beverages Other mining and quarrying ‐ 0.73 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.36 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.48 ‐ 1.79 ‐ 0.48 Mfr. of other non‐metallic 6.59 25.23 6.71 ‐ 2.11 26.04 10.74 0.20 23.74 15.50 ‐ 32.76 52.60 4.16 mineral products Mfr. of chemicals and ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.75 ‐ ‐ 5.18 ‐ 3.39 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.25 chemical products Mfr. of motor vehicles, trailers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 17.36 14.45 ‐ 13.70 ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.60 and semi‐trailers Mfr. of rubber and plastic 6.42 33.97 5.15 3.54 37.20 27.54 5.19 1.14 28.26 9.77 ‐ 9.22 6.19 5.86 products Mfr. of furniture; 3.36 ‐ 8.13 ‐ ‐ 7.80 1.35 3.52 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.31 ‐ 3.46 manufacturing n.e.c. Mfr. of electrical machinery 32.59 9.61 ‐ 4.39 ‐ 9.05 5.20 22.14 5.32 4.59 ‐ ‐ ‐ 9.05 and apparatus n.e.c. Mfr. of fabricated metal products, except machinery 11.60 15.45 14.67 ‐ 9.89 4.23 14.77 3.64 15.84 18.67 ‐ 7.10 13.82 6.64 and equipment Mfr. of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of 2.46 2.71 ‐ ‐ 0.64 2.87 ‐ ‐ 6.83 1.20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.31 articles of straw and plaiting materials Tanning, dressing of leather; 1.04 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.63 manufacture of luggage Mfr. of machinery and 22.65 3.83 24.36 25.97 4.49 12.74 22.31 14.51 5.01 10.84 90.16 17.74 11.69 16.95 equipment n.e.c.
18 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Employment by sector Neustadt Freyung‐ Fürth, Hof, Nurmberg, Schwan‐ Schwein‐ Tirschen‐ Wunsiedel i. Indicator Cham Hof Kronach a.d. Regen Bayern Grafenau city city city dorf furt, city reuth Fichtelgebirge Waldnaab Mfr. of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches ‐ ‐ 14.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.54 ‐ ‐ 8.47 ‐ ‐ 4.14 and clocks Mfr. of basic metals ‐ ‐ 4.52 ‐ ‐ ‐ 17.73 2.72 ‐ 2.68 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.09 Mfr. of pulp, paper and paper ‐ ‐ 3.37 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.63 ‐ ‐ ‐ 8.25 ‐ 1.78 products Mfr. of radio, television and 2.47 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6.07 ‐ 1.54 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3.99 communication equipment Mfr. of other transport ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.29 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2.42 equipment Mfr. of textiles 1.15 ‐ ‐ 34.81 25.87 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4.72 1.40 Publishing, printing, reproduction of recorded ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1.20 1.98 ‐ 10.34 ‐ 4.30 ‐ ‐ 1.66 4.06 media Source: The Bayern State Office for Statistics and Data Processing
19 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
A third sector with low technology intensity and a strongly visible regional production system is the ‘manufacturing of rubber and plastic products’. This industry employs a high share of the employees in the districts Freyung‐Grafenau (34%), Hof (37%), Kronach (27%), and Regen (28%). However, compared to the textile and ceramics industry, average rates of change of employment for 2002‐2006 show positive figures (Freyung‐Grafenau +34.9%, Hof +9.4%, Kronach +7.7% and Regen +4.3%). Conclusion 2 The Objective 2 border region is still dominated by regional production systems in the sectors of ceramics and textiles. These are mainly concentrated in the districts of Wunsiedel, Hof and the city of Hof. The market dominance of a few large firms has hampered the adaptation of the sectors to international market and technology trends in the period from 2000 to 2006. As a result both sectors declined in terms of employment compared to other branches. Policy needs (i) to develop interventions that are addressing the stimulation of regional supply chains and (ii) to foster technology adoption by regional firms.
1.3.2 Understanding the geography of structural change
Over the past few decades, Bayern has managed to catch up with other regions in Germany and Europe. It did not have to deal with the burden of traditional, industrial monolithic structures, but was able to concentrate on promoting promising industries (ERAWATCH RIP‐WATCH 2007). It transformed itself into a highly modern, industrial and service location. Regarding the sectoral distribution of economic activities, in 1970, in Bayern as well as in Germany, about half of the value added was generated by the secondary sector. Since 1995, the tertiary sector in Bayern has grown in importance and reduced the rate of the value added in the secondary sector. Hence, while northern Bayern used to be more industrialised, high‐tech industries and service providers have mainly set up business in the southern part of the federal state in the more recent past. The most important sectors in the processing industry today are mechanical engineering and automobile construction, and also the electrical and chemical industries. In addition to large international companies, such as Siemens, BMW, Audi, EADS, Adidas, and MAN, the Bayern economy comprises a large number of small and medium‐sized enterprises in the industrial, trade and service sectors (StMWIVT 2004), as well as a number of global players (http://www.invest‐in‐bavaria.de/en/bavarias‐clusters/). When discussing the whole of the Objective 2 area, we can find that in terms of gross value‐added the picture in the Objective 2 border region compared with Objective 2 cities is similar. Between the years 1996 and 2006 the service sector gained in importance in nearly all districts. In the year 2006, in terms of gross value added, the contribution of the service sector is higher than that of any other sector. The sole exception is the independent city Schweinfurt, where the share of value added in the service sector decreased (2000: 53%, 2006: 46.9%). Schweinfurt is the only city which does not conform to trends in other Objective 2 areas, as the secondary sector played a more important role than the service sector here in 2006 (2006: secondary sector: 52.9%; service sector 46.9%). Structural changes in sectors dominating regional manufacturing such as glass, textile, porcelain, machinery and electrical engineering, are extremely difficult to bring about. The labour market remains a central weakness within the Objective 2 area (StMWIVT 2006b).
20 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
2. Regional policy 20002006: strategy and objectives
2.1 Regional policy mix for structural change and globalisation
The following Section gives an overview of the policy mix of the Objective 2 programme as well as the regional/national policy programmes and strategic documents. In particular the embedding of the SDP and its interventions into the highly developed regional and national policy framework will be presented and discussed. Regional and national framework The SPD for Bayern is directly linked to the Bayern Regional Development Plan (RDP), which forms the basic strategy for a sustainable economic, environmental and social development in all regions of Bayern. For the Objective 2 programme it is important to highlight which dimensions following the overall strategic priorities of the RDP: i.e. the balanced development of Bayern and its subspaces. This comprises ensuring structural diversity, a rich cultural and natural heritage, strengthening of spatial and historical identities as well as the formation of decentralised spatial and settlement structures. In addition, the economy of Bayern should be maintained and strengthened so as to meet the heightened competition within united Germany, the EC‐international market and the European economic area, and to adapt to new possibilities of economic development in eastern‐ and southeast European markets (especially relevant for border regions near the Czech Republic and neighbouring regions of Saxony and Thuringia). Another policy aim is to ensure the competitiveness of Bayern companies against the background of the opening of the Eastern market and to make the location of manufacturing, handcrafts and the services more attractive. This requires support of structural change, by focusing on the use of new technologies (spatial and sectoral) and reinforcing the medium‐sized economic structure. In summary it can be said, that the Objective 2 programme takes RDP objectives fully into account. A number of other Bayern or Federal‐Länder‐programmes, also need to be brought into agreement with the Objective 2 programme. The community task ‘Improvement of the regional economic structure’ (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‘Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’ GA), is very important in this respect since it specifically serves to promote structurally weak regions. The main priority here is the support of regional investment activities so as to increase the income of employees in ‘backward’ regions. Within the Objective 2 programme (under Measure 2.1), ERDF is used to co finance the community investment task. It provides improved funding conditions and aims to enlarge the number of beneficiaries. Another programme interacting with the Objective 2 programme is the initiative ‘Social City’ (Soziale Stadt), aimed at urban problem areas, it pursues programmes for urban regeneration and revitalisation. As the same priorities are on the agenda of the Objective 2 programme under priority 5 (see Table 2.1), close correlation between the Objective 2 programme and Social City is given. At regional level these two programmes are often closely affiliated (i.e. in Nuremberg/Fürth). There are a lot of other important programmes interacting with the Objective 2 programme, for example the ‘Bayern High‐Tech Offensive’, ‘Future Offensive Bayern III’ – standard programme, the ‘12‐point programme Nuremberg/Fürth/Erlangen/Schwabach’, the Initiative for Upper Franconia, e‐on‐Standorte, the
21 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
‘Improvement Programme for Eastern Bayern’ (Ertüchtigungsprogramm Ostbayern),and the Business Development Programme Eastern Bayern. Some programmes pursue more regional goals, while others are more functionally oriented, but nonetheless of interest for Objective 2. One of these programmes is the ‘Employment Package Bayern’, which tries to create a socially‐fair, economically and innovation‐friendly climate in Bayern and to support priorities within the Objective 2 programme, especially the cross‐cutting themes ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘information society’. Another programme is the ‘Environmental Pact of Bayern’, which aims at reinforcing environmental protection. The pact supports specific measures under priority 2 and 3, as well as the cross‐ cutting theme environment (StMWIVT 2006a).
22 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Table 2.1 ‐ ERDF intervention in the regional (national) policy context
ERDF – Objective 2 / Phasing‐Out Programmes beyond the SPD Priorities Cross cutting themes Name of the programme Promotion of Research, Liveable urban Promotion competitiveness of technology, Promotion structures and Equal Information of infra‐ companies / information/ Environment Programmes with primarily regional objectives of tourism productive rural Opportunities society structures sustainable competency areas employment development Common task Improvement of the regional economic X X X X structure 2000 ‐ 2003 Action programme Bayern Bayern High‐Tech X X X X Offensive (HTO‐Regional concepts ‐ pillar 2) Future Offensive Bayern III – standard programme X Social City X X X 12‐point programme X X X X X Nuremberg/Fürth/Erlangen/Schwabach Initiative for Upper Franconia X X X X X X e‐on‐Standorte X Improvement Programme for Eastern Bayern X Business development programme Eastern Bayern X X Initiatives primarily functionally oriented Bayern High‐Tech Offensive (HTO‐Regional concepts X X X X ‐ pillar 1, 3) Employment package Bayern X X X X Environmental Pact of Bayern X X X Source: Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2006a)
23 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
2.2 Overall strategy of the 20002006 Objective 2 programme
The overall aim of the Objective 2 programme is the creation and preservation of competitive jobs and the strengthening of the labour market. This entails identification and assessment of existing weaknesses in the eligible area. Target programmes are then specifically designed to address and correct regional or labour market problems. Specific aims include: • Development of regions bordering on the Czech Republic and the reduction of location –specific disadvantages. • Strengthening of economic capacity in rural areas and diversification of the economic structure by generating jobs in the secondary and tertiary sector. • Mitigation of employment reduction in industry within urban problem areas and the generation of better economic conditions. • Improvement of regional labour markets especially by reducing unemployment and promoting employee upgrading and flexibility.
There are eight underlying themes in the Objective 2 programme: • strengthening and maintaining economic power, • ensuring company competitiveness, • increasing locational attractiveness for manufacturing, handcrafts, and services, • supporting necessary economic structural change, • focusing on the use of new technologies, • supporting the regional and local developments, • strengthening and maintaining medium‐sized economic structures and • developing human resources with regard to economic and social change (StMWIVT 2006a).
Table 2.2 ‐ Overview of the Objective 2 programme
Budget (Euros, and % of Brief description and objective total budget) 31st December 2008 Total budget: The overall objective of the Objective 2 programme is the creation and Overall programme €2,720,516,895 preservation of competitive jobs and the strengthening of the labour market. ERDF: €499,624,351 An important task of regional structural policy is to create modern and Total budget: €284,492,076 Priority 1: Adding to effective infrastructure for economic activities. Therefore priority 1 focuses on ERDF: €130,520,000 infrastructure facilities adding infrastructure facilities. It involves industrial development as well the 10.5% of total budget building of transport infrastructure. Economic competitiveness must be improved through the promotion of Total budget: Priority 2: Competitive productive investments, and targeted increases in productivity must be €1,814,458,265 businesses and jobs with obtained through co‐operation, counselling and networking of SMEs and ERDF: €140,644,999 a future setting up services for businesses. It is intended to provide support for the 66.7% of total budget businesses’ own potential for modernisation and competitiveness. Priority 3: Research, The thrust of this priority lies in the promotion of innovation and the transfer Total budget: €188,502,750 technology, information of technology and knowledge in businesses and in measures to provide ERDF: €55,821,306 and development of training and further qualification. It also involves using new technologies for 6.9% of total budget competence rehabilitating abandoned waste dumps, for the regulation of gaseous
24 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Budget (Euros, and % of Brief description and objective total budget) 31st December 2008 emissions and environmental protection. Priority 4 focuses on the expansion of the tourist industry to maintain and Total budget: €178,605,808 Priority 4: Promotion of create new jobs within the service sector in structurally weak, but culturally ERDF: €78,416,852 tourism and scenically attractive regions. 6.6% of total budget Priority 5: Adequate The aim of priority 5 is the creation of attractive urban structures and Total budget: €243,622,324 urban structures and productive rural areas. In ERDF terms the focus is on centres in urban ERDF: €90,838,000 productive rural areas agglomerations and in rural areas. 9% of total budget The technical assistance objective serves to guarantee the efficient use of Total budget: €10,835,672 structural funds and to encourage the monitoring and evaluation of measures Technical assistance ERDF: €3,383,194 within the SPD, especially in terms of increasing the efficiency on structural 0.4% of total budget interventions and their impacts of structural problems. Source: Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2006a)
Complementarities of ESF intervention with respect to structural change and globalisation
Apart from the general measures mentioned above, the development of human resources and labour market policy are also highly significant at regional level. The main goals here include the prevention of unemployment, the improvement of the labour market, infrastructure provision for employment opportunities and means of earning a living, the expansion of labour market supply improved possibilities for increasing employment and employment stability in the face of economic and social change in the Objective 2 region. Regional adjustment restructuring and diversification need to be accompanied by effective measures. As realization of the programme objectives is related to labour resources, the promotion of labour markets and employment plays an important role in the overall strategy of the Objective 2 area. The use of ESF within Objective 2 is characterized by: • a mixture of approaches covering labour market policy, structural, economic and Regional policy • high concentration on regional specific situations, problems and needs • development of local and regional competencies and potentials • an extension and use of active labour promotion (real job creation not mere financing of unemployment) • complementary adjustment of ERDF activities. The Proposed measures are carefully designed to match the diverse nature of regional conditions and to have maximum impact on labour markets and employment. They support the realization of overlapping development aims, and provide a coherent, integrated structure within the overall strategy of the Objective 2 area (StMWIVT 2006a).
2.3 Selected fields of intervention and measures
2.3.1 Selection logic
This part of the present case study analyses the extent to which the selected Measures (2.2, 2.3 and 3.3) supported the structural change that took place in the Objective 2 eligible area and enabled firms and institutions to face the challenges of the globalisation.
25 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
As the programme of ERDF was in line with Bayern development strategies, and the measures directly targeted the issues of structural change and globalisation, one can consider all measures as relevant in a wider sense. Focusing on the economic development of the Objective 2 area during the last decades, this case study concentrates on two dimensions. Based on the analysis in Section 1.3., the following Section focuses on the dimensions of socio‐economic change and human capital, as well as on changes in the organisation of the production systems and service delivery. These two dimensions act as a filter to select measures that were forming policy responses to the problems described in Section 1.3. A short screening of the measures presented in the ERDF programming document was carried out in order to identify the measures which were likely to have the greatest impact in addressing the issues raised by structural change and globalisation. The measures, ranked in order of importance, are listed in Table 2.3. In total there were 9 measures in the SPD that are related to issues of structural change. Interventions ranged from the promotion of competitiveness of SMEs to the development of traffic infrastructure, tourism and the rehabilitation of urban problem areas and revitalisation of inner‐city fallows.
26 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Table 2.3 ‐ Measures relevant to structural change and globalisation: main features
Financial weight Relevance to Type of Structural change structural Measures Brief description (including date of implementation) % tot. % N° of projects / beneficiaries Intervention/ % dimension change and budget expend. share globalisation ‘Promotion of business related infrastructure’. 1.1.a: Number of projects: 61, take‐up 3 / 6% Regional This measure concentrates on the establishment and rate 76‐87%. specialisation, development of industrial and trade locations 1.1.b: Number of supported projects: 1.1 7.2 108 315 / 2% Socio‐economic ** (accompanied by settlements of SMEs, providing new 5, take‐up rate 167‐250%. change and human jobs, involvement of trade and industrial wasteland…) 1.1.c: Number of plans: 13, take‐up 34 / 92% capital especially in the Phasing out area. rate 13‐14%. ‘Smaller transport infrastructures’. Through road building within the Objective 2 and Phasing out area, the accessibility and the economical 1.2: km realised roads: 52.7, take‐up Regional 1.2 3.3 110 312 ** condition regarding location should be improved. Hence rate 70‐81%. specialisation the deficit in development should be removed and the competitiveness should be increased. 161 / 73% 2.1.a: Number of supported projects: (together with ‘Promotion of productive investments’. 1,800, take‐up rate 132‐156%. meas. 2.1.b) This measure concentrates on eligible investments, 151, 161 / 73% Regional 2.1 which are: the construction of a commercial unit, the 63.8 128 2.1.b: Number of supported projects: ** (together with specialisation extension of a commercial unit and the change or 13, take‐up rate 80‐171%. meas. 2.1.a) rationalisation / modernisation of a commercial unit. 2.1.c: Number of supported projects: 161 / 27% 6.387, take‐up rate 116‐142%. ‘Promotion of enhanced competitiveness of SMEs’. 2.2.a. 163 / 86% The Measure 2.2 includes 8 sub‐measures dealing with (together with internationalisation and outward orientation of SMEs 2.2.a, 2.2.b, 2.2.c, 2.2.d: Number of meas. 2.2.f, g, h) (support of ‘Europeanization’ and internationalisation of projects: 63, take‐up rate 315‐420%. 2.2.b n.a. Innovation potential, 2.2 0.4 105 *** Bayern SMEs), by individual consultation, coaching etc. 2.2.c n.a. Production system to support the SME in activities on foreign markets 2.2.d n.a. (cooperation, finance of participation in projects for 2.2.e: Number of funding contracts: 161 / 14% international tenders etc.). 26, take‐up rate 65%.
27 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Financial weight Relevance to Type of Structural change structural Measures Brief description (including date of implementation) % tot. % N° of projects / beneficiaries Intervention/ % dimension change and budget expend. share globalisation 2.2.f: Number of working groups: 0, take‐up rate 0%. 163 / 86% Number of intensive seminars: 3, (together with take‐up rate 6‐7%. meas. 2.2.a, g, h) Number of consultations: 395, take‐up rate 99‐113%. 2.2.g: Number of consultations (consultation days): 260, take‐up rate 163 / 86% 87%. (together with Number of public events: 0, take‐up meas. 2.2.a, f, h) rate 0%. 163 / 86% 2.2.h: Number of consultations: 0, (together with take‐up rate 0%. meas. 2.2.a, f, g) 2.3.a: Area m²: 3,126, take‐up rate 130‐ 164 / 9% ‘Service centres for enterprises’. 261%, Number of projects: 1, take‐up (together with This measure should help to increase the attractiveness rate 50‐100%. meas. 2.3.c) of the site by provision of business related services. In 2.3.b: Number of supported Innovation potential, 2.3 that sense the formation and extension of business 1.6 121 167 / 91% *** educational providers: 232 Production system incubators is supported. Another measure deals with the 164 / 9% development and modernisation of educational 2.3.c: Number of institutions: 1, take‐ (together with institutions for industry, trade and handcrafts. up rate 33‐50%. meas. 2.3.a) ‘Promotion of Innovation and R&D at firm level’. 3.3.a, 3.3.b, 3.3.c, 3.3.d: Number of 182 This measure supports the use of new technologies in projects: 5, take‐up rate 28‐56%. companies. Single projects, as well as the cooperation of 3.3.e: Number of supported 3.3 companies and research institutions are supported. The 1 175 Production system *** companies: 22, take‐up rate 117‐233%. measure focuses on information, and communication 182 Number of supported projects: 1, technology, micro‐systems and the development of new take‐up rate 20‐33%. materials. ‘Collaborative R&D, Technology and Knowledge 182 / 95% 3.4.a: Area: 1,299 m², take‐up rate 32‐ 3.4 Transfer’. 1.2 82 (together with Innovation potential ** 43%. This measure concentrates on the promotion of applied meas. 3.4.b)
28 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Financial weight Relevance to Type of Structural change structural Measures Brief description (including date of implementation) % tot. % N° of projects / beneficiaries Intervention/ % dimension change and budget expend. share globalisation research in regional research institutions (competence 182 / 95% 3.4.b: Area: 1,299 m², take‐up rate 32‐ centres), on the extension of technology transfer centres (together with 43%. and the development of a virtual university in Hof. The meas. 3.4.a) main target is the extension of technological competences in SMEs, especially the application‐oriented realization 3.4.c: Building of workrooms and 323 of research outcomes, the strengthening of cooperation installation rooms: 224 m², take‐up 183 / 5% between the scientific and business community and the rate 102‐140%. development of regional networks. ‘Tourism‐related infrastructures’. 4.1.a: Number of projects: 53, take‐up 171 The Measure 4.1. concentrates on the establishment of rate 66‐88%. Regional 4.1 3.8 122 * tourist infrastructure, especially the strengthening of 4.1.b: Additional area: 7,378 m², take‐ specialisation 171 cultural infrastructures. up rate 189%. 352 / 96% 5.1.a: Rehabilitation of inner‐local ‘Rehabilitation of urban problem areas and revitalisation (together with areas: 125,817 m², take‐up rate 419%. of inner‐city fallows’. meas. 5.1.b) Socio‐economic The measure is concentrated on the Objective 2 area and 352 / 96% 5.1 3.3 96 5.1.b: Rehabilitation of inner‐local change and human * supports the upgrading of urban building, social, (together with areas: 589,970 m², take‐up rate 184%. capital economic and ecological fundamentals in urban problem meas. 5.1.a) areas. 5.1.c: Number of supported projects: 351 / 4% 0, take‐up rate 0%. ‘Restorations of urban buildings in cities and in the rural 5.2: Rehabilitation and reorganisation areas and the revitalisation of inner‐city developments’. of inner‐local areas: 21,652 m², take‐ 1306 / 80% This measure deals with the establishment of hearts (of up rate 144%. Socio‐economic 351 / 10% 5.2 cities / villages) as a central living, service and shopping 2.9 100 change and human * 5.2: Rehabilitation and reorganisation 352 / 10% areas and the establishment of infrastructural capital of inner‐local areas: 609,572 m², take‐ requirements for the development of non‐agricultural up rate 254%. branches. ‘Preparation and realization of regional development 5.3: Number of development 411 concepts’. concepts: 11, take‐up rate 138‐183%. Regional 5.3 The Measure 5.3. focuses on the establishment of 0.3 90 5.3: Number of supported * specialisation subspace development concepts, regional management management‐ and marketing projects: 411 tasks, as well as on evaluating their efficiency. 163, take‐up rate 1087‐1358%.
29 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
* Legend: ∗ marginally relevant, ∗∗ relevant, ∗∗∗ extremely relevant Key to interpretation type: 3 Basic infrastructure 34 Environmental infrastructure (including water) 151 Investment in physical capital (plant and equipment, co financing of state aid) 161 Investment in physical capital (plant and equipment, co financing of state aid) 163 Enterprise advisory service (information, business planning, consultancy services, marketing, management, design, internationalisation, exporting, environmental management, purchase of technology) 164 Shared business services (business estates, incubator units, stimulation, promotional services, networking, conferences, trade fairs) 167 SME‐ and craft‐specific vocational training 171 Physical investment (information centres, tourist accommodation, catering, facilities) 182 Innovation and technology transfers, establishment of networks and partnerships between businesses and/or research institutes 183 RTDI Infrastructure 312 Roads 315 Ports 323 Services and applications for the citizen (health, administration, education) 351 Upgrading and rehabilitation of industrial and military sites 352 Rehabilitation of urban areas 411 Technical assistance and innovative actions (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF, FIFG) preparation, implementation, monitoring, publicity 1306 Renovation and development of villages and protection and conservation of the rural heritage
30 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
It seems that there was a general trend to channel ERDF funds towards global complex multi‐task, multi‐ funder measures. These measures addressed a large number of challenges regarding structural change and globalisation issues. In particular three measures were addressing the policy needs identified in Section 1.3: • Priority 2: Competitive businesses and jobs with a future − Measure 2.2: this measure explicitly relates to the eastward enlargement and to international competition. This is especially true for the Sub‐measure 2.2.h ‘Information and consultation’ of medium‐sized companies ‐ regarding technological advancement in respect of the eastward enlargement ‐ in the region of Eastern Bayern bordering the Czech Republic. Indirectly, the eastward enlargement is also present in other sub‐measures, i.e. consultations on foreign trade (2.2.a‐c). This measure addresses the weak integration of SMEs in regional co‐operations of production processes (i.e. challenges stemming from regional production systems). Indirectly it also addresses the peripheral geographic situation of the Objective 2 border region. − Measure 2.3: this measure aims at the promotion of more future‐oriented small and medium sized companies across a broad and diverse spectrum of branches. This should be achieved by (i) the formation and expansion of business incubators and the provision of relevant services and (ii) modernisation institutions by investing in vocational training in industry, trade, handcraft, and technology centres. The measure addresses the low number of business start‐ups in the Objective 2 eligible area. In doing so both policy challenges that have been identified in Section 1.3 are addressed. However particular emphasis is put on challenges arising from the existing problems with regional production systems. • Priority 3: Research, technology, information and development of competence − Measure 3.3: this measure focuses on the use of new technologies in companies. It supports individual projects as well as forms of cooperation between companies and research institutions. The essential focus is on information and communication technology, micro‐systems and the development of new materials. The measure concentrates on the launch of new market products and procedures (StMWIVT 2006a). The measure addresses policy challenges that arise from inflexible regional production systems from an innovation system perspective. Respective sub‐measures provide funding in order to enable business start‐ups as well as the development of new products and production processes in promising technologies. Indirect effects could be expected in the domain of socio‐economic change, i.e. the creation of new jobs as well saving existing ones. This should discourage the emigration of people from the region.
31 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
2.3.2 Detailed description of the selected measures
In this Section we give a detailed description of the selected measures.
Measure 2.2 ‘Promotion of enhanced competitiveness of SMEs’
In order to strengthen the Europeanization and internationalisation of SMEs, their know‐how in foreign trade, international experience and specific market knowledge is to be improved via individual consultation, coaching, participation in fairs as well as through central contact points, information services, events and training measures. The small firm sector is to be supported in new activities on foreign markets, especially in the formation of foreign trade cooperation, or in participation in big projects in foreign countries, e. g. help with tenders and financing etc. The aim here is to strengthen the foreign competence of Bayern firms by helping eligible SMEs to cooperate and gain access to difficult external markets. By the promotion of SME‐cooperation with the aim to access difficult third markets outside the domestic market, the foreign economic competitiveness of Bayern SMEs from eligible areas should be strengthened. It is foreseen, that companies will get a price‐reduction for services such as external (process) consulting, coaching, to help increase SME output via technology and innovation management, or for information and consultation service in the region of Eastern Bayern bordering the Czech Republic aiming at further technological development with regard to the EU‐enlargement.
Measure 2.3 ‘Service centres for enterprises’
The formation and expansion of business incubators and the provision of relevant services is intended to promote more future‐oriented small and medium sized companies across a broad and diverse spectrum of branches. Business incubators are to provide suitable facilities and services for entrepreneurs and young companies for a limited duration (5 to 8 years). The formation, modernisation and equipping of institutions in vocational education in industry, trade, handcraft, and technology centres, is intended to help SMEs and their employees attain and upgrade essential educational skills. Rapid technical development and extensive changes in the employment structure, mean that small and medium‐sized businesses depend heavily on institutions of vocational education. Other types of service‐oriented units, not defined as business incubators, but nevertheless having some clear correspondence with the programme objectives, may also receive support (e. g. the creation of institutions, which act as a cooperation platform for regional companies). Here, the measure primarily concentrates on start‐up financing of regional managements (e. g. the logistics agency in Hof). Promotion focussed on local authority districts, official chambers (e. g. the Chamber of Crafts) and similar institutions.
Measure 3.3 ‘Promotion of Innovation and R&D at firm’s level’
Here, company specific as well cross‐company projects are financed. The aim is to develop new technologies, processes and materials, and above all to promote their application on various markets, e. g. Microsystems.
32 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
The underlying software and information technology is also a target of support. The overall aim is to enhance company competiveness.
The measure covers the following fields: • New methods of software‐engineering • New materials and processes in data and knowledge management • User‐friendly human‐computer interaction • Materials and applications for real‐time systems and embedded systems • New forms of business communication • Telecommunication systems and services • Components for communication technology • Components, systems and applications for mobile communication. Companies, bigger than SMEs, are also allowed to participate.
33 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
34 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
3 Effects of the selected ERDF measures on the process of structural change and adaptation to globalisation
3.1 Assessment of the structural and socioeconomic effects
To gain an overview, first a short general view of the relevant indicators of the whole ERDF‐programme will be given. Fund payment is one of the current interests with regard to total eligible funds and the contained EU Funds with them: Table 3.1 illustrates the respective payments (by priorities and measures) made until 31.12.2008. Actual payment for 2008 was higher than planned. Within the whole programme period about €2.7 billion were paid out. This was 21% higher than planned. The EU‐fund share measured € 565.77 million, distributed to 10,424 ERDP and ESF projects. Successful projects are described below. Changes in employment are important in assessing economic development in an eligible area. According to the annual report for 2009, in the year 2008, all regions had higher total employment than at the beginning of the programming period. In 1999 the number of total employment of Objective 2 border regions was 4.6% higher than in 2008. Although there was an increase of employment up to 2005, this still did not reach the level of 1999. Objective 2 cities clearly gained. Alone in 2008, employment increased by 2.2% (an increase of 5.2% over 1999). Growth in the service sector was also evident: Objective 2 cities have a relatively high employment share within the service sector. While Objective 2 border regions show a relatively low employment share within the service sector, there was a definite upward trend for the period under observation (1996‐2006) (Table 5.7). The unemployment rate (according to the annual report, 2009) decreased from 2005 to 2008. In 2008 the Objective 2 border region had an unemployment rate of 5.2%, lower than in 2005, but even higher than in the rest of Bayern (4.3.%). Objective 2 cities in 2008 still have the highest unemployment rate compared to the total eligible area. In 2008 they had an unemployment rate of 8.8%, a decrease of only 2 percentage points since 2007. Regional employment potential, is demonstrated by means of population development and age structure. Objective 2 cities show an increase in population and Objective 2 border regions show a further decrease in population (since 1999: ‐4.3%). Looking at age structure we find that the most relevant groups in terms of gainful employment are the age groups 15‐40 and 40‐65 years. Together these two groups comprise a rate of about 65% of the overall population. Considering the rate of change from 1999, a clear demographic change is visible. The share of the 0‐40 group is decreasing, while that of the 40‐65 group is increasing (see Section 1.1). This change is occurring faster in Objective 2 border regions than in the rest of Bayern. Since 1999, the share of the 0‐40 year old group has decreased by 8.1%, an indication of out‐migration of the border regions labour force. The rate of change (group: 0‐40) in Objective 2 cities at ‐1.7%, was relatively low compared to the rest of the eligible area. Here the share of 0‐15 year‐old people (12.7% in 2008) was very low. In general, Objective 2 regions and cities benefit from the high decrease of the unemployment rate. This decrease is, due to general economic development and additional social insurance contributions for employees (StMWIVT 2009). In addition to general indicators (on employment, labour markets etc.), programme‐specific indicators on R&D, business incubators, etc. are also analysed in Bayern’s annual reports for the Objective 2 programme.
35 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
In the year 2007 a clear growth in R&D personnel is recognizable, a trend noticeable since 1999. Since 1999, in the Phasing out area and, in Objective 2 cities, the share of R&D personnel has increased by 20%. In the same period the share in Objective 2 border regions grew by only 14%, (and only 9% in 2007) Despite the constant growth in the border region, the overall share of R&D personnel in 2007 was very low (1.1%). In Objective 2 cities, the corresponding figure was 3.8%, quite similar to that for the rest of Bayern. The establishment of business incubators is an instrument to increase new company formation, e.g. by preventing migration. With regard to the number of start‐up companies, the year 2008 was quite successful. Altogether 80 start‐ups, half in Objective 2 regions took place (increase of 48% from the last annual report). (StMWIVT 2009). How ERDF funds are allocated across priorities and measures is described below: Table 3.1 gives an overview of payment by priorities and measures at the time of 31.12.2008. Priority 2 ‘Competitive businesses and jobs with a future’ had the highest number of projects within the whole programme (8,878). The highest take up rate for all projects (98%) can be found under Measure 2.1 ‘Promotion of productive investments’. Concerning Priority 2, by 31. 12. 2008, a considerable proportion of co‐financed project costs were committed, according to the programme planning. Even in 2007, all ERDF measures within this priority achieved higher payout rates than planned (> 100%). This increased further could in 2008. For Measure 2.2, 105% of the planned support was paid out, for Measure 2.3. the figure was 121% (Table 3.1). Within the Objective 2 programme, Priority 1 and Priority 2 were allocated the 2 highest fund shares. Priority 3 ‘Research, technology, information and development of competence’ has the smallest share of funds available. At the level of specific measures, the picture is quite heterogeneous. Compared to 2007, total expenditures remained similar. This is especially true for Measure 3.2 ‘Land use, polluted areas’ and for Measure 3.4 ‘Collaborative R&D, Technology and Knowledge Transfer’. In 2007, only 72% and 53% respectively, of budgeted support was paid out. In the year 2008, the figure was more than 80% for both measures. For a detailed description of selected measures, see Section 3.1.1.
Table 3.1 ‐ Overview of allocations/expenditures as of 31st December 2008
Finance plan in € Budget at 31.12.2008 Ratio of Number Ratio to total EU‐grants Fund of Planned total Planned EU‐ Total expenditure to EU‐grants to EU‐ projects funds funds expenditure total funds funds Priority 2 8,878 1,426,879,255 152,744,999 1,814,458,265 166,277,432 127% 109% Measure 2.2 ERDF 60 11,064,000 5,532,000 11,604,365 4,703,896 105% 85% Measure 2.3 ERDF 114 36,618,000 18,309,000 44,218,874 20,238,360 121% 111% Priority 3 433 137,850,615 68,925,306 188,502,750 63,281,996 137% 92% Measure 3.3 ERDF 32 15,837,001 7,918,500 27,753,000 8,735,534 175% 110% Source: Annual report 2008
3.1.1 Performance of selected measures
This Section proposes the performance of the measures selected in Section 2.3 in promoting structural change and enabling adaptation to globalisation.
36 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Priority 2, ‘Competitive businesses and jobs with a future’ generated 84,490 new or secured jobs, making it, in quantitative terms, the most successful priority. The planned number of established and secured jobs in the whole SPD, was only on seventh of this amount.
Measure 2.2 ‘Promotion of enhanced competitiveness of SMEs’
Under 2.2, the Sub‐measure 2.2.a, achieved an absorption rate of 315‐420%. Sub‐measure 2.2.e counted 26 funding contracts (take‐up rate 65%); Sub‐measure 2.2.g ‘Number of consultations and assistances’ achieved 87% rate up. ERDF‐Measures 2.2.f ‘Number of working groups’, 2.2.f ‘Number of intensive seminars’ and 2.2.g ‘Public events’, will not achieve their target. These sub‐measures will neither achieve the goals, planned in the SPD, nor achieve the goals in terms of initiated projects. Nevertheless, one has to point out, that the Sub‐measure 2.2.f was did well in terms of consultations (395) achieving a 99‐113% take‐up rate. While results for several measures still remain open, it is safe to say that overall 100% take up can be expected by the time the final report is completed.
Table 3.2 ‐ Measure 2.2 ‐ Comparison of selected planned and realised financial and material indicators
Indicator Planned (2000‐2006) Realised 2008 Ratio realised/planned 2.2.a, 2.2.b, 2.2.c, 2.2.d Projects 15‐20 63 315‐420% 2.2.e Funding contracts 40 26 65% Working groups 5‐10 0 0% 2.2.f Intensive seminars 40‐50 3 6‐7%. Consultations 350‐450 395 99‐113% Consultation assistance 300 individual (performed consultations, 260 87% 2.2.g consultation days) consultation days 1.500) Public events 30 0 0% 2.2.h Consultations 400‐500 per year 0 0% Source: Annual report 2008
Measure 2.2 explicitly considers eastward enlargement (especially the Sub‐measure 2.2.h ‘Information and consultation’ of medium‐sized companies in the border region of Easter Bayern and the Czech Republic. This aims at further technological development with regard to eastward enlargement). Eastward enlargement is also implicitly comprises of other measures, e. g. consultation measures at 2.2.a‐c with regard to foreign trade.
Measure 2.3 ‘Service centres for enterprises
Measure 2.3 can be judged successful. For Sub‐measure 2.3.a ‘Area m2’ 130‐261% of planned goals were achieved. Other measures partly achieved planned goals. Measure 2.3 supported education providers but, unfortunately, due to insufficient data no final assessment can be made. Sub‐measure 2.3.c, one institution was established, and plans are expected to be fully met by the time a final report becomes done.
37 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Table 3.3 ‐ Measure 2.3 ‐ Comparison of selected planned and realised financial and material indicators
Indicator Planned (2000‐2006) Realised 2008 Ratio realised/planned Area m² 1,200‐2,400 m² 3,126 130‐261% 2.3.a Projects 1‐2 1 50‐100% 2.3.b Educational providers 3‐5 232 n.a. 2.3.c Establishment of institutions 2‐3 1 33‐50% Source: Annual report 2008
The smallest funding amount, €137 million, was made available for Priority 3. Although targets were not fully met, 1,363 secure jobs were created.
Measure 3.3 ‘Promotion of innovation and R&D at firm’s level’
Under Measure 3.3 a relatively high number of companies were supported (22 companies, from 9‐18 planned, i.e. an absorption rate of 117‐233%). It is assumed, that a lot of sub‐measures within 3.3 will achieve their set targets by the end of the Objective 2 programme period (StMWIVT 2009). Under sub‐measure 3.3.e ‘Number of cooperation projects’ the planned and intended goals seems to be too low. The programme aims at strengthening the competitiveness of Bayern and European industry, by promoting information and communication technology, and the use of new technology in everyday life. This affects the establishment of new jobs with regard to information and communication technology. An important indicator in this regard is the increase in R&D‐expenditures for participating companies, as well as the number of additional R&D personnel.
Table 3.4 ‐ Measure 3.3 ‐ Comparison of selected planned and realised financial and material indicators
Indicator Planned (2000‐2006) Realised 2008 Ratio realised/planned 3.3.a, 3.3.b, 3.3.c, 3.3.d Projects 9‐18 5 28‐56% Supported companies 9‐18 22 117‐233% 3.3.e Projects 3‐5 1 20‐33% Source: Annual report 2008
All clusters are located in Nuremberg. To gain a more representative picture it is therefore necessary to focus on sectors, not clusters.
38 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Figure 3.1 – Projects by branches3
Projects by branches
15 Measure 2.2 17 18 20 22 Measure 2.3 25 26 28 29 Measure 3.3 33 36 40 51 NACE 52 70 73 74 75 80 91 93 99 N.A.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: Data provided by the Bayern Ministry for Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology
Almost all sector projects under measure 2.2 were approved. In Measure 2.3 beneficiaries hail from the sectors; 74: Other business activities, 75: Public administration and defence; compulsory social security,
3 NACE codes: 15: Manufacture of food products and beverages 17: Manufacture of textiles and textile products 18: Manufacture of wearing apparel; dressing; dyeing of fur; tanning, dressing of leather; manufacture of luggage 20: Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; man. of articles of straw and plaiting materials; man. of pulp, paper and paper products; publishing and printing 22: Publishing, printing, reproduction of recorded media 25: Manufacture of rubber and plastic products 26: Manufacture of other non‐metallic mineral products 28: Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment 29: Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c. 33: Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks 36: Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing n.e.c. except manufacture of furniture 40: Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply 51: Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor and motorcycles 52: Retail trade, except of motor vehicles, motorcycles; repair of personal and household goods 70: Real estate activities 73: Research and development 74: Other business activities 75: Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 80: Education 91: Activities of membership organization n.e.c. 93: Other service activities 99: Extra‐territorial organizations and bodies
39 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
80: Education, 91: Activities of membership organization n.e.c., 93: Other service activities, 99: Extra‐ territorial organizations and bodies. Measure 3.3 includes beneficiaries from the sectors, 25: Manufacture of rubber and plastic products, 26: Manufacture of other non‐metallic mineral products, 29: Manufacture of machinery and equipment n.e.c., 33: Manufacture of medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks, 70 Real estate activities, 73: Research and development, and to a smaller extent sector 75: Public administration and defence; compulsory social security. General tendencies appear to be operating as intended by the programme measure. The focus is on new materials and processes of data and knowledge management, user‐friendly human‐computer interaction, materials and application for real‐time systems and embedded systems, new forms of business communication, telecommunication systems and services, components for communication technology, components, systems and applications for the mobile communication4.
3.1.2 Contribution of selected measures to structural change and globalisation
As the analysis in Section 1.3 shows the objective 2 border region faced in the period 2000‐2006 structural change problems in particular in two dimensions: Firstly, due to its peripheral geographic position, the Objective 2 border region had to tackle a negative balance of commuters and an increasing trend of depopulation of the region that weakened the already low regional skill base even further. Policy needs to respond to these challenges by promoting the creation of favourable conditions for the formation of new firms and the creation of regional job opportunities with improved skill levels. Secondly the Objective 2 border region is still dominated by regional production systems in the sectors of ceramics, and textiles. These are mainly concentrated in the districts of Wunsiedel, Hof and the city of Hof. The market dominance of a few large firms has hampered the adaptation of the sectors to international market and technology trends in the period from 2000 to 2006. As a result both sectors declined in terms of employment compared to other branches. Policy needs (i) to develop interventions that are addressing the stimulation of regional supply chains and (ii) to foster technology adoption by regional firms. Policy responded to these challenges in particular with a mix of interventions that were mainly innovation related and embedded into the regional policy mix: measure 2.2 is to be seen as complementing regional economic support programmes that were issued by the government of Bayern, in particular the ‘Bayern Programme for Cooperations of Medium‐Sized Businesses’ (Bayerisches mittelständisches Kooperationsprogramm) the ‘Bayern Programme for Foreign Trade of Medium‐Sized Businesses’ (Bayerisches Mittelständisches Außenwirtschaftsberatungsprogramm), and the ‘Bayern Fair Participation Programme’ (Bayerische Messebeteiligungsprogramm). The measure was divided into several sub‐ measures, each addressing a different topic. Measure 3.3 is to be seen as complementing regional economic support programmes in the programming period 2000 to 2006. In particular these are the Bayern Technology Promotion Programme (‘Bayerisches Technologieförderungsprogramm’ ‐ BayTP), the Bayern Programme to Foster the Start‐up of Hi‐tech Companies (‘Richtlinie zur Förderung technologieorientierter Unternehmensgründungen’ ‐ BayTOU), the ‘New Materials’ Programme of Development (Programm ‘Neue Werkstoffe’), the Microsystems Technologies in Bayern (Programm ‘Mikrosystemtechnik’) and the
4 In several measures (sub-measures) promoters / institutions who provides services, e.g. chambers are primary beneficiaries. In order to avoid distortion we have to bear this in mind.
40 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Programme for Information and Communication Technologies (Programm ‘Informations‐ und Kommunikationstechnik’).
Measure 2.2 ‘Promotion of enhanced competitiveness of SMEs’
During the funding period 2000‐2006 the main offer was that of service activities for SMEs. This could take the form of consultations, arrangement of contracts, working groups, intensive seminars, consultation days and/or public events. These initiatives successfully reached a broad spectrum of actors in the eligible area. The realization of this promotion of enhanced competitiveness of SMEs’ was mainly carried out by Chambers of Industry and Commerce. The measure was intended to create incentives for SMEs to increase their technology effectiveness and innovation dynamics by improving the absorptive capacity. Therefore the realisation of innovative products and production processes should be initiated. In the following Section it will be demonstrated how the Measure 2.2 was able to provide positive effects on (i) poorly developed knowledge and technology flows to regional SMEs, and (ii) on the challenges of an eroding regional labour market pool as a result of the unfavourable peripheral position of the Obejctive 2 border region. Since beneficiaries of Measure 2.2 were regularly intermediary institutions (i.e. chambers of commerce, technology transfer centres etc.) micro case studies will be used to investigate potential effects of the intervention. First, light will be shed on the ‘Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern (IOO)’, a flagship project of Measure 2.2. Within this project two new innovation support centres (Innovationsberatungsstellen) were established in June 2003 in Bayreuth and Passau to support innovation services. These two centres were established and their operation (consultation services to SMEs) has been extended until 31st December 2009.
Box 1 ‐ ‘Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern (IOO)’ The ‘Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern’ was initiated in 2003 by the chambers of commerce and industries of Regensburg, Coburg, Bayreuth, Passau, and by the chamber of crafts of Lower Bayern and upper Palatinate. The funding of the project was provided by the Federal State of Bayern (Offenisve Zukunfts Bayern IV, the ERDF, and co‐financing by the chambers of commerce and industry involved. In June 2003 two regional innovation support centres were implemented: Innovationsberatungsstelle Bayreuth Duration of the project within the programme period: 01.06.2003‐31.05.2007 Funding: Total costs: € 1,150,000, including € 442,728 ERDF Innovationsberatungsstelle Passau Duration of the project within the programme period: 01.06.2003‐ 31.05.2007 Funding: Total costs: € 1,150,000; including € 327,015 ERDF The overarching task of the project was the provision of innovation related consultation services for SMEs in the border region. In particular the following services were offered: (i) individual in‐situ consultations, (ii) support in the preparation and implementation of innovation projects, (iii) network development and network management, and (iv) transnational cooperation and identification of suitable partners. Topics covered in these activities were strategic business management, product development, marketing and distribution, process optimization, management systems, etc.). So far, 3,000 consultations (mostly in‐situ at firms), 400 events and workshops and working groups with more than 15,000 participants have been organized.
41 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
As can be seen from exhibit 1 an impressive number of consultation sessions and workshops offered to SMEs was achieved within the framework of the ‘Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern’. Although positive effects on firms might be assumed, no direct clues can be presented on the level of granularity of information. In the following Section we will therefore discuss the concrete case of an enterprise that benefited from these consultation services. Example 2 presents the story of the barby & kühner GmbH, a firm that successfully used the services provided in order to develop a new product with which it could improve its competitive position.
Box 2 ‐ ‘The consultation of the barby & kühner GmbH in the framework of Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern (IOO)’ The barby & kühner GmbH is a regional family owned medium sized company spezialising in process measuring and control technology. barby & kühner GmbH took part in consultation sessions that have been provided in the framework of the Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern. The respective consultation led to a successful cooperative R&D project and the development of a new measuring device. In a first step, a R&D cooperation with the University of applied sciences Coburg was initiated. Planning support for the cooperative R&D project was provided by the Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern. In a second step the firm successfully applied for national funding of innovation activities (i.e. Pro Inno II programme of the German Federal ministry of Economics and Technology). A prototype was developed successfully in cooperation with the University of applied Sciences Coburg, and a patent application was filed at the national patent office. The final outcomes of the project are a newly developed and introduced competitive product, as well as two newly created jobs for R&D personnel at barby & kühner GmbH (hosting two graduates of the University of applied sciences Coburg).
As the anecdotal evidence of exhibit 2 indicates, consultation sessions offered to firms within the framework of the project “Inovationsoffensive Ostbayern” led to concrete innovation activities and new products in regional SMEs. In addition new jobs for R&D personnel were created at firm level. Thus it may be concluded that Measure 2.2 had the potential to foster the competitiveness of regional SMEs in the Objective 2 border region. The qualitative evidence collected in this case study suggests that public interventions were particularly successful in enabling regional enterprises to take actions to improve their competitiveness (e.g. to participate in cooperative R&D projects). In doing so prevailing problems (i.e. poor knowledge flows to SMEs) in the regional production system could be addressed directly with the indirect measure of consulting firms by regional support centres. The demonstrated positive effect on the regional job supply for highly skilled employees also suggests that at least some positive effects to counter‐act the important problem of the regional erosion of human capital are expected.
Measure 2.3 ‘Service centres for enterprises’
Measure 2.3 tried to broaden the basis of regional companies and to foster structural change. Measure 2.3 supported two actions: 1. common services for companies (business parks, business incubators, animations, promotion campains, network development, conferences and fairs) Dienste für Unternehmen (Unternehmensparks, Gründerzentren, Animation, Promotionskampagnen, Vernetzung, Konferenzen, Messen) and 2. vocational training in SMEs and craft enterprise.
42 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
The whole measure was open to beneficiaries from all sectors. While individual projects, such as the establishment and extension of business incubators, the extension of service providing institutions for companies, or initiatives for the establishment and support of new companies etc. were not targeted at specific sectors, however, such projects were not excluded. In the following Section anedotical evidence will be presented with an example of a sectoral focused project. This will be done in order to demonstrate the positive effects of interventions under Measure 2.2 on the prevailing problems in the regional production system of the Objective border region. The project ofraCar (see Example 3) was focused on the automobile industry and addressed thus a sector of high future relevance for the border region with its peripheral location and low co‐operation intensity regarding production processes. ofraCar was geographically oriented towards Upper Franconia and tried to strengthen inter‐firm networks and new regional supply structures. This entailed re‐orientation of companies toward new orientations in new sectors (i.e. automotive supply). While automotive industry in Upper Frankonia comprises in total about 290 firms, around 75 enterprises are located in the districts of Hof and Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge. Therefore a good potential for the development of regional supplier networks existed also in the Objective 2 border region.
Box 3 ‐ ‘ofraCar’ The automotive industry in Upper Franconia consists of about 290 companies with more than 35,000 employees. In addition a high number of industry‐related organizations exist in the field of science, research and development (e.g. Automobiltechnikum Bayern, Hochschule Hof, KEKUTEX Innovationscenter e.V.). The automotive supply industry enjoys high priority‐forming a quasi cluster ‐ in the regional economy. In recent years the automotive supply industry in Germany had to face severe global competition, accompanied by long‐term problems related to demographic changes, skills shortages and urbanization. The region of upper Franconia was particularly hard hit. The development of new production capacities in Eastern Europe and the Far East made life even harder for domestic suppliers. For this reason the Chamber of Industry and Commerce of Upper Franconia Bayreuth launched the network initiative ofraCar in November 2005. The project with a total cost of € 742,857 was funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Bayern and the ERDF (share: € 316,856). The duration of the project within the programming period was from 01.11.2005‐to 31.05.2008. The aim of the project was to build up a sustainable network in the automotive sector, with the long term perspective as a self‐supporting structure. With funding ending at December 31st 2009 the network management will have to rely on the contributions from the member firms of ofraCar. Until today around 100 firms have joined ofraCar. Members of the network benefitted from easy access to vocational training in order to improve relevant competences, co‐operation (projects), and other services offered by the network management (company missions, fair visits etc.).
The micro case study of ‘ofraCar’ demonstrates on the basis of anecdotal evidence that ERDF funding helped to establish new regionally integrated supply chains in the Objective 2 border region in the programming period 2000 to 2006. The qualitative evidence presented above shows that the project ofraCar provided an adequate response to structural change challenges arising from the problem of inflexible regional production systems in the low technology sectors. While the districts of Hof and Wunsiedel am Fichtelgebirge have been traditionally dominated by the textile and ceramics industry, the project helped to provide impulses for the development of new open value chains in the automotive sector. This demonstrates that obsolete structures could be overcome by the funding of networking activities in a sector with more potential for future technological development.
43 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Although firms benefited from the activities of ofraCar, it is has to be noted that the direct beneficiary of funding activities was the regional chamber of commerce and industries. The promotion of change was thus stemming from regional industry related intermediary institutions and not from the firms themselves.
Measure 3.3 ‘Promotion of Innovation and R&D at firm’s level’
Measure 3.3 addressed structural change issues, by focussing on the following activities: (i) the development of technologically new or improved products and production processes, (ii) the support of co‐operation between companies and research institutions, (iii) the support of start‐ups and young technology companies to develop products, processes and technological services and corporate concepts. New companies should contribute in the creation of highly qualified jobs and in the strengthening of competitiveness of the Bayern economy, (iv) the acceleration of the application of micro‐system technology in new products ‐ especially within SMEs. This should strengthen the competitiveness of Bayern regions, and (v) the improvement of the competitiveness of companies by developing new products and processes in ICT, as well as to accelerate their application. This sub‐measure should also help to create and save jobs. In this Section evidence will be presented and discussed in order to demonstrate the effects of Measure 3.3 on R&D activities of firms in the Objective 2 border region. This will be done in two consecutive steps: In a first step statistical evidence on the development of regional R&D capacities will be presented and discussed. In a second step a micro case study on concrete R&D projects that received ERDF funding will be demonstrated. This is done in order to provide qualitative evidence on the potential effect of Measure 3.3 on innovation barriers which are due to sclerotic regional production systems. While regionalised data on innovation activities are unfortunately unavailable at the level of the Objective 2 region (i.e. Objective 2 border region and Objective 2 cities), this is not the case for data on R&D personnel. Figure 3.2 presents the development of R&D personnel in the EU eligible area for the period from 1997 to 2007 (i.e. percentage change is displayed with 1999 = 0%).
44 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Figure 3.2 – Development of R&D personnel in the eligible area (1997‐2007)
Percentage change 1999 = 0%
30%
Phasing‐Out Eligible area total 20% Objective 2 Cities Objective 2 border region ReatofBayern 10% West Germany
0%
‐10%
Source: Annual update Bade/Bergmann (2009)
As can be seen, the total eligible area was catching up significantly compared to the rest of Bayern and West Germany during the time period considered. Since 1999, in Objective 2 cities the share of R&D personnel has increased by approx. 20%. During the same period their share in the Objective 2 border regions grew by 14%, (and 9% in 2007). Despite the constant growth of R&D jobs in the border region, the overall share of R&D personnel in total employment was still at a very low level (1.1%) in 2007. In Objective 2 cities, the corresponding figure was 3.8% which is similar to the rest of Bayern. While the relative increase in R&D personnel in the Objective 2 border region is encouraging, there is some doubt as to the underlying causes of this development. One potential hypothesis could be that the relative increase in R&D employees within all employees is linked to the overall decrease of employment in the region: the rise of the share of R&D personnel could be the result of falling employment in other sectors. This hypothesis is somewhat supported by negative migration rates in the Objective 2 border region since 2003. A second hypothesis is that of a relocation of a firm (with R&D capacities) to the region. This hypothesis seems to be rather implausible since the increase of the respective figures occurred continuously since 2004. The last hypothesis to explain this phenomenon is that the Objective 2 programme and other regional programmes already show positive results. The experts’ interviews conducted for the case study do indeed lead into this direction: Increasing numbers of R&D personnel seem indeed to be the result of interventions of the High‐Tech‐Offensive Bayern and to some extent that of ERDF funding. While the discussion of the development of regional R&D capacities does not provide decisive clues for positive effects of Measure 3.3 in the period 2000 to 2006, the analysis of two concrete R&D projects that have been carried out within the Objective 2 border region can bring forth more insights.
45 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Box 4 ‐ The R&D projects ‘SHUNT’ and ‘SURFACE’,
2004, RAUMEDIC AG is a medical technology company located in the district of Hof and was founded in 2004. Previously, it had been part of REHAU AG + Co, a company engaged in polymer processing (production of polymer tubes) in the same region, since 1948. RAUMEDIC is subdivided into two divisions: (i) medical industry is a competent development partner and system supplier for companies from the medical and pharmaceutical industries; (ii) Medical Devices provides innovative diagnostic and acute therapeutic systems for neurosurgery, urology, gastroenterology and traumatology for use both in hospitals and clinical practices. In the programming period 2000 to 2006 RAUMEDIC AG was successfully applying for two R&D projects under Measure 3.3. SURFACE Duration of the project within the programme period: 01.08.2005‐31.12.2007. Total costs of the project amounted for € 1,568,469, including € 705,700 ERDF funding. The project SURFACE was dealing with the development of new functionalised surfaces for medical products. The mother company REHAU had been dealing with the topic of IV lines already for a long time. With the split off of RAUMEDIC these already existing technological competences were concentrated in the new company. With its R&D activities RAUMEDIC concentrated further on IV lines, coatings, surfaces and further more on nanotechnology. In the framework of the SURFACE project both new products and production processes were developed. SHUNT Duration of the project within the programme period: 01.01.2005‐15.01.2009. Total project costs amounted for € 2,502,927, including € 990,000 ERDF funding. The overall objective of the SHUNT project was the development of an intelligent shunt control. The project SHUNT was divided in several sub‐projects. One of the sub‐projects was dealing with the development of new technology for treating hydrocephalus: until the development of SHUNT technology the mortality rate for patients suffering from acute hydrocephalus was relatively high. Today there is a good chance both of overcoming the disorder, provided therapy is initiated early on and the disorder closely monitored, and of ensuring that affected children retain effective intellectual and motor skills. Both projects led to new products that are offered by RAUMEDIC to the market. The projects inducted in total private R&D investments with an amount of € 2,185,995.82 and generated at firm level employment effects: in total 10 new jobs were created in course of the R&D activities.
As the micro case study of the RAUMEDIC AG on the basis of anecdotal evidence shows, ERDF funding within Measure 3.3 had positive effects on the technological reorientation of regional enterprises. While the ‘old’ REHAU AG + Co can be seen as typical example of a low to medium technology enterprise in the polymer production, the RAUMEDIC AG represents the technological reorientation and diversification of existing competences. ERDF funding helped to bring forward this process of reorientation. Both projects received also regional public awareness and thus had the function of good practice cases for other enterprises in the Objective 2 border region. The creation of new R&D related jobs in course of the projects demonstrates also potential positive effects of the intervention on regional R&D capacities. Nevertheless it has to be noted that in total only 6 projects were funded under Measure 3.3 in the relevant period. Thus total effects of the intervention will at any rate remain moderate compared to regional programmes. Also it has to be pointed out that economic effects of innovation activities (i.e. increase in turnover etc.) are generally of uncertain nature and will need years (beyond the observed time span) to become visible.
46 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
3.2 Assessment of the effects on institutional capacity and policy learning
The synergies of ERDF and the regional/national programmes should be addressed again. In the course of designing and developing operational programmes, the cohesion of the EU structural fund programme and national programmes was institutionalized through Commission guidelines which provided the decree and the strategic cohesion framework for the programmes. Within the strategic cohesion guidelines the Commission lays out the guiding principles for the disposal of the EU structural funds. It is important to underline that the Bayern economic policy is not a consequence of the EU structural fund. Rather, the Bayern economic policy was already aimed at structural change and at strengthening enterprises competitiveness. For years or decades Bayern economic policy was geared towards strengthening the competitiveness of enterprises. In short, efforts are being made in order to aid national support programmes with EU and European Regional Development Fund. With regard to the Objective 2 eligible area the regional policy makers interviewed for this case study underlined that the aim of ERDF is not to let the rural area die. ERDF and public funds in Bayern are not used to maintain old industrial sectors but to advance structural change in promising branches in the region. The Bayern approach is to ‘bring jobs to the people’. Bayern’s policy aims to do that by (a) improving local strengths so as to maintain jobs within the region and (b) creating promising and sustainable jobs in new sectors. This requires new training and educational facilities (see Section 1.3.1.1). Over the last two decades, the state ministry has therefore established new universities of applied sciences in structurally weak regions. Systems of co‐operation between universities and other public bodies have also been established. With regard to the above mentioned promising branches, ‘traditional’ industries (like the automotive industry and mechanical engineering), basic‐ and cross‐Section technologies (e.g. laser technology, micro‐systems technology, mechatronics), and innovative future technologies (e.g. biotechnology, nanotechnology, ICT) are all of strategic interest. The innovation policy objectives are on the one hand quite universal, on the other hand focus on several specific technologies. The Bayern technology policy builds upon a long lasting experience in economic‐, structural‐ and infrastructure policy as well as regional industry policy. These policies traditionally comprised innovation oriented elements regarding the promotion of structural techno‐ economic change (Koschatzky 2009). However, policy makers emphasize that the ERDF act as a catalyst of innovation and an initiator of actions. In this regard the long‐term nature and characteristics of the programme play an important role. These characteristics are essential elements in mitigating risk. This aspect of dependability is especially important for R&D activities because of the uncertain nature intrinsic R&D funding and its associated returns. The long‐term nature of the Structural fund programme is critical and is of particular importance of the funding for Bayern. Due to the matter that innovative activities can be supported, the European Regional Development Fund is of great importance (in the funding period 2007‐2013, there are innovative financial instruments as well as fund models that already bring long‐term characteristics with them). The facilitation of being able to exchange of experiences is another positive side effect of the ERDF. Experiences can be exchanged at several levels, including: EU, national, provisional, down to individual granting agencies — each of which are part of a network that ERDF supports. This network would not exist in that way without European support.
47 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
48 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
4. Conclusions: key findings and main message
Key Findings
The case of Bayern as an Objective 2 region is an untypical one in European comparison. The macro‐region is characterised by a very strong economic performance that is propelled by a dynamic regional innovation system. The Objective 2 region itself is divided into two types of sub‐regions: on the one hand it covers all peripheral districts on the border to the Czech Republic, on the other hand small fractions of urban area in two cities are included. The main policy challenges in the period from 2000 to 2006 were stemming from Objective 2 border region at which the majority of structural change related interventions concentrated. The main research question of this case study was to which extent ERDF interventions have helped to to change an old and inflexible production system in the eligible areas of Bayern (Germany). In particular, was the ERDF support able to promote the creation of favourable conditions for the formation of new firms, the creation of regional job opportunities with improved skill levels, and to develop interventions that are addressing the stimulation of regional supply chains and to foster technology adoption by regional firms? Given the strategic priorities of the programming document, the case study focuses on three specific types of measures that have been supported: the offer of service activities for SMEs’, the support of incubators and inter‐firm networks, and the promotion of Innovation and R&D at firm’s level’. Looking at the mainly qualitative evidence that has been collected and discussed in this case study, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. ERDF interventions were able to stimulate an adequate response to structural change challenges arising from the problem of inflexible regional production systems in the low technology sectors
The evidence collected in this case study shows in individual cases how regional inter‐firm linkages and industry‐science cooperation were stimulated by selected measures in the programming period. While the districts of Hof and Wunsiedel am Fichtelgebirge have been traditionally dominated by the textiles and ceramics industry, measure 2.3 helped to provide impulses for the development of new open value chains in the automotive sector. As the case of the ‘Innovationsoffensive Ostbayern’ suggests, intermediaries, like regional chambers of commerce and industries, played a particularly important role in channelling industries needs into concrete funded projects.
2. ERDF interventions had a positive effect of the regional R&D capacities in the Objective 2 border region and on firm’s capabilities to adopt new technologies
Measure 3.3 was enabling technological reorientation and diversification of existing competences among regional enterprises and helped thus to overcome existing challenges in the regional production system. Nevertheless it has to be noted that ‐ due to the size of the intervention in terms of available funding ‐ total effects of the intervention will at any rate remain moderate compared to regionally funded programmes.
49 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
3. ERDF interventions have to be seen in this context as complementary and not as providing pivotal strategic orientations for policy
Bayern like other German Bundesländer has a long tradition in regional planning and policy development, going back more than 30 years, while ERDF programming is present only since 1994. As a consequence a complex and sophisticated system of regional policy programmes and interventions, was in place during the programming period. Individual ERDF funded measures were either aligned to existing strategy programmes on the level of whole Bayern (e.g. Bayern Programme for Cooperations of Medium‐Sized Businesses, Bayerisches Technologieförderungs‐programm – BayTP etc.); or matched with programmes and interventions addressing the geographical space of the border region to the Czech Republic (.e.g. Initiative for Upper Franconia, Improvement Programme for Eastern Bayern etc.).
Main Message
The case study has examined four measures funded under Priority 2 of the 2000‐2006 Objective 2 Programme considered to be the most interesting in assessing the contribution of the programme to structural change. These were tested in relation to three of the five hypotheses outlined in the conceptual framework underpinning the research project, broadly concerning ‘Socio‐economic change and human capital’ and ,‘production system‘5. The main messages to be drawn from the above analysis are: • While the region as a whole can be regarded as an economic power house compared to other German and European regions, the districts next to the border of the Czech Republic (Objective 2 border region) face severe structural and economic problems. The respective region suffers severely from its unfavourable peripheral geographical position. • Regional policy responded to structural change challenges in these districts with a policy mix comprising ERDF interventions and measures with regional funding. The measures analysed in this case study proved to be effective to stimulate the adoption of new technologies, the diversification of existing product portfolios and the development of new regionally integrated supply chains. • Although problems induced by structural change were addressed properly by policy they will not be solved in short time. E.g. as the population figures show, the process of negative migration continues further after the end of the programming period. Thus it may be suggested that long term efforts will be needed to tackle the current problems. .
5 See the First Intermediate Report for an overview of the conceptual framework underpinning the study: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2006/wp4_1st_int_report.pdf.
50 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
5. Annexes
5.1 Additional statistical tables
Table 5.1 ‐ Taxonomy of Objective 2 eligible areas (NUTS3)
% of regional Population in Population, 2004, population, Urban/rural Region Objective 2 areas, thousands within Objective 2 category* thousands areas DE211 Ingolstadt, Kreisfreie Stadt 119.8 0.0 0 1 DE212 München, Kreisfreie Stadt 1,248.5 0.0 0 1 DE213 Rosenheim, Kreisfreie Stadt 60 0.0 0 1 DE214 Altötting 109.5 0.0 0 21 DE215 Berchtesgadener Land 102 0.0 0 21 DE216 Bad Tölz‐Wolfratshausen 119.2 0.0 0 21 DE217 Dachau 133.2 0.0 0 21 DE218 Ebersberg 122.5 0.0 0 21 DE219 Eichstätt 123.1 0.0 0 31 DE21A Erding 121.3 0.0 0 31 DE21B Freising 158.8 0.0 0 21 DE21C Fürstenfeldbruck 198.4 0.0 0 1 DE21D Garmisch‐Partenkirchen 87.2 0.0 0 31 DE21E Landsberg a. Lech 110.8 0.0 0 31 DE21F Miesbach 93.8 0.0 0 21 DE21G Mühldorf a. Inn 110.9 0.0 0 21 DE21H München, Landkreis 304.9 0.0 0 1 DE21I Neuburg‐Schrobenhausen 91.2 0.0 0 21 DE21J Pfaffenhofen a. d. Ilm 114.9 0.0 0 21 DE21K Rosenheim, Landkreis 244.4 0.0 0 21 DE21L Starnberg 128 0.0 0 1 DE21M Traunstein 170.4 0.0 0 31 DE21N Weilheim‐Schongau 130.4 0.0 0 21 DE221 Landshut, Kreisfreie Stadt 60.4 0.0 0 1 DE222 Passau, Kreisfreie Stadt 50.6 0.0 0 1 DE223 Straubing, Kreisfreie Stadt 44.6 0.0 0 1 DE224 Deggendorf 117.1 0.0 0 31 DE225 Freyung‐Grafenau 82.2 100.0 82.2 32 DE226 Kelheim 112.9 0.0 0 21 DE227 Landshut, Landkreis 147.3 0.0 0 31 DE228 Passau, Landkreis 188.8 0.0 0 31 DE229 Regen 82 100.0 82 32 DE22A Rottal‐Inn 119.7 0.0 0 31 DE22B Straubing‐Bogen 97.7 0.0 0 31 DE22C Dingolfing‐Landau 92.1 0.0 0 31 DE231 Amberg, Kreisfreie Stadt 44.6 0.0 0 1 DE232 Regensburg, Kreisfreie Stadt 128.8 0.0 0 1
51 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
% of regional Population in Population, 2004, population, Urban/rural Region Objective 2 areas, thousands within Objective 2 category* thousands areas DE233 Weiden i. d. OPf.,Kreisfreie Stadt 42.7 0.0 0 1 DE234 Amberg‐Sulzbach 108.8 0.0 0 31 DE235 Cham 131.4 88.3 116.0 31 DE236 Neumarkt i. d. OPf. 128.7 0.0 0 31 DE237 Neustadt a. d. Waldnaab 100.7 40.3 40.6 31 DE238 Regensburg, Landkreis 180.9 0.0 0 21 DE239 Schwandorf 144.8 11.8 17.0 31 DE23A Tirschenreuth 78.6 72.1 56.6 31 DE241 Bamberg, Kreisfreie Stadt 70 0.0 0 1 DE242 Bayreuth, Kreisfreie Stadt 74.7 0.0 0 1 DE243 Coburg, Kreisfreie Stadt 42.2 0.0 0 1 DE244 Hof, Kreisfreie Stadt 49.4 100.0 49.4 1 DE245 Bamberg, Landkreis 144.6 0.0 0 21 DE246 Bayreuth, Landkreis 109.3 0.0 0 31 DE247 Coburg, Landkreis 91.9 0.0 0 21 DE248 Forchheim 113.4 0.0 0 21 DE249 Hof, Landkreis 107.1 100.0 107.1 31 DE24A Kronach 74.4 68.0 31 DE24B Kulmbach 77.7 0.0 0 31 DE24C Lichtenfels 70.5 0.0 0 21 DE24D Wunsiedel i. Fichtelgebirge 83 100.0 83 21 DE251 Ansbach, Kreisfreie Stadt 40.6 0.0 0 1 DE252 Erlangen, Kreisfreie Stadt 102.5 0.0 0 1 DE253 Fürth, Kreisfreie Stadt 112.2 12.0 13.5 1 DE254 Nuremberg, Kreisfreie Stadt 494.4 14.0 69.0 1 DE255 Schwabach, Kreisfreie Stadt 38.6 0.0 0 1 DE256 Ansbach, Landkreis 184.5 0.0 0 31 DE257 Erlangen‐Höchstadt 130.7 0.0 0 1 DE258 Fürth, Landkreis 114.4 0.0 0 1 DE259 Nuremberger Land 169.1 0.0 0 21 Neustadt a. d. Aisch‐Bad DE25A 99.9 0.0 0 31 Windsheim DE25B Roth 125.7 0.0 0 31 DE25C Weißenburg‐Gunzenhausen 95.1 0.0 0 31 DE261 Aschaffenburg, Kreisfreie Stadt 68.7 0.0 0 1 DE262 Schweinfurt, Kreisfreie Stadt 54.5 100.0 54.5 1 DE263 Würzburg, Kreisfreie Stadt 133.1 0.0 0 1 DE264 Aschaffenburg, Landkreis 175.3 0.0 0 1 DE265 Bad Kissingen 108.8 0.0 0 31 DE266 Rhön‐Grabfeld 86.8 0.0 0 31 DE267 Haßberge 88.1 0.0 0 31 DE268 Kitzingen 89.5 0.0 0 21 DE269 Miltenberg 131.5 0.0 0 21 DE26A Main‐Spessart 131.9 0.0 0 21 DE26B Schweinfurt, Landkreis 116.5 0.0 0 21 DE26C Würzburg, Landkreis 160 0.0 0 21
52 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
% of regional Population in Population, 2004, population, Urban/rural Region Objective 2 areas, thousands within Objective 2 category* thousands areas DE271 Augsburg, Kreisfreie Stadt 259.8 0.0 0 1 DE272 Kaufbeuren, Kreisfreie Stadt 42.5 0.0 0 1 DE273 Kempten (Allgäu), Kreisfreie Stadt 61.5 0.0 0 1 DE274 Memmingen, Kreisfreie Stadt 41.2 0.0 0 1 DE275 Aichach‐Friedberg 127 0.0 0 21 DE276 Augsburg, Landkreis 241.2 0.0 0 21 DE277 Dillingen a.d. Donau 95.5 0.0 0 21 DE278 Günzburg 122.8 0.0 0 21 DE279 Neu‐Ulm 163.3 0.0 0 1 DE27A Lindau (Bodensee) 78.8 0.0 0 21 DE27B Ostallgäu 134 0.0 0 31 DE27C Unterallgäu 135.8 0.0 0 31 DE27D Donau‐Ries 131.2 0.0 0 31 DE27E Oberallgäu 149.7 0.0 0 31 *1 = predominantly urban; 21 = intermediate rural, close to a city; 22 = intermediate rural, remote; 31 = predominantly rural, close to a city; 32 = predominantly rural, remote regions Source: Applica – Ismeri – wiiw. Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000‐2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund in Objective 1 and 2 Regions. WP1, Task 5 Final report.
53 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Table 5.2 ‐ Regional performance in comparative perspective (NUTS1)‐Basic data
Regional Indicator Unit ∆(%) 1995 2000 2006 00/06 Population Thousands 11,957 12,187 12,480 2.4 GDP per capita Eur PPP 26,600 29,500 33,200 13 Gross Value Added Eur mln basic prices 288,014.1 323,430 374,067.5 15.7 % employed on number of people aged 15 Employment rate n.a 57.9 57.7 ‐0.35 and over % unemployed persons on number of Unemployment rate n.a 4 6.5 62.5 people aged 15 and over National Indicator Unit ∆(%) 1995 2000 2006 00/06 Population Thousands 81,678 82,188 82,376 0.23 GDP per capita Eur PPP 23,600 25,100 28,200 12.4 Gross Value Added Eur mln basic prices 174,493,9.9 1,856,200 2,094,220 12.8 % employed on number of people aged 15 Employment rate n.a 52.9 53.2 0.6 and over % unemployed persons on number of Unemployment rate n.a 7,9 10,2 29.1 people aged 15 and over EU15 Indicator Unit ∆(%) 1995 2000 2006 00/06 Population Thousands 373,362 377,734 390,681 3.3 GDP per capita Eur PPP 18,055 23,117 26,652* 15.3 % employed on number of people aged 15 Employment rate n.a. 44.4** 53.4 20.3 and over % unemployed persons on number of Unemployment rate n.a. 8.3 7.8 ‐6.0 people aged 15 and over * Data for 2005. ** Data for 2001 Source: InTeReg processing of Eurostat data 2009
Table 5.3 ‐ Socio‐economic change and human capital (NUTS1)
Regional National EU15 Indicator ∆(%) ∆(%) ∆(%) 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000 2006 00/06 00/06 00/06 % share of people aged 0 to 14 16.4 15.1 13.2*** years % share of people aged 15 to 64 67.6 66.4 60.6*** years % share of people aged 65+ 16.0 18.4 26.6*** years Long‐term unemployment rate 46.89 48.02 9.7 51.48 56.38 9.52 46.08** 42.32 ‐8.16 (%) * Data for 2005, ** Data for 1999, *** Data for 2030 Source: InTeReg processing of Eurostat data 2009
54 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Table 5.4 ‐ Employment by sector on NUTS1 level in comparison to Germany and EU15, 2000 and 2006
Employment by sector (% of total employment) Regional National EU15 Indicator 2000 2006 ∆(%) 00/06 2000 2006 ∆(%) 00/06 2000 2006 ∆(%) 00/06 Agriculture 3.6 2.9 ‐18.6 2.6 2.3 ‐14.3 4.3 3.6 ‐16.1 Industry 35.8 32.4 ‐9.6 33.5 29.6 ‐11.7 28.9 26.6 ‐9.1 Services 60.6 64.7 6.8 63.8 68.2 6.8 66.4 69.6 4.8 Source: InTeReg processing of Eurostat data 2009
55 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
Table 5.5 ‐ Regional specialisation (NUTS1)
Gross Value Added by broad economic sectors (% of total GVA) Regional National Indicator ∆(%) ∆(%) 1995 2000 2006 1995 2000 2006 00/06 00/06 GVA in agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing 1.5 1.3 1.0 ‐28.7 1.3 1.3 0.9 ‐32.6 GVA in mining and quarrying; electricity, gas and water supply ‐ 26.8 26.4 ‐1.7 ‐ 25.1 25.4 ‐1.2 GVA in industry 33 31.8 30.5 ‐4.2 32.1 30.3 29.4 ‐2.9 GVA in construction ‐ 5 4.1 ‐17.8 ‐ 5.2 4.0 ‐22.7 GVA in wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household ‐ 17 15.9 ‐6.1 ‐ 18.2 17.9 ‐1.4 goods; hotels and restaurants; transport, storage and communication GVA in services (excluding extra‐territorial organizations and bodies) 65.5 66.8 68.6 2.6 66.6 68.5 69.8 ‐1.9 GVA in financial intermediation; real estate, renting and business activities ‐ 28.8 32.2 11.8 ‐ 27.5 29.5 7.2 GVA in public administration and defence, compulsory social security; education; health and social work; ‐ 21.1 20.5 ‐3.0 ‐ 22.8 22.3 ‐1.9 other community, social and personal service activities; private households with employed persons Source: InTeReg processing of Eurostat data 2009
56 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Table 5.6 ‐ Geography of structural change (NUTS3)
Gross domestic product per capita (€ PPP) Region 1995 2000 2006 ∆ (%) 2000‐2006 de225 Freyung‐Grafenau 17,100 17,400 19,500 12.0 de229 Regen 18,500 19,900 22,500 13.0 de235 Cham 18,600 21,600 25,500 18.0 de237 Neustadt (Waldnaab) 16,400 18,200 18,700 3.0 de239 Schwandorf 20,400 22,900 25,900 13.0 de23a Tirschenreuth 18,500 19,500 21,600 11.0 de244 Hof, Kreisfreie Stadt 31,600 32,500 34,500 6.0 de249 Hof, Landkreis 20,100 20,700 23,900 15.0 de24a Kronach 21,900 23,100 28,300 23.0 de24d Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge 23,100 22,900 24,800 6.0 de253 Fürth, Kreisfreie Stadt 33,600 37,600 39,800 6.0 de254 Nuremberg, Kreisfreie Stadt 36,900 39,900 43,100 8.0 de262 Schweinfurt, Kreisfreie Stadt 49,400 55,900 70,600 26.0 Unemployment rate (age 15+) (in %) Region 2000 2006 ∆ (%) de225 Freyung‐Grafenau n.a n.a ‐ de229 Regen n.a n.a ‐ de235 Cham n.a n.a ‐ de237 Neustadt (Waldnaab) n.a n.a ‐ de239 Schwandorf n.a n.a ‐ de23a Tirschenreuth n.a n.a ‐ de244 Hof, Kreisfreie Stadt n.a n.a ‐ de249 Hof, Landkreis n.a 9.8 ‐ de24a Kronach n.a n.a ‐ de24d Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge n.a n.a ‐ de253 Fürth, Kreisfreie Stadt n.a 10.8 ‐ de254 Nuremberg, Kreisfreie Stadt n.a 11.4 ‐ de262 Schweinfurt, Kreisfreie Stadt n.a n.a ‐ Source: InTeReg processing of Eurostat data 2009
Table 5.7 ‐ Geography of structural change (NUTS3)
Employment by sector Region Year Agriculture Industry Services 1996 8.6 38.6 52.6 2000 8.0 37.5 54.7 de225 Freyung‐Grafenau 2006 7.4 32.7 60.2 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐7.7 ‐12.8 10.0 1996 7.8 38.5 54.0 2000 7.1 36.4 56.5 de229 Regen 2006 6.2 33.9 59.6 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐12.0 ‐7.0 5.5 1996 9.0 40.1 50.8 de235 Cham 2000 8.3 39.0 52.7 2006 6.6 38.1 55.3
57 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐20.4 ‐2.5 5.1 1996 8.8 46.1 45.2 2000 8.3 44.3 47.7 de237 Neustadt (Waldnaab) 2006 7.0 41.2 51.6 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐16.0 ‐7.0 8.1 1996 6.6 38.5 54.9 2000 5.0 36.2 58.5 de239 Schwandorf 2006 5.0 36.1 59.1 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐14.2 ‐7.7 7.6 1996 7.6 48.9 43.2 2000 7.7 44.9 47.1 de23a Tirschenreuth 2006 7.4 40.6 52.0 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐4.0 ‐9.6 10.5 1996 0.3 26.0 73.4 2000 0.6 24.8 74.6 de244 Hof, Kreisfreie Stadt 2006 0.6 22.3 77.1 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) 4.5 ‐10.1 3.3 1996 4.3 50.8 44.8 2000 4.2 47.7 48.1 de249 Hof, Landkreis 2006 3.9 43.8 52.5 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐7.6 ‐8.2 9.2 1996 3.9 55.5 40.8 2000 3.7 51.6 44.7 de24a Kronach 2006 3.4 46.7 49.6 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐7.2 ‐9.5 10.9 1996 2.6 45.8 51.9 2000 2.4 42.7 54.9 de24d Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge 2006 2.4 38.6 58.9 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐0.5 ‐9.7 7.1 1996 0.7 30.4 68.6 2000 0.9 27.2 72.0 de253 Fürth, Kreisfreie Stadt 2006 0.7 23.8 75.4 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐17.6 ‐12.7 4.5 1996 0.5 26.7 72.8 2000 0.4 23.5 76.0 de254 Nuremberg, Kreisfreie Stadt 2006 0.4 20.1 79.5 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐1.1 ‐14.7 4.6 1996 0.4 42.6 57.1 de262 Schweinfurt, Kreisfreie Stadt 2000 0.3 39.5 60.1 2006 0.2 41.1 58.6 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐52.7 4.1 ‐2.4 Source: InTeReg processing of Eurostat data 2009
58 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
Table 5.8 ‐ Geography of structural change (NUTS3)
GVA by sector (%) Region Year Agriculture Industry Services 1995 2.5 36.8 60.7 2000 2.3 33.1 64.4 de225 Freyung‐Grafenau 2006 2.6 29.6 67.8 ∆ 2000‐2006(%) 12.2 ‐10.7 5.9 1995 2.7 36.0 61.2 2000 2.2 35.4 62.4 de229 Regen 2006 2.5 33.5 64.0 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) 13.0 ‐5.3 2.6 1995 3.5 35.9 60.5 2000 2.9 36.9 60.2 de235 Cham 2006 2.2 37.4 60.4 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐24.0 ‐1.3 0.3 1995 4.3 40.2 55.4 2000 3.6 40.5 55.8 de237 Neustadt (Waldnaab) 2006 3.0 38.1 58.9 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐17.6 ‐6.0 5.6 1995 3.2 39.6 57.2 2000 2.6 40.9 56.5 de239 Schwandorf 2006 1.8 39.1 59.1 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐32.7 ‐4.3 4.6 1995 4.6 45.7 49.7 2000 4.1 43.1 52.7 de23a Tirschenreuth 2006 3.4 40.5 56.1 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐18.0 ‐6.3 6.4 1995 0.2 27.3 72.5 2000 0.3 23.9 75.9 de244 Hof, Kreisfreie Stadt 2006 0.2 20.6 79.3 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐38.2 ‐13.8 4.5 1995 2.6 47.1 50.3 2000 2.6 45.1 52.3 de249 Hof, Landkreis 2006 1.6 44.5 53.8 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐36.3 ‐1.4 3.0 1995 1.5 47.3 51.2 2000 1.4 45.6 53.0 de24a Kronach 2006 1.6 41.6 56.8 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) 17.8 ‐8.8 7.2 1995 1.4 38.2 60.4 2000 1.4 40.0 58.6 de24d Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge 2006 0.8 38.4 60.7 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐41.0 ‐4.0 3.7 1995 0.2 22.0 77.8 2000 0.2 23.9 75.9 de253 Fürth, Kreisfreie Stadt 2006 0.2 19.5 80.4 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐24.7 ‐18.6 5.9 de254 Nuremberg, Kreisfreie Stadt 1995 0.2 30.5 69.4
59 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
GVA by sector (%) Region Year Agriculture Industry Services 2000 0.2 28.4 71.4 2006 0.2 24.2 75.7 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐9.2 ‐14.9 6.0 1995 0.3 48.2 51.5 2000 0.3 46.7 53.0 de262 Schweinfurt, Kreisfreie Stadt 2006 0.2 52.9 46.9 ∆ 2000‐2006 (%) ‐40.4 13.2 ‐11.4 Source: InTeReg processing of Eurostat data 2009
60 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
5.2 References
• Alecke, B., Hofman et al. (2001): Auswirkungen der EU‐Osterweiterung auf Wirtschaft und Arbeitsmarkt in Bayern: Studie im Auftrag des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Wirtschaft, Verkehr und Technologie, München.
• Bayerische Staatskanzlei (n. d.): High‐Tech‐Offensive Bayern: Bilanz und Perspektiven, München.
• Bayerischer Staatsminister für Bundes‐ und Europaangelegenheiten (n. d.): Bericht über die Vorbereitung Bayerns auf die Osterweiterung. Bayerische Staatskanzlei, München.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2005): Mittelstandsbericht 2005, Bericht der Bayerischen Staatsregierung über die Lage der mittelständischen Wirtschaft und der Freien Berufe in Bayern, München.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie, Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie und Frauen (2006a): Ziel‐2‐Programm Bayern 2000‐2006. Einheitliches Programmplanungsdokument zur EU‐Strukturfondsförderung. Genehmigte Endfassung, 16.11.2006, München.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie, Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie und Frauen (2006b): Ziel‐2‐Programm Bayern 2000‐2006. Ergänzung zur Programmplanung geänderte Fassung, Stand 15.08.2006. In der vom Begleitausschuss genehmigten Fassung, München.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie, Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Familie und Frauen (2009): Ziel‐2‐Programm Bayern 2000‐2006. Jahresbericht 2008, Stand 22.06.2009, München.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2006c): Ziel‐2‐ Programm Bayern 2000 – 2006. Jahresbericht 2006 zum 20.06.2007, München.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2003): Halbzeitbewertung des Ziel‐2‐Programmes Bayern 2000‐2006 Endbericht, 2. Fassung, by ConM, ÖIR, RRV, München, Wien, Bayreuth.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie/Bayerischer Industrie‐ und Handelskammertag (2006d): Bayern Foreign Trade 2006.
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2005): Aktualisierung der Halbzeitbewertung des Bayern‐EU‐Ziel‐2‐ Programms 2000‐2006, by Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (ÖIR), Wien.
61 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2004): The European Structural Funds in Germany (2000‐2006), Bayern, München.
• Berger, C. (2002): Technologie‐ und Innovationspolitik in Bayern, WSI Diskussionspapier, Nr. 105.
• ERAWATCH RIP‐WATCH (2007): Analysis of the Regional Dimensions of Investment in Research, Case Study Regional Report: Bayern, by Stahlecker T., Baier, E., Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), http://cordis.europa.eu/erawatch/.
• Hamm R., Wienert H. (1990): Structural Adaption Processes of old industrial regions – an international comparative Analysis, Schriftenreihe des RWI, N.F: Heft 48, Duncker Humblot, Berlin
• Handwerkskammer für Oberfranken et al. (2005): Ertüchtigungsprogramm Ostbayern Begleitmaßnahmen. Zwischenbericht über die Projekte der ostbayerischen Wirtschaftskammern, Passau, Bayreuth, Coburg, Regensburg.
• Koschatzky, K., Stahlecker, T. (2009): Cohesion policy at the interface between regional development and the promotion of innovation. Working Papers Firms and Region, No. R3/2009, Karlsruhe.
• Moritz, M., Gröger, M. (2007): The German‐Czech Border Region after the Fall of the Iron Curtain: Effects on the Labour Market. An Empirical Study Using the IAB Employment Sample (IABS), Regensburg.
• Riedel, J., Untiedt, G. (2001): EU‐Osterweiterung und deutsche Grenzregionen Strukturpolitik und Raumplanung in den Regionen an der mitteleuropäischen EU‐Außengrenze zur Vorbereitung auf die EU‐Osterweiterung. Teilprojekte. ifo Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Forschungsnetzwerk Strukturentwicklung und Förderpolitik, Dresden.
• Schlemmer, T., Wöller, H. (2001): Die Erschließung des Landes 1949‐1973, München.
5.3 Links
• Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik und Datenverarbeitung 2008: Pressemitteilung, 130/2008/42/A, München, den 26. November 2008, http://www.statistik.bayern.de/pressemitteilungen/archiv/2008/LfStaD/130_2008.php, , 6.9.2009
• Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft, Infrastruktur, Verkehr und Technologie (2009) http://www.stmwivt.bayern.de/EFRE_2000‐2006/Ziel_2/, 10.5.2009
• Invest in Bavaria (2009): http://www.invest‐in‐bavaria.de/en/bavarias‐clusters/, 18.5.2009
62 Work Package 4: “Structural Change and Globalisation”
• Kaiser, T. (2003): Zonenrand ist abgebrannt. In: Die Welt: http://www.welt.de/print‐ wams/article102119/Zonenrand_ist_abgebrannt.html, 8.6.2009
5.4 List of persons interviewed
Interviews with Experts
• Dr. Armin Rudolph, Ministry for Economic Affairs in Bayern, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology, responsible for Regional Competitiveness & Employment Objective 2007‐2013 – ERDF; 16.7.2009
• Dr. Hans F. Trunzer, Deputy Managing Director of Industrie‐ und Handelskammer Oberfranken, 16.7.2009
• Dr. Ulrich Weishaupt, Head of ‘Technologieförderung, Innovationsberatungsstelle Südbayern’ (IBS), Ministry for Economic Affairs in Bayern, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology; 14.7.2009
• Manuela Voggenauer, Ministry for Economic Affairs in Bayern, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology; 16.7.2009
• MR Dr. Hans‐Peter Kraußer, head of the department III/1, EU structural policy, Ministry for Economic Affairs in Bayern, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology; 16.7.2009
• Thorsten Grzesik, Project leader at Außenwirtschaftszentrum Bayern for the project GoInternational; 23.7.2009
Interviews with Beneficiaries
• Dr. Hans F. Trunzer, Deputy Managing Director of Industrie‐ und Handelskammer Oberfranken, 16.07.2009
• Dr. Ulrich Weishaupt, Head of ‘Technologieförderung, Innovationsberatungsstelle Südbayern’ (IBS), Ministry for Economic Affairs in Bayern, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology; 14. 07.2009
• MBA Matthias Henfling, Director of the Logistik‐Agentur Oberfranken e. V., 7.9.2009
• Norbert Gebhardt, NETZSCH‐Feinmahltechnik GmbH, 4.09.2009
• Prof. Dr. Huber, board member of CeramTec AG, 10.9.2009
• Robert Reichenberger, project coordinator, RAUMEDIC AG, 10.08.2009
63 Case Study – Bayern (DE)
• Thorsten Grzesik, project leader at Außenwirtschaftszentrum Bayern for the project GoInternational; 23.07.2009
64