Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020

Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020 provides a comprehensive assessment of how regions and cities across the OECD are progressing in a number of aspects connected to economic development, health, well-being and net zero-carbon transition. In the light of the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the report analyses outcomes and drivers of social, economic and environmental resilience. Consult the full publication here.

OECD REGIONS AND CITIES AT A GLANCE - COUNTRY NOTE

FINLAND

A. Resilient regional societies to global crisis

B. Regional economic disparities and trends in productivity

C. Well-being in regions

D. Industrial transition in regions

E. Transitioning to clean energy in regions

F. Metropolitan trends in growth and sustainability

The data in this note reflect different subnational geographic levels in OECD countries: • Regions are classified on two territorial levels reflecting the administrative organisation of countries: large regions (TL2) and small regions (TL3). Small regions are classified according to their access to metropolitan areas (see https://doi.org/10.1787/b902cc00-en). • Functional urban areas consists of cities – defined as densely populated local units with at least 50 000 inhabitants – and adjacent local units connected to the city (commuting zones) in terms of commuting flows (see https://doi.org/10.1787/d58cb34d-en). Metropolitan areas refer to functional urban areas above 250 000 inhabitants.

Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020 Austria country note 2  A. Resilient regional societies to global crisis

Helsinki-Uusimaa has the highest potential for remote working A1. Share of jobs amenable to remote working, 2018 Large regions (TL2, map)

High (>40%) 3540-50%-40% 30-35% LUX 30-40% GBR AUS 2520-30%-30% SWE CHE Low (<25%) NLD ISL DNK FRA FIN NOR BEL LTU EST IRL GRC DEU AUT LVA SVN OECD30 PRT HRV POL ITA USA CZE HUN CAN ESP ROU SVK BGR TUR COL 0 10 20 30 40 50 %

The share of jobs amenable to remote working ranges from close to 49% in Helsinki-Uusimaa to 33% in Eastern and Northern Finland (Figure A1). Such differences depend on the task content of the occupations in the regions, which can be amenable to remote working to different extents. The occupations available in the capital regions tend to be more amenable to remote working than in other areas of the country.

Åland and Helsinki-Uusimaa had the highest fiber optic availability across large regions in Finland with 55% and 42% of the buildings connected to the network in 2017, respectively (Figure A2).

A2- Internet infrastructure % of buildings connected to fiber, 2017

Åland

Helsinki-Uusimaa

Western Finland

East and North Finland

Southern Finland

0 20 40 60 80 100 % Low coverage Full coverage

Figure [A1]: The lower percentage range (<25%) depicts the bottom quintile among 370 OECD and EU regions, the following ranges are based on increment of 5 percentage points. Further reading: OECD (2020), Capacity to remote working can affect lockdown costs differently across places, http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/capacity-for-remote-working-can-affect-lockdown-costs-differently-across-places-0e85740e/  3 Ageing challenges regions far from metropolitan areas more strongly The elderly dependency rate has been increasing in all types of regions in Finland since 2000 and at a faster pace than in the rest of the OECD area since 2010. Regions far from metropolitan areas show the highest elderly dependency rate (41%) (Figure A3). In 11 out of 19 small regions in Finland, there two elderly for every five persons in their working-age in 2019 (Figure A4).

A3. Elderly dependency rate A4. Elderly dependency rate, 2019 By type of small regions in Finland (TL3) Small regions (TL3)

Metropolitan regions Regions near a metropolitan area % Regions far from a metropolitan area 45

25 OECD average of regions 20 2000 2010 2019

Hospital beds per capita have decreased since 2000 and are below OECD average in all regions

A5 - Hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants The number of hospital beds per capita ‰ Large regions (TL2) have significantly declined in all regions of 8 Finland, going below OECD average in

2018. (Figure A5). Åland have the lowest 6 number of hospital beds per capita in 2017, with 1.5 bed par 1000 inhabitants less than 4 in Eastern and Northern Finland.

2 -

Finland

Eastern and and Eastern

Finland Western Western

Helsinki

Southern Southern

Åland

Finland OECD

Uusimaa Northern Finland Northern 0 2017 2000

Figure notes. [A3]: OECD (2019), Classification of small (TL3) regions based on metropolitan population, low density and remoteness https://doi.org/10.1787/b902cc00-en. Two-year moving averages. [A4]: Small (TL3) regions contained in large regions. TL3 regions in Finland are composed by 19 Maakunnat. Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020 Austria country note 4  B. Regional economic disparities and trends in productivity

Finland has the second lowest regional economic disparities among OECD countries The regional gap in GDP per capita in Finland decreased over the last eighteen years due to higher growth of poorest regions. Finland has the second smallest regional economic disparities among OECD countries with comparable data. In the region of Helsinki, GDP per capita was 54% higher than in the Eastern and Northern region in 2018 (Figure B1). Productivity has grown at different rates in Finnish regions over the period 2000-19, with growth ranging from 0.5% per year in Southern Finland and Helsinki-Uusimaa (excluding Åland, 0.4%) to 0.9% per year in Eastern and Northern Finland (Figure B2). After a period of relative stagnation of their productivity, regions far from a metropolitan area of at least 250,000 inhabitants have narrowed their gap to metropolitan regions since 2007, and are still exceeding the productivity level of regions with access to a metropolitan area in 2017 (Figure B3).

B1. Regional disparity in GDP per capita Top 20% richest over bottom 20% poorest regions Ratio Small regions Large regions

2018 2000 Country (number of regions considered) Note: A ratio with a value equal to 2 means that the GDP of the most developed regions accounting for 20% of the national population is twice as high as the GDP of the poorest regions accounting for 20% of the national population.

B2. Gap in regional productivity B3. Gap in productivity by type of TL3 region GDP per worker, large (TL2) regions GDP per worker level of metropolitan regions=100 USD Per cent 120 000 100 110 000 95

100 000 90

90 000 85

80 000 80 Helsinki-Uusimaa (Highest productivity) 70 000 75 Metropolitan regions Eastern and Northern Finland (Lowest Regions near a metropolitan area productivity in 2000) Regions far from a metropolitan area 60 000 70

Figure note [B2]: figure excludes Åland which has the lowest productivity in Finland and represents less than 1% of the employment of the country.  5 C. Well-being in regions

All Finnish regions rank above the top 20% of OECD regions in terms of life satisfaction and air quality.

C1 Well-being regional gap

Top region Bottom region Helsinki-Uusimaa Regions (Suuralueet)

Helsinki- Åland Western Southern Åland Helsinki- Finland Eastern and Uusimaa Uusimaa Finland Åland Northern Finland

top top 20% Åland Helsinki- Åland Åland

Uusimaa (1 to 440) to (1

Western Åland Åland Finland Eastern and

middle middle 60% Northern Finland Helsinki- Eastern and Northern Finland Åland Uusimaa Eastern and

Northern Finland Ranking Ranking OECD of regions

bottom bottom 20% Åland Åland

Access to Jobs Safety Civic Community Health Housing Income Education Environment Life services Engagement Satisfaction

Note: Relative ranking of the regions with the best and worst outcomes in the 11 well-being dimensions, with respect to all 440 OECD regions. The eleven dimensions are ordered by decreasing regional disparities in the country. Each well-being dimension is measured by the indicators in the table below.

In eight out of the eleven well-being dimensions, at least one Finnish region ranks in the top 20% of the OECD regions. High life satisfaction and air quality put all Finnish regions above the top 20% of OECD regions in those two dimensions. Regional disparities are instead highest in terms of access to services (broadband) and jobs. For example, Åland ranks in the top 5% of the OECD regions in terms of jobs outcomes (employment and unemployment rates), while the Eastern and Northern regions rank in the bottom third of OECD regions. (Figure C1).

The top performing Finnish regions are among the OECD top 20% regions in six out of the 13 outcomes indicators (Figure C2).

C2. How do the top and bottom regions fare on the well-being indicators?

Finish regions Country OECD Top Average 20% regions Top 20% Bottom 20% Access to services Households w ith broadband access (%), 2019 93.0 91.3 95.6 90.7 Jobs Employment rate 15 to 64 years old (%), 2019 72.9 76.0 75.5 70.0 Unemployment rate 15 to 64 years old (%), 2019 6.9 3.3 6.5 8.1 Safety Homicide Rate (per 100 000 people), 2016-18 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 Civic engagement Voters in last national election (%), 2019 or lastest year 66.8 84.2 68.3 64.0 Community Perceived social netw ork support (%), 2014-18 95.2 94.1 96.1 94.2 Health Life Expectancy at birth (years), 2018 81.7 82.6 82.5 81.1 Age adjusted mortality rate (per 1 000 people), 2018 7.5 6.6 7.3 7.8 Housing Rooms per person, 2018 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.8 Income Disposable income per capita (in USD PPP), 2018 20 975 26 617 20 975 20 975 Education Population w ith at least upper secondary education, 25-64 year-olds (%), 2019 90.1 90.3 90.9 89.3 Environment Level of air pollution in PM 2.5 (µg/m³), 2019 6.2 7.0 4.7 6.4 Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction (scale from 0 to 10), 2014-18 7.6 7.3 7.8 7.5

Note: OECD regions refer to the first administrative tier of subnational government (large regions, Territorial Level 2); Finland is composed of five large regions. Visualisation: https://www.oecdregionalwellbeing.org.

Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020 Austria country note 6  D. Industrial transition in regions

Manufacturing employment has consistently declined across Finnish regions since 2000

D1. Manufacturing employment share, regional gap Large TL2 regions % Between 2000 and 2017, all large regions in 25 Finland experienced a decline in the share of manufacturing employment. With a reduction of 8*percentage points in the share of 20 manufacturing employment, Southern Finland, South the most populous region, recorded the largest 15 decline (Figure D1).

Highest decline East and Lowest decline North 10

While manufacturing employment has declined in all Finnish regions since 2000, manufacturing gross value added has declined in all regions except Åland (Figure D2).

D2. Manufacturing trends, 2000-17 Total jobs Jobs in GVA in by region manufacturing manufacturing Size of bubble represents Total regional Employment in GVA in the % value of the indicator employment as manufacturing as manufacturing as a a share of a share of Colours represent the share of regional

Legend national regional 2000-17 change employment employment employment

Helsinki-Uusimaa 5

Western Finland 4

Eastern and Northern Finland 3

Southern Finland 2

Åland 1

Largest bubble size represents: 35% 18% 22%

Figure [D.2]: Regions are ordered by regional employment as a share of national employment. Colour of the bubbles represents the evolution of the share over the period 2000-17 in percentage points: red: below -2 pp; orange: between -2 pp and -1 pp; yellow: between -1 pp and 0; light blue: between 0 and +1 pp; medium blue: between +1 pp and +2 pp; dark blue: above +2 pp over the period.  7 E. Transitioning to clean energy in regions

Western Finland and the region of Helsinki still rely on coal for at least one fifth of the electricity produced in these regions

Western Finland and Eastern-Northern Finland contribute to 40% and 28% of the country’s total electricity production, respectively. Nevertheless, Western Finland is still lagging behind in terms of clean electricity production. In 2017, Western Finland used 23% of renewables and 20% of coal for electricity production, while Eastern-Northern Finland used renewable sources for 99% of its electricity production (Figure E1). E1. Transition to renewable energy, 2017

Total electricity Regional share of Regional share of Greenhouse gas generation renewables in coal in emissions from (in GWh per year) electricity generation electricity generation electricity generated (%) (%) (in Ktons of CO2 eq.)

Western Finland 26 667 23% 20% 5 651 Wes. Eastern and Northern Finland 18 696 99% 0% 1 744 Eas. Helsinki-Uusimaa 13 936 1% 27% 4 149 Hel. Southern Finland 6 747 91% 0% 1 025 Sou.

While the region of Eastern and Northern Finland, and the region of Helsinki-Uusimaa produce comparable levels of electricity – around 15 000 gigawatts hour – their levels of CO2 emissions related to this activity are very unequal. In 2017, due to its high reliance on coal for electricity production, Helsinki-Uusimaa emitted around

4 000 tons of CO2 – more than two times higher than in Easter and Northern Finland (Figure E2).

E2. Contribution to total CO2 emissions from electricity production, 2017

Share of electricity production

High carbon efficiency Share of CO2 emissions Low carbon efficiency % Contribution to total electricity production Contribution to total electricity production higher than contribution to CO2 emissions lower than contribution to CO2 emissions 50

0 Eastern and Northern Finland Southern Finland Western Finland Helsinki-Uusimaa

Figure notes: Regions are arranged in Figure E1 by total generation, and in Figure E2 according to gap between share of electricity generation and share of CO2 emissions (most positive to most negative). These estimates refer to electricity production from the power plants connected to the national power grid, as registered in the Power Plants Database. As a result, small electricity generation facilities disconnected from the national power grid might not be captured. Renewable energy sources include hydropower, geothermal power, biomass, wind, solar, wave and tidal and waste. See here for more details. Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020 Austria country note 8  F. Metropolitan trends in growth and sustainability

Compared to OECD average, a higher share of population in Finland lives in intermediate cities below 500 thousands inhabitants or outside cities.

In Finland, 56% of the population lives in cities of more than 50 000 inhabitants and their respective commuting areas (functional urban areas, FUAs). The share of population in FUAs with more than 500 000 people is 27%, lower than the OECD average of 60% (Figure F1). F1. Distribution of population in cities by city size Functional urban areas, 2018 Finland,United percentage States of population in cities Population by city size, a global view

Above Between 250 000 Between 50 000 Other settlements 500 000 pop. and 500 000 pop. and 250 000 pop. below 50 000 other settlements above % below 50 000 500 000 100

27% 80 5.5 million 44% 60 people - 56% live in cities 40 75% 64% 60% 19% between 250 000 56% and 500 000 20 10% 27% 25% between 50 000 0 and 250 000 Finland Europe OECD (29 countries) (37 countries)

Built-up area remained stable in the metropolitan area of Helsinki since 2000 Built-up area per capita remained stable in the metropolitan area of Helsinki since 2000, with the growth in built-up area reflecting the growth of population. The metropolitan area of Helsinki has over 30% lower built- up area per capita than the OECD average of metropolitan areas, with levels very similar to Zurich, Switzerland (Figure F2).

F2. Built-up area per capita Selection of functional urban areas with more than 500 000 population m2 per capita 2014 2000 400

300

200

100

Riga

Paris

Berlin Seoul

Rome

Tokyo

Zurich

Dublin

Vilnius Lisbon Tallinn

Madrid

Vienna Athens

Ottawa Bogota

Prague

Sydney London

Helsinki Geneva

Warsaw

Brussels

Budapest

Bratislava

Stockholm

Valparaiso

Amsterdam

Mexico City

Washington

Luxembourg OECD average

Source: OECD Metropolitan Database. Number of metropolitan areas with a population of over 500 000: one in Finland compared to 349 in the OECD.  9

Helsinki metropolitan area ranks among the top 30% of OECD metropolitan areas in terms of GDP per capita, with levels slightly below Copenhagen, Denmark and Oslo, Norway In terms of GDP per capita, Helsinki metropolitan area is among the top 30% of OECD metropolitan areas − with more than 500 000 people, and ranks below Copenhagen, Denmark and Oslo, Norway (Figure F3). Between 2001 and 2018, GDP per capita in the metropolitan area of Helsinki grew by 9.5% over the period, almost half the country average of 19.9%.

F3. Trends in GDP per capita in metropolitan areas Functional urban areas above 500 000 people