Are Stateless Nations Discriminated in Terms of Social Progress?

Informes Fundació Catalunya Europa [05/17]

Are stateless nations discriminated in terms of social progress?

An analysis of the 19 EFA countries through the data of the European Regional Social Progress Index.

[Autor:] Marc Tataret Batalla

Peer Reviewer: Jordi Angusto Zambrano Amb la col·laboració de: Informes Fundació Catalunya Europa [05/17]

Are stateless nations discriminated in terms of social progress?

An analysis of the 19 EFA countries through the data of the European Regional Social Progress Index.

[Autor:] Marc Tataret Batalla

Peer Reviewer: Jordi Angusto Zambrano

Contents

1. Introduction – Executive Summary...... 3 1.1 The EU-SPI as an analytical tool...... 4 1.2 The EFA countries...... 6 1.3 Methodology...... 7 2. Comparing the 19 EFA countries...... 9 3. EFA Countries Profile...... 14 3.1 First Analysis: Bavaria ...... 15 3.2. Second Analysis: Flemish Region ...... 18 3.3. Third Analysis: The Six EFA Countries of Spain...... 22 3.4. Fourth Analysis: The Two EFA Countries of France ...... 35 3.5. Fifth Analysis: The Four EFA Countries of Italy...... 41 3.6. Sixth Analysis: Friesland (NL) ...... 50 3.7. Seventh Analysis: The Two EFA Countries of the United Kingdom ...... 52 3.8. Eighth Analysis: Moravia ...... 59 3.9. Ninth Analysis: Latvia ...... 63 4. Conclusions. Is there a lack of social progress amongst EFA Countries? ...... 64 5. Bibliography ...... 66

1. Introduction – Executive Summary.

The Scottish Independence Referendum held in September 2014 or the next coming Catalan referendum on October 2017 confirm that nationalistic and sovereign movements have gained momentum in Europe. In this study, we will analyse the situation of 19 EFA countries in accordance with their results on the EU-SPI (European Union Regional Social Progress Index) to better improve our understanding of their current situation and the roots of that momentum.

The 19 regions analysed in this study are represented by members of the EFA, European Free Alliance1, a political party of the European Parliament that gathers 45 progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomist parties and wants to promote the right of self-determination of peoples. We refer to those EU Regions that have a strong will to became an independent state as EFA countries.

Our main goal is to check if there is a social progress “cost” in the EFA countries that helps us understand the strength of the nationalistic claims in those EFA countries. An example could be the situation of Catalonia, country that has a much lower social progress (EU-SPI Rank 163rd) that what would be normal according to its GDP per capita (EU Rank 68th). Due to the inflow of money to the Spanish state that does not come back to Catalonia, the Catalan people do not dispose of those resources to increase their social progress, and that may be an explanation to its situation.

In our research, we have found that not all EFA countries fit in the Catalan profile, but Lombardy or Veneto do so in the Italian context.

There is not a straightforward relationship between a relatively high GDPpc and a lack of social progress in the EFA countries. There are countries with a low GDP per capita and a low EU-SPI (Campania), countries with a high GDPpc and a low EU-SPI (Veneto), countries with a low GDPpc and high EU-SPI (Wales) and countries with a high GDPpc and a high EU-SPI (Bavaria). This has led us to the conclusion that independentist movements are mainly based in cultural aspects, but it is when you add socio-economic revindications when they become stronger. The roots of nationalistic claims are not economic factors, but when a country has a strong national feeling and a socio-economic offense, it is very possible to find a very strong nationalistic movement.

In the first chapter, we will present the dataset that has been used as a base for this study (EU- SPI), the EFA countries analysed (and their respective political parties that are members of EFA) and the methodology of the study.

In the second chapter, we will analyse the 19 countries chosen for this study and we will compare them with each other, checking the main figures on population, GDP per capita and the EU-SPI results.

Finally, in the third chapter we will contextualize the situation of the EFA countries in the context of the current states they are part of, states that will be known in the rest of the report as EU Member States.

1 http://www.e-f-a.org/about-us/whats-efa-and-history/ 3

1.1 The EU-SPI as an analytical tool.

The European Union Regional Social Progress Index is a tool developed by the European Commission (DG Regio), Instituto Orkestra and Deloitte to measure the social progress in the 272 regions of the European Union, according to the methodology of the Social Progress Index, developed by the organization Social Progress Imperative (non-profit).

The definitive version was released in October 20162. A first draft was released in February 20163. As the main index, computed for more than 130 countries in the world, the EU Regional Social Progress Index (EU-SPI) is a tool to complement existing welfare indices (such as GDP per capita or HDI), evaluating how effectively the economic success of a country is transformed into social progress.

The EU-SPI unit of analysis are the 272 NUTS 2 Regions of the European Union. To do so, it uses 50 indicators (the main data sources are Eurostat and the EU-SILC). Those 50 indicators are divided in three main dimensions:

1. Basic Human Needs 2. Foundations of Wellbeing 3. Opportunity

Each dimension is divided in four components (totalizing in 12 components), which at the time contain from three to seven indicators. Those indicators are normalised and then aggregated to compute the EU-SPI score.

When the index was released, it showed a great contrast between how regions performed if we use the GDP per capita as a measure of well-being, and how they perform if we use the EU-SPI. Some regions, as the capital region of Belgium (Région de Bruxelles-Capitale), which has a large GDP per capita performed poorly in the EU-SPI (you can find other examples, mainly in capital regions and in many regions in Italy and Spain).

There are two notable difference between the EU-SPI and Global SPI:

1. A lower correlation between per capita income and the EU-SPI that between SPI Global and per capita income

2. Different results in the Opportunity dimension in Europe, as well as a different behaviour of the components Access to Basic Knowledge, Personal Safety, Personal Rights and Tolerance and Inclusion.4

2 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/maps/social_progress 3 https://www2.deloitte.com/gr/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/social-progress-index.html 4 Expanded extract written by the author of the study, Marc Tataret Batalla, to disseminate the knowledge about the EU Social Progress Index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Social_Progress_Index

The usefulness of the EU-SPI as analytical tool was tested in a previous study commissioned to Fundació Catalunya Europa by The Greens-EFA group of the European Parliament5. The region that was chosen to test the EU-SPI applications was Catalonia.

The study identified the three most problematic issues for the Catalan society. Those problems, which are possibly correlated, were:

• Access to Basic Knowledge • Personal Rights • Shelter

The EU Social Progress Index is a very enriching form of measuring the welfare of a society. Its multidimensional structure enables the detection and specification of the main problems that affect our society with an accuracy far greater than the GDP per capita or the Human Development Index, and enables the adoption of specific measures to tackle them.

You can find which indicators make each component in the in the following table, taken from the EU-SPI website, that contains the data of Catalonia (Catalunya), one of the 272 NUTS regions that appear in the EU-SPI dataset.

Table 1. The EU-SPI Dimensions, components and indicators:

5 Beyond GDP: Applications and Interpretation of the EU-SPI by Marc Tataret, Jordi Angusto and Francesc Colomé. 5

1.2 The EFA countries.

In this study, we are analysing the 19 EFA countries highlighted in the map below:

In the Netherlands, we can find the NUTS 26 region of Friesland, represented in EFA by the political party Fryske Nasjonale Partij (FNP).

In Spain, we can find the NUTS 2 region of Basque Country, represented in EFA by the political parties Eusko Alkartasuna (EA) and Aralar, the NUTS 2 region of Aragon, represented in EFA by the political party Chunta Aragoneista (Cha), the NUTS 2 region of Valencian Country, represented in EFA by political party Bloc Nacionalista Valencià (BLOC), the NUTS 2 region of Galicia, represented in EFA by political party Bloque Nacionalista Galego (BNG), the NUTS 2 region of Catalonia, represented in EFA by political party Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC) and the Balearic Islands, represented in EFA by political party Federació PSM-Entesa Nacionlista (PSM-Entesa).

6 The NUTS classification (Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) is a hierarchical system for dividing up the economic territory of the EU to perform socio-economic analyses of the regions and collecting statistical data. The NUTS 2 unit of analysis is used for the application of regional policies. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/overview 6

In France, we can find the NUTS 2 region of Brittany, represented in EFA by the political party Union Démocratique Bretonne (UDB) and the NUTS 2 region of Corsica, represented in EFA by political party Partitu di a Nazione Corsa (PNC).

In Italy, we can find the NUTS 2 region of Veneto, represented in EFA by the political party Liga Veneta Repubblica, the NUTS 2 region of Sardinia, represented in EFA by the political party Partito Sardo d’Azione (PSd’Az), the NUTS 2 region of Lombardy, represented in EFA by the political party Pro Lombardia Indipendenza (PLI) and the NUTS 2 region of Campania, represented in EFA by the political party L'Altro Sud.

In the United Kingdom, we can find the NUTS 17 region of Scotland, represented in EFA by the political party Scottish National Party (SNP) and the NUTS 1 region of Wales, represented in EFA by the political party Plaid Cymru.

In Germany, we can find the NUTS 1 region of Bavaria, represented in EFA by the political party Bayernpartei.

In Belgium, we can find the NUTS 1 region of Flanders, represented in EFA by the political party Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA).

In the Czech Republic, we can find the historical country of Moravia, represented by the political party Moravané. See methodology (chapter 1.3) for further explanation.

Finally, we are also analysing the data about Latvia. The political party that represents the Russian minority in Latvia in the EFA is the Latvian Russian Union (RSL). See methodology (chapter 1.3) for further explanation.

1.3 Methodology.

In this study, we have used as basic units of analysis the 19 EFA countries with nationalistic claims. Most of those regions fit with a NUTS 2 region according to Eurostat, but there were 3 exceptions:

1. Bavaria, Flanders, Wales and Scotland are NUTS 1 regions. 2. Moravia does not fit in any established NUTS division of the Czech Republic, so we reconstructed the SPI values of the 3 of the 7 Czech regions which are part (in some degree) of the historical country of Moravia. 3. Latvia is a country by itself, but as the EFA party member from Latvia (Latvian Russian Union) represents the Russian minority in Latvia, we have analysed the whole country. Even if we tried to analyse the regions of Latvia with the biggest presence of Russian population, it could not be possible with the current EU-SPI dataset, as Latvia is not divided in NUTS 2 regions.

To calculate the data from Bavaria, Wales, Flanders, Scotland and Moravia we have followed the methodology of the EU-SPI, on how to obtain the values of the EU-countries. We have used the same methodology to mix the values from different NUTS 2 regions to calculate the data of EFA

7 A NUTS 1 region is a bigger statistical unit than a NUTS 2 region, focused to the analysis of major socio- economic regions. 7 countries that do not appear in the EU-SPI dataset. To better understand the procedure see Annoni, Dijkstra, and Hellman, 2016.

In this study, we used the GDP per capita data obtained from Eurostat to contrast the EU-SPI data of the 19 regions that we have analysed.

GDP data is presented in PPS. PPS is an acronym for Purchasing Power Standards, and is used by Eurostat to eliminate the effect of price level in comparisons across countries. Although we think it is the best way to compare purchasing power, in the regional analysis we have found a problem. Eurostat calculates the PPS at a national level, so the GDP per capita in a country with high prices like Catalonia is overestimated, and the GDP per capita in a low prices country as Galicia is underestimated, even though both are part of the same country. To solve this issue, Eurostat, or each national statistical office should provide regional PPS. Eurostat PPS are good to eliminate price effects among countries, but not within countries.

Population data was also obtained from Eurostat.

For the sake of simplicity, the names of the regions have been written in English. The original names (and the English names) of each EFA country appear in a table in page 9.

When we recomputed the values of the NUTS 1 regions and Moravia, the total of regions was reduced from 272 regions in the original EU-SPI Dataset to 257 regions.

The value of the NUTS 1 region of Scotland was obtained from the four Scottish NUTS 2 regions of Eastern Scotland, North Eastern Scotland, South Western Scotland and Highlands and Islands.

The value of the NUTS 1 region of Bavaria was obtained from the eight Bavarian NUTS 2 regions of OberBavaria, Mittelfranken, Schwaben, Unterfranken, Oberpfalz, Oberfranken and NiederBavaria.

The value of the NUTS 1 region of Moravia was obtained from the three Moravian NUTS 2 regions of Jihovýchod, Strední Morava and Moravskoslezsko.

The value of the NUTS 1 region of Flemish Region was obtained from the three Flemish NUTS 2 regions of Prov. Vlaams-Brabant, Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen, Prov. West-Vlaanderen, Prov. Antwerpen and Prov. Limburg (BE).

The value of the NUTS 1 region of Wales was obtained from the two Welsh NUTS 2 regions of East Wales and West Wales and The Valleys.

2. Comparing the 19 EFA countries.

We have found a notable variety among the 19 EFA countries. There is not a clear pattern in terms of GDP per capita, SPI or in the relationship of each EFA country with its respective EU Member State. In the table below you can find the 19 regions analyzed in this study, together with their respective GDP per capita, the difference with the average GDP per capita of their respective EU Member States and the name of the region, both in English and in their own language.

Table 2.1 Basic data of the 19 EFA countries. GDPpc.

GDPpc Name (language) English Name Country GDP PPS Country GDP PPS Difference Galicia (Galego) Galicia Spain 21.800 € 24.200 € -2.400 € Illes Balears (Català) Balearic Islands Spain 25.300 € 24.200 € 1.100 € Aragón (Aragonés) Aragon Spain 27.000 € 24.200 € 2.800 € Catalunya (Català) Catalonia Spain 28.400 € 24.200 € 4.200 € Euskadi (Euskera) The Basque Country Spain 32.500 € 24.200 € 8.300 € País Valencià (Valencià) Valencian Country Spain 21.200 € 24.200 € -3.000 € Corsica (Corsu) Corsica France 22.800 € 27.400 € -4.600 € Latvija (Latviešu valoda) Latvia Latvia 15.000 € 15.000 € 0 € Sardigna (Sardu) Sardinia Italy 19.300 € 25.500 € -6.200 € Fryslân (Frysk) Friesland Netherlands 26.300 € 32.500 € -6.200 € Breizh (Brezhoneg) Bretagne France 22.400 € 27.400 € -5.000 € Campania (Nnapulitano) Campania Italy 15.700 € 25.500 € -9.800 € Vèneto (Vèneto) Veneto Italy 29.600 € 25.500 € 4.100 € Lumbardéa (Lombard) Lombardy Italy 33.200 € 25.500 € 7.700 €

Non-NUTS 2 regions:

Country Name (original) English Name Country GDP PPS GDPpc Difference GDP PPS United Scotland (Scots) Scotland 24.500 € 26.400 € - 1.900 € Kingdom Bavaria (Boarisch) Bavaria Germany 35.300 € 30.800 € 4.500 € Czech Morava (Czech) Moravia 17.700 € 20.300 € - 2.600 € Republic Vlaams Gewest (Vlaams) Flemish Region Belgium 30.100 € 30.200 € - 100 € United Cymru (Cymraeg) Wales 18.600 € 26.400 € - 7.800 € Kingdom

We can appreciate that thirteen of the 19 EFA countries have a GDP that is below their respective country GDP. The exceptions are four Spanish EFA countries (Catalonia, Balearic Islands, The Basque Country and Aragon), two Italian regions (Veneto and Lombardy) and Bavaria in Germany.

The EFA country with the highest GDP per capita is Bavaria (35.300 €), and the EFA country with the lowest GDP per capita is Campania8 (15.700 €).

The EFA country that has the biggest negative gap with respect to its current country is Campania (15.700 €), with a GDP per capita difference of - 9.800 € with the national average. The EFA country with the smallest absolute gap is the Flemish Region (30.100 €), with a negative difference of just 100 €. The EFA country with the highest positive gap with respect to its current country is The Basque Country (32.500 €), with a GDP per capita difference of 8.300 € with respect to the national average.

Table 2.2 Basic data of the 19 EFA countries. EU-SPI scores.

EFA Country EU Member State EFA Country EU Member EU-SPI EU -SPI State EU-SPI Difference Friesland (NL) Netherlands 79,41 77,91 1,50 Basque Country Spain 71,41 65,14 6,27 Bretagne France 70,81 67,33 3,48 Aragon Spain 68,24 65,14 3,10 Valencian Country Spain 66,60 65,14 1,46 Galicia Spain 66,27 65,14 1,13 Catalonia Spain 65,51 65,14 0,37 Balearic Islands Spain 63,84 65,14 -1,30 Corsica France 62,75 67,33 -4,58 Veneto Italy 59,93 55,99 3,94 Sardinia Italy 59,36 55,99 3,37 Lombardy Italy 57,80 55,99 1,81 Latvia Latvia 54,60 53,10 1,50 Campania Italy 49,72 55,99 -6,27 Scotland United Kingdom 73,89 70,82 3,07 Bavaria Germany 72,90 70,65 2,25 Moravia Czech Republic 61,40 60,00 1,40 Flemish Region Belgium 72,71 67,80 4,91 Wales United Kingdom 72,01 70,82 1,19

In this case, we can see that the EFA countries are usually in a better position regarding social progress than the national average. There are only three exception to this situation, which are the Balearic Islands, a region that has a GDP per capita above the Spanish average, but a social progress score below the average (-1,30), Corsica, in France which has a social progress level way below the French average (-4,58) and Campania, in Italy, which is the EFA Country that has the biggest negative gap with respect with their national average (-6,27).

The EFA country with the highest score in the EU-SPI is Friesland (79,41), and the EFA country with the lowest score in the EU-SPI is Campania (49,72).

8 It should be Latvia, because it has a GDP per capita of 15.000 €, but Latvia is a EU-Member State, and its considered an EFA country following the reasons stated in the page 6. 10

The EFA country with the smallest gap is Catalonia (65,51), with a positive difference of just 0,37 points. The EFA country with the highest positive gap with respect to its current country is The Basque Country (71,41), with a EU-SPI score difference of 6,27 points with the national average.

Table 2.3 Basic data of the 19 EFA countries. GDPpc and EU-SPI rank.

EU-SPI Score GDP per capita EU-SPI GDPpc Rank Difference Rank Friesland (NL) 79,41 26.300 € 21 91 70 Basque Country 71,41 32.500 € 90 32 -58 Bretagne 70,81 22.400 € 104 127 23 Aragon 68,24 27.000 € 132 79 -53 Valencian Country 66,60 21.200 € 141 149 8 Galicia 66,27 21.800 € 143 137 -6 Catalonia 65,51 28.400 € 149 59 -90 Balearic Islands 63,84 25.300 € 160 99 -61 Corsica 62,75 22.800 € 166 120 -46 Veneto 59,93 29.600 € 186 50 -136 Sardinia 59,36 19.300 € 189 176 -13 Lombardy 57,80 33.200 € 203 29 -174 Latvia 54,60 15.000 € 230 222 -8 Campania 49,72 15.700 € 246 215 -31 Scotland 73,89 24.500 € 45 104 59 Bavaria 72,90 35.300 € 63 22 -41 Moravia 61,40 17.700 € 173 198 25 Flemish Region 72,71 30.100 € 69 47 -22 Wales 72,01 18.600 € 79 184 105

When we compare the ranks in terms of GDP per capita and EU-SPI of the EFA countries we start finding some peculiarities. There are countries that have a significant better position in terms of SPI than in terms of GDP per capita. This means that those countries can transform their wealth into social progress in a more effective way than the others. In this study, we will find a first hint of why those countries can perform better, which are its strengths, and, from an opposite point of view, which are the flaws (or other explanations) of the EFA-countries that perform in a poorer way than its GDPpc rank should indicate.

There is a correlation between GDPpc and Social Progress. That correlation is less strong in Europe (EU-SPI) than in the Global SPI. A possible explanation is that the correlation between GDP and the SPI is stronger in societies with a low GDPpc, and while GDP grows, the relationship between GDPpc and SPI becomes weaker. That is because as GDP grows and a society goes through the different stages of development, the components of the SPI that are less theoretically correlated with the GDPpc and those linked with the dimension Opportunities are the ones than determine the main differences between countries in regions. That is why we find that in our sample of the 19 EFA countries there is not a strong relationship between GDPpc and SPI. In chapter 3 (individual regional analysis) we will try to determine why, pointing out the main flaws and strengths of the different EFA countries.

One of the main characteristics of the EU-SPI as an analytical tool is that it is very useful to detect which are each country’s main issues and problematics in a holistic manner, and facilitates the proposal of solutions to increase social progress.

In the table 2.3 we can appreciate two extreme situations, countries that perform much better than its GDP indicates, and the opposite cases, countries that have a high GDP but a low SPI score. In the first group, we can find EFA countries like Friesland with a EU-SPI score of 79,41 (rank 21) and a GDPpc of 26.300 € (rank 91), with has a positive difference of 70 positions, or Wales, with a EU-SPI score of 72,01 (rank 79) but a GDPpc of just 18.600 € (rank 184), with a positive difference of 105 positions.

In the second group, we can find EFA countries like Lombardy with EU-SPI score of 57,80 (rank 203) and a GDPpc of 33.200 € (rank 29), with has a negative difference of 174 positions, or Veneto, with a EU-SPI score of 59,93 (rank 186) but a GDPpc of 29.600 € (rank 50), with a negative difference of 136 positions.9

This can be graphically seen in the scattered graph below:

Graph 2.1: Comparison Between EU-SPI scores and vs GDPpc. 19 EFA countries

85 Friesland (NL)

Scotland 80 Friesland (NL) Bayern

Vlaams Gewest

75 Wales Wales País Vasco 70 Bretagne

Aragón

65 Comunidad Valenciana

SPI score SPI Galicia

60 Cataluña Veneto Illes Balears Lombardia 55 Corse Moravia

50 Veneto Sardegna

Lombardia 45 14,00 19,00 24,00 29,00 34,00 Latvija GDP, x 1000 ppc Campania

The correlation between the EU-SPI scores and GDPpc on the 19 EFA countries is lower than the correlation of the same variables for the rest of the European Union10. This may be due to the

9 Both EFA countries are part of the EU Member State Italy, and in the chapter 3 we will explain the peculiarities of this country, because all the Italian NUTS 2 regions perform very poorly in the EU-SPI, much more if we compare it with its GDP per capita. 10 Correlation EFA countries: + 0,4 - Correlation EU-SPI 272 regions: + 0,6 12 inclusion of Italian and Spanish regions, which have a low EU-SPI score considering its GDP per capita. An alternative or complementary hypothesis is that the lack of a state for those 19 EFA countries makes them perform worse in the Opportunities dimension of the SPI, which does not allow them to reach their maximum potential in terms of social progress.

We can also see two trends that are common with the whole EU-SPI dataset and the Global SPI Dataset. Correlation between GDP and the SPI score seems to be more intense (orange line) in the regions with a low level of GDPpc (relatively speaking), that is, the regions with a GDP per capita between 15.000 € and 25.000 €. Then, we can observe more dispersion in the EU-SPI results of the regions that have a GDPpc greater than 25.000 € (purple line). As we have stated, this is related with the fact that in the first stages of economic development, the SPI dimensions that improve its score faster are Basic Human Needs (and Foundations of Wellbeing, in a less strong way), which are strongly correlated with GDPpc, so GDPpc determines social progress in a stronger way.

After reaching the barrier of 25.000 €, the key to improve the social progress of a region or country is heavily linked to the opportunities given to the population, which can be provided in much cases independently from the level of GDP, so they are not correlated and the relationship is less intense.

3. EFA Countries Profile.

In this chapter, we will show individual profiles of each EFA region, and each profile will contain three graphs, that will be analyzed in the following way:

The first graph purpose of is to find the strengths and flaws of the EFA countries in the European context. In this analysis (and in the case of the third graph), it is important to bear in mind which is the gap with the maximum values of each component, because it will show which is the real distance with a good performance in each component. The height of each component bar will show the distance between the rank of the different component of the EU-SPI for each EFA country and the rank of the GDPpc of the same EFA country (horizontal black line). If it has a rank higher than the GDP per capita rank, the bar will appear above the black line, and vice versa. In this graph, each EFA country is compared with the rest of European regions (reduced to 257 in this study).

The second graph purpose is to see if there is a strong relationship between GDPpc and the EU- SPI in that EU Member State, and to analyze the position of each EFA country in the context of its EU Member State. The graph shows the relationship between GDPpc and the EU-SPI scores in the EU Member State they are actually part of, by scattering the data of all the regions that form each EU Member State. Two figures that are important in this graph are the difference between maximum EU-SPI values and minimum EU-SPI values within a country together with the degree of correlation of the graph.

In some cases, we have made a second version of this graph, with the purpose to remove the regions that were clearly distorting the analysis (for example, the cases of capital-city regions, like Paris or London).

The third graph uses the same framework of the first graph, but in this case each EFA country is compared with the regions of the EU Member State they are currently part of. The purpose of the graph is to find the strengths and flaws of the EFA country in the “national” context. Another purpose is trying to find out if there are differences between the European analysis and the “national” analysis. If we find differences, we should differentiate a kind of country-effect from the specific characteristics of the region.

3.1. First Analysis: Bavaria

3.1.1. Bavaria EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Bavaria EU-SPI Value: 72,9 Bavaria GDPpc (2011): 35.300 €

Bavaria EU-SPI Position: 63 Bavaria GDPpc (2011) Position: 22

1 Rank = 18| Max. Gap = 6,99 Rank = 33| Max. Gap = 8,66

51 Rank = 41| Max. Gap = 28,6

Rank = 51| Max. Gap = 2,06 Rank = 70| Max. Gap = 5,87

101 Rank = 51| Max. Gap = 18,2 Rank = 79| Max. Gap = 8,57 Rank = 51| Max. Gap = 15,5 Rank = 113| Max. Gap = 12,1

Rank = 130| Max. Gap = 12,7

151 Rank Rank = 163| Max. Gap = 44,0

201 Rank = 185| Max. Gap = 51,1

251

301 Personal Safety Personal Personal Rights Water and Access to Access to Basic Health and Nutrition and Tolerance and Shelter Access to Environmental Freedom and Sanitation Information and Knowledge Wellness Basic Medical Inclusion Advanced Quality Choice Communications Care Education

Bavaria achieves a good rank (63) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, even though its rank by GDPpc is higher (22), which means that there are regions more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress. Its main strengths are the components Personal Safety and Personal Freedom and Choice, where it is at a close distance with the leading regions.

On the other hand, Bavaria underperforms in two components, Access to Advanced Education and Environmental Quality, where it has a very low ranking, and a huge gap with the regions that are leading those components.

3.1.2 EU-SPI and GDPpc comparison. German Länder – Bavaria. Correlation: 0,69.

75,00 Brandenburg

Bremen

74,00 Hamburg

MecklenburgVorpommern 73,00 Saarland SachsenAnhalt

72,00 SchleswigHolstein

Thüringen SPI SPI score Berlin 71,00 BadenWürttemberg

Hessen

70,00 Niedersachsen

NordrheinWestfalen

69,00 RheinlandPfalz

18,00 23,00 28,00 33,00 38,00 43,00 48,00 53,00 Sachsen

GDP, x 1000 ppc Bayern

In Germany, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the German länder is high, but the difference between top SPI scores (Hamburg; 74,2) and bottom SPI scores (Sachsen- Anhalt; 69,2) is very small, of just 5 points. This means that the German state and German regional legislation respects the criterion of ordinality, but at the same time homogenises the social progress across the country.

It seems a good federal system from the social progress point of view, because there are no clear losers of the redistribution of income.

We can also appreciate a German peculiarity, the länder that were formerly part of the German Democratic Republic present a much lower correlation with the GDP per capita than the rest of the country, the länder from the pre-1991 Federal Republic of Germany. This situation seems contradictory with the theoretical relationship between GDP and EU-SPI presented explained previously, because as those regions have a low GDP pc, they should have a stronger correlation with their EU-SPI score, situation that is not happening here.

Bavaria does not stand out in this scattered graph showing the relationship between GDPpc and EU-SPI scores for the 16 German Länder.

3.1.3 Bavaria EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Germany:

Bavaria EU-SPI Value: 72,9 Bavaria GDPpc (2011): 35.300 €

Bavaria Germany-SPI Position: 5 Bavaria Germany GDPpc (2011) Position: 4

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 1 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 1,12 2 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 0,33

3 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 1,44

5 Rank = 5| Max. Gap = 8,08

6 Rank

11 Personal Rights Personal Safety Personal Nutrition and Health and Access to Basic Water and Access to Environmental Access to Tolerance and Shelter Freedom and Basic Medical Wellness Knowledge Sanitation Information and Quality Advanced Inclusion Choice Care Communications Education

When we compare German regions, we cannot compare the components Shelter and Personal Rights. Those components where computed at a national level for all the German regions, so no difference in terms of rank or score would be appreciable.

Bavaria achieves a good rank (5th) among the German regions according to its EU-SPI score, even though its rank by GDPpc is slightly higher (4th), which means that there are regions that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress. Its main strengths in the German context are the components Personal Safety (in which Bavaria is the leading region) and Personal Freedom and Choice (ranks 2nd), where it is at a close distance with the leading region. Those two components are also the main strengths of Bavaria in the European context.

On the other hand, Bavaria underperforms in three components, Tolerance and Inclusion, Access to Advanced Education and Environmental Quality. In the component Tolerance and Inclusion, we see that the gap with the leading German land is really small, so Bavaria is very close to the other German regions. On the contrary, if we focus on the gap of the components Access to Advanced Education and Environmental Quality, we see that it is an important figure, and those seem to be the main issues that Bavarian society should tackle.

3.2. Second Analysis: Flemish Region

3.2.1 The Flemish Region EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

The Flemish Region EU-SPI Value: 72,7 The Flemish Region GDPpc (2011): 30.100 €

The Flemish Region EU-SPI Position: 69 The Flemish Region GDPpc (2011) Position: 47

1 Rank = 23| Max. Gap = 7,36

101 Rank = 73| Max. Gap = 3,73

Rank = 88| Max. Gap = 20,7 Rank = 108| Max. Gap = 22,8

151 Rank = 101| Max. Gap = 31,4

Rank = 146| Max. Gap = 14,7 Rank

Rank = 180| Max. Gap = 50,7 201

251

301 Shelter Nutrition and Personal Health and Water and Personal Rights Access to Tolerance and Access to Access to Basic Personal Safety Environmental Basic Medical Freedom and Wellness Sanitation Information and Inclusion Advanced Knowledge Quality Care Choice Communications Education

The Flemish Region achieves a good rank (69) among the European regions according to its EU- SPI score, even though its rank by GDPpc is higher (47), which means that there are regions that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress. Its main strengths are the components Shelter, Nutrition and Basic Medical Care and Personal Freedom and Choice. In the two first components, The Flemish Region is at a short distance of the leading regions.

On the other hand, The Flemish Region underperforms clearly in one component, which is Environmental Quality, where it has a very low ranking, and a huge gap (50,7 points) with the regions that are leading those components. It also has a low ranking in the component Personal Safety, even though the gap with the leading regions is not very high (14,7 points).

3.2.2.1 Belgian Regions – The Flemish Region (NUTS 2 level). GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison. Correlation: 0,21

76 Prov. Vlaams-Brabant

74 Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen

Prov. Limburg (BE) 72

Prov. Antwerpen 70 Prov. West-Vlaanderen 68

Prov. Brabant Wallon SPI SPI score

66 Région de Bruxelles Capitale 64 Prov. Namur

Prov. Luxembourg (BE) 62

Prov. Liège 60 18,00 23,00 28,00 33,00 38,00 43,00 48,00 53,00 58,00 Prov. Hainaut GDP, x 1000 ppc

In this graph, the regions are compared at NUTS 2 level, so the NUTS 1 region of Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region) is represented by the NUTS 2 regions of Prov. Antwerpen, Prov. Limburg (BE), Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen, Prov. Vlaams-Brabant and Prov. West-Vlaanderen.

In Belgium, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the Belgian regions is low, and the difference between top SPI scores (Prov. Vlaams-Brabant; 74,3) and bottom SPI scores (Prov. Hainaut; 62,4) is large, of almost 12 points (which contrast with the German case). This means that there is a clear division in terms of social progress in the Belgian society, between the regions of Vlaams Gewest and the regions of Wallonia and Brussels, except for the Walloon region of Prov. Brabant-Wallon, which is closer in terms of EU-SPI score to the Flemish region than to the Walloon regions.

We can also appreciate that the Brussels region represents an anomaly compared with the rest of Belgium, in terms of GDPcp, not in terms of social progress. We can find a similar case with London in the United Kingdom. In those cases, where the capital city/region clearly stands out, we have performed a second analysis without considering those regions.

3.2.2.2 Belgian Regions without Bruxelles (NUTS 2 level)– Flemish Region. GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison. Correlation: 0,78.

80 Prov. Vlaams- Brabant

Prov. Oost- 75 Vlaanderen

Prov. Limburg (BE)

70 Prov. Antwerpen

Prov. West-

Vlaanderen SPI SPI score 65 Prov. Brabant Wallon

Prov. Namur 60 Prov. Luxembourg (BE) Prov. Liège 55 18,00 23,00 28,00 33,00 Prov. Hainaut GDP, x 1000 ppc

In this graph, we have eliminated the Belgian capital region of Brussels from the analysis. In this case, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the Belgian regions is much higher, and the difference between top SPI scores and bottom SPI scores is still the same large. The division between Flemish regions and Walloon regions is even clearer, and it is interesting to note that inside the NUTS 1 regions, GDPpc does not seem to play a big role to determine social progress. We can take as example the case of Prov. Limburg and Prov. Antwerpen, both in the EFA country of Flanders. Prov. Antwerpen has a GDPpc of 34.800 € and Prov. Limburg has a GDPpc of 24.900 €, but both of them have a social progress index score of 72 points. Common institutions must be the key to understand this behaviour.

3.2.3 The Flemish Region EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Belgium (NUTS 1 level):

The Flemish Region EU-SPI Value: 72,71 The Flemish Region GDPpc (2011): 30.100 €

The Flemish Region EU-SPI Position: 1 The Flemish Region GDPpc (2011) Position: 2

Rank Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 0,09

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 19,1

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 0

3 Personal Safety Personal Nutrition and Health and Access to Basic Water and Access to Tolerance and Shelter Personal Rights Environmental Access to Freedom and Basic Medical Wellness Knowledge Sanitation Information and Inclusion Quality Advanced Choice Care Communications Education

When we compare Belgian regions, we cannot compare the component Personal Rights. This component was computed at a national level for all the Belgian regions, so no difference in terms of rank or score would be appreciable.

In this graph, the regions are compared at NUTS 1 level, so the regions compared are Wallonia, The Flemish Region and Brussels.

The Flemish Region achieves the best possible rank (1) amongst the Belgian regions according to its EU-SPI score, surpassing the performance of the capital city (and region) of Belgium, Brussels. The Flemish Region leads 9 of 12 components in the Belgian context. It is ranked second in just two components, Access to Advanced Education, where we can find a huge gap with the region in the first place, and Environmental Quality, where there is almost no gap.

3.3. Third Analysis: The Six EFA Countries of Spain

3.3.1.1 Catalonia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Catalonia EU-SPI Value: 65,5 Catalonia GDPpc (2011): 28.400 €

Catalonia EU-SPI Position: 149 Catalonia GDPpc (2011) Position: 59

1 Rank = 11| Max. Gap = 3,77

Rank = 54| Max. Gap = 36,44 51

Rank = 70| Max. Gap = 9,09 101 Rank = 86| Max. Gap = 26,82 Rank = 106| Max. Gap = 7,43

Rank = 131| Max. Gap = 12,99 151

Rank = 137| Max. Gap = 29,7 Rank Rank = 162| Max. Gap = 19,39 Rank = 170| Max. Gap = 26,66

201 Rank = 191| Max. Gap = 29,42

Rank = 225| Max. Gap = 53,18 251 Rank = 235| Max. Gap = 46,72

301 Nutrition and Environmental Tolerance and Access to Health and Personal Safety Access to Water and Shelter Personal Personal Rights Access to Basic Basic Medical Quality Inclusion Advanced Wellness Information and Sanitation Freedom and Knowledge Care Education Communications Choice

Catalonia achieves a poor rank (149) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, more even if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, which is much higher (59), which means that there are regions that are way more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

Its main strengths are the components Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Tolerance and Inclusion and Environmental Quality. Catalonia, ranks among the bests regions in Europe in terms of Nutrition and Basic Medical care, with a very little gap with the leading regions. On the contrary, the good rank of Catalonia in the component Environmental Quality masks a huge gap with the leading regions.

The main issues that should be urgently tackled in Catalonia are Access to Basic Knowledge, Personal Rights, Personal Freedom and Choice and Shelter. Catalonia ranks amongst the worst regions in Europe in terms of Access to Basic Knowledge, more even if we consider regions with a similar GDPpc than Catalonia, where only Italian regions behave in a similar way. This situation is similar in the case of the component Personal Rights. Catalonia has also an important problem regarding Personal Freedom and Choice and Shelter, where it ranks amongst the worst regions on the matter and has a considerable gap with the leading regions. Those are the issues that the Catalan society should tackle first to improve its social progress.

3.3.1.2 Basque Country EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Basque Country EU-SPI Value: 71,41 Basque Country GDPpc (2011): 32.500 €

Basque Country EU-SPI Position: 90 Basque Country GDPpc (2011) Position: 32

Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 5,86 1 Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 3,54

Rank = 21| Max. Gap = 6,81 51 Rank = 43| Max. Gap = 34,4 Rank = 52| Max. Gap = 17,6 Rank = 63| Max. Gap = 5,69

101 Rank = 98| Max. Gap = 6,69

Rank = 114| Max. Gap = 24,4 Rank Rank = 132| Max. Gap = 28,0 151 Rank = 135| Max. Gap = 21,5

Rank = 145| Max. Gap = 19,9

201

Rank = 227| Max. Gap = 54,3

251 Personal Safety Nutrition and Tolerance and Environmental Access to Health and Water and Access to Basic Access to Personal Shelter Personal Rights Basic Medical Inclusion Quality Advanced Wellness Sanitation Knowledge Information and Freedom and Care Education Communications Choice

The Basque Country achieves a medium rank (90) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, even though its rank by GDPpc is higher (32), which means that there are regions that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

Its main strengths are the components Personal Safety, Nutrition and Basic Medical Care and Tolerance and Inclusion. In all those components, The Basque Country ranks among the best regions in Europe, and has a very small gap with the leading regions.

We can appreciate a huge contrast between the rank of the best component (Personal Safety, 3) and the rank of the worst component (Personal Rights, 227). This component is computed considering the opinions of its citizens about the political system, the legal system and the police. Shelter, Personal Freedom and Choice and Access to Information and Communications are also components that do not perform well in The Basque Country, where it has a low rank and a considerable gap with the leading regions.

3.3.1.3 Valencian Country EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Valencian Country EU-SPI Value: 66,60 Valencian Country GDPpc (2011): 21.200 €

Valencian Country EU-SPI Position: 141 Valencian Country GDPpc (2011) Position: 149

1 Rank = 20| Max. Gap = 4,78 Rank = 21| Max. Gap = 28,3

51 Rank = 70| Max. Gap = 22,6

Rank = 87| Max. Gap = 10,9 Rank = 98| Max. Gap = 10,8 101

Rank = 151| Max. Gap = 17,8 151 Rank = 153| Max. Gap = 22,0 Rank = 161| Max. Gap = 34,3

Rank = 163| Max. Gap = 10,6 Posicó Posicó Rànquing 201 Rank = 181| Max. Gap = 27,4

Rank = 206| Max. Gap = 51,4

251 Rank = 238| Max. Gap = 48,0

301 Nutrition and Environmental Access to Tolerance and Personal Safety Water and Shelter Access to Health and Personal Personal Rights Access to Basic Basic Medical Quality Advanced Inclusion Sanitation Information and Wellness Freedom and Knowledge Care Education Communications Choice

The Valencian Country achieves a poor rank (141) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, but it seems to be in relation with its rank by GDPpc, which is very similar (149). This means that the Valencian Country can transform its GDPpc in social progress in a more efficient way than other European regions with a higher GDPpc, as Catalonia.

Its main strengths are the components Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Environmental Quality and Access to Advanced Education. As in the case of Catalonia and the rest of the Spanish Autonomous Communities, the Valencian Country ranks among the bests regions in Europe in terms of Nutrition and Basic Medical care, with a very little gap with the leading regions, and the good rank of the Valencian Country in the component Environmental Quality masks a huge gap with the leading regions. The EFA Country has also a good performance in the component Access to Advanced Education.

As in the case of The Basque Country or Catalonia, there is a huge contrast between the rank of the best component (Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, 20) and the rank of the worst component (Access to Basic Knowledge, 238). The two components related with education (Access to Advanced Education and Access to Basic Knowledge) are in opposite position, one is a relative strength and the other a relative weakness. The components Personal Rights and Personal Freedom and Choice have a poor performance both in terms of rank and gap to the regions with the maximum score.

3.3.1.4 Balearic Islands EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Balearic Islands EU-SPI Value: 63,8 Balearic Islands GDPpc (2011) 25.300 €

Balearic Islands EU-SPI Position: 160 Balearic Islands GDPpc (2011) Position: 99

101

151

Rank Rank = 153| Max. Gap = 33,0 Rank = 164| Max. Gap = 19,6 Rank = 166| Max. Gap = 44,6 201 Rank = 168| Max. Gap = 26,0

Rank = 184| Max. Gap = 48,4 Rank = 189| Max. Gap = 28,9 251 Rank = 253| Max. Gap = 60,6

301 Environmental Nutrition and Personal Safety Tolerance and Health and Access to Water and Access to Shelter Personal Rights Personal Access to Basic Quality Basic Medical Inclusion Wellness Information and Sanitation Advanced Freedom and Knowledge Care Communications Education Choice

The Balearic Islands achieve a poor rank (160) among the European regions according to its EU- SPI score, more even if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, which is higher (99), which means that there are regions that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

Its main strengths are the components Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Environmental Quality and Personal Safety. As we have seen in the performance of Catalonia and the Valencian Country, usually the component Access to Basic Knowledge stands out as the component with the worst performance, both in terms of rank and gap to the leading region. In this case, in the Balearic Islands we find that this situation is more extreme, with one of the lowest scores across Europe. Those three regions have a shift towards the touristic sector in their economic structure, so that factor could be playing an important role11.

The components Personal Rights and Personal Freedom and Choice are also performing in poor way. Personal Freedom and Choice has a low rank and a medium-high gap with the score of the leading regions, while Personal Rights has a low rank and a high gap with the score of the leading regions.

11 Although Catalonia is way more diversified, it has an important touristic sector. 25

3.3.1.5 Aragon EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Aragon EU-SPI Value: 68,24 Aragon GDPpc (2011) 27.000 €

Aragon EU-SPI Position: 132 Aragon GDPpc (2011) Position: 79

Rank = 7| Max. Gap = 3,39 1 Rank = 18| Max. Gap = 27,4

Rank = 42| Max. Gap = 4,3 51 Rank = 71| Max. Gap = 22,7 Rank = 79| Max. Gap = 9,90

101 Rank = 89| Max. Gap = 11

151

Rank = 147| Max. Gap = 20,5 Rank Rank = 148| Max. Gap = 23,1 Rank = 159| Max. Gap = 34,0

201 Rank = 192| Max. Gap = 23,5 Rank = 196| Max. Gap = 50,3 Rank = 217| Max. Gap = 40,5

251

301 Nutrition and Environmental Health and Access to Personal Safety Tolerance and Shelter Personal Access to Water and Personal Rights Access to Basic Basic Medical Quality Wellness Advanced Inclusion Freedom and Information and Sanitation Knowledge Care Education Choice Communications

Aragon achieves a poor rank (132) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, more even if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, which is much higher (79), which means that there are regions that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

Its main strengths are the ones related with Health and Nutrition (Nutrition and Basic Medical Care and Health and Wellness) where Aragon has a solid performance, both in terms of rank and score. The component Environmental Quality is another component that represents a strength for Aragon, although the gap with the leading regions is larger.

The main issues that should be urgently tackled in Aragon are Access to Basic Knowledge and Personal Rights. Aragon performs very poorly in both components, in terms of rank and in terms of the gap with the leading regions. The touristic sector maybe not the only explanation (Aragon touristic sector is not as large as in the other cases) to the deficient results in the component Access to Basic Knowledge, it could be a common problem across Spain, with Madrid, The Basque Country and Navarra as the exceptions. The component Personal Rights, as in the rest of Spanish regions, behaves very poorly.

3.3.1.6 Galicia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Galicia EU-SPI Value: 66,27 Galicia GDPpc (2011) 21.800 €

Galicia EU-SPI Position: 143 Galicia GDPpc (2011) Position: 137

1 Rank = 14| Max. Gap = 4,29

Rank = 38| Max. Gap = 33,9

51 Rank = 57| Max. Gap = 8,82

Rank = 79| Max. Gap = 10,1 Rank = 93| Max. Gap = 29,7

101 Rank = 116| Max. Gap = 10,1 Rank = 119| Max. Gap = 8

151

Rank = 148| Max. Gap = 20,8 Rank

Rank = 165| Max. Gap = 24,5 Rank = 166| Max. Gap = 35,0 201

Rank = 223| Max. Gap = 42,6 251 Rank = 248| Max. Gap = 59,8

301 Nutrition and Environmental Personal Safety Tolerance and Access to Water and Health and Shelter Personal Access to Access to Basic Personal Rights Basic Medical Quality Inclusion Advanced Sanitation Wellness Freedom and Information and Knowledge Care Education Choice Communications

Galicia achieves a poor rank (143) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, but it seems to be in relation with its rank by GDPpc, which is very similar (137).

Its main strengths are the components Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Environmental Quality and Personal Safety. The case of Galicia is not different from the rest of the Spanish Autonomous communities in relation with its two main strengths, which are Nutrition and Basic Medical Care and Environmental Quality. In the first component, the rank of Galicia is very high, and the gap to the leading region is very small. In the second component, although the rank is high, the gap with the leading region is also high. A difference with other regions of the same EU Member State is that the component Personal Safety also offers a good performance.

As in the case of The Basque Country or Catalonia, there is a huge contrast between the rank of the best component (Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, 14) and the rank of the worst component (Personal Rights, 248). As the other Spanish regions analysed apart from The Basque Country, the components that have the poorest performance are Personal Rights and Access to Basic Knowledge, components in which Galicia has a very low rank and a large gap with the leading regions.

3.3.2 GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison. Spanish Regions – Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Valencian Country, Aragon, Basque Country and Galicia. Correlation: 0,77

73,00 Comunidad de Madrid País Vasco Comunidad Foral de Navarra 71,00 Cantabria Castilla y León 69,00 Principado de Asturias Aragón La Rioja 67,00 Comunidad Valenciana

Galicia SPI SPI score Región de Murcia 65,00 Cataluña Canarias 63,00 Extremadura CastillaLa Mancha Illes Balears 61,00 Andalucía 16,00 21,00 26,00 31,00 36,00 Ciudad Autónoma de Ceuta GDP, x 1000 ppc Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla

In Spain, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the Autonomous communities is high, and the difference between top SPI scores (Comunidad de Madrid; 62,6) and bottom SPI scores (Ciudad Autónoma de Melilla; 71,9) is considerable, of 9,3 points. This high correlation should mean that the Spanish state and regional legislation respects the criterion of ordinality in terms of social progress, but we can appreciate the case of two outliers.

Those are Catalonia and the Balearic Islands, with a large GDP and a relatively small social progress. Those regions are at the same time the main contributors to the regional budgetary system, and have long-lived reclamations holding that the current system is unfair, as they cannot dispose of a great portion of the wealth that they generate to transform it into social progress.

Because of that wrong-working redistribution mechanism, Catalonia and the Balearic Islands have a similar EU-SPI score than regions with a GDPpc of 19.000 euros or less. We can take as example the case of Catalonia and Region de Murcia. Catalonia has a GDPpc of 28.400 € and Region de Murcia has a GDPpc of 19.700 €, but both have a social progress index score of 65,5 points.

3.3.3.1 Catalonia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Spain:

Catalonia EU-SPI Value: 65,5 Catalonia GDPpc (2011): 28.400 €

Catalonia EU-SPI Position: 12 Catalonia GDPpc (2011) Position: 4

5 Rank = 5| Max. Gap = 9,00 7

Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 3,77 9 Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 6,75 Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 18,6 Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 22,2

Rank 11 Rank = 11| Max. Gap = 16,3 13 Rank = 13| Max. Gap = 6,33 15 Rank = 15| Max. Gap = 7,28

17 Rank = 17| Max. Gap = 11,2 Rank = 17| Max. Gap = 10,6 Rank = 17| Max. Gap = 36,4 19 Rank = 18| Max. Gap = 12,9

Access to Nutrition and Tolerance and Access to Access to Basic Water and Health and Personal Rights Shelter Personal Environmental Personal Safety Information and Basic Medical Inclusion Advanced Knowledge Sanitation Wellness Freedom and Quality Communications Care Education Choice

Catalonia achieves a poor rank (12) among the Spanish autonomous communities according to its EU-SPI score, more even if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, which is much higher (4), which means that there are regions in Spain that are able to transform more efficiently its wealth in social progress12.

Its main strength in the Spanish context is the component Access to Information and Communications, a component that was a small weakness in the European context is a strength in the Spanish context, which implies that this component is in a bad situation in Spain on average. Nutrition and Basic Medical Care is a component in which Catalonia has a medium rank but a small gap with the leading Spanish region. This component was the component in which Catalonia achieved its best results, but it seems to be a common feature of all Spanish autonomous communities. Access to Advanced Education is a component in which Catalonia presents a medium rank, but a considerable gap with the leading regions in the Spanish context.

Environmental Quality, component that was one of the main strengths of Catalonia in the European context is one of the main weaknesses of the EFA country in the Spanish context, and the gap with the leading regions is very noticeable. Catalonia has a low rank in the component Personal Safety, and in the components Personal Rights, Shelter and Personal Freedom and Choice, which were also detected as a specific issue in the European context analysis.

12 Or that Catalonia is deprived of a part of its wealth and cannot transform it in to social progress, so it suffers the negative consequences of a high GDPpc but does not enjoy the benefits of a higher social progress. 29

3.3.3.2 Basque Country EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Spain:

Basque Country EU-SPI Value: 71,41 Basque Country GDPpc (2011): 32.500 €

Basque Country EU-SPI Position: 2 Basque Country GDPpc (2011) Position: 1

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 1

3 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 4,47 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 3,66 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 7,33

5 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 9,48 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 4,52

Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 5,86 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 3,54 7 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 2,8

9 Rank = 9| Max. Gap = 4,59

Rank 11

15 Rank = 15| Max. Gap = 34,4 17 Rank = 17| Max. Gap = 8,42 19

Access to Basic Tolerance and Water and Access to Personal Safety Personal Access to Shelter Nutrition and Health and Environmental Personal Rights Knowledge Inclusion Sanitation Advanced Freedom and Information and Basic Medical Wellness Quality Education Choice Communications Care

The Basque Country achieves a very good rank (2) among the Spanish Autonomous Communities regions according to its EU-SPI score, very close to its rank by GDPpc (1).

Its main strengths in the Spanish context are the components Access to Basic Knowledge, a component that did not stand out in the European regional analysis of The Basque Country, but in the Spanish context The Basque Country is the leading region.

The Basque Country achieves a very good performance in the Spanish context in all components but two. It ranks 15 in the component Environmental Quality, with a huge gap with the leading region, so it seems an issue to tackle for this EFA Country. It ranks 17 in the component Personal Rights, a component that was also in a bad position in the European context. However, the small gap that this component presents in the Spanish context indicates that this is an issue that is well spread across all the Spanish Autonomous communities, although it may affect with more intensity the EFA Countries of Spain.

3.3.3.3 Valencian Country EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Spain:

Valencian Country EU-SPI Value: 66,6 Valencian Country GDPpc (2011): 21.200 €

Valencian Country EU-SPI Position: 9 Valencian Country GDPpc (2011) Position: 12

5 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 14,5

Rank 11 Rank = 12| Max. Gap = 8,59

Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 13,6 13 Rank = 11| Max. Gap = 23,5 Rank = 13| Max. Gap = 8,76 15 Rank = 14| Max. Gap = 10,8

19 Rank = 18| Max. Gap = 9,52

Access to Environmental Water and Nutrition and Shelter Personal Rights Access to Access to Basic Tolerance and Personal Personal Safety Health and Advanced Quality Sanitation Basic Medical Information and Knowledge Inclusion Freedom and Wellness Education Care Communications Choice

The Valencian Country achieves a medium rank (9) among the Spanish Autonomous Communities regions according to its EU-SPI score, but it is slightly better than its ranking by GDPpc (12). This means that the Valencian Country can transform its GDPpc in social progress in a more efficient way than other Spanish regions with a higher GDPpc.

Its main strengths in the Spanish context are the components Access to Advanced Education, Environmental Quality, where it has a good rank but there is an important gap with the leading regions in terms of score, and Water and Sanitation, where there is almost no gap with the leading regions.

The component that ranks lowest is Health and Wellness, even if it is not the component with the highest gap with respect to the leading autonomous community. In this case, The Valencian Country is an exception to the rest of Spanish regions, because it ranks very low in the Health and Wellness component, both in the European context and in the Spanish context.

3.3.3.4 Balearic Islands EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Spain:

Balearic Islands EU-SPI Value: 63,8 Balearic Islands GDPpc (2011) 25.300 €

Balearic Islands EU-SPI Position: 16 Balearic Islands GDPpc (2011) Position: 7

Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 2,52 3 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 5,56

5 Rank = 7| Max. Gap = 4,35

Rank = 7| Max. Gap = 8,07 7

Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 12,3 9

Rank 11 Rank = 11| Max. Gap = 31,3

Rank = 12| Max. Gap = 16,5 13

Rank = 14| Max. Gap = 6,45 15 Rank = 15| Max. Gap = 10,6

Rank = 16| Max. Gap = 10,2 17

Rank = 18| Max. Gap = 36,1 19 Rank = 19| Max. Gap = 36,5 Personal Rights Tolerance and Health and Personal Safety Access to Environmental Water and Nutrition and Shelter Personal Access to Basic Access to Inclusion Wellness Information and Quality Sanitation Basic Medical Freedom and Knowledge Advanced Communications Care Choice Education

The Balearic Islands achieve a poor rank (16) among the Spanish Autonomous Communities regions according to its EU-SPI score, more even if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, which is higher (7), which means that there are regions in Spain that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

Its main strengths are the components Personal Rights, Tolerance and Inclusion, Health and Wellness and Personal Safety. The situation of the component Personal Rights is noticeable because it was performing very poorly in a European context, but in comparison with the rest of the Spanish Autonomous Communities, its performance its good, with a small gap in terms of score with the leading regions.

On the other hand, the Balearic Islands seem to have a great problem with its educative system, both in the first stages (Access to Basic Knowledge) and its superior stages (Access to Advanced Education). In both components, the Balearic Islands appears in the two lasts positions, with a very high gap (more than 35 points) with the leading regions, signalling these components as two striking issues that the Balearic society has to solve.

3.3.3.5 Aragon EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Spain:

Aragon EU-SPI Value: 68,24 Aragon GDPpc (2011) 27.000 €

Aragon EU-SPI Position: 7 Aragon GDPpc (2011) Position: 6

1 Rank = 5| Max. Gap = 3,39

3 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 4,43 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 5,12 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 3,2 5 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 27,4

7 Rank = 7| Max. Gap = 16,0 Rank = 7| Max. Gap = 14,6 9 Rank = 7| Max. Gap = 4,46

Rank = 9| Max. Gap = 13,3 Rank 11

Rank = 12| Max. Gap = 9,90 13

Rank = 14| Max. Gap = 8,66 15 Rank = 15| Max. Gap = 20,5

Nutrition and Personal Shelter Health and Environmental Access to Basic Access to Personal Rights Access to Personal Safety Tolerance and Water and Basic Medical Freedom and Wellness Quality Knowledge Advanced Information and Inclusion Sanitation Care Choice Education Communications Aragon achieves a good rank (7) among the Spanish Autonomous Communities according to its EU-SPI score, similar to its rank by GDPpc, which is slightly higher (6). This situation contrasts with the difference in positions of Aragon in the GDPpc rank and the EU-SPI rank in the European context.

Its main strengths are still the ones related with Health and Nutrition (Nutrition and Basic Medical Care and Health and Wellness) where Aragon has a solid performance, both in terms of rank and score. The components Personal Freedom and Choice and Shelter also present good results for Aragon in the Spanish context.

On the other hand, the comparison with the Spanish Autonomous Communities, discovers us a relative weakness of the Aragonese society, as they perform poorly in the component Water and Sanitation, ranking 15 and with a gap to the leading region in Spain of more than 20 points.

3.3.3.6 Galicia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Spain:

Galicia EU-SPI Value: 66,3 Galicia GDPpc (2011) 21.800 €

Galicia EU-SPI Position: 10 Galicia GDPpc (2011) Position: 11

3 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 7,14

5 Rank = 7| Max. Gap = 5,44 Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 18,1 7 Rank = 9| Max. Gap = 4,29 Rank = 9| Max. Gap = 7,78 9

Rank 11 Rank = 9| Max. Gap = 8,82 Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 21,6 13 Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 5,85

15 Rank = 13| Max. Gap = 33,9 Rank = 13| Max. Gap = 14,3

17 Rank = 14| Max. Gap = 6,90

19 Rank = 19| Max. Gap = 13,9 Water and Shelter Access to Basic Nutrition and Tolerance and Personal Safety Access to Personal Environmental Access to Health and Personal Rights Sanitation Knowledge Basic Medical Inclusion Advanced Freedom and Quality Information and Wellness Care Education Choice Communications

Galicia achieves a medium rank (10) among the Spanish Autonomous Communities according to its EU-SPI score, but it seems to be in relation with its rank by GDPpc, which is very similar (11).

Water and Sanitation and Shelter seem to be the main strengths of Galicia in the Spanish context. In this case, Access to Basic Knowledge, which was a weakness for Galicia in the European context, is a relative strength, with a medium gap with the leading region.

The worst performance across all components of Galicia is achieved by the component Personal Rights, which ranks last in comparison with all the Spanish Regions. This component, that is a common feature in all the Spanish regions (that is what explain the small-medium gap with the Spanish leading region), is computed considering the opinions of its citizens about the political system, the legal system and the police.

3.4. Fourth Analysis: The Two EFA Countries of France

3.4.1.1. Bretagne EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Bretagne EU-SPI Value: 70,8 Bretagne GDPpc (2011) 22.400 €

Bretagne EU-SPI Position: 104 Bretagne GDPpc (2011) Position: 127

21 Rank = 37| Max. Gap = 10,8

41 Rank = 64| Max. Gap = 8,83

61 Rank = 64| Max. Gap = 13,0 Rank = 84| Max. Gap = 19,9

81 Rank = 90| Max. Gap = 5,78 Rank = 96| Max. Gap = 30,5 Rank = 99| Max. Gap = 22,6

101 Rank Rank = 122| Max. Gap = 12,2 121

141 Rank = 137| Max. Gap = 8,84 Rank = 139| Max. Gap = 43,8

161 Rank = 155| Max. Gap = 12,2

181 Rank = 174| Max. Gap = 50,0

201 Shelter Tolerance and Personal Access to Basic Water and Access to Access to Personal Safety Health and Personal Rights Nutrition and Environmental Inclusion Freedom and Knowledge Sanitation Advanced Information and Wellness Basic Medical Quality Choice Education Communications Care Bretagne achieves a medium rank (104) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, and it is better than its rank by GDPpc (127). This means that Bretagne can transform its GDPpc in social progress in a more efficient way than other European regions with a higher GDPpc. This is also reflected in the rank of its components, which is better than the rank of the EFA country by GDPpc in almost all cases.

Its main strengths are the components Shelter, Tolerance and Inclusion and Personal Freedom and Choice. Bretagne finds itself as one of the best regions in Europe both in terms of rank and score in the component Shelter. The components Tolerance and Inclusion and Personal Freedom and Choice have good ranks and a medium-small gap with the leading regions.

The weakest components are Environmental Quality and Nutrition and Basic Medical Care. Environmental Quality seems to be the most pressing issue, as the rank is very low and the gap with the leading regions is huge. Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, instead, presents a bad rank, but a small gap with the leading regions.

3.4.1.2. Corsica EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Corsica EU-SPI Value: 62,8 Corsica GDPpc (2011) 22.800 €

Corsica EU-SPI Position: 166 Corsica GDPpc (2011) Position: 120

1 Rank = 37| Max. Gap = 10,8 Rank = 45| Max. Gap = 4,48 Rank = 53| Max. Gap = 18,3 51

Rank = 83| Max. Gap = 8,64

Rank = 116| Max. Gap = 12,3 101 Rank = 117| Max. Gap = 44,4

Rank = 126| Max. Gap = 20,3 151

Rank = 139| Max. Gap = 43,8 Rank

201 Rank = 192| Max. Gap = 23,5 Rank = 209| Max. Gap = 55,5

251 Rank = 249| Max. Gap = 55,5 Rank = 255| Max. Gap = 36,9

301 Shelter Health and Access to Nutrition and Tolerance and Environmental Personal Personal Rights Water and Access to Access to Basic Personal Safety Wellness Information and Basic Medical Inclusion Quality Freedom and Sanitation Advanced Knowledge Communications Care Choice Education

Corsica achieves a poor rank (166) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, more even if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, which is much higher (120), which means that there are regions that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

Its main strengths are the ones related with Shelter (there is no regional data in this component in the French case, so it’s a national strength), Health and Wellness, and Access to Information and Communications. Corsica ranks very well in the component Health and Wellness, and has a very small gap with the leading regions. The ranking of the component Access to Information and Communications is also good, but the gap with the leading regions is considerable, so there is room for improvement yet.

On the other hand, Corsica seems to have a very important issue with Personal Safety, ranking amongst the worsts regions in Europe and with a huge gap with the leading regions. This seems to be a very pressing issue to solve. Corsica also seems to have a great problem with its educative system (as the Balearic Islands in Spain), both in the first stages (Access to Basic Knowledge) and its superior stages (Access to Basic Knowledge). In both components, Corsica ranks amongst the worst regions in Europe, and has a tremendous gap with the leading of 55,5 points.

3.4.2.1 GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison. French Regions – Bretagne and Corsica.

Correlation: 0,53

Île de France Bretagne Midi-Pyrénées 73,00 Alsace Franche-Comté 71,00 Auvergne Pays de la Loire 69,00 Rhône-Alpes Limousin 67,00 Aquitaine Centre 65,00 Poitou-Charentes 63,00 Basse-Normandie Languedoc-Roussillon

SPI SPI score 61,00 Bourgogne Lorraine 59,00 Provence-AlpesCôte d'Azur Martinique 57,00 Champagne-Ardenne Haute-Normandie 55,00 Nord-Pas de Calais Réunion 53,00 Guadeloupe 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 Picardie GDP, x 1000 ppc Corse Guyane In France, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the French regions is medium, and the difference between top SPI scores (Île de France; 71,2) and bottom SPI scores (Guyane; 54,0) is very large, of 17,2 points (which also contrasts with the German case). This can be explained because the French Guyana has traits of its geographical context, South America, and it is also explained by the specific conditions of the Île de France region, which contains the capital city of France, Paris, with a GDPpc that is much higher than in the rest of the country. We have conducted a second analysis without considering those regions.

As a difference of the case of Brussels in Belgium, the leadership of Paris in terms of GDPpc is transformed also in the leadership in terms of EU-SPI (at a very close distance with Bretagne).

3.4.2.2 GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison.French Regions witouth Ille de France (Paris) and Guyane – Bretagne and Corsica. Correlation: 0,39.

Bretagne Midi-Pyrénées Alsace 72,00 Franche-Comté Auvergne 71,00 Pays de la Loire Rhône-Alpes 70,00 Limousin 69,00 Aquitaine Centre 68,00 Poitou-Charentes Basse-Normandie 67,00 Languedoc-Roussillon Bourgogne SPI SPI score 66,00 Lorraine 65,00 Provence-AlpesCôte d'Azur Martinique 64,00 Champagne-Ardenne Haute-Normandie 63,00 Nord-Pas de Calais Réunion 62,00 Guadeloupe 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 Picardie GDP, x 1000 ppc Corse

In this graph, we have eliminated the French capital region of Île de France from the analysis, and the French Guyana. The correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the French regions is much smaller than in other EU member states, and the difference between top SPI scores (Bretagne; 70,8) and bottom SPI scores (Corsica; 62,8) is considerably reduced, but it is still large, of 8 points, reducing the difference between top and bottom by a half.

This lower correlation means that there are other important factors in those French regions to understand social progress, apart from GDP per capita, factors that make a EFA Country like Bretagne to have a EU-SPI score of 70,8 points with just 22.400 €, while the other EFA country of the analysis, Corsica, has a higher GDPpc, 22.800 €, but a much lower EU-SPI score, 62,8.

3.4.3.1 Bretagne EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of France

Bretagne EU-SPI Value: 70,8 Bretagne GDPpc (2011) 22.400 €

Bretagne EU-SPI Position: 2 Bretagne GDPpc (2011) Position: 13

Rank = 1| Max.Rank Gap = = 1| 0 Max.Rank Gap = = 1| 0 Max. Gap = 0 1 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 19,9

Rank = 5| Max. Gap = 11,8 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 0,87 6 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 1,08

Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 1,63 11

16 Rank = 15| Max. Gap = 4,35 Rank

Rank = 18| Max. Gap = 3,58 Rank = 19| Max. Gap = 33,7 21 Rank = 19| Max. Gap = 10,6

Personal Shelter Personal Rights Personal Safety Tolerance and Access to Basic Access to Water and Health and Nutrition and Environmental Access to Freedom and Inclusion Knowledge Advanced Sanitation Wellness Basic Medical Quality Information and Choice Education Care Communications

When we compare French regions, we cannot compare the components Shelter and Personal Rights. Those components where computed at a national level for all the French regions, so no difference in terms of rank or score would be appreciable.

Bretagne achieves a very good rank (2) among the French regions according to its EU-SPI score, way better than its rank by GDPpc (13). This means that Bretagne is the more efficient region in France transforming its GDPpc in social.

Its main strengths in the French context are the components are Personal Freedom and Choice, Personal Safety, Tolerance and Inclusion, Access to Basic Knowledge and Access to Advanced Education. Bretagne is the leading region in France in the component Personal Freedom and Choice, while it places itself among the Top 5 regions in the other components above mentioned, although it has a considerable gap with the leading regions in the components Access to Basic Knowledge and Access to Advanced Education.

The weakest components are Access to Information and Communications, Environmental Quality, Nutrition and Basic Medical Care. Environmental Quality seems to be the most pressing issue, as the rank is very low and the gap with the leading regions is huge. Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, instead, presents a bad rank, but a small gap with the leading regions, as in the European context. Access to Information and Communications has a bad rank amongst the French regions, but the distance with the leading regions is not huge.

3.4.3.2 Corsica EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of France

Corsica EU-SPI Value: 62,8 Corsica GDPpc (2011) 22.800 €

Corsica EU-SPI Position: 25 Corsica GDPpc (2011) Position: 10

Rank = 1| Max.Rank Gap = = 1|0 Max. Gap = 0 1

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 6,34 6 Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 28,1

Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 4,62 11

16 Rank

Rank = 17| Max. Gap = 7,28

Rank = 22| Max. Gap = 36,8

26 Rank = 25| Max. Gap = 25,4 Rank = 25| Max. Gap = 55,5 Rank = 25| Max. Gap = 19,3

Shelter Personal Rights Health and Nutrition and Access to Environmental Tolerance and Personal Access to Personal Safety Access to Basic Water and Wellness Basic Medical Information and Quality Inclusion Freedom and Advanced Knowledge Sanitation Care Communications Choice Education When we compare French regions, we cannot compare the components Shelter and Personal Rights. Those components where computed at a national level for all the French regions, so no difference in terms of rank or score would be appreciable.

Corsica achieves a very poor rank (25) among the French regions according to its EU-SPI score, more even if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, which is much higher (10), which means that there are regions in France that are way more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress, like Bretagne.

Corsica is an extreme case. It has some components (two) in which it is a leading region in the French context, and has three components that rank amongst the worst in the French context. The huge distance with the leading regions in those components is what makes Corsica’s EU-SPI one of the worsts in the French context.

Its main strengths are the ones related with Health and Wellness, Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, ranking first, and Access to Information and Communications, where it ranks second, at a close distance with the leading region.

On the other hand, Corsica seems to have a very important issue with Personal Safety, ranking amongst the worsts regions in both Europe and France and with and important gap with the leading regions, this seems a very pressing issue to solve. Corsica also has a great problem with its educative system (Access to Basic Knowledge and Access to Advanced Education) in the French context, as we have seen in the European analysis. In both components, Corsica ranks amongst the worst regions in Europe, and has a tremendous gap with the leading of 55,5 points. We can also see a problem related with the component Water and Sanitation, which ranks 25th in the French context, and has an important distance with the leading regions.

3.5. Fifth Analysis: The Four EFA Countries of Italy

3.5.1.1. Campania EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Campania EU-SPI Value: 49,7 Campania GDPpc (2011) 15.700 €

Campania EU-SPI Position: 246 Campania GDPpc (2011) Position: 215

101

151

Rank = 229| Max. Gap = 56,8

301 Personal Safety Water and Health and Nutrition and Access to Environmental Access to Basic Tolerance and Access to Personal Rights Personal Shelter Sanitation Wellness Basic Medical Advanced Quality Knowledge Inclusion Information and Freedom and Care Education Communications Choice Campania achieves a very poor rank (246), finding itself amongst the regions with the lowest EU-SPI score in Europe. If we consider the fact that its rank by GDPpc is slightly higher, we see that there are regions that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

The ranking of the components from Campania is very compact, in a bad way, because all components rank between position 194 and position 255. The components that are performing “better” are the components Personal Safety, Water and Sanitation, Health and Wellness and Nutrition and Basic Medical Care. In all four components, we can find a moderate distance with the leading regions (around 20 points).

The rest of the components perform very poorly, with distances around 50 points far from the leading regions, and ranking amongst the fifty regions with the lowest ranking. Those components are Shelter, Personal Freedom and Choice, Personal Rights, Access to Information and Communications, Tolerance and Inclusion, Access to Basic Knowledge, Environmental Quality and Access to Advanced Education.

3.5.1.2. Lombardy EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Lombardy EU-SPI Value: 57,8 Lombardy GDPpc (2011) 33.200 €

Lombardy EU-SPI Position: 203 Lombardy GDPpc (2011) Position: 29

Rank = 100| Max. Gap = 9,66

101

Rank = 122| Max. Gap = 10,9

301 Nutrition and Water and Personal Safety Health and Access to Personal Rights Tolerance and Shelter Personal Access to Access to Basic Environmental Basic Medical Sanitation Wellness Information and Inclusion Freedom and Advanced Knowledge Quality Care Communications Choice Education Lombardy achieves a very poor rank (203) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, but what is more striking is that Lombardy places itself as one of the European regions with a higher GDPpc (Lombardy is a top-30 region). This case is very noticeable, as it is the EFA Country with the highest difference between the EU-SPI ranking and the GDPpc ranking. This also means that Lombardy is very inefficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

Its main strengths, which have a medium ranking in the European context, are the components Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Water and Sanitation, Personal Safety and Health and Wellness. Lombardy finds itself in a moderate distance with the leading regions in those components.

On the other hand, we find the main issues to tackle in Lombardy to be related with the components Environmental Quality, Access to Basic Knowledge and Access to Advanced Education. In the component, Environmental Quality, Lombardy finds itself at the second last place in the European regional ranking, with only a region that does worse, Slaskie, in Poland. It has more than 69 points of negative difference with the leading regions. Lombardy seems to have a great problem with its educative system, both in the first stages (Access to Basic Knowledge) and its superior stages (Access to Advanced Education). In both components, Lombardy has a much lower rank that its GDPpc rank, and is very far from the leading regions in terms of score.

3.5.1.3. Sardinia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Sardinia EU-SPI Value: 59,4 Sardinia GDPpc (2011) 19.300 €

Sardinia EU-SPI Position: 189 Sardinia GDPpc (2011) Position: 176

Rank = 91| Max. Gap = 41,8

101 Rank = 112| Max. Gap = 8,95

Rank = 129| Max. Gap = 12,6

Rank = 166| Max. Gap = 11,0 151 Rank = 171| Max. Gap = 44,4

Rank Rank = 174| Max. Gap = 13,1

301 Environmental Water and Personal Safety Health and Personal Rights Nutrition and Tolerance and Access to Shelter Access to Access to Basic Personal Quality Sanitation Wellness Basic Medical Inclusion Information and Advanced Knowledge Freedom and Care Communications Education Choice Sardinia achieves a poor rank (189) in terms of social progress (EU-SPI) score in Europe, similar to its rank by GDPpc, which is slightly higher (176).

Its main strengths are the components Environmental Quality, Water and Sanitation and Personal Safety. The good rank of Sardinia in the component Environmental Quality masks a huge gap with the leading regions, and the rank in the components Water and Sanitation and Personal Safety is not as good, but the distance in terms of score with the leading regions is much smaller.

The main issues to tackle in Sardinia are related with the components Personal Freedom and Choice, Access to Basic Knowledge and Access to Advanced Education. In the component Personal Freedom and Choice, Sardinia ranks 241, and has a huge gap with the leading regions. As in the case of Lombardy, Sardinia seems to have a great problem with its educative system, both in the first stages (Access to Basic Knowledge) and its superior stages (Access to Advanced Education). In both components, Sardinia has a lower rank that its GDPpc rank, and is very far from the leading regions in terms of score.

3.5.1.4. Veneto EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Veneto EU-SPI Value: 59,9 Veneto GDPpc (2011) 29.600 €

Veneto EU-SPI Position: 186 Veneto GDPpc (2011) Position: 50

Rank = 33| Max. Gap = 5,8

Rank = 81| Max. Gap = 6,23 101

Rank = 115| Max. Gap = 10,0

Rank = 192| Max. Gap = 29,7

Rank = 193| Max. Gap = 35,9 251 Rank = 238| Max. Gap = 62,6

Rank = 247| Max. Gap = 63,0

301 Nutrition and Health and Water and Access to Personal Safety Personal Rights Shelter Tolerance and Personal Access to Basic Access to Environmental Basic Medical Wellness Sanitation Information and Inclusion Freedom and Knowledge Advanced Quality Care Communications Choice Education

Veneto achieves a very poor rank (186) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, and, has a very huge difference with the rank of the region in terms of GDPpc (50), but not as extreme as the case that we have seen with Lombardy. This also means that Veneto is very inefficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

It has a clear strength in relation with the other European regions in is the component Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, which ranks 33rd and has a very small gap with the leading regions. Veneto finds itself in a moderate distance with the leading regions in the components Health and Wellness, Water and Sanitation and Personal Safety, and ranks in a medium place.

As we have seen, and the case of Veneto is not different, both Italian regions and Spanish regions seems to have a problem with education, but the Italian problem is more focused in the issues of the Advanced Education, while in the Spanish case the component that behaves the worst is Access to Basic Education.

Environmental Quality is the component with the lowest ranking in Veneto, and it has the biggest gap with the leading regions (63,0), so it also seems like a pressing issue to solve in this EFA Country.

3.5.2 Italian Regions. GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison – Campania, Lombardy, Sardinia and Veneto. Correlation:0,73

Provincia Autonoma di Trento

Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano/Bozen Umbria

73,00 FriuliVenezia Giulia

Toscana

Abruzzo

68,00 EmiliaRomagna

Marche

Lazio 63,00 Veneto

Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste

Sardegna SPI SPI score 58,00 Liguria

Molise

Lombardia 53,00 Piemonte

Basilicata 48,00 Calabria 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 Puglia Sicilia GDP, x 1000 ppc Campania

The first thing that we should note is that Italy has an exceptionally low EU-SPI score in all their regions, taking into account the high GDPpc that we can find in a lot of Italian regions (central and northern regions). This is a common factor of a lot of Italian regions that should be analysed by its own.

In Italy, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the Italian regions is high. The difference between top SPI scores (Prov. Aut. Di Trento; 67,7) and bottom SPI scores (Campania; 49,7) is very large, of 18 points, a gap similar to the French case. If in the French case the gap was caused mainly because of the Guyana region, which was a clear outlier, in this case we observe a group of 4 regions, all from the south of Italy, which are more than 5 points away from the rest of the country. Those regions are Campania, Sicily, Puglia and Calabria.

We can also observe another peculiar behaviour of the Italian data. The correlation between social progress and GDPpc is very high in the lowest income brackets (between 15.000€ and 25.000€). The regions with a GDPpc between 25.000€ and 35.000€ seem to have something holding them in the line around 63 points, avoiding them into increasing further their social progress once they reach this score. The Prov. Aut. Di Trento seems to be the exception, with a GDPpc of 30.500€ and a EU-SPI score of 67,7.

We can appreciate the stagnation above 25.000€ by looking at two regions as an example, the region of Marche and the region of Valle d’Aosta. Marche has a GDPpc of 25.500 € and a score of 60,7 points and the region of Valle d’Aosta has a GDPpc of 33.000€ with a EU-SPI score of 59,7 points. They have a GDPpc difference of 7.500€ but just a EU-SPI score difference of 1 point.

This behaviour of the data can lead as to think that there are some Italian common institutions, which do not depend to GDPpc, that are limiting the social progress of the country. This is understandable under the general EU-SPI framework, where the key components that help increase the EU-SPI once you reach 25.000€ are not theoretically related with income.

3.5.3.1 Campania EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Italy:

Campania EU-SPI Value: 49,7 Campania GDPpc (2011) 15.700 €

Campania EU-SPI Position: 21 Campania GDPpc (2011) Position: 21

Rank = 9| Max. Gap = 19,2 9

11 Rank 13

21 Access to Environmental Nutrition and Water and Access to Basic Access to Personal Rights Health and Personal Safety Shelter Personal Tolerance and Advanced Quality Basic Medical Sanitation Knowledge Information and Wellness Freedom and Inclusion Education Care Communications Choice

Campania ranks last in Italy both in terms of GDPpc and in terms of EU-SPI.

All components of Campania rank in the four last positions but one, Access to Advanced Education. Catania presents a good ranking in this component (9), and it has a moderate distance with the leading regions of Italy.

The component that has the biggest gap with the Italian leading region is Shelter, and the gap is 32,5 points. The component that has the smallest gap with the Italian leading region is Personal Safety, and the gap is 13,4 points. Personal Safety was the component from Campania that performed better in the European context.

3.5.3.2 Lombardy EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Italy:

Lombardy EU-SPI Value: 57,8 Lombardy GDPpc (2011) 33.200 €

Lombardy EU-SPI Position: 15 Lombardy GDPpc (2011) Position: 2

7 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 3,33

19 Rank = 21| Max. Gap = 34,2

21 Access to Shelter Personal Personal Rights Access to Nutrition and Tolerance and Health and Water and Personal Safety Access to Basic Environmental Information and Freedom and Advanced Basic Medical Inclusion Wellness Sanitation Knowledge Quality Communications Choice Education Care

Lombardy achieves a poor rank (15) among the Italian regions according to its EU-SPI score, but, as in the European comparison, what is more striking is that Lombardy places itself as the Italian region with the second highest GDPpc.

The main strengths of Lombardy in the Italian context are the components Access to Information and Communications, Shelter, Personal Freedom and Choice and Personal Rights, even though Lombardy has a lower rank in all the components than its rank by GDPpc. It has a very small gap with the leading regions in the components Access to Information and Communications and Personal Rights, and a medium gap with the leading regions of the components Shelter and Personal Freedom and Choice.

The main issue in Lombardy in the Italian context is clearly related with the component, Environmental Quality, where Lombardy finds itself at the last place of the Italian ranking.

3.5.3.3 Sardinia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Italy:

Sardinia EU-SPI Value: 57,8 Sardinia GDPpc (2011) 33.200 €

Sardinia EU-SPI Position: 12 Sardinia GDPpc (2011) Position: 16

9 Rank = 11| Max. Gap = 4,67 Rank = 12| Max. Gap = 20,3 11

Rank = 13| Max. Gap = 9,81 Rank Rank = 13| Max. Gap = 7,95 13

17 Rank = 17| Max. Gap = 24,6 19 Rank = 19| Max. Gap = 21,1

21 Environmental Personal Rights Shelter Health and Water and Personal Safety Access to Access to Nutrition and Tolerance and Personal Freedom Access to Basic Quality Wellness Sanitation Information and Advanced Basic Medical Inclusion and Choice Knowledge Communications Education Care

Sardinia achieves a medium rank (12) in terms of social progress (EU-SPI) score in the Italian context, but its rank in terms of GDPpc is lower (16). This means that Sardinia is more efficient than other Italian regions with a higher GDPpc in transforming its GDPpc into social progress.

Sardinia has a small gap with the leading region in almost all components. Its main strengths are the components Environmental Quality, Personal Rights, Water and Sanitation and Personal Safety.

The main issues of Sardinia in the Italian context are related with the components Personal Freedom and Choice and Access to Basic Knowledge, which are components that appeared also in the European comparison, and the score of Sardinia in both is more than 20 points away from the leading region of Italy. In the component Access to Advanced Education, Sardinia presents a medium rank, but a big distance with the leading region.

3.5.3.4 Veneto EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Italy:

Veneto EU-SPI Value: 59,9 Veneto GDPpc (2011) 29.600 €

Veneto EU-SPI Position: 10 Veneto GDPpc (2011) Position: 6

5 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 5,11

Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 8,42

11 Rank Rank = 11| Max. Gap = 9,66 13

15 Rank = 14| Max. Gap = 10,5 Rank = 14| Max. Gap = 8,31 17 Rank = 17| Max. Gap = 25,6 19 Rank = 18| Max. Gap = 28,0

21 Access to Shelter Health and Personal Nutrition and Personal Rights Water and Access to Basic Personal Safety Tolerance and Access to Environmental Information and Wellness Freedom and Basic Medical Sanitation Knowledge Inclusion Advanced Quality Communications Choice Care Education

Veneto achieves a medium rank (10) among the Italian regions according to its EU-SPI score, and if we take into account its rank by GDPpc, we see that it is higher (6), which means that there are regions in Italy that are more efficient in transforming its wealth in social progress.

The main strengths of Veneto in the Italian context are the components Access to Information and Communications, which ranks 2nd at just one point of distance with the leading region, Shelter, which ranks 3rd at little distance from the leading region, Health and Wellness, which ranks 4th at little distance from the leading region and Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, which ranks 4th at just 2,5 points of distance with the leading region.

All components of Veneto are at close distance with the leading regions of Italy, except for two components: Access to Advanced Education and Environmental Quality. The performance of Veneto in those two components ranks between the 4 worst in Italy, and it has a gap with the leading regions of more than 25 points in both cases. This is a similar situation to the previously observed in the European comparison of the EU-SPI data of Veneto.

3.6. Sixth Analysis: Friesland (NL)

3.6.1 Friesland EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Friesland (NL) EU-SPI Value: 79,4 Friesland (NL) GDPpc (2011) 26.300 €

Friesland (NL) EU-SPI Position: 21 Friesland (NL) GDPpc (2011) Position: 91

1 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

101 Rank = 105| Max. Gap = 43,3

151 Rank

201

251

301 Shelter Water and Personal Safety Personal Freedom Access to Personal Rights Health and Tolerance and Nutrition and Access to Basic Access to Environmental Sanitation and Choice Information and Wellness Inclusion Basic Medical Knowledge Advanced Quality Communications Care Education Friesland achieves a very good rank (21) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, and it is way better than its rank by GDPpc (91). This means that Friesland is one of the more efficient EFA Countries (together with Scotland and Wales) in transforming its GDPpc in social progress, and it is more efficient than many European regions with a higher GDPpc. This is also reflected in the rank of its components, which is better than the rank of this EFA country by GDPpc in all cases but one. Friesland has the highest score in the EU-SPI among all EFA countries.

Its main strengths are the components Shelter, where it ranks first among all regions in Europe, Water and Sanitation, where it ranks seventh, at only 0,6 points of distance with the leading region, and Personal Safety, where it ranks eight, at only 6,4 points of distance with the leading region.

The weakest components are Environmental Quality, Access to Advanced Education and Access to Basic Knowledge. Environmental Quality seems to be the most pressing issue, because even though it ranks in a medium position and the gap with the leading regions is huge (43,4). Access to Advanced Education and Access to Basic Knowledge rank in a good position, but have a considerable distance in terms of EU-SPI score with the leading regions.

3.6.2 GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison.Dutch Regions – Friesland. Correlation: 0,38

82,00 Utrecht

Gelderland 81,00 NoordHollan d 80,00 Groningen

Overijssel 79,00 ZuidHolland

SPI SPI score 78,00 Flevoland

77,00 Friesland (NL) NoordBraban 76,00 t Drenthe

75,00 Limburg (NL) 18,00 23,00 28,00 33,00 38,00 43,00 48,00 Zeeland GDP, x 1000 ppc

The correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score in the Netherlands is low (0.38) and the difference between top SPI scores (Utrecht; 81,4) and bottom SPI scores (Zeeland; 77,0) is very small, of just 4,4 points. This means that the Dutch society has the capability to provide a common social progress (very high) for all the regions in the Netherlands, despite its GDPpc.

To get an example of this equalisation of the social progress disregarding the GDPpc, we can analyse the regions of Gelderland and Groningen. Gelderland has a GDPpc of 27.200 € and a score of 81,1 points and Groningen has a GDPpc of 45.600€ with a EU-SPI score of 80,6 points. They have a huge GDPpc difference of 18.400€ but a EU-SPI score difference of just 0,5 points. Both regions rank among the best regions of Europe according their score in the European Social Progress Index.

3.6.3 Friesland (NL) EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of The Netherlands:

Friesland (NL) EU-SPI Value: 79,4 Friesland (NL) GDPpc (2011) 26.300 €

Friesland (NL) EU-SPI Position: 8 Friesland (NL) GDPpc (2011) Position: 10

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 1

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 6,15 3 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 2,48 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 1,38

Rank = 5| Max. Gap = 1,03 5

Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 3,01 Rank 7

Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 1,28

Rank = 9| Max. Gap = 3,31 9

Rank = 10| Max. Gap = 24,6

11 Rank = 11| Max. Gap = 10

Water and Personal Safety Shelter Environmental Access to Basic Personal Health and Personal Rights Tolerance and Nutrition and Access to Access to Sanitation Quality Knowledge Freedom and Wellness Inclusion Basic Medical Advanced Information and Choice Care Education Communications Friesland achieves a low rank (8) among the Dutch regions according to its EU-SPI score, but it is better than its rank by GDPpc (10). This means that Friesland is more efficient than other Dutch regions with a higher GDPpc into transforming its GDPpc in social progress.

Friesland ranks first (tied with other Dutch regions) in the Dutch context in three components: Shelter, where it already ranked first in the European context, Water and Sanitation, where it ranked seventh in the European context and Personal Safety, where it ranked eighth in the European context.

The weakest component of Friesland in the European context, Environmental Quality, is now one of its strongest components in the Dutch context, ranking 2nd at a close distance with the leading region. On the other hand, Friesland still ranks in a bad position in the component Access to Advanced Education, and the distance with the leading region still considerable. In the other components, the gap with the leading regions is 10 points or less. 3.7. Seventh Analysis: The Two EFA Countries of the United Kingdom

3.7.1.1 Scotland EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Scotland EU-SPI Value: 73,9 Scotland GDPpc (2011) 24.500 €

Scotland EU-SPI Position: 45 Scotland GDPpc (2011) Position: 104

Rank Rank = 117| Max. Gap = 25,0 Rank = 156| Max. Gap = 18,3 201 Rank = 157| Max. Gap = 30,5 Rank = 159| Max. Gap = 12,4 251

301

Scotland achieves a good rank (45) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, and it is much better than its rank by GDPpc (104). This means that Scotland is one of the most efficient EFA Countries (together with Friesland and Wales) in transforming its GDPpc in social progress, and it is more efficient than many European regions with a higher GDPpc. A difference with the Dutch region of Friesland is that Scotland has half of its components ranking below its GDPpc rank, while Friesland managed to rank all its components but one above its GDPpc rank.

The main strengths of Scotland are the components Tolerance and Inclusion, where it ranks tenth, at just 5,5 points of distance with the leading region, Environmental Quality, where it has a good rank (22nd), but at a considerable distance of the leading region (28,5)13, and Access to Advanced Education, which ranks 25th at a close distance of the leading region (11 points).

There are three clear weaknesses of Scotland in terms of ranking in the EU-SPI, which are the component Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Access to Basic Knowledge and Water and Sanitation.

There are also two additional weaknesses (components that rank well enough, but have a considerable gap with the leading region) of the Scottish performance in the EU-SPI, which are components in which Scotland still has path to walk to catch up with the leading regions. Those are: Personal Rights and Access to Information and Communications.

13 The leading region in this component is the Spanish region of Canary Islands, which ranks at a distance of 13 points to the second region, which is the Island of Madeira, in Portugal. This helps understanding why almost all regions in our analysis are at a great distance of the leading region in the component Environmental Quality. 53

3.7.1.2 Wales EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Wales EU-SPI Value: 72,0 Wales GDPpc (2011) 18.600 €

Wales EU-SPI Position: 79 Wales GDPpc (2011) Position: 184

1 Rank = 25| Max. Gap = 7,38 Rank = 34| Max. Gap = 12,9

101 Rank = 121| Max. Gap = 25,6 Rank = 123| Max. Gap = 10,5 Rank = 142| Max. Gap = 15,9 Rank = 150| Max. Gap = 23,4

151 Rank

201

Rank = 215| Max. Gap = 39,6

251

301 Personal Safety Access to Environmental Tolerance and Shelter Personal Rights Health and Access to Nutrition and Water and Personal Access to Basic Advanced Quality Inclusion Wellness Information and Basic Medical Sanitation Freedom and Knowledge Education Communications Care Choice

Wales achieves a medium rank (79) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, and it is much better than its rank by GDPpc (184). This means that Wales is the more efficient EFA Country in transforming its GDPpc in social progress and it is more efficient than many European regions with a higher GDPpc. It is similar to the Dutch region of Friesland in the sense that Wales managed to rank all its components but one above its GDPpc rank. We can appreciate a huge contrast between the rank of the best component (Personal Safety, 25) and the rank of the worst component (Access to Basic Knowledge, 215).

The main strengths of Wales are the components Personal Safety, where it ranks 25th at only 7,3 points of distance with the leading region, and Access to Advanced Education, which ranks 34th at a close distance of the leading region (12,9 points), Environmental Quality, where it has a good rank (51th) at a great distance of the leading region (35,9).

The EU-SPI shows a clear weakness of the Welsh society, which is the component Access to Basic Education, where Wales has a very bad ranking (215) and huge gap with the leading regions (39,6). Other weaknesses are the components Personal Rights and Access to Information and Communications.

It is important to note that both Scotland and Wales achieve a good ranking in the component Access to Advanced Education but a poor ranking in the component Access to Basic Education. This could give us a hint about a common behavior (that could be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom) as an unequal society, with a lot of people that go to university while an important part of the society is not able to acquire more-than-basic skills and abilities.

3.7.2.1 GDP and EU-SPI correlation. UK Regions – Scotland and Wales. Correlation: 0,19

Northern Ireland Highlands and Islands North Eastern Scotland South Western Scotland 76,00 Eastern Scotland East Wales West Wales and The Valleys Devon 75,00 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Dorset and Somerset Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Bristol/Bath area 74,00 Kent Hampshire and Isle of Wight Surrey, East and West Sussex Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire 73,00 Outer London Inner London Essex 72,00 Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire East Anglia

West Midlands SPI SPI score 71,00 Shropshire and Staffordshire Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire Lincolnshire Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire 70,00 Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire West Yorkshire South Yorkshire 69,00 North Yorkshire East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Merseyside Cheshire 68,00 Lancashire 15,00 35,00 55,00 75,00 Greater Manchester Cumbria GDP, x 1000 ppc Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Tees Valley and Durham

In this analysis of the correlation between the EU-SPI scores and the GDPpc in the British context, we have decided to use the data of the NUTS 2 regions of the United Kingdom, because we think that analysis at a NUTS 2 level is more rich (we are comparing 37 territories instead of 4) and can help us finding patterns in the regional data from the UK, and see where Scottish and Welsh regions stand (regions in yellow and red, respectively).

In the United Kingdom, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the British regions is very low and the difference between top SPI scores (Hampshire and the Island of Wright; 75,3) and bottom SPI scores (West Midlands; 69,0) is small, of 6,3 points (a similar situation to the Dutch and German cases). This short gap means that the British society has the capability to provide a common social progress (quite high) for all the regions in the United Kingdom, despite its GDPpc.

But, as we can see, there is a clear outlier that is disturbing the analysis, which is the city of London (Inner London). It has the highest GDPpc among all European NUTS 2 regions (80.400€) but its EU-SPI is like that of East Wales, region that has almost 60.000€ less in GDPpc than Inner London. Like the case of Brussels in Belgium and as a difference of the case of Paris (Ile de France) in France, the leadership of London in terms of GDPpc is not transformed in the leadership in terms of EU-SPI. To check if there is a correlation between GDPpc and EU-SPI in the UK we have conducted a second analysis without considering this region.

3.7.2.2 GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison. UK Regions without London– Scotland and Wales. Correlation: 0,51

Northern Ireland

Highlands and Islands SPI vs GDP, UK North Eastern Scotland South Western Scotland 76,00 Eastern Scotland East Wales

West Wales and The Valleys

Devon

75,00 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

Dorset and Somerset

Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Bristol/Bath area 74,00 Kent Hampshire and Isle of Wight

Surrey, East and West Sussex 73,00 Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Outer London

Essex

Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

72,00 East Anglia

West Midlands SPI SPI score Shropshire and Staffordshire 71,00 Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire Lincolnshire

Leicestershire, Rutland and Northamptonshire 70,00 Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire West Yorkshire

South Yorkshire

North Yorkshire

69,00 East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

Merseyside

Cheshire 68,00 Lancashire 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 45,00 Greater Manchester Cumbria GDP, x 1000 ppc Northumberland and Tyne and Wear Tees Valley and Durham

In this graph, we have eliminated the British capital region of London from the analysis. The correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the British regions is now larger, but the difference between top SPI scores and bottom SPI scores has not changed.

This higher correlation means that there is a certain ordinality between the regions with higher GDPpc and the ones with lower GDPpc in terms of social progress, but at the same time, the small gap between top and bottom regions (in terms of SPI) means that this ordinality is not equal to a chronification of social progress differences. The richest region without considering Inner London, which is North Eastern Scotland, with a GDPpc of 39.900€ and a EU-SPI score of 74,7 points has only 2,8 points more in the social progress index than the poorest region, West Wales and The Valleys, which achieves a good score in the EU-SPI considering its low GDPpc.

3.7.3.1 Scotland EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of United Kingdom:

Scotland EU-SPI Value: 73,9 Scotland GDPpc (2011) 24.500 €

Scotland EU-SPI Position: 1 Scotland GDPpc (2011) Position: 2

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 1 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 0,61

2 Rank

3 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 5,03

Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 9,86

Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 3,75 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 0 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 2,66 4 Environmental Access to Basic Health and Tolerance and Access to Personal Personal Rights Access to Water and Personal Safety Shelter Nutrition and Quality Knowledge Wellness Inclusion Advanced Freedom and Information and Sanitation Basic Medical Education Choice Communications Care

When we compare British regions, we cannot compare the components Shelter and Personal Rights. Those components where computed at a national level for all the British regions, so no difference in terms of rank or score would be appreciable.

Scotland achieves the best rank (1st) among the NUTS 1 regions (Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland)14 of the United Kingdom according to its EU-SPI score, and it is superior that its rank by GDPpc (2nd).

Scotland leads 5 out of 12 components in the British context. It ranks third in one component (Access to Information and Communications) and ranks fourth in three components (Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, Personal Safety and Water and Sanitation). Only in the component Water and Sanitation can we find a small but considerable gap with the leading region.

Scotland leads the rank of the component Access to Basic Knowledge (which had a bad rank in the European comparison), which reaffirms the intuition that the whole UK has an unequal educational system. Other strengths of Scotland in the British context are the components Environmental Quality, Tolerance and Inclusion, Access to Advanced Education and Health and Wellness.

14 We have performed this comparison (and the Welsh comparison) by comparing them with the other NUTS 1 regions of the UK, because Scotland and Wales are originally NUTS 1 regions. 57

3.7.3.2 Wales EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of United Kingdom:

Wales EU-SPI Value: 72,0 Wales GDPpc (2011) 18.600 €

Wales EU-SPI Position: 4 Wales GDPpc (2011) Position: 4

1 Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 1| Max. Gap = 0

Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 1,89 2

Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 7,43 Rank

Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 7,46 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 0,81 3

Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 9,10

Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 2,42 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 2,77 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 5,10 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 5,69

4 Personal Rights Personal Safety Shelter Access to Water and Environmental Nutrition and Access to Basic Health and Tolerance and Personal Access to Advanced Sanitation Quality Basic Medical Knowledge Wellness Inclusion Freedom and Information and Education Care Choice Communications

Wales achieves the same rank (4th) among the NUTS 1 regions (Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland)15 of the United Kingdom according to its EU-SPI score than according to its GDPpc.

Wales leads one out of 12 components in the British context, which is Personal Safety. It ranks second two components (Access to Advanced Education and Water and Sanitation), third in two components (Environmental Quality and Nutrition and Basic Medical Care) and ranks fourth in five components (Access to Basic Knowledge, Tolerance and Inclusion, Health and Wellness, Personal Freedom and Choice and Access to Information and Communicatons).

Only in the component Access to Basic Knowledge Wales presents a small but considerable gap with the leading region.

15 We have performed this comparison (and the Welsh comparison) by comparing them with the other NUTS 1 regions of the UK, because Scotland and Wales are originally NUTS 1 regions. 58

3.8. Eighth Analysis: Moravia

3.8.1. Moravia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Moravia EU-SPI Value: 61,4 Moravia GDPpc (2011) 17.700 €

Moravia EU-SPI Position: 173 Moravia GDPpc (2011) Position: 198

1 Rank = 8| Max. Gap = 7,07

101 Rank = 115| Max. Gap = 34,6

Rank = 163| Max. Gap = 25,4 Rank = 166| Max. Gap = 17,6 151 Rank = 170| Max. Gap = 25,0

251 Rank = 235| Max. Gap = 58,7

301 Access to Basic Access to Shelter Personal Safety Personal Nutrition and Personal Rights Access to Water and Health and Tolerance and Environmental Knowledge Advanced Freedom and Basic Medical Information and Sanitation Wellness Inclusion Quality Education Choice Care Communications

As we explained in the methodologic chapter, Moravia does not fit in any established NUTS division of the Czech Republic, so we had to reconstruct the SPI values of the 3 of the 7 Czech regions which are part (in some degree) of the historical country of Moravia.

Moravia achieves a low rank (173) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, and it is better than its rank by GDPpc (198). This means that Moravia is more efficient than many European regions with a higher GDPpc.

The main strength in Moravia is the component Access to Basic Knowledge ranking amongst the best regions in Europe (8th out of 257), with a small gap with the leading regions. Access to Advanced Education is the other Moravian component that stands out, with a medium rank (115th), but with a huge gap with the leading regions, thus giving us the hint that education is a key priority in this region.

The rest of the Moravian components rank in a similar position than the rank of the EFA country by GDPpc (198). The main weaknesses of are the components Environmental Quality, where Moravia has a very bad ranking (235) and huge gap with the leading regions (58,7). Other weaknesses are the components Tolerance and Inclusion and Health and Wellness.

3.8.2.1. GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison. Czech Regions – Moravia. Correlation: 0,65

Praha 67,00

Jihovýchod 65,00

Jihozápad 63,00

Severovýchod 61,00

SPI SPI score Strední Morava 59,00

Strední Cechy 57,00

Moravskoslezsk 55,00 o 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 45,00 Severozápad GDP, x 1000 ppc

In this analysis of the correlation between the EU-SPI scores and the GDPpc in the Czech context, we have decided to use the data of the NUTS 2 regions to maintain the homogeneity in the comparison, as we did with the British regions.

In the Czech Republic, the correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the Czech NUTS 2 regions is high, and the difference between top SPI scores (Praha; 65,9) and bottom SPI scores (Severozápad; 56,6) is not very large (9,3 points). Praha, the capital region of the Czech Republic, stands out in this analysis, both by its GDPpc and its EU-SPI figures. We have conducted a second analysis without considering those regions.

In a similar way as the case of Paris (Île de France), the leadership of Praha in terms of GDPpc is transformed also in the leadership in terms of EU-SPI

3.8.2.2 GDPpc and EU-SPI score comparison. Czech Regions without Prague – Moravia. Correlation: 0,44

Jihovýchod

64,00 Jihozápad 63,00

62,00 Severovýchod 61,00

60,00 Strední Morava

59,00 SPI SPI score Strední Cechy 58,00

57,00 Moravskoslezsk 56,00 o

55,00 Severozápad 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 GDP, x 1000 ppc

In this graph, we have eliminated the Czech capital region of Praha from the analysis. The correlation between GDPpc and the EU-SPI score of the Czech regions is smaller, and the difference between top SPI scores (Jihovýchod; 63,6) and bottom SPI scores (Severozápad; 56,5) has been modestly reduced (2-point reduction) and the distance between top and bottom scores now stands at 7,1 points.

We can appreciate the existence of two outliers in this analysis, the regions of Strední Cechy and Moravskoslezsko (part of Moravia). We can see that those regions are ranked 2nd and 3rd in terms of GDPpc in this analysis, but in terms of EU-SPI they are ranked 5th and 6th, after regions with a lower GDPpc like Severovýchod or Strední Morava. This situation is unusual according to the general framework of the EU-SPI, where it would have been normal to find a higher correlation and less outliers in a set of regions that are part of the regions with the lowest GDPpc of the European Union16.

16 As we have explained before, the relationship between social progress and GDPpc is stronger at low stages of economic development (the lower the GDPpc per capita of the regions analyzed, the stronger the correlation). 61

3.8.3. Moravia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Czech Republic:

Moravia EU-SPI Value: 61,4 Moravia (2011) 17.700 €

Moravia EU-SPI Position: 5 Moravia (2011) Position: 4

Rank = 2| Max. Gap = 2,86 2 Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 1,24

Rank = 3| Max. Gap = 28,4 3 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 3,85 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 15,9 Rank = 4| Max. Gap = 2,35

4 Rank

5 Rank = 5| Max. Gap = 9,10

6 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 4,49 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 5,12 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 4,25 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 5,72 Rank = 6| Max. Gap = 11,9 7 Personal Safety Personal Rights Access to Water and Environmental Access to Basic Tolerance and Shelter Nutrition and Health and Personal Access to Advanced Sanitation Quality Knowledge Inclusion Basic Medical Wellness Freedom and Information and Education Care Choice Communications

Moravia achieves a lower rank (5) among the Czech regions of the Czech Republic according to its EU-SPI score than according to its GDPpc (4).

Moravia does not lead any of the 12 components in the Czech context. The best ranking component of Moravia is Personal Safety, which ranks second, at a close distance to the leading regions. It ranks third in two components, Personal Rights and Access to Advanced Education, but in the latter, it stands at a long distance (28,4 points) with the leading region (Praha).

The region ranks sixth in five components, but only in one of them, Access to Information and Communications), it presents a considerable gap (11,9 points) with the leading region (again, Praha).

The medium-low ranking of the component Access to Basic Knowledge, can be used to infer that almost all regions in the Czech Republic present a very high ranking in this component, positioning themselves amongst the best regions in Europe in this aspect (Praha has the 2nd best score amongst all regions in Europe and it is at just 2,4 points of Moravia).

3.9. Ninth Analysis: Latvia

3.9.1 Latvia EU-SPI ranking compared with the rest of Europe:

Latvia EU-SPI Value: 54,6 Latvia GDPpc (2011) 15.000 €

Latvia EU-SPI Position: 230 Latvia GDPpc (2011) Position: 222

Rank = 34| Max. Gap = 14,1

51 Rank = 97| Max. Gap = 42,4

Rank = 112| Max. Gap = 34,2 101

Rank = 157| Max. Gap = 33,7

151

251 Rank = 250| Max. Gap = 49,4 Rank = 254| Max. Gap = 35,2 Rank = 257| Max. Gap = 45,7

301 Access to Basic Environmental Access to Access to Personal Rights Tolerance and Personal Water and Shelter Nutrition and Personal Safety Health and Knowledge Quality Advanced Information and Inclusion Freedom and Sanitation Basic Medical Wellness Education Communications Choice Care

Latvia is a country by itself, but as the EFA party member from Latvia (Latvian Russian Union) represents the Russian minority in Latvia, we have analysed the whole country. Even if we tried to analyse the regions of Latvia with the biggest presence of Russian population, it could not be possible with the current EU-SPI dataset, as Latvia is not divided into NUTS 2 regions, it is at the same time, a NUTS 0 region, a NUTS 1 region and a NUTS 2 region.

Latvia achieves a very low rank (230) among the European regions according to its EU-SPI score, slightly worse than its rank by GDPpc (222). We can appreciate a huge contrast between the rank of the best component (Access to Basic Knowledge, 34) and the rank of the worst component (Health and Wellness, 257).

The main strength Latvia is the component Access to Basic Knowledge ranking amongst the best regions in Europe (34th out of 257), with a considerable gap with the leading regions (14,1 points). Environmental Quality and Access to Advanced Education are other Latvian component that stands out, with a medium rank (97th and 112th), but with a huge gap with the leading regions, and as the case of Moravia, this gives us the hint that education is a key priority in this region.

Latvia has three components that achieve a worse ranking than both Latvian EU-SPI ranking and Latvian GDPpc ranking. The components, Health and Wellness, Personal Safety and Nutrition and Basic Medical Care, rank amongst the bottom 10 regions in Europe. This leads us to the conclusion that health-related issues are one of the most pressing issues for the Latvian society.

4. Conclusions. Is there a lack of social progress amongst EFA Countries?

This study has tried to determine whether can we find common trends in social progress among EFA countries or not. We compared the EFA countries with the rest of European NUTS 2 regions17 and with the rest of regions of the EU Member State they are currently part of. The dataset that we had was very diverse, ranging in terms of GDP per capita from the 35.300 € of Bavaria to the 15.700 € of Campania18. In terms of EU-SPI score it ranged from the 79,4 points of Friesland to the 49,7 points of Campania.

We expected to find a “relative” lack of social progress in the EFA countries, created by the lack of an independent state, but after the analysis made in this study we cannot conclude that countries with national aspirations behave different than countries that do not have such claims. We have found that some EFA countries, like Wales, Scotland, Bretagne or Friesland have a much better position in terms of EU-SPI than in terms of GDPpc, and countries, as Lombardy, Veneto, Catalonia or Balearic Islands, which have a much worse position in terms of EU-SPI than in terms of GDPpc, so no clear trend was found.

Then we considered that maybe that lack of social progress, that was not present in the European context, was present if we compared the EFA country with the regions of the EU Member State they are part of, respectively. In this case, we did not find a pattern, but we have found 5 cases of EFA countries with a clear lack of social progress according to their GDPpc and the country they are part of. Those EFA countries are: Catalonia, Balearic Islands, Lombardy, Corsica and Veneto. On the other hand, there is one EFA country that achieves a very high ranking inside its current state having a low GDPpc, which is Bretagne.

This had led us to think that social progress has an important role in understanding the strength of the nationalistic movement in one EFA country. The countries that are part of a State that provides them with a much higher social progress than they could achieve by their own (clearly, the case of Wales in the United Kingdom) will have less incentives to secede. On the other hand, countries such as Catalonia or Lombardy, with a clear lack of social progress in relation to their high GDPpc and a strong national feeling, could develop (and in fact, are already developing) a powerful nationalistic movement that could keep on gaining momentum if the discrimination in terms of social progress persists over time.

We also tried to find whether specific components of the EU-SPI behaved in a common way among the EFA countries. We did not find any common trend among the 19 EFA countries, but we found several common trends among regions that where part of a same countries, showing us that some components behave in similar way when you analyses regions of the same country, and others do not. We call this the “country-effect”. This is the case of the components Access to Basic Knowledge for the Spanish regions and the components Access to Basic Knowledge and Access to Advanced Education for the Italian regions.

17 With the exceptions of Bayern, Scotland, Flanders, Wales, Moravia and Latvia. 18 It should be Latvia, because it has a GDP per capita of 15.000 €, but Latvia is a EU-Member State, and its considered an EFA country following the reasons stated in the page 6. 64

We have also found two patterns regarding the ability of the EU Member States to provide a common social progress to its regions:

1. There are countries that can provide a common social progress to all its regions, without regarding their GDPpc (France19, Germany, Netherlands or the United Kingdom).

2. There are countries that give its citizens a social progress in relation to the GDPpc of the region they live in, and thus having a huge gap between the richest and the poorest regions in terms of EU-SPI (the case of Spain20, Belgium or Italy21).

Even though it was not the main target of this study, we have also found a capital effect in the EU Member States that we have analyzed. This capital effect occurred in three different ways:

1. We found capital regions with an outstanding GDPpc in comparison with the rest of the country but a EU-SPI score on the average of the country (Brussels and London).

2. We found capital regions with an outstanding GDPpc in comparison with the rest of the country and a EU-SPI score slightly superior to the rest of the country (Île de France, Praha and in a small measure, Madrid)

3. Regions with no capital effect (Berlin, Lazio (Rome) and Noord Holland (Amsterdam).

19 Without considering Île de France and Guadeloupe. 20 With the exceptions of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands. 21 Italy is an extraordinary case, there seems to be an invisible roof after their regions achieve 25.000 € in GDPpc where they cannot further increase their social progress. See page X for more information. 65

5. Bibliography

Annoni, P., L. Dijkstra, and T. Hellman. 2016. “EU Regional SPI: Methodological Paper,” October 2016.

Porter, Michael E, Scott Stern, and Roberto Artavia Loría. 2013. “Social Progress Index 2013”

Porter, Michael E, Scott Stern, and Michael Green. 2014. “Social Progress Index 2014”

Porter, Michael E, Scott Stern, and Michael Green. 2014. “Social Progress Index 2015”

Porter, Michael E, Scott Stern, and Michael Green. 2016. “Social Progress Index 2016”

Stern, Scott, Wares, Amy, Sarah Orzell and Patrick O’Sullivan. 2014. “Social Progress Index 2014 methodological report”

Stern, Scott, Wares; Amy, and Sarah Orzell. 2015. “Social Progress Index 2015 methodological report”

Stern, Scott, Wares; Amy, and T. Hellman. 2016. “Social Progress Index 2016 methodological report.”

Data Sets:

1. EU-SPI Data Set:

2. GDPpc Data Set (2011): Eurostat

3. Population Data Set (2011-2013): Eurostat

Amb la col·laboració de: