Region of Bratislava

Home , Bratislava, Bratislava Region, Economy of Bratislava, Kraj, Malacky, Pezinok

Pilot Project: “Measuring what matters to EU Citizens: Social progress in European Regions”

Disclaimer

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 KEY SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE REGION 5

2.1 MAIN INSIGHTS ON THE RESULTS OF THE EU-SPI IN THE BRATISLAVA REGION ______9 2.2 FUNDING ALLOCATED TO THE REGION UNDER THE COHESION POLICY ______10

3 THE THEMATIC FOCUS OF THE BRATISLAVA REGION: THE EU-SPI AS A TOOL TO ADDRESS SOCIAL INCLUSION 11

3.1 POLICIES/INITIATIVES RELATED TO THE THEMATIC FOCUS AND BEYOND ______14 3.2 USEFULNESS OF THE EU-SPI TO IMPROVE POLICYMAKING ______16 3.2.1 Applications (or potential) of the EU-SPI ______16

3.2.2 Assessment of the EU-SPI’s data (related to thematic area and beyond) ______17

3.2.3 Other sources of information on the theme and beyond ______18

4 SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS OF THE EU-SPI 19

5 MAIN LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE CASE STUDY 22

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 23

ANNEX 25

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 Geographical position of the Bratislava Region in relation to Slovakia ...... 5 Figure 2 The Bratislava Region ...... 6 Figure 3 Population and area of regions (2017) ...... 6 Figure 4 Net migration in regions (2017) ...... 7 Figure 5 Life expectancy at birth 2017 (years) ...... 7 Figure 6 Unemployment rate in regions (2017) ...... 8 Figure 7 GDP development in regions...... 9 Figure 8 The EU regional Social Progress Index (EU-SPI) for the Bratislava Region, 2016, 2011 ...... 10

INDEX OF TABLES

Table 1 EU funding (excl. national co-financing) allocated to Slovakia (2014) ...... 11 Table 2 Issues of the ‘social inclusion’ concept...... 12 Table 3 Suggestions for new indicators ...... 21

Regional/national symbols in figures: BL Bratislava Region TA Trnava Region TC Trenčín Region NI Nitra Region ZI Žilina Region PV Prešov Region BC Banská Bystrica Region KI Košice Region SR Slovak Republic

Introduction

The case study visit to the Bratislava Self-Governing Region (hereafter Bratislava Region) was organised between 28 and 30 May 2019. All in all, 11 experts, mainly representing public authorities or the research sector, were available for in-depth interviews. A list of interview partners is provided in the annex. The interviews were conducted by Berenike Ecker (representing the “Pilot Project: Measuring what matters to EU Citizens: Social progress in European Regions” — hereafter the EU-SPI project). She was accompanied by Tomáš Teleky and Martin Hakel, representatives of the Bratislava Region. The Bratislava Region is one of the 10 pilot regions of the EU-SPI project. In fact, the region is interested in:  applying the “EU regional Social Progress Index” (hereafter the EU-SPI) in the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) implementation at regional level;  using the EU-SPI as a comparative/benchmarking tool for the performance of the regions;  prioritising of investments according to the needs of the citizens of the region; and  actively contributing to the “beyond GDP” debate. In this case study, an explicit focus was laid on the issue of ‘social inclusion’ and the related social inclusion concept that is currently in preparation on behalf of the Bratislava Region and the connections of this topic to the EU-SPI. Key socioeconomic aspects of the region

Basic indicators about the region The Bratislava Region lies in the south-western margin of Slovakia and consists of 5 Bratislava districts (LAU I level), 3 rural districts (Pezinok, Malacky and Senec), and 73 municipalities. See Figure 2 below. With the capital Bratislava, the region has seven towns. It is both a NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 region. Following the NUTS 2 categorisation, the whole country is divided in four regions: Bratislava Region, Western Slovakia, Central Slovakia and Eastern Slovakia. However, statistical information about the country and its regions is very often provided by following the NUTS 3 categorisation on the basis of which Slovakia is divided in eight regions. See Figure 1 below. Comparisons of the Bratislava Region with other Slovakian regions in this section are also provided by following the NUTS 3 categorisation (Haasová & Špilka, 2018; The Bratislava Self-Governing Region in figures, 2018). In 2017, around 80 % of the regional population lived in urban areas, around 66 % (429 564 people) in the City of Bratislava (The Bratislava Self-Governing Region in figures, 2018).

Figure 1 Geographical position of the Bratislava Region in relation to Slovakia

Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratislavsk%C3%BD_kraj Figure 2 The Bratislava Region

Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratislavsk%C3%BD_kraj

The population in all of the regions of Slovakia was stable or slightly decreased between 2013 and 2017. Only the Bratislava Region is an exception to this development. Its population has increased by 5.2 % in the time frame 2013-2017. This means that nearly 12 % of the overall population in Slovakia lived in Bratislava in 2017. So, the region with the smallest area had the highest population density (317 persons per km2) in that year. (Our regions 2018, 2019; The Bratislava Self-Governing Region in figures, 2018).

Figure 3 Population and area of regions (2017)

Source: Our regions 2018, 2019

Population structure, migration and demography Compared to 2013, the total increase of the population in Slovakia went up by 2 664 inhabitants until 2017. The natural increase was most significant in the Bratislava Region (+54.7 %) and in the Žilina Region (+64.8 %). The net migration has increased by 1 343 persons in the same time frame. The Bratislava Region was the most active region when it comes to migration (an increase by 2 444 persons) (Our regions 2018, 2019). See Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Net migration in regions (2017)

Source: Our regions 2018, 2019

In 2017, 89.87 % of the inhabitants of the Bratislava Region were Slovaks, while 10.13 % (65 917) of people had other nationalities; 3.85 % were Hungarians and 1.37 % Czechs. The number of people who declared themselves as citizens/members of the following states/ethnic groups were less than 1 % in relation to the overall number of inhabitants of the region: Germans (0.31 %/2 025), Ukrainians (0.22 %/1 404), Poles (0.17 %/1 107), Ruthenian people (0.14 %/919) and Roma people (0.11 %/745). The citizenship of 3.95 %/25 723 inhabitants was statistically not recorded (Regional Statistical Yearbook of Slovakia 2018, 2019). The Bratislava Region’s life expectancy in 2017 was 75.4 years/men and 81.7 years/women, above the national average (73.8 years/men and 80.3 years/women). The life expectancy of male and female inhabitants is also higher in comparison to the other seven regions of Slovakia (Haasová & Špilka, 2018). See Figure 5 below.

Figure 5 Life expectancy at birth 2017 (years)

Source: Our regions 2018, 2019

The median age in 2017 was 40.9 years. Of the inhabitants of the Bratislava Region, 47.57 % were men and 52.43 % were women (The Bratislava Self-Governing Region in figures, 2018). In the same year, 66.93 % of the region’s inhabitants were in the productive age (15 to 64 years), 16.71 % in the pre-productive age (0 to 14 years), and 16.36 % in the post-productive age (65 years and more). It is expected that the amount of people in the productive age will slightly decrease to 66.5 % in 2020 and 65 % in 2025 (The Bratislava Self-Governing Region in figures, 2018). Labour market

At national level, the average number of economically active persons in 2013-2017 increased by 1.5 % to 2 754 700 persons. The highest growth of economically active persons was recorded in the Bratislava Region (+4.5 %). In 2017, 24,9% of the national employment was allocated to this region. At the same time, 375 063 employers were registered in the Bratislava Region. With respect to the unemployment rate, the regional amount (4.2 %) was lower than the national average (8.1 %) and also second lowest after the Trenčín Region (Our regions 2018, 2019). See Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 Unemployment rate in regions (2017)

Source: Our regions 2018, 2019

Economy In 2017, the average gross nominal monthly earnings (EUR 1 449) were highest in the Bratislava Region. The national average was EUR 1 101. With EUR 588 income/person/month and EUR 444 expenditure/person/month, the amount of the income and expenditure of households was highest in the Bratislava Region. The national average was EUR 456 income/person/month/EUR, EUR 366 expenditure/person/month (Haasová & Špilka, 2018; Our regions 2018, 2019; The Bratislava Self- Governing Region in figures, 2018). This relatively above-average performance of the Bratislava Region is — as supposed by some of the interview partners — a result of the involvement of the wages of top managers of companies/corporations seated in the capital metropolitan region. Not least because of this, it is less noticeable that certain occupational groups (like teachers, nurses, etc.) earn much less and have great difficulty meeting the necessary costs in the “wealthy” region. In terms of the value added, the position of the Bratislava Region has been dominant for a long time. In 2017, the highest volume of gross value added in absolute values was again reached in the region: EUR 21 373 million, a growth by EUR 2 432 million since 2013 (Our regions 2018, 2019). In 2017, the total volume of the gross domestic product (GDP) generated in the Bratislava Region represented EUR 23 727 million. The GDP per capita/euro amounted to EUR 36 700, and the GDP per capita/PPS amounted to EUR 53 800. The volume of GDP per capita in the Bratislava Region exceeded the EU average (179 %), while in the Prešov Region it has not even reached 50 % of the EU average. In the EU-wide GDP ranking, the Bratislava Region is in the top 10 of the European richest regions for years. The big disparities between the Bratislava Region and the other Slovak regions are also visible in Figure 7 below (Eurostat, 2019; Our regions 2018, 2019).

Figure 7 GDP development in regions

Source: Our regions 2018, 2019

The Bratislava Region benefited from an excellent infrastructure, sizable stock of human capital and the influx of foreign direct investment in the last years. The most important included Volkswagen (automotive industry), Slovnaft (oil processing), SPP (gas storage and distribution), Slovak Telecom (information technologies), INA Skalica (car components), SAS Automotive (car components), Johnson Controls International (car components), Delphi Slovensko (car components), TESCO (retail), IBM (IT), Dell (IT) and many financial groups (European Commission – Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2019). Furthermore, the region profited from growth of the tertiary sector (trade and services, banking and insurance services). The sector accounted for some 71.2 % of the region’s total employment in 2017 (Slovak average 60.1 % and EU-28 average 71.9 %). The secondary sector was responsible for 20.9 % of the employment in the region (Slovak average 37.2 % and EU-28 average 24.0 %), and the primary sector for 7.9 %, which is above the national and EU-28 averages of 2.7 % and 4.2 %, respectively (European Commission – Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2019). Some interview partners pointed out that the socioeconomic data for Bratislava should at least be interpreted with caution and only partially reflects the reality. Even though a concrete number of people living in Bratislava without permanent residence is not available, the interview partners assume that the share of these people is remarkable. The related developments have an impact on social area and inclusion as well: People living in Bratislava without permanent residence may use the social services in everyday life to the same extent as people with permanent residence, but they are not contributing to the budget of the city and region. MAIN INSIGHTS ON THE RESULTS OF THE EU-SPI IN THE BRATISLAVA REGION

Whereas the Bratislava Region is in the top 10 of the European richest regions — with a GDP per capita accounting for around 180 % of European average (in 2018 – and similarly in the years before) — the picture is different when it comes to the EU-SPI. The EU-SPI measurement led to a ranking of the 181st place (out of 272 places). With a few exceptions, the region scores badly — in terms of the score, the ranking and the performance comparison — in more or less all of the 12 components that are covered under the three dimensions (Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity) of the EU-SPI. Positive/neutral exceptions are recorded in the Access to Basic Knowledge component as well as in the Access to Advanced Education component. See Figure 8

below (European Commission – Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy). However, as pointed out by the representatives of the Bratislava Region, these indicators do not reflect the quality of education, which is another big issue for the region (students are underperforming in PISA tests).

Figure 8 The EU regional Social Progress Index (EU-SPI) for the Bratislava Region, 2016, 2011

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/maps/social_progress

The thematic focus of the case study was laid on social inclusion. The indicators of the Tolerance and Inclusion component, where the Bratislava Region was ranked relatively low (rank 203 of 272) / was underperforming, were somewhat in the focus of the investigation, but the thematic priorities of the social inclusion topic in the Bratislava Region are to a large extent not yet covered in the current EU- SPI version. More details are provided in Section 3. FUNDING ALLOCATED TO THE REGION UNDER THE COHESION POLICY

As presented in Table 1 below, about 3.5 % of EU funding (in the funding period 2014 to 2020) for Slovakia is reserved for the Bratislava Region. And even this relatively small amount was a positive

result of renegotiations with the other regions, with the Slovakian government and the European Commission. Initially, less than 0.5 % of the funding had been reserved for the Bratislava Region.

Table 1 EU funding (excl. national co-financing) allocated to Slovakia (2014)

Region category EU funding 2014-2020 (EUR) EU funding 2014-2020 (%) Less developed regions 9 199 151 642 96,55 More developed regions 328 738 820 (Bratislava Region) 3,45 Total 9 527 890 462 100,00 Source: https://www.vicepremier.gov.sk/sekcie/cko/politika-sudrznosti-eu/dokumenty/partnerska-dohoda-sr/index.html The thematic focus of the Bratislava Region: The EU-SPI as a tool to address social inclusion

The selection of the thematic focus of the case study in the Bratislava Region took place in the spring of 2019 in close cooperation with the regional contacts of the Bratislava Region. The discussions showed that social inclusion is an issue that should be given more attention in the future, especially in the context of developing medium- and long-term development strategies. However, under the Tolerance and Inclusion component of the EU-SPI, other indicators are more likely to be presented than are relevant to the region in the context of social inclusion. A concept of social inclusion is currently being developed in the Bratislava Region. The region has commissioned the Comenius University, Department of Regional Geography with the creation. The overall goal of the investigation and the related concept creation is to identify existing social problems more precisely and to develop concrete strategies and measures for dealing with these problem areas. The implementation of a programme, which includes the developed strategies and measures, should be (co)financed by funds from the region and should take place subsequently to the conceptualisation. The concept of social inclusion covers four topics, presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Issues of the ‘social inclusion’ concept

Topic Description Housing One of the objectives of the investigation in the context of this topic is to find out how many people in the Bratislava Region are not able to buy living space — and need therefore potential support/subsidies. At the moment, there are more or less no opportunities for social/subsidised housing in the region. Ninety per cent of the (documented!) living space is privately owned. It is assumed that many people, currently living in the region, do not have the means to buy housing but need to rent it. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that in recent years the influx (of people who stay permanently in Bratislava but also of commuters) into the city and the surrounding area of the city has increased sharply. In terms of statistics, this issue is not really representable due to newcomers not having to register themselves in the city/region. Besides the fact that taxes cannot be levied on these people, the little knowledge about this group (there is more or less no information available about the approximate number of unregistered inhabitants in Bratislava (1)) does not necessarily make it easier to analyse the problem area. It is also presumed that these people (who probably get relatively low wages) are at a high risk to come under pressure to pay disproportionately high costs for living space. The Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development has already signalled that it would reserve budget for the support of municipalities that plan to invest in social housing. Specific programmes/schemes, which can be used from municipal level, are already developed and available. But these programmes/schemes are hardly in use. The investigation should also provide an explanation for the non-use of these opportunities. Demographic change Based on prediction of the demographic development of Slovakia by 2030, the population of Slovakia over the age of 65 will increase by almost and related one third. This will set even more pressure on the use of social services than has been the case so far. The ‘Concept of the Development of developments: e.g. a Social Services in the Bratislava Self-governing Region’ states that the offer of social services in the region is not sufficient; respectively in need for high-quality several cases there is a mismatch between supply and demand for certain types of social services. It is also necessary to improve the quality of social and health social services offered. In addition, the existing and/or potential labour force of young parents could be used by providing health/social/education services for silver services that enable them to find/maintain/return back to work while keeping the life quality of the parents as well as their children. population and By 2050, Slovakia expects 40 000 workers to leave the labour market. Different substitution options have to be considered. One opportunity young families; could be related to improving the quality of social and health services in order to retain employees aged 64 and over (measures in the silver inclusion of people economy). Another opportunity could be related to people who migrate from third countries (mainly from Ukraine and Serbia) to Slovakia, with migration especially to Bratislava city and the Bratislava Region. Appropriate measures should be set up to integrate these people into society and avoid background into the potential problems with their integration. People from third countries are often employed on the basis of temporary employment contracts that labour market and have been agreed with agencies not based in Slovakia. Especially low-skilled workers coming from third countries are at high risk of abuse — the social system for example by paying too low wages, missing social and health insurance, etc. Homelessness An accounting, which was done by NGOs on behalf of the City of Bratislava, came to the result that around 2 500 homeless people lived in the city in 2018. Even though a strategy in order to deal with this target group has been recently (in 2018) developed by the City of Bratislava, there is still a high potential to further develop/improve existing approaches. This improvement is also a central aim of the social inclusion concept. At the moment, publicly funded NGOs offer structured support, but according to the interview partners, the public sector should get more actively involved in dealing with this target group and should increase efforts in developing solutions for a reduction of the number of homeless people. Inclusive education One aim of the concept is to improve the coordination of measures that focus on the sustainable integration of children with learning difficulties/special needs into regular schools. The measures that are currently implemented are mainly EU-financed, whereas resources for these kinds of measures are very limited at national level. Furthermore, most of the funding is provided through different individual projects with a clearly defined duration. But there is already a much greater need for financial support for this target group than can be offered by these projects at the moment.

(1) An estimation of the number of inhabitants in the Bratislava Region is here (in Slovak language): https://dennikn.sk/1495410/v-bratislave-zije-vyse-600-tisic-ludi-a-dalsich-130-tisic- dochadza-ukazali-telefony-mapy/?ref=list

Source: Own illustration on basis of interview results.

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the topics, which are assigned to social inclusion in the Bratislava Region (Housing, Demographic change and related developments, Homelessness, Inclusive education), differ from the EU-SPI indicators listed under the Tolerance and Inclusion component. Whereas the issues of Housing are taken up by the EU-SPI, the other social inclusion issues of the Bratislava Region are not or are only marginally covered by the current EU-SPI. The four social inclusion topics, presented in Table 2 above, are the basis for the preparation of a questionnaire that will be sent to the municipalities of the Bratislava Region. The questionnaire was in preparation during the field visit in May 2019. Following the survey, the collected data and corresponding statistical data will be analysed. The analysis should result in a concrete inventory of the social inclusion status in the Bratislava Region. Once the results of the empirical inquiry are available, a presentation and discussion within a broader stakeholder community is foreseen. The following stakeholder groups should get included:  civil society (e.g. NGOs that are currently involved in dealing with challenges in the four topics),  research organisations from different research fields (e.g. economy, social sciences, etc.), and  public authorities (e.g. the City of Bratislava, municipalities). Together, potential strategies and measures for specific challenges in the context of the four issues will be elaborated and finally mapped in a concrete programme and an action plan that should get implemented after the conception phase. The conception phase should be completed until the end of 2019. If possible, the concept will provide a base for better money targeting during the next EU funding period as well as regional/city budget planning. The Bratislava Region is the most important institution of this concept — not only because it is the contracting authority but also due to it being in the position to implement the developed actions. Specific vulnerable groups — like the Roma people — are not involved in the social inclusion concept. From the interview partner’s side it was recommended to address the state level in this regard — but not only. The region could play a role as well — especially in the field of secondary education. In the city of Bratislava and the region, Roma people are, for instance, less presented than in a couple of other regions of Slovakia. POLICIES/INITIATIVES RELATED TO THE THEMATIC FOCUS AND BEYOND

In this prominent form, a ‘social inclusion concept’ is being strategically developed for the first time at the regional level. As mentioned above, the contracting authority of the concept is the regional governing entity, the Bratislava Self-Governing Region. According to the 302/2001 Law, the self-governing regions have powers in regional planning and development, regional transport, secondary education, healthcare, social welfare, culture and cross-border cooperation (European Commission – Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs). The social inclusion concept also fits into the basic document of regional planning of the Bratislava Region, which is:  ‘The economic and social development programme of Bratislava Self-Governing Region 2014-2020’. The overall objective of the programme is to create encouraging conditions for increasing innovation performance within the region. This objective is to be met through addressing four strategic goals: (I) development of a knowledge-based economy, (II) development of services and tourism, (III) integrated and environmentally friendly transport and reduction of energy intensity, and (IV) improvement of quality of the environment. The Structural Funds provide the majority of finance for the abovementioned activities (The economic and social development programme of Bratislava Self-Governing Region 2014- 2020, 2013).  Moreover, a ‘Programme Statement’, focusing on the five big issues (I) transport, (II) health and social care, (III) environment, (IV) human capital, and (V) forthcoming regional development was released at the end of 2018. In addition, the creation of a:

 ‘Strategic plan for the development of the City of Bratislava’ has started in May 2019. The six topics of this strategic plan are: (I) transport, (II) education, (III) social services, (IV) environment, (V) energy and waste, and (VI) culture. Outcome and impact indicators from the City of Bratislava, which come from suitable projects, should be used for an aggregation in these three domains: 1. Culture: In a broad meaning — e.g. the way that people communicate. 2. Well-being: How do the inhabitants of Bratislava perceive and judge their life quality and health? How do they feel about it? 3. Environmental resiliency: In the meaning of climate change. Furthermore, the EU-SPI is seen as an important orientation basis for the second domain, although the exact selection of used indicators will be based on the availability of data at city level. The strategic plan development process will probably result in the creation of a separate index for the City of Bratislava. But at the time of the case study, this process had just started and will last until the end of 2020. Afterwards, the completed strategy needs to be accepted by the City Council. Different experts from the City of Bratislava will work continuously on the strategic plan’s development. After its acceptance, the strategic plan should get operationalised in the form of a strategic management that will be responsible for the conception and implementation of projects, related to the goals that have been defined in the strategy. The City Office and the Metropolitan Institute will be mainly responsible for the strategic management. Even though the active engagement of broader stakeholder groups in the strategic plan development process is highly appreciated from city level, most important is the active involvement of the representatives of the City of Bratislava, respectively the different districts of the city. Each of these levels currently has its own budget and strategy. In fact, 18 strategic plans and related programmes are in implementation. These 18 strategies should get one strategic frame in the end. Regarding the vertical embedding of the strategic plan and its six topics, a connection to the municipal agenda is given on the one side, and — especially through the three domains — to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development on the other side. Moreover, the stakeholders of the City of Bratislava and the Bratislava Region are interested in coordinating their strategic engagements. Similar to the City of Bratislava, the strategic planning programme of the Bratislava Region follows the six goals of the 2030 Agenda and the ‘Vision and Strategy for the Development of Slovakia until 2030’. In the context of the latter, a draft version of the ‘Vision and Strategy for the Development of Slovakia until 2030’ is already completed and currently available to policymakers at national level for review. Further details on the vision and strategy document are provided below. During the meeting of representatives of the City of Bratislava and the Bratislava Region in the context of the EU-SPI case study, the idea was put forth to have a deeper talk about the indicators, the city and the region uses, and to come — ideally — to a common approach on how the region should be measured in the future.  The ‘Vision and Strategy for the Development of Slovakia until 2030’ is also important for social inclusion insofar as it will be the determining document for the direction of national and regional development policies. The strategy is divided into three integrated development programmes. 1. Safeguarding sustainable development of resources (e.g. human, natural, technological resources). 2. Capitalisation in the economy through sustainable and most efficient use of resources. 3. Quality of Life: Accessibility of services, public health, etc. With respect to its implementation on territorial level, a sectorial approach should be avoided (was not effective in the past). As an alternative, integrated investment packages should be implemented through so-called innovative social ecosystems, which need to be created at regional level. If this structure can be

created successfully, this will be finally “the environment in which all the needs are unified in one mainstream which is the quality of life” (Int. # 2). The impact and efficiency of such an environment for the people needs to be measured as well. In this context, an indicator like the EU-SPI seems to be crucial for the stakeholders involved. During drafting of the vision and strategy document, the responsible stakeholders were considering several indicators that would best describe the overall progress of Slovakia. Unfortunately, no agreement on one aggregated index could be made. As a result, the document in its current version includes a list of more than 100 indicators. These indicators should be used in order to evaluate the progress of development. USEFULNESS OF THE EU-SPI TO IMPROVE POLICYMAKING

The interviews with stakeholders from the public administration and research sectors showed that the EU-SPI as such is known by these stakeholders — although not in detail, but the interviewees were familiar with the term — as well as other indexes (mainly the OECD Regional Well-Being Index). Especially the stakeholders strongly connected with the social inclusion topic were not surprised about the poor performance of the Bratislava Region in the EU-SPI ranking. In the view of these interview partners, the EU-SPI is useful for the Bratislava Region, as it can be used to underline that an assessment and a comparison on basis of the (high regional) GDP is rather disadvantageous for the region. Especially with respect to gaining EU funding, the GDP is still the most dominant calculation base. In relation to other regions with a comparable social situation, Bratislava’s funding opportunities are more limited in the view of some of the interview partners. Nonetheless, it also becomes clear that a fact- based added value of the EU-SPI in relation to the social inclusion topics (see Table 2) can hardly be generated at the moment — firstly because data is not available / is currently being put into recording and secondly because most of the social inclusion topics are not covered by the current version of the EU-SPI. Applications (or potential) of the EU-SPI

At the moment, the EU-SPI is not used in the Bratislava Region. Discussions about its potential use take place — primarily on a political level. For instance, it was already considered whether ‘The economic and social development programme of Bratislava Self-Governing Region 2014-2020’ could be somehow updated in the future — based on data, provided by the EU-SPI. But until now, no concrete steps were taken. However, the Bratislava Region is currently in discussion with the Ministry of Interior, if the EU-SPI could be implemented on a lower level than NUTS 2. Within the call for the Operational Programme “Effective Public Administration”, the region collaborates with the Ministry of Interior and follows the idea to introduce the EU-SPI into policies at municipal level. Probably helpful in this regard is the national funded project “Data Office”. In the course of this project, the National Statistical Office can be asked to start collecting specific data, which is currently not available but relevant for the creation of indicators. Moreover, the engagement of the region in the EU-SPI project is connected with the aim to get inspiration and ideas on how the index can be used for the forthcoming regional development planning — also in terms of the future EU cohesion policy. During the interview phase, it turned out that another Slovakian region — Trnava Region (part of the NUTS 2 region Western Slovakia) — has started with a testing of the EU-SPI at municipal level. The project is aimed at mapping strengths and weaknesses of the municipalities in the Trnava Region and identifying possible next steps in order to improve their level of development. Following the explanations of one interview partner, the high investments of Structural Funds in Slovakia have shown low efficiency for years — especially in terms of the reduction of territorial disparities. This interview partner also expressed great scepticism regarding the negative connotation of territorial disparities. In his view, the policy that focuses on the reduction or elimination of disparities will not be successful and does not even make

much sense due to disparities being, have been and will be in place. He is also convinced that some of them are even positive — and should therefore be classified as potentials — due to disparity also meaning diversity. The latter is one of the central aspects for sustainability and resilience. So, the abovementioned document ‘Vision and Strategy for the Development of Slovakia until 2030’ (see Section 3.1) is based on the main idea to maximise the specific potentials of each region in Slovakia in order to improve the quality of life. One interview partner, representing the research sector, recommends that the national government, the regional and local governments, and the research sector should get more strongly involved in the conceptualisation of EU-SPI–related initiatives in the Bratislava Region and beyond. Cooperation and coordination in terms of the detailed planning of initiatives might help to realise them. The most pressing issues are the gaining of funding and the collection of data at local level. With respect to the latter, already existing/collected data should be put together. On the basis of this, the collection of additional data could be organised consistently and coherently. With respect to the funding, coordination between the involved institutions can on the one hand show whether these institutions can offer their own money for initiating specific actions. On the other hand, the involved institutions can organise a joint application for EU money in the context of applications. Due to the self-governing regions not having the competences for all the EU-SPI indicators or for all political areas linked to the indicators, coordination and cooperation with public authorities at national level would also be important in order to design more effective policies. Assessment of the EU-SPI’s data (related to thematic area and beyond)

As already stated in the previous sections, the topics that are assigned to social inclusion in the Bratislava Region (Housing, Demographic change and related developments, Homelessness, Inclusive education) differ from the EU- SPI indicators listed under the Tolerance and Inclusion component. Whereas the issues of Housing are taken up by the EU-SPI, the other social inclusion issues of the Bratislava Region should be included in the next version of the EU-SPI (see Table 3). The current categorisation of indicators and components seems less logical at first sight to some of the interview partners. In addition, it was difficult for some of the interview partners to gain clarity on how the different components and indicators are distinguished from each other; for example:  the components Knowledge (Dimension: Access to Basic Knowledge) and Education (Access to Advanced Education) are taken up in two different dimensions,  the indicator Air Quality is treated in the Health and Wellness component, and the indicator Air Pollution in the Environmental Quality component,  the indicator Impartiality of Government Services is treated in the Tolerance and Inclusion component, and the indicator Quality and Accountability in the Personal Rights component. According to the interview partners, it would be good to learn what the allocation process of the indicators to the different components looks like and it would also be good to learn how the different components are defined in detail, in order to better understand the whole structure and composition of the index. This might also be an important basis for comparisons. Some interviewees also wished for a restructuring and simplification (e.g. through a renaming of the dimensions) and reduction of the current EU-SPI. According to them, no comprehensible demarcation between the social and environmental issues is given in the current version of the index. This is not necessarily a problem but underlines the complexity of the index. As a positive example of an easy-to-understand index, the OECD Regional Well-Being Index was mentioned several times.

Other sources of information on the theme and beyond

In the first half of 2019, a quality of life questionnaire was conducted by the Comenius University, Department of Regional Geography. Students questioned people in different districts in the Bratislava Region, as well as in the districts of the Trnava Region. Students were on-site and asked the regional inhabitants to fill in a survey. All in all, the students collected 1 500 responses. The questions of the survey were focused on economic situation, education, health, spare time, safety and environmental conditions of respondents. The final results were not available at the time of the interviews, but reliable outcomes are expected. On the basis of the results, a more concrete estimation in terms of the quality of life of people in the selected districts should be possible. Connections to the social inclusion concept should be made as well. On a more abstract level, the social dimension was picked up in the study ‘Slovak Centers of Development 2013: Economic and Social Dimension, Infrastructure and Public Services’, conducted by the University of Economics in Bratislava. The authors of the study developed an index, which consists of 15 indicators assigned to 3 different dimensions (economic, social, public). The aim of this study was to provide a basic overview of the state and development of the 8 regions of the 15 largest cities in Slovakia, and to establish a professional debate on the competition between cities and regions and on the possibilities for their further development. A comparison of the results of the measurement to the EU-SPI scorecard for the Bratislava Region does not really make sense — amongst other reasons, due its different geographical framing and due to the selection of different indicators. In fact, in this study the Bratislava Region performed best in comparison to the other cities and regions included in the measurement. As brought up in Section 3.2.1, the Bratislava Region is interested in working with the EU-SPI in the context of the forthcoming strategic planning and policymaking at regional level. As presented in the introduction, the region is interested in:  applying the EU-SPI in the ESIF implementation at regional level;  using the EU-SPI as a comparative/benchmarking tool for the performance of the regions;  prioritising of investments according to the needs of the citizens of the region; and  actively contributing to the “beyond GDP” debate. In terms of measuring the region’s needs, the Bratislava Region has worked with its own index for some time. Thereby, it relies on the knowledge and experience of the Institute of Spatial Planning. The employees of the institute are reliable in developing indexes and have contributed in this context also in different EU-funded projects. Initially, they developed an index by collecting statistical data (but no surveys were used) on different NUTS levels — down to municipal level. All in all, up to 80 indicators were collected (AUREX Ltd., 2015; Institute of Spatial Planning, 2018): In the case of regional (NUTS 3) level, they were clustered in four thematic groups: I. Natural Conditions, II. Settlement Structure and Human Resources, III. Transport & Technical Infrastructure, IV. Economy (The Spatial Development of Interregional Co-operation in the Danube Space). In the case of regional (LAU I) level, they were clustered in 10 thematic groups: I. Demography, II. Housing, III. Civic Amenities, IV. Economy,

V. Land Use, VI. Environment, VII. Financial Issues, VIII. Technical Infrastructure, IX. Transport, X. Settlement Structure. Overlaps with the EU-SPI are given up to a certain extent. Mainly important in the context of this index is considering spatial aspects in combination with the thematic aspects. So, a couple of indicators were calculated through a GIS analysis. The created ‘basic index’ can be adapted depending on the respective task/purpose. The creation of a time series is possible, as well as SWOT analyses and a prognosis on the future development of selected thematic groups by following different scenarios. Strategies and planning documents achieve a better quality by using this index. In addition, regional disparities can be identified quite quickly (if the relevant data is available). A concrete plan on connecting the EU-SPI with this index is not elaborated yet but might be considered after the analysis of the findings of the EU-SPI project. Suggested improvements of the EU-SPI

Generally, it can be concluded that:  For most interview partners, the EU-SPI scorecard for the Bratislava Region was not so easy to understand. Without background knowledge on the individual indicators and components, it is simply difficult to assess what exactly constitutes good / neutral / poor performance. It would be good to add a conclusive explanation on how the individual indicators are calculated, what exactly is measured, and who is asked in surveys. With respect to the last point, it would be good to learn whether the surveys were answered by a random sample of people, living in the Bratislava Region, or by representatives of authorities. In other words: How has the scorecard been created? The provided background information on the website of the European Commission – Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy is only helpful to some extent.  Presenting score, ranking and performance in one scorecard seems very challenging at first sight. Without a supplementary explanation, most of the interviewees tend to focus only on the performance (the multitude of red dots in the case of the Bratislava Region caught the eye). The fact that the 15 regions with similar GDP are used for the measurement of the performance can be easily overlooked. It would be important to adapt the scorecard in a form that the performance is more self-explanatory. Example: The scorecard of Eastern Slovakia (the weakest region in the national comparison) performed better than the Bratislava Region. Without knowledge about the weighting, there is some danger in terms of its misinterpretation and consequently misuse.  Working with data from the year 2011 (GDP in the EU-SPI scorecard) should be avoided. The used data should not be older than 1 year.  A couple of used indicators (the subjective/soft indicators) represent attitudes, or in the words of one interview partner: “a very sensitive view on social reality which could be the basis for strengthening the debate on social progress” (I 7). Nonetheless, it is of great importance to accompany and observe its use as an argumentation basis by policymakers in order to avoid a potential misuse: “[…] policy makers would like to get elected and are therefore related by the public opinion” (I 7). The public opinion is not necessarily in favour of the topics, as presented in the EU-SPI.

In addition, some of the interview partners assumed that the life quality of people living in the Bratislava Region also differs in terms of their age. Concretely, it is presumed that the life quality of people in the so-called post- productive age (65 years and older) with a lower income is worse than the one of people who work. Within the productive age group, differences in terms of life quality might be given as well — these differences are probably related to the income gaps within this group. So, it would be important to differentiate between target groups (young/old people, different income groups, etc.) when asking questions about life quality in the EU-SPI. Although there is no discussion to measure the EU-SPI on a lower level than NUTS 2, the request of more or less all interview partners to do this cannot be ignored at this stage. Due to the big disparities within the Bratislava Region, the results of the EU-SPI were interpreted with caution. It was not said that the results presented in the scorecard do not represent the reality — nonetheless there were doubts that the real situation of the people can be classified in this aggregated from. One interview partner stated the following: “The lower you get the bigger picture you have. Learning more about changes which take effect by initiated policies – this is something you cannot find out by conducting measures at NUTS 2 level. You need much more details” (I 3). For instance, access to a lot of services taken up in the EU-SPI can strongly differ between urban and more suburban and rural areas within the region. In addition, the distance to the workplace plays a big role in terms of well-being. This distance also differs strongly within the region. The added value of the indicator, which can be created through a comparison with EU cohesion policy on a European level, was not questioned. But it was suggested to bear in mind that flexibility of the future EU-SPI would be an important asset for the Member States. Flexibility is noted in terms of weighting the different composites of the indicators, adding new indicators based on priorities that are connected with the specific situations of countries/regions, and removing/skipping indicators that are for instance not relevant for a specific region. Performing in relation to the 15 regions with a similar GDP does not seem to be uninteresting for the Bratislava Region, but what the region wishes above all is for a comparison with the other regions in Slovakia by following the EU-SPI. It would be good to observe the tempo of growth of the Bratislava Region in relation to other regions in the country. If European and national policies are implemented in the whole country, a measuring opportunity of the effects needs to be offered. It would be important to observe the course of effect development. Probably, the Bratislava Region or other Slovakian regions cannot participate in the expected form in the interventions. So, it would be helpful to restructure the scorecards in a form that other indicators (e.g. indicators that are already presented in the scorecard, but also other economic-related indictors, like the unemployment rate, etc.) can be used as references as well. It might also be worthy to think about adjusting a reference group of regions in accordance with GDP and other indicators such as the size of the region (inhabitants), etc., in order to compare similar regions with each other. Furthermore, a development of GDP (per capita) in time could be an appropriate indicator for choosing a reference group. In the context of the discussion whether the GDP is appropriate as a reference, it was also noted by two interview partners that not every country has the same opportunity to distribute its GDP in favour to its citizens. In the case of Slovakia, a not-inconsiderable amount of the GDP is exported to other countries. Probably, the net domestic product (NDP) would be a more realistic reference for a comparison or at least a broader “GDP group”. One interview partner was concerned about the ‘50 % rule’ which says that if at least 50 % of the indicators of a specific component are observed on NUTS 2 level in a specific country, the country is considered to be described at the NUTS 2 level for that component (Annoni, Dijkstra, & Hellman, 2016). By following this rule, a region could probably be shifted to over-performing instead of neutral, instead of accepting that indicators that are not available should be dropped.

In particular, most of the social inclusion topics that are relevant for the social inclusion concept of the Bratislava Region are not covered by the current version of the EU-SPI, but also other areas, which are mainly important for the region. An addition of a couple of indicators in the new version of the EU-SPI would be important in order to cover more appropriately these issues. More details are provided in Table 3 below. Table 3 Suggestions for new indicators

Suggested indicator Additional comments Connection opportunity to existing component Demographic change Related to the social inclusion topics of the Bratislava and related Region. - developments  e.g. Number of people in the pre-productive, productive and post-productive age groups. Homelessness Related to the social inclusion topics of the Bratislava Region. Probably to Shelter  e.g. Number of homeless people. Inclusive education Related to the social inclusion topics of the Bratislava Region. To Access to Basic Knowledge  Number of schools where pupils with disabilities and/or special needs are integrated.  Number of ‘classical’ special-needs schools. Quality of education The Bratislava Region receives bad PISA results for years; Services for pupils with disabilities (inclusive education) Somehow to Access to are less institutionalised and extensible. Advanced Education High school / university completion Somehow to Access to rate Advanced Education Time spent on the way The effects of the growing of the city – suburbanisation and to work/home from the increase of commuters are a big issue in the Bratislava - work Region. The current public transport network does not sufficiently meet the needs of the people – should be expanded. Besides that / probably therefore, the use of private transport is still very attractive in the region. Waiting period for specific medical To Health and Wellness treatments Amount of public money spent on social To Health and Wellness services Price list of dentists Most of the dentists in the region are private (not covered by health insurance). To Health and Wellness Healthy life years The lifetime people spend in good health is also an important factor that indicates the quality of life level. To Health and Wellness Location-based  e.g. Availability of medical specialists / specific medical - services services in the near surroundings. Participation in the  e.g. How often can somebody go to the theatre, - cultural life concerts, etc., per quarter? Source: Own illustration on basis of interview results With respect to the online tool, some improvements were suggested. It would be good to allow calculation and filtering options in combination with comparing possibilities with other regions. The OECD Regional Well-Being Index was named as an example, which fulfils these requirements. It has been classified as “pretty, handy – you click on region you get the information on first sight” (I 7).

Main lessons learnt from the case study

The case study made clear that the interviewees were not only very interested in the topics of the EU-SPI but were also keen on taking concrete action. The poor index ranking confirmed many in their attitude that it would be important to position the EU-SPI topics more strongly in the political agenda setting. The study showed that this is already happening at a regional as well as national level. For comparisons of the Bratislava Region with other European regions at NUTS 2 level, the EU-SPI is also well suited in the current form. However, it would be important not only to use the GDP as a reference in the future but also the NDP and — depending on the issue / depending on the relevant topic — other indicators that are already covered in the EU-SPI. More in-depth and specific findings should be gained. However, the investigation in the Bratislava Region also showed that local stakeholders are first and foremost interested in working on locally problematic issues. EU, national and regional co-financed social policies should lead to tangible and measurable improvements at the local level. Measurements on the NUTS 2 level are hardly suitable for this, especially not in the Bratislava Region, which is characterised by considerable inner-regional disparities. To be able to measure the local effectiveness of policies based on the EU-SPI, it would require a scaling of the new/adapted version of the EU-SPI to a local level — at least at NUTS 3 level, ideally at the levels LAU I and II.

Bibliography Annoni, P., Dijkstra, L., & Hellman, T. (2016). The EU regional SPI: A measure of social progress in the EU regions. Brussels, Belgium: EC-DG for Regional and Urban Policy.

AUREX Ltd. (2015). Study for evaluation and monitoring of the Spatial Plan of Nitra Region based on the results of the SEE Project Donauregionen+, Nitra Self-Governing Region.

Eurostat. (2019). GDP per capita in 281 EU regions. Brussels, Belgium.

Haasová, G., & Špilka, J. (2018). Bratisalvský kraj in figures. Bratislava, Slovakia: Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic.

Institute of Spatial Planning. (2018). Study for evaluation and monitoring of the Spatial Plan of Nitra Region – Data update, Nitra Self-Governing Region.

Our regions 2018. (2019). Headquarters Bratislava. Bratislava, Slovakia.

Programme Statement. (2018). Transport, Health and Social Care, The Environment, Human Capital and The Future of our Region. Bratislava Self-Governing Region. Bratislava, Slovakia.

Regional Statistical Yearbook of Slovakia 2018. (2019). Headquarters Bratislava. Bratislava, Slovakia.

Rehák, Š., Černěnko, T., & Buček, M. (2013). Slovenské centrá rozvoja 2013: Ekonomická a sociálna dimenzia, infraštruktúra a verejné služby. [Slovak Centers of Development 2013: Economic and Social Dimension, Infrastructure and Public Services.] Bratislava, Slovakia: University of Economics in Bratislava.

The Bratislava Self-Governing Region in figures. (2018). Departement of strategy, regional development and project management. Bratislava Self-Governing Region. Bratislava, Slovakia.

The economic and social development programme of Bratislava Self-Governing Region 2014-2020. Short version. (2013). Bratislava Self-Governing Region. Bratislava, Slovakia.

Online sources (last accessed: 03.07.2019):

Bratislava Self-Governing Region: http://www.region-bsk.sk/EN/default.aspx

European Commission – Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/maps/social_progress

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic for Investments and Informatization: https://www.vicepremier.gov.sk/en/index.html

European Commission – Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/base-profile/bratislava-region

The Spatial Development of Interregional Co-operation in the Danube Space (DONAUREGIONEN+): http://gis.donauregionen.net/dplus/Home.aspx

Wikipedia – Bratislava Region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratislava_Region

Annex

List of interview partners:

Nr. First name Last name Organisation

1 Tomáš Černěnko University of Economics

2 Eduard Donauer City of Bratislava

Department of Spatial Planning and Management, 3 Maroš Finka Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak 4 Roman Havlíček Republic for Investments and Informatization

5 Zuzana Kusá Slovak Academy of Sciences

6 Zuzana Hradská Lacková Bratislava Region

7 Ľubomír Macák Institute of Spatial Planning

8 Pavol Petrík Institute of Spatial Planning

9 Pavol Škápik City of Bratislava

10 Miroslav Štefánik Slovak Academy of Sciences

Department of Regional Geography, Protection and Landscape Planning, Faculty of Natural Sciences, 11 Angelika Švecová Comenius University

#EUSPI #EUSPIsocialprogress #EUSPIMeasuringWhatMatters eu-spi.eu