In general, inner peripheries overlap considerably with lagging areas at national level and, although in a less marked manner, with lagging European areas (Table 2.6). Besides, the relative majority of inner peripheral areas from the four delineations might be defined as lagging from both a national and a European perspective. Regarding overlaps between IPs and lagging regional types, economic potential interstitial areas (IP 2) and depleting areas (IP 4) seem to stand out, which is explained by the fact that these delineations have more direct connection with economic performance (Map 2.18 and Map 2.20).
Regional variations behind the overlap between inner peripheral areas and other socio-economic typologies show some characteristic macro-regional patterns. For the comparison of inner peripheries and lagging typologies a more in-depth analysis was conducted and assessed at macro-regional level. The results contribute to explain the geographies of inner peripheries in comparison with lagging typologies, showing clearer trends regarding regional variation (Map 2.17, Map 2.18, Map 2.19 and Map 2.20).
While nationally lagging territories might be present everywhere in Europe depending on the degree of national regional inequalities, lagging areas from the aspect of European level are present within the EU28 mainly in the Mediterranean area and in Central and Eastern Europe.
This differentiation affects regional patterns of overlap between IPs and lagging regions too.
In Western Europe, inner peripheries are usually not lagging or lagging only from national perspectives, while in the southern and eastern part of Europe, areas with inner peripheral characteristics more frequently overlap with (multiply) lagging areas.
Regarding overlaps between IP and lagging regional types (Table 2.6), economic potential interstitial areas (IP 2) and depleting peripheries (IP 4) seem to stand out, which can be explained, since these delineations have more direct connection with economic performance (Map 2.18 and Map 2.20). By contrast, inner peripheral types regarding travel time to regional centres (IP 1) and accessibility to services (IP 3) have a higher overlap with not lagging regions (Map 2.17 and Map 2.19). This might be explained by the fact that those indicators are only indirectly connected to economic performance and related to long term development processes. In some cases, inner peripheries are geographically separated from areas showing lagging trends at national and European level (e.g. Northern Italy and Northern Spain). In those cases, inner peripheries reflect a more limited performance in the regional context, although located in areas with higher economic development (regarding GDP indicator).
Table 2.6: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU lagging regions
The text below presents a more detailed analysis of the previous cross-table (Table 2.6) by considering the geographical distribution of IPs according to the macro-regions where they are located (as mentioned earlier, countries are classified in macro-regions based on the Eurovoc Classificationb). Therefore, the overlap of the four delineations with lagging regions is assessed for the macro-regions of Central and Eastern Europe (Table 2.7); Western Europe (Table 2.8); Southern Europe (Table 2.9) and Northern Europe (Table 2.10).
Table 2.7: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU lagging regions (Central and Eastern Europe)
<EU75
In Central and Eastern Europe (Table 2.7) nearly all IP delineations are located in lagging regions (namely the category <EU75%, as shown in Figure 1.1) with a GDP per capita (PPS) lower than the 75% of EU28 average (ranging from 85 to 100%). Table 2.7 shows that, out of them, there is also a major overlap for all delineations corresponding to lagging regions that are both lower than 75% of national and European averages (namely the category
<EUNAT75%), with a lower proportion of IPs lagging only at European level (included in the category <OnlyEU75%).
b Eurovoc Classification: Central and Eastern Europe (Albania; Belarus; Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Hungary; Kosovo;
Moldova; Montenegro; Poland; Romania; Russia; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; and Ukraine; where Turkey has also been added); Western Europe (Andorra; Austria; Belgium; France; Germany; Ireland;
Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Monaco; Netherlands; Switzerland; and United Kingdom); Southern Europe (Cyprus; Greece; Italy; Malta; Portugal; San Marino; and Spain) and Northern Europe (Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Iceland; Latvia; Lithuania Norway; and Sweden).
(http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/?q=request&view=mt&mturi=http://eurovoc.europa.eu/100277&languag e=en)
Table 2.8: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU lagging regions (Western Europe)
In Western Europe (Table 2.8), there are two noticeable trends: On the one hand, there is a significant percentage of IPs that are not located in lagging regions (ranging from 36% to 65%, depending on the delineation analysed). On the other hand, those IPs that are located in lagging regions show all a GDP per capita below 75% of their national averages. In line with macro-regional trends for Western Europe, a small proportion of these regions appear to perform as well below the 75% EU28 average (ranging from 9% to 32% depending on delineation analysed).
Table 2.9: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU lagging regions (Southern Europe)
<EU75
In Southern Europe (Table 2.9), the number of IPs located in not lagging regions appears noticeable (ranging from 30% to 82%, depending on the delineation). Regarding this trend, it is noteworthy mentioning the weak relation between poor access to SGIs (Delineation 3) and lagging regional typologies: only 17.6% of Delineation 3 IPs perform worse than both national and European averages). On the other hand, and reflecting the macro-regional trends for Southern Europe, the IPs that are also lagging regions show GDP values below 75% the EU28 average, but also, most of them (except for Delineation 2), below 75% of the national averages.
Table 2.10: Overlap between inner peripheries and EU lagging regions (Northern Europe)
In Northern Europe (Table 2.10), Delineation 3 shows some distinctive features as compared with the rest of the delineations. For instance, IP regions are distributed equally among regions lagging only at national level, only at European level and both at national and European level (33.3% each), with no overlap with not lagging regions. On the other hand, this trend contrasts with the remaining delineations, where a significant share of IPs is located in not lagging areas (ranging from 45% to 67%, depending on delineation). For delineations 1, 2 and 4, the IPs that overlap with lagging regions are all below they are 75% of the national average. However, around one third of them is also lagging at European scale under, a figure that is higher for Delineation 4.
From the comparison of the four tables (Table 2.7 to Table 2.10) showing the overlap of IPs and lagging regions according to their geographical distribution on macro-regions, some insights can be extracted:
- The overlap of Delineation 3 (based on access to SGIs) shows a distinctive trend, that appears different from the other delineations (1, 2 and 4).
- For delineations 1, 2 and 4, the higher or lower overlap of IPs with lagging regions varies according to the macro-region where they are located. For instance, in Central and Eastern Europe, almost all IPs are located in lagging regions (95–100%). This percentage decreases, although it still represents the majority of IPs, for Western Europe (53–65%). In addition, in Southern and Northern Europe the overlap with lagging areas varies importantly depending on the delineation (ranging from 33–70%
and 33–55%, respectively).
- For delineations 1, 2 and 4, for countries with a GDP per capita indicator below European average (Central, Eastern and Southern Europe) all their IPs located in lagging regions are classified as lagging at European scale, as they present a GDP per capita below 75% EU28 average, although some do not present a GDP per capita below 75% of the national average. Conversely, for countries with a GDP per capita indicator above European average (Western and Northern Europe) all the IPs overlapping with lagging regions present a GDP per capita below 75% of the national average. Although, out of them, some lagging regions are also presenting a GDP per capita value below 75% of EU28 average.
Map 2.17: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 1 – travel time to regional centres) and lagging areas
Map 2.18: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 2 – economic potential interstitial areas) and lagging areas
Map 2.19: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 3 – access to SGIs) and lagging areas
Map 2.20: Overlap between inner peripheries (Delineation 4 – depleting areas) and lagging areas