MAKING INCLUSIVE GROWTH

HAPPEN IN CITIES AND REGIONS

Sofia, 16 June 2016

Paolo Veneri Regional Development Policy, OECD

•Provide a set of internationally comparable indicators to advance in the measurement of well-being (focus on people) and inclusiveness in OECD metropolitan areas.

•Assess the patterns of inclusive growth across OECD cities and regions. •Analyse how cities are co-ordinating policies and engaging citizens and private stakeholders to foster inclusive growth.

Data

Evidence

Decision making

Project on Making IG happen in cities and regions

OECD horizontal initiative on Inclusive Growth

Rationale and context

Final Report October 2016

HOW DO CITIES CONTRIBUTE TO HIGHER PROSPERITY AND

PEOPLE’S WELL-BEING?

Incomes of MA residents are on average 17% higher than the rest of

the population, but this difference varies across countries

4

Metropolitan vs. non metropolitan household disposable income ratio by country

per equivalent household; 2014 or latest available year

Note: The graph plots the ratio between household disposable income per equivalent household in metropolitan

areas over that in the rest of the national territory. Countries are ordered by increasing value of that ratio.

Metropolitan areas concentrate highly skilled people

5

Share of working-age population with tertiary education, 2012

Different patterns of economic growth and inclusion in MAs 2008-14

(Europe)

6

Vienna

Graz

Linz

Brussels Antwerp

Ghent

Liege

Zurich

Geneva

Basel

Prague

Brno

Ostrava

Berlin

Hamburg

Munich

Cologne

Frankfurt

Essen

Stuttgart

Leipzig Dresden

Dortmund

Düsseldorf Bremen

Hanover

Nuremberg Bochum

Freiburg im Breisgau Augsburg

Bonn

Karlsruhe

Saarbrücken

Duisburg

Mannheim Münster

Aachen

Copenhagen

Tallinn

Madrid

Barcelona

Valencia

Seville

Zaragoza

Málaga

Las Palmas

Bilbao Helsinki

Paris

Lyon

Toulouse

Strasbourg

Bordeaux

Nantes

Lille Montpellier

Saint-Étienne

Rennes

Grenoble

Toulon

Marseille

Nice

Rouen

Athens

Thessalonica

Budapest

Rome

Milan Naples

Turin

Palermo

Genova

Florence

Bari

Bologna

Catania

Venice

The Hague Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Utrecht

Eindhoven

Oslo

Warsaw

Lódz

Kraków

Wroclaw

Poznan

Gdansk

Lublin

Katowice

Lisbon Porto

Stockholm

Gothenburg

Malmö

Ljubljana

Bratislava

London

Birmingham (UK)

Leeds

Bradford

Liverpool

Manchester

Cardiff

Sheffield

Bristol

Newcastle

Leicester

Portsmouth

Nottingham

Glasgow

Edinburgh

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

-8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

An

nu

al c

han

ge

in p

arti

cip

atio

n r

ate

in t

he

lab

ou

r m

arke

t (p

p)

Average annual growth of GDP per capita

Growing income, growing labour participation

Change in GDP pc and labour participation rates (Europe)

HOW DO INEQUALITIES PLAY OUT WITHIN CITIES?

Large difference in inequality are observed across OECD cities

8

Gini coefficients for household income in metropolitan areas, circa 2014

Metropolitan areas with minimum and maximum Gini coefficients, by country

Income inequalities are large within metropolitan areas and bigger

cities are on average more unequal

9

Metropolitan population and income inequality, circa 2014 (controlled for income levels and country effect)

Calera

San Fernando

Linares

Quillota

Ovalle

Melipilla

San Antonio

Punta Arenas

Calama

Curicó

Osorno

Valdivia

Copiapó

IquiqueLos Angeles

AricaChillán

Puerto Montt

Talca

AalborgOdenseRancagua

Antofagasta

Temuco

Coquimbo-La Serena

Aarhus

Toledo

Akron

Saint-Etienne

Irapuato

Venezia

Pachuca de Soto

Toulon

Bari

Gent

Durango

HarrisburgMadison

Wichita

Celaya

Linz

Little Rock

Graz

Des MoinesCharleston

Catania

Columbia

Montpellier

Richmond

Colorado Springs

Baton RougeGrenoble

Malmö

Benito JuárezRennesRouen

Albany

Providence

Genova

Grand RapidsSaltillo

Firenze

Reynosa

Oaxaca de Juárez

XalapaLiège

Tuxtla Gutiérrez

Bologna

Strasbourg

Dayton

Tampico

VeracruzHermosillo

McAllen

Acapulco de Juárez

Chihuahua

El Paso

NiceMorelia

Culiacán

Omaha

Nantes

Centro

Cuernavaca

Göteborg

Albuquerque

Concepción

Tulsa

Mexicali

Palermo

Birmingham

Aguascalientes

Valparaíso

Tucson

Buffalo

FresnoFort Worth

AntwerpenRaleigh

Norfolk-Portsmouth-Chesapeake-Virginia beach

Querétaro

Bordeaux

New Orleans

Clearwater/Saint Petersburg

San Luis Potosí

Luisville

Toulouse

JacksonvilleOklahoma city

Salt Lake City

Nashville

Memphis

Torreón

Mérida

Juárez

Lille

Pittsburgh

Tampa

Charlotte

Tijuana

León

Milwaukee

Indianapolis

Marseille

AustinCleveland

Torino

Columbus

Lyon

Toluca

Kansas CityCincinnati

StockholmLas Vegas

Copenhagen

BaltimoreSacramento/Roseville

San AntonioOrlando

Puebla

Portland

Bruxelles / Brussel

Denver

Saint Louis

WienSeattleSan DiegoBoston

Minneapolis

Philadelphia

DetroitNapoli

Roma

Phoenix

Milano

Monterrey

Atlanta

Guadalajara

Dallas

Washington

MiamiHouston

Santiago

San FranciscoChicago

Los AngelesNew York

Mexico City

.05

.1.1

5.2

.25

Gin

i coe

ffic

ien

t (c

om

pon

en

t plu

s r

esid

uals

)

10 12 14 16 18Ln of total metropolitan population

Top income households tend to segregate the most in

neighbourhoods, in Canada, France and US; while bottom income

households in the Netherlands

10

Spatial segregation by income, neighbourhood scale (entropy index)

Higher administrative fragmentation is associated with higher

segregation of people in different municipalities

11

Hypothesis: Fragmented metropolitan governance can facilitate segregation at the level of local units.

-.05

0

.05

.1.1

5

Ine

qu

alit

y b

etw

een

loca

l ju

risd

ictio

ns,

(C

om

po

ne

nt p

lus

resi

dua

l)

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1

Administrative fragmentation

Controlling for country

fixed effects and other

city characteristics

(i.e. income ,

population, spatial

structure), higher

administrative

fragmentation is

associated to higher

spatial segregation by

income in different

municipalities

POLICY APPROACHES FOR PROSPEROUS AND INCLUSIVE CITIES

Exploiting physical & environmental capital

in cities & regions

Growth Inclusion

Healthy communities

Connecting low-income communities to job opportunities

(e.g. public transport)

Affordable/quality housing

Green infrastructure

Transport investment

Land development

Achieve balance across

policy decisions that help

expand people’s life choices

& opportunities

Valorising human & social capital

in cities & regions

Bring all segments of the

skills spectrum…

High-skilled

Medium-skilled

Low-skilled

… into different entry points to

urban & regional labour markets

Education

Employment (in existing

firms)

Entrepreneurship

Informal employment

• Gather a solid evidence base of outcome indicators on the different aspects of people’s lives

• Build partnerships among stakeholders around common strategic projects

• Target policy interventions on the right geographical scale (which can range from neighbourhood scale to the metropolitan scale)

• Combine short-term & long-term interventions

• Support participatory decision making and peer learning

• Tap innovative sources of financing

• Establish policy monitoring mechanisms

Key steps for promoting inclusive growth

in cities & regions