Regional Development in the Nordic Countries 2010 · and environment. In chapter four, the importance of knowledge and the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship in

Regional Development in the Nordic Countries 2010

Regional Development in the Nordic Countries 2010

Maria Lindqvist, editor

Nordregio Report 2010:2ISSN 1403-2503 ISBN 978-91-89332-76-8

© Nordregio 2010

NordregioP.O. Box 1658SE-111 86 Stockholm, [email protected]

Analyses & text: Maria Lindqvist, Lisa Hörnström, Petri Kahila, Moa Hedström, Rasmus Ole Rasmussen, Lisa Van Well, Jon Moxnes Steineke, Lisbeth Greve-Harbo, Peter Schmitt, Stefanie Lange, Johanna Roto, José Sterling, Lise Smed Olsen, Katarina Pettersson, Patrick Galera-Lindblom, Asli Tepecik DisDtp: Allduplo, Stockholm, SwedenLinguistic editing: Chris SmithRepro and print: Allduplo, Stockholm, SwedenNordic cooperation

Nordic cooperation takes place among the countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, as well as the autonomous territories of the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland.

The Nordic Councilis a forum for cooperation between the Nordic parliaments and governments. The Council consists of 87 parliamentarians form the Nordic countries. The Nordic Council takes policy initiatives and monitors Nordic cooperation. Founded in 1952.

The Nordic Council of Ministersis a forum of cooperation between the Nordic governments. The Nordic Council of Ministers implements Nordic cooperation. The prime ministers have the overall responsibility. Its activities are co-ordinated by the Nordic ministers for cooperation, the Nordic Committee for cooperation and portfolio ministers. Founded in 1971.

Nordregio – Nordic Centre for Spatial Developmentworks in the fi eld of spatial development, which includes physical planning and regional policies, in particular with a Nordic and European comparative perspective. Nordregio is active in research, education and knowledge dissemination and provides policy-relevant data. Nordregio was established in 1997 by the Nordic Council of Ministers. The centre is owned by the f ive Nordic countries and builds upon more than 30 years of Nordic cooperation in its fi eld.

Stockholm, Sweden, 2010

Contents

Preface 9

Executive summary 11

Introduction 17

Regional Policies in the Nordic Countries 19Introduction 19The impact of EU policies 19National regional policies 22Structures and reforms 28The Evolution of Rural Development Policies 32

Cross-Border Interactions 35Introduction 35Continuous development of Nordic cross-border cooperation 35European cross-border and transnational cooperation programmes 41The Challenge of Cross-Border Statistics 45A Macro-Regional Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 48

Regional Development Trends 53Introduction 53Human Resources as a base for regional development 54Economic Development and Business 66Labour Market 74Combined challenges and future possibilities 85

Innovation and Entrepreneurship 87Introduction 87Knowledge as a resource base 87Regional Innovation Performance 91The importance of entrepreneurship 92

Climate Change and Energy Policy 97Introduction 97The Nordic response to climate change 98Energy policy in the Nordic Context 101

Bibliography 111

Technical Annex 115

Annex of fi gures 119

Statistical annex (electronic version only)

List of fi gures Figure 1: Location of the Nordic cross-border committees that receive funding from NMR in 2009 ................................................................................... 40Figure 2: Current EU programmes in the Nordic region ................................. 44Figure 3: Commuting between the Nordic countries (2006 fi gures) ................. 47Figure 4: State of play for National Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the BSR .............................................................................................. 51Figure 5: Relations between GDP, jobs and population .................................. 53Figure 6: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009 ...... 55Figure 7: Population change in the Nordic commuter catchment areas in 2000-2010 ............................................................................................. 58Figure 8: Population change in the Nordic municipalities in 2009-2010 ............ 61Figure 9: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (a) ........................ 62Figure 10: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (b) ...................... 63Figure 11: Net migration rate in the West Nordic Countries in 1970-2009 ........ 64Figure 12: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009 .... 66Figure 13: GDP growth at market prices 2000-2010 ..................................... 68Figure 14: GDP in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) per Capita in 2007 ........ 68Figure 15: GDP in PPS per capita and per employed person in 2007. Index, EU27 = 100 .................................................................................. 70Figure 16: Total exports and imports by sector in the Nordic Countries, 2009 .. 73Figure 17: Trade fl ows in the Nordic Countries 2009 ..................................... 74Figure 18: Unemployment rates in June 2010 compared to 2008 annual rates . 76Figure 19: Total employment growth rate 1995-2009 ................................... 76Figure 20: Unemployment development in the Nordic countries in the last 10 years (annual change) and during the global fi nancial crisis (quartile change) .. 77Figure 21: Total and youth unemployment (2009) and youth unemployment development between 2006 and 2010 (fi rst quarter) .................................... 77Figure 22: Youth unemployment in the Nordic regions at the end of 2008 ....... 78Figure 23: Long term unemployment in Nordic regions at the end of 2008 ...... 78Figure 24: Total and immigrant unemployment rates in the Nordic countries in 2009 ..................................................................................................... 78Figure 25: Harmonised unemployment rates 2009 at municipal level in the Nordic countries ................................................................................. 81Figure 26: Employment growth by main economic sectors in the Nordic countries 2005-2009 ................................................................................ 82Figure 27: Labour force levels of education in the Nordic countries ................. 83Figure 28: Regional Development types ...................................................... 87Figure 29: Share of employment by sector in Norden 2008 ........................... 90

Figure 30: Students in Higher Education in Norden ...................................... 91Figure 31: Private/public sector R&D expenditure ........................................ 92Figure 32: Evolution of gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP ................................................................................... 92Figure 33: Regional Innovation Performance in Europe ................................. 93Figure 34: Enterprises birth rates by sector in the Nordic Countries 2006 ........ 94Figure 35: Distribution of self-employed workers in the Nordic countries, 2002-2008. ............................................................................................ 95Figure 36: Total energy consumption and total primary energy production in the Nordic countries 1997-2007 ............................................................105Figure 37: Generation of electrical energy by source 2008 ...........................105Figure 38: Electricity generation by source in NUTS 3 regions .......................106Figure 39: Electricity consumption by consumer group and per capita in NUTS 3 regions ......................................................................................107Figure 40: Consumption of electric energy by sector in Gwh. ........................108Figure 41: Share of renewables and non-renewables for electricity generation 108Figure 42: Electricity generation by renewable energy source in the Nordic Countries .....................................................................................109Figure 43: Dominant branch of employment in Nordic Local Labour Market Areas .........................................................................................120Figure 44: Total age dependency 2010 ......................................................121Figure 45: Young age dependency 2010 ....................................................122Figure 46: Old age dependency rate 2010 ..................................................123Figure 47: Domestic net migration 2005-2009 ............................................124Figure 48: Natural population change 2005-2009 ........................................125Figure 49: Gross domestic product per capita and productivity in 2007 ..........126Figure 50: Regions and municipalities in the Nordic Countries in 2010 ...........127

List of tables Table 1: Nordic Cross-border committees, 2010 ........................................... 36Table 2: European Territorial Cooperation, ongoing programmes, 2010 ........... 42Table 3: Entrepreneurial activity among men and women in the Nordic countries ................................................................................................ 95Table 4: Measures supporting women´s entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries ................................................................................................ 96

NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2 9

Preface

Nordic policy makers need to have access to up to date and comparable information in order to develop and implement successful regional development strategies. This report is the twelfth volume in the series “Regional Development in the Nordic Countries”, which has, since 1981, regularly supplied practitioners with comprehensive analysis of the Nordic regional development scene. It is also the fi rst summary report presented by Nordregio, as a result of the ambition to widen the diffusion of results from recent or ongoing research and analysis projects. Overall, input from around twenty different projects has been used in the production of this report. The aspects covered in the report correspond to the three main themes of the Nordregio work programme; competitive regions and territorial cohesion; territorial knowledge dynamics and community and environment.

This book has been compiled by a team of Nordregio staff members under the editorship of Maria Lindqvist. The fi rst chapter on regional policies in the Nordic countries was written by Lisa Hörnström, with support from Lisa van Well, Rasmus Ole Rasmusen, Petri Kahila, Moa Hedström and Jon Moxnes Steineke. In chapter two, the presentation of cross-border activities infl uencing the regional development of Nordic countries was coordinated by Lisbeth Greve Harbo, with the assistance of Peter Schmitt and Stephanie Lange. Johanna Roto, José Sterling and Rasmus Ole Rasmusen, were responsible for the

third chapter on regional development trends. In this chapter, a state-of-the art look at human resources, the economic situation and labour markets in the Nordic countries is presented. The volume’s fourth chapter on innovation and entrepreneurship as drivers for regional development was compiled by Lise Smed Olsen and Katarina Pettersson. Finally, the chapter on the development of policies and initiatives in respect of climate change and energy policy was summarised by Patrick Galera-Lindblom and Asli Tepecik Dis.

The compilation of statistical information and its presentation in tabular and map form was undertaken mainly by Johanna Roto and José Sterling. A more detailed explanation of the statistical issues relating to the data used can be found in the electronic annex. Chris Smith was responsible for language editing. Valuable input to the chapter on regional policies was provided by Sverker Lindblad, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications (Sweden), Birgitte Sem Whol, Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (Norway), Snorri B. Sigurðsson, Icelandic Regional Development Institute, Susanne Johansen, Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority and Leif Ehrsten, Ministry of Employment and the Economy (Finland). We would like to thank all of you for your support!

Stockholm, December 2010

10 NORDREGIO REPORT 2010:2


Executive summary

Introduction

This report is the twelfth volume in the series “Regional Development in the Nordic Countries”, which has regularly supplied practitioners with comprehensive analysis of the Nordic regional development scene. It is a summary report, with the ambition of widening the diffusion of results from recent or ongoing research and analysis projects. Overall, input from around twenty different projects has been used in the production of this report.

The report consists of fi ve chapters beginning with a general introduction to regional policies in the Nordic countries which is designed to provide a framework for the following chapter. In the second chapter, the development of cross-border cooperation

between the Nordic countries as well as within the EU more generally is presented. Chapter three discusses regional development trends in terms of human resources; economic development and labour markets. The following two chapters elaborate on questions related to two of Nordregio’s core research areas; territorial knowledge dynamics and community and environment. In chapter four, the importance of knowledge and the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship in regional development is discussed. Finally, chapter fi ve focuses on climate change and energy policy which are seen as central issues for sustainable regional development.

Regional Policies in the Nordic Countries

The general motive behind regional policy is to address the problems emerging from the uneven economic development between regions. At a European level, the purpose of EU Cohesion Policy is to contribute to the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives for growth, jobs and sustainable development by promoting cohesion across the EU-territory and improving the use of all available resources. Sweden, Denmark and Finland, and to some extent even the non-EU members of Norway and Iceland, are infl uenced by EU policies and programmes, since they create a framework which impacts on regional policies. For example, in Finland, Sweden and Denmark the EU programming periods are taken into account when forming regional policy at the national as well as the regional level. Norway and Iceland are also affected by strategies formulated at the EU level, not least concerning state aid rules, as they are a part of the EEA.

EU membership has pushed regionalisation processes in the Nordic countries, for example the establishment of regional partnerships for the formulation of regional development policy documents and the allocation of EU funding. Similarly, rural development has traditionally not been addressed as a

specifi c policy fi eld in the larger Nordic countries but after EU accession greater attention has undoubtedly been given to rural development, particularly related to the agri-environmental measures of the Rural Development Programme.

Over the last two decades there has been a discernable shift in focus in regional policy strategies in the Nordic countries from redistribution and state intervention to the promotion of a stronger focus on endogenous growth strategies. Important differences nevertheless remain across the Nordic countries. For example, the shift toward regional growth strategies tends to be most pronounced in Sweden, Denmark and Finland. Innovation and entrepreneurship have been introduced as important mechanisms in regional development policies. However, regional development is a complex issue and it is often diffi cult to distinguish regional policy from other policy areas such as labour-market policy, research policy and education policy.

During the fi rst years of the new century there seemed to be a clear tendency towards a strengthening of the regional administrative level in the Nordic countries, especially in Sweden and Finland. Since then, developments have taken a different direction


and the role of the regional level is still in question. In Sweden, the regional level was strengthened as the administrative experiments in Västra Götaland and Skåne were formalised and 14 cooperative councils were created to take over tasks related to regional development from the regional state representative. Similarly in Finland, large-scale structural reform and the amalgamation of municipalities began in 2005 and in January 2010 a new regional state administration was established. In Denmark, on the other hand, the

creation of the fi ve new administrative regions has in some respects reduced the importance of the regional level. In Norway, a structural reform to strengthen the regional level by creating new larger administrative regions was implemented in January 2010, but very few of the original intentions were realised. In Iceland, a large number of small and often isolated municipalities remain and resistance to merging into larger entities is still signifi cant, while in the Nordic autonomous regions, municipalities still play a strong role.

Cross-Border Interactions

Cross-border cooperation is an important means to achieving the overall EU aim of economic and social cohesion across the EU. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) provides the bulk of fi nancing for cross-border activities in the Nordic countries. The European Territorial Cooperation objective is the fourth programme period for what was previously termed the INTERREG Community Initiative. The objective covers three types of programmes: cross-border cooperation, transnational cooperation, and interregional cooperation. Some of these programmes are open also to the Nordic non-EU member countries. In addition, the EU has set up a number of programmes that target cooperation along the external borders of Europe: The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). Three ENPI programmes are applicable to the Nordic region.

In June 2009 the EU adopted a major strategic policy document on the territorial future of the Baltic Sea Region (BSR): The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). This document is important to the Nordic countries, as it sets out the framework for the strengthening of territorial and thus also transnational cooperation around the Baltic Sea. This also marked the beginning of the EUs implementation of a macro-regional strategy, since it was subsequently announced that the strategic policy paper for the BSR may be viewed as a forerunner to the implementation of further macro-regional strategies across the European Union.

Nordic cross-border cooperation has a long

history; beginning as early as the 1960s. In 2010, eleven Nordic cross-border committees receive funding from the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM). These are located throughout the Nordic region and, in spite of differences in organisational structures; similarities exist in terms of aim (regional development of the cross-border region), the thematic areas of their activities, the process of their work and the roles undertaken in this process.

Since the fi rst Nordic commuter map was presented in 2001, cross-border commuting has steadily increased. In 2006, a total of 44 000 individuals were classifi ed as cross-border commuters. Commuting from Sweden to Denmark or Norway is the major commuter fl ow, making up 75% of total cross-border commuting traffi c. Norway has by far the largest number of in-commuters, followed by Denmark. The commuter fl ows between Sweden and Finland are increasing even if the numbers are not dramatic. With increased cross-border commuting, the demand for statistical data for the policy analysis of the cross-border labour market has also increased. However, national statistics often display signifi cant shortcomings in attempting to gain a clearer picture of the border region and a number of different initiatives have been taken in this light. In 2008 the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM) decided to give the statistical offi ces of Denmark, Norway and Sweden the task of constructing a Nordic statistical database with comparable statistics, StatNord. The database was launched in November 2009, but a discussion is still ongoing concerning the development and future fi nancing of the continual updating of the database.


Regional Development Trends

From the middle of 1990s the global economy went through a period of exceptional growth, with the Asian economies in the van. Most Nordic countries saw economic development above the EU average, with Iceland at the top and Denmark slightly below the EU average. During this period, economic development in the Nordic Countries, as in many other advanced economies, became increasingly dependent on innovation and knowledge-related growth, as material investments decreased, while immaterial investments in human capital, R&D, education, organisational development and ‘branding’ became more valuable. From a European perspective the Nordic countries are performing well. In terms of welfare, measured as GDP per capita in PPS, 80% of the Nordic regions have reached a level above the EU average. Still only 60% of the regions scored higher in terms of productivity per employee, indicating a potential for further development.

The economic development of regions is closely linked to the development of a competitive business sector, supply and demand of human resources and a well functioning labour market. When combining total population change, the level of employment and economic performance, large variations emerge between the Nordic regions. The capital regions, together with some larger city regions, are performing well, while a negative development is found in many rural areas. Even if overall regional polarisation slowed during the previous decade the Nordic countries and their regions still display different preconditions in their attempts to meet future challenges.

The impact of the economic crisesThe global fi nancial and economic crisis beginning in the autumn of 2008 posed signifi cant new challenges to the Nordic countries. The situation has been particularly severe on Iceland, where three of the largest banks collapsed, leading to a rapid depreciation and a severe downturn in the Icelandic economy. The crises resulted in a rapid increase in the European unemployment rate. In 2009, the annual average unemployment rate of the EU27 was 8.9%. Among the Nordic countries, Iceland, Sweden and Finland were especially hard hit. Iceland suffered the most dramatic change in unemployment. Before the crisis, the country had the lowest unemployment rate in Europe. Since then, the level of unemployment has reached a rate of around 8%. In Denmark, the unemployment rate almost doubled, but still remained well below the EU27 average. Norway had the lowest unemployment rate in Europe in 2009

(3.1%).The economic decline is also shown in trade

statistics and many Nordic regions dominated by export-orientated manufacturing industries were struck hard by the crisis. The most striking example was Finland, were the volume of exports shrunk by 20% and imports by 18%. Norway had the least negative growth; probably due to the stable situation of the petroleum market. At a regional level, Finnish regions relying on the paper and pulp industry were heavily hit and West Sweden experienced a signifi cant negative change due to the downturn in the automobile industry. In regions more dependent on services and on public sector employment, the effects of the crisis have, hitherto, been more limited. As a result, there are substantial regional differences in terms of unemployment. The lowest fi gures (below 2%) are found in most municipalities in Norway and in the Finnish region of Åland, and the highest fi gures (above 14%) are found in northern Swedish and Finnish municipalities, in Nordjylland (Denmark) and Trollhättan (Sweden). In Denmark, Iceland and Norway, regional differences are smaller.

In 2010 the global economy was still recovering after the crises. During the fi rst quarter of the year GDP expanded at an annual rate over 5%. With strong public fi nances, Nordic economies, with the exception of Iceland, had been able to give strong support to the fi nancial sector and were among the fi rst economies to recover.

Development of human resourcesDemographic development has a signifi cant impact on society, since human resources are vital for regional development, both as a supply base for labour markets and as a source of economic activities, generating household incomes, taxes and the production/consumption of private and public services. All across Europe, there is a trend towards an ageing population. There are, however, differences between the European Union and the Nordic age structures. Compared to the EU27 average, the age group 60-64 years is signifi cantly larger in the Nordic countries, while the age groups 20-54 years are slightly smaller. At the same time, the Nordic countries have, in general terms, high birth rates and a larger share of children aged 0-19 years than the European average.

The overall population change is a combination of births, deaths and migration to and from the region. Since the end of the 1980s, decreasing fertility rates, and increasing life expectancy has resulted in demographic ageing in Europe and migration has become the major


component of population growth. For example, most Nordic municipalities gained from international migration in the period 2005-2009. However, in Denmark, Norway and Sweden the overall level and share of international migration was much higher than in Finland. During this period, the Nordic countries saw a modest population growth of approximately 0.67% per annum, which was above the average EU growth of 0.40% per annum. At a national level, Denmark, Finland and Sweden had a population increase close to the EU average, while Norway had an annual growth rate above 1%. In Iceland, a rapid population increase was turned into a decrease as a result of the economic crises in 2008, and in the autonomous regions population growth was negative (Greenland) or low (Faroe Islands).

Looking at the population structure by age and gender, regional variations remain. A common trend here is that the population in urban areas is younger than in rural and sparsely populated areas. Generally speaking, the city regions also have the highest share of female population, while in small and medium-sized towns and some more rural regions, especially in West Norden, males predominate. Large variations in population growth are also found between Nordic regions. Over the last ten years the Nordic capital commuter catchment regions and some larger city regions experienced a high annual average population increase, often due to a combination of immigration and natural increase. At the same time municipalities outside the city regions have experienced remarkable population losses, mainly in the Danish, Finnish and Swedish countryside.

A skilled labour forceUnemployment levels are strongly infl uenced by the economic situation, but a low unemployment rate also indicates an effi cient regional labour market, where labour supply and demand are relatively balanced. The increase in unemployment has been affected by an ageing population, population changes (especially in sparsely populated areas) and the marginalisation of vulnerable groups, such as youth, the long-term unemployed and immigrants. The impact of unemployed on vulnerable groups can be expected to vary considerably between regions, due to variations in population structure, growth and skills.

An important asset for the Nordic labour market is its highly skilled labour force, with the highest levels of population with a tertiary education in Europe at the regional level. When it comes to ‘life-long learning’, the tendency is similar and all Nordic countries have fi gures well above the EU27 average of 9%, with Finland (29%), Denmark (20%) and Sweden (18%) at the top. Skilled workers tend to be more productive, less exposed to unemployment; more satisfi ed with their professional lives and they retire at a higher age. The level of education and the quality of the entire educational system are crucial elements in the construction of a skilled labour force. Therefore, many of the measures for countering unemployment in the Nordic countries have focused on education and training. It is also crucial to provide a well-functioning infrastructure and new investment in transportation, housing and education to attract people to and maintain them in a region.

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

In a globalised world, knowledge is becoming an increasingly important factor for innovation and regional competitiveness. The concept of innovation is much broader than inventions or technical development, and includes the implementation of a new or signifi cantly improved product (good or service) or process, new marketing methods as well as new organisational methods. In an increasingly complex world, a single actor seldom has access to all the resources, knowledge and competences required to face global challenges, for example an ageing population, climate changes and the need for energy effi ciency. Today, we often talk about systems of innovations, where private as well as public actors from various sectors need to interact.

The knowledge base för innovationIn a knowledge-based economy, a high level of education among the labour force, access to a high quality school system and investments in research and development (R&D) are important resource bases for innovation and development. In a European perspective, the innovation potential of the Nordic countries is high, since both the share of the population with a tertiary education and the level of R&D investment is high. In 2008, the fi ve Nordic countries had the highest public R&D expenditure as a share of GDP in the EU, with Iceland top. Finland, followed by Sweden was ranked highest in terms of private sector R& D expenditure. Still, there are important regional variations, as higher education is clearly concentrated to metropolitan areas in the Nordic countries.


However, a high level of tertiary education or research expenditures may not be enough to stimulate innovation and development. There is also a need for mechanisms to stimulate the exploitation of new ideas, the commercialisation of academic research and the transfer of different types of knowledge between the public and private sectors. Firms delivering knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) have a central role as integrators of knowledge from various parts of the innovation system, as they tend to have close relations with the knowledge and innovation infrastructure of society, including education and research institutions. The largest concentration of KIBS is found in large metropolitan areas, since concentration offers advantages connected with the production and diffusion of knowledge and with individual and collective learning processes. An essential element for the competitiveness of knowledge-intensive business services is access to highly skilled persons and urban areas tend to have the highest concentration of educated human resources, with a good potential to fi nd relevant employees, partners or customers.

Importance of entreprenurshipEntrepreneurship is another important mechanism to stimulate innovation and regional development. A

high level of formal education is not a guarantee that innovation will take place. A strong national and regional entrepreneurship culture indicates a higher potential to create growth in established or new fi rms. In a global comparison the Nordic countries have not been found among the highest performers in terms of new start-up activities. There are, however, large variations between countries, regions and sectors. In 2009, Finland had the highest share of high-growth entrepreneurs of the Nordic countries, while Denmark was introduced as an example of a country where entrepreneurialism fl ourishes.

Even if, on average, 58% of all students are female, the levels of self-employed women in the Nordic countries have been relatively stable at around 30% between 2002 and 2008. To increase this level, a strong emphasis has been placed on supporting the development of women entrepreneurs, relating both to women’s position in society and the general importance of entrepreneurship in the development of economic growth. All Nordic countries, except Iceland, have a programme or an action plan with the aim of supporting women’s entrepreneurship. However, the measures applied vary between the countries concerned and generally consist of a mix of individually and more structurally focused efforts.

Climate Change and Energy Policy

In order to encourage future sustainable development, it is important for both the public and the private actors to address the grand challenges concerning climate change and energy policy. Nordic countries differ in their institutional settings but have similar targets for their climate policies. For climate change adaptation more research and knowledge are needed to set realistic targets. Close cooperation with the private sector is important for utilising the research results. The facilitation of dialogue and the exchange of knowledge and experience between the various levels of public administration are essential in creating synergies and developing effective climate adaptation strategies. The climate change measures taken in the Nordic countries highlight different institutional approaches to climate change adaptation. While Finland considers sectoral adaptation strategies, Denmark and Sweden emphasise the role of local or regional actors in carrying out climate change adaptation efforts.

In terms of climate change mitigation, the Nordic countries are committed to further reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing their share of energy generation from renewable sources. Energy

policy in the Nordic countries has been infl uenced by the issues of energy effi ciency, security of supply and the environmental impact of energy usage. Over the last three decades, the Nordic countries have sought to respond to economic and environmental challenges through the implementation of various national policy frameworks for the energy sector. Renewable energy sources have progressively substituted coal – mainly with wind power in Denmark and district heating based on biomass in Sweden and Denmark. The success has been the results of various support schemes for these technologies. Progressive deregulation towards the market-based trade of electric power has also been taking place.

Despite the fact that the Nordic countries are generating only moderate emissions of greenhouse gases compared to other developed countries of a similar size, their consumption of energy per capita is among the highest in the world. Relatively high heating demand, due to the cold climate, combined with a sparse population distribution, a greater need for individual transportation, the presence of heavy process industries plus generally high levels of income, are some of the


factors behind this high level of energy demand. In spite of continuous economic growth in the region, however, the demand for energy has remained stable over the last ten years.

The most important energy sources for the Nordic countries, in order of importance, are oil, renewable energy sources (mainly hydro-, geothermal and wind energy), nuclear power, coal and gas. The Nordic region has been privileged to have good access to renewable energy sources as well as a high innovation capacity and effi cient national energy policies. On average, the Nordic countries generate electricity from renewable sources at four times the level of the OECD countries. Still, there are large variations concerning access to different renewable energy sources. In Iceland

and Norway, almost 100% of all electricity is generated from renewable energy while Greenland, a newcomer to renewable energy, had its fi rst hydropower plant in 1993, and due to the expansion of capacity and construction of additional three hydropower plants during the last years has reached a situation where 11% of the total energy consumption and almost 50% of electricity consumption is based on renewable energy. The Nordic countries have a strong position worldwide in energy innovation thanks to strong national support for this sector, even if energy innovation systems vary with respect to the energy resources available, dominant technology regimes, institutional structures and policy commitments on energy and climate change.


Introduction

Nordregio, the Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, is a European research centre in the broad knowledge fi eld known as regional studies, established by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Its primary mission is to bridge the gap between research and policy making on issues related to regional development. As such, it is important to produce and communicate directly to policy makers at the regional, national and international level relevant research results and analysis from the institute’s own research agenda. In the context of this wider process this report fulfi ls an important function, namely, as the fi rst summary report produced in the attempt to diffuse results from recent or ongoing research and analysis projects. In this report, the results of more than twenty different research and analysis projects have been included. Some have already been concluded while others are still ongoing.

The fi rst two chapters contain a short presentation on the Regional Policies of the Nordic Countries, including reference to the recent structural reforms, a presentation of the development of rural policies and a more detailed discussion on cross-border cooperation. These chapters provide a useful background to understanding the trends and results presented in the following chapters. After a period of strong economic growth all fi ve Nordic countries were hit by the global recession in the autumn of 2008. This, of course, has constituted an important challenge to all countries, but to Iceland in particular. Chapter three, on the Regional Development Trends, presents the recent development of human resources, economic growth and labour markets at national and regional level in the Nordic countries and gives a state-of-the art introduction to the current situation. The two fi nal chapters focus on specifi c development themes.

The report relates closely to Nordregio’s own working programme. The working programme for the period 2010-2012 consists of three main research areas. In the context of this report important fi ndings from each of these research areas are presented. The fi rst research area concerns regional development focusing in particular on competitive regions and territorial cohesion. One of the greatest challenges in respect of regional policy is the need to balance the goal of providing inhabitants in all types of regions with good living conditions, with that of ensuring that all regions contribute to national growth and development, based on each region’s endogenous potential. Even

if the Nordic countries are perceived as relatively homogenous, from a European perspective, important differences continue to exist between regions. Many of the peripheral and sparsely populated areas, for example, can be characterised as small economies facing demographic challenges with an ageing population and the continuing out-migration of young people. At the same time, some of the larger urban regions are struggling to develop an approach to the provision of sustainable living conditions, for example in relation to access to housing and the provision of adequate communication infrastructures. It has also become increasingly clear that different types of regions need to cooperate across regional, national and international borders. It is for this reason that an overview of regional policies and recent regional development trends in the Nordic countries is thus presented in the fi rst three chapters of this report.

A second core area of research concerns territorial knowledge dynamics, including questions relating to entrepreneurship and innovation. In a globalised world, knowledge, in terms of education and experience, becomes an increasingly important factor in the development of regional competitiveness. Through the processes of entrepreneurship and innovation, knowledge can be used to develop new or improved products, services and organisations. Innovation is, however, a complex process, often involving customers and suppliers from the private and public sectors, as well as advanced researchers. An important emerging challenge for regional policy makers then is clearly to stimulate the production of relevant knowledge and to secure networks and linkages for knowledge-transfer between individuals in different organisations, sectors and regions. Data on the educational level of the Nordic labour force is presented in the chapter on regional development trends. The question of knowledge, innovation and entrepreneurship is then further elaborated in the thematic chapter on Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

The third research area in the Nordregio working programme relates to the diffi cult challenges posed by climate change. To develop a sustainable society for the future it is important to include environmental aspects in regional development policies. It is important here to understand the regional consequences of climate policy and green growth strategies, and to develop energy policies to increase energy effi ciency and


the use of renewable energy. In the second thematic chapter on Climate Change and Energy Policy, recent climate policies and the challenges concerning energy consumption and production in the Nordic countries are presented.


Regional Policies in the Nordic Countries

Introduction

This chapter focuses on regional policies in the Nordic countries, the impact of EU policies on national strategies for regional development, the formal structures for governing regional policies and the current reform process in respect of these structures. The chapter also contains a description of policies of rural development in the four largest Nordic countries. Regional policy strategies in all the Nordic countries focus on creating the conditions for development to take place across all parts of the country. This implies the need for special incentives in regions that are weaker than the average in terms of economic development and population trends. Regional policy in the Nordic countries has, however, also gone through something of a transformation over the last two decades with the focus now increasingly on regional growth based on endogenous growth strategies and less on state intervention. Important differences, moreover, remain in terms of strategies for regional development across the Nordic countries. These differences will be highlighted in this chapter. When it comes to governing regional development policy, structural reforms have long been and remain an important topic in the policy discourse in each of the Nordic countries. During the last 10-15 years the desire to involve regional actors has become stronger and the division of responsibilities between the state, the regions and the municipalities

has changed. In 2007, it still appeared that all the Nordic countries were continuing to strengthen their administrative regional levels, both in terms of size and in relation to the amount of responsibilities given to them, but since then, the picture has become more fragmented.

Traditionally rural development has not been addressed as a separate policy fi eld in the four largest Nordic countries. The strong and redistributive regional policies combined with primary sector support were regarded as suffi cient for decades. However, Norway differs to some extent from the other countries. Instead of focusing on regional and rural policies a division is, and has for decades been made between regional and district policy. The later focuses on sustaining more peripheral regions. Development policies focusing on rural areas in specifi c, looking beyond agricultural activities, gained attention with the EU accession of Denmark and later also of Finland and Sweden as well as with the parallel shift in Nordic regional policies from redistribution to competition. In general in all four countries endogenous development and local engagement have come to be seen as important tools for the development of rural areas. There are however important differences between the Nordic countries which will be attended to in this chapter.

The impact of EU policies

Several EU territorial strategies work as external drivers shaping regional development in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and to some extent even the non-EU members of Norway and Iceland. The Lisbon Agenda, the Territorial Agenda and Europe 2020 are examples of recent, current and future drivers of regional development policy.

The Lisbon AgendaThe EU Lisbon Agenda, adopted in 2000 had the ambitious goal of making the EU the world’s most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. It called for the creation of competitive growth throughout the EU territory via efforts to boost technology, knowledge transfer and innovation. In 2005 the Lisbon Agenda was re-launched with somewhat less


ambitious targets but in a version that operationalised the strategy with a focus on national and regional actions for growth and employment, creating more and better jobs, instigating better governance procedures and sustainable development.

At the national level, National Reform Programmes (NRP) in each member state set out the goals to be achieved in relation to the Lisbon Agenda objectives and the Community Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008). An important ambition of the NRPs is to involve national parliaments and other national actors in the implementation process of the Lisbon agenda. Important priorities include:

1. Knowledge and innovation for growth, 2. Creating more attractive places to invest and work,

and 3. Creating not just more, but better quality jobs.

Regional policy instruments such as Cohesion Policy funding from the ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) play an important role in achieving the goals of the Lisbon agenda and the EU-15 member states are required to earmark a substantial percentage (at least 75%) of their cohesion policy funding towards achieving the Lisbon goals.

Territoral AgendaThe Territorial Agenda of the European Union was agreed upon at the Informal Ministerial meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion in Leipzig in May 2007. Strengthening territorial cohesion is the primary goal of the agenda which became solidifi ed when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in December 2009. The Territorial Agenda sets the task of achieving territorial cohesion through the setting of priorities which echo those of the ESDP (European Spatial Development Perspective): Development of a balanced and polycentric urban system and a new urban-rural partnership, securing parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge, and sustainable development, prudent management and protection of the natural and cultural heritage. It further adds the promotion of regional clusters of competition and innovation, strengthening and extending trans-European networks and the promotion of trans-European risk management, including the impacts of climate change, to the priorities.

The agenda highlights the importance of territorial governance in seeking to involve all stakeholders (both public and private at national, regional and local level) in an ongoing dialogue process. Regional diversity within Europe is seen as a source of strength. Thus regions are key actors in addressing the

challenges illuminated by the Territorial agenda:

1. the regionally diverse impacts of climate change, 2. rising energy prices and the need for new forms of

energy supply, 3. increased integration of regions in global economic

competition, 4. the impact of EU enlargement on social, economic

and territorial cohesion, 5. the overuse of ecological and cultural resources and 6. demographic changes such as ageing, and in- and

out-migration.

EU cohesion policy has a spatial focus; it is not about sectors but about places, regions. The important question in the debate of the new territorial agenda has been whether it has an added value as compared to the traditional cohesion policy of the EU; ensuring social and economic cohesion by strengthening the lagging behind regions. The added of value of having a territorial dimension in European policies is considered as 3 E rationales; Effi ciency, Equity and Environmental. It is argued that there is a clear link between these rationales and the EU sustainability agenda whose three pillars are economic competitiveness, social inclusion and environmental protection.

The term ‘territorial cohesion’ is used and interpreted throughout the EU and its Member States (MS) by applying varied meanings. The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion started a debate among all MS, regional and local authorities, civil society organisations, research institutions as well as individual citizens on how to develop a common understanding on the concept of Territorial Cohesion. Some of the contributions from the Green Paper debate referred to the need for a strict and uniform defi nition across the EU while others denied this and instead mentioned the need for a common understanding over the key principles of the concept. There are already anchors not debated which reveal that the common understanding of Territorial Cohesion is in place. According to the Green Paper discussion, every place has its own capital which should be used for sustainable development. The common territorial knowledge base, the importance of territorial cooperation, the cross-sectoral coordination aspects and multi level governance attached to this, the territorial content programming documents, the local-regional approach and the functional approach related to administrative borders can be mentioned as the shared anchors which do not need a defi nition. Briefl y, Territorial Cohesion yet encompasses the sharing values among the MS and emphasizes learning how to develop the potential of each region out of their own assets in order to ensure the harmonious and balanced development of the European territory.


The fi nal discussion about the future of cohesion policy is currently under debate and the 5th cohesion report will be published in November 2010. The Territorial Agenda is currently being renewed and will be fi nalised during the Hungarian Presidency in 2011.

Europe 2020Europe 2020 is a recent European strategy designed to address the rapid transformations that have hit Europe. It aims to guide Member States in managing the global fi nancial crisis and unleashing the EU’s innovative capacities by identifying three drivers of growth: 1) smart growth based on knowledge and innovation, 2) sustainable growth for a more effi cient, greener and competitive economy and 3) inclusive growth capable of delivering employment, social and territorial cohesion.

Targets to be achieved include boosting the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from 69% to 75%, investing at least 3% of EU GDP in R&D, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels (or by 30% conditional on similar commitments from other developed countries), reducing the proportion of early school leavers from 15% to 10% and reducing the number of Europeans living below the poverty line by 35%.

The Commission proposes that these targets are translated into national targets and trajectories. Europe 2020 calls for a stronger governance framework at national, regional and local level, but other than specifying that Cohesion policy and structural funds are one of the delivery mechanisms for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, has thus far little to say about the role of regions and regional development. However, as the strategy is still in the initial stages of development, regions themselves may be able to further defi ne their contribution.

The Structural FundsThe EU Structural Funds are an important part of its Cohesion Policy and the planning and funding of incentives for regional development in the Nordic EU member countries Finland, Sweden and Denmark. During the current programming period 2007-2013 the Nordic countries, and especially the northernmost regions of Finland and Sweden, have seen a signifi cant reduction in funding compared to the previous period 2000-2006. Another important change is that during the current period large city-regions have also become eligible for funding. The objectives of the current programming period are Convergence, Regional Competiveness and Employment and Territorial Cooperation. When twelve new member states entered the European Union in 2004 and 2007 – many of them

with a GDP/capita far below 75% the EU25 average which is the criteria for being eligible for the fi rst objective ‘convergence - EU regional policy’s focus of attention inevitably shifted towards regions in Central and Eastern Europe.

Barca report1 argues that there has to be a change in the idea of cohesion policy by “shifting away from re-distribution” (the rich giving to the poor) to the notion of a policy that is “place-based”. The report further argues that current cohesion policy structure provides an appropriate basis for territorial development. However reforms are necessary for achieving the EU’s long-term goals in post-2013 period. Therefore, ten pillars of change are proposed in order to achieve the targets of the cohesion policy.2 The report states that all regions should be able to realize their potential in terms of their assets in order to improve their economic development and the role of subsidiarity is highly emphasized in this regard. The subsidiarity principle, therefore, needs to manage the re-allocation of tasks accordingly.3 This principle is also referred as the architecture of modern policy-design; a system of multi-level governance which supports regions to re-arrange the responsibilities between different levels of government and local institutions based on the current development needs. On the other hand, the report criticizes the current cohesion policy since it lacks quantifi able targets and information on how it will make an impact on people’s well-being in European regions.4 The report highlights the primary goal of the EU Cohesion target as the “place-based policy” with greater local involvement in decision making. Mobilizing this local knowledge is taken as a potential instrument for better functioning of policies. Sixth progress report on social and economic cohesion5 also mentions this point which is favoured due to its likely impact on “innovators” to take up the initiative on economic and social progress in their respective regions.

EU Rural Development ProgrammesThe EU has a long history of supporting farmers and this fi nancial support continues to make up a large share of the EU budget. Over time however not only agriculture but also the more general development of the 1 An Agenda For a Reformed Cohesion Policy-A Place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations, Independent Report , prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner For Regional Policy by Fabrizio Barca, April 2009 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/pdf/report_barca_v0306.pdf Accessed 2010.10.192 Ibid. P. VIII3 Ibid. p.414 Ibid, p.1215 Sixth progress report on economic and social cohesion. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffi c/offi cial/reports/interim6/com_2009_295_en.pdf Accessed 2010.10.19


countryside has come into focus. EU support to rural development is carried out as a part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP has two pillars. The fi rst pillar supports farmers directly while the focus of the second goes beyond agriculture. In order to create a coherent programme for the implementation of the second pillar the Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2007-2013 was established. This programme is divided into four axes. Axis I focuses on the competitiveness of the countryside, axis II on the environment, axis III on the diversifi cation of the economy and axis IV consists of the Leader approach which is a way of working with rural development through local engagement in local action groups (LAGs). All three Nordic EU countries carrying out the programme have allocated a comparatively large share of the programme budget to the agri-environmental measures of axis II. In Denmark the share is 45%, in Sweden just over 50% and in Finland the share is almost 70%. On the other hand, the budget for increasing competitiveness is considerable smaller in Finland than in the other two countries. Within the EU

as a whole almost 40% of the total budget is allocated to the fi rst axis, 34% to the second, 15% to the third and 13% to the fourth.

Territoral cooperationTerritorial cooperation is one of the objectives of EU Cohesion Policy 2007-2013 which facilitates regions and localities to work together across national borders. There are three different types of programmes within the territorial cooperation objective; transnational cooperation (within the EU-defi ned 13 cooperation regions), cross-border cooperation (among 52 programming areas between two or more adjacent states) and interregional cooperation (networking areas). The Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 (sometimes called INTERREG IVB) covers the states of the Baltic Sea Region and indeed this EU grouping of states (since 1994) has helped to defi ne the boundaries of this macro-region. Within the Baltic Sea geographic region there are also 12 EU cross-border regions (sometimes called INTERREG IVA).

National regional policies

Policies for territorial development in Denmark, Finland and Sweden are to a large extent formed according to the different EU strategies and funding programmes. Norway and Iceland are also affected by strategies formulated at the EU level, not at least concerning state aid rules, as they are a part of the EEA. In Denmark, Finland and Sweden the structural funds programming periods are taken into account when forming regional policy at the national as well as at the regional level. The sequencing period of the structural funds programmes is therefore steering the planning of regional policy incentives and national regional aid is aligned with EU funding. EU membership has also pushed regionalisation processes in the Nordic countries, e.g. the establishment of regional partnerships especially for the formulation of regional development policy documents (e.g. regional development programmes in Sweden) and the regional structural fund programmes.

Regional policy is generally understood as policy formulated to solve problems arising due to territorially uneven economic development. Regional policy strategies are diffi cult, if not to say impossible, to distinguish from other policy areas such as labour-market policy, research policy, education policy etc. Policies for regional development are, however, defi ned in different ways in the Nordic countries; in Norway, it is regional and “district” policy (regional- og distriktspolitikk), in Sweden, the most recent concept is regional growth policy (regional tillväxtpolitik); in Finland as well as in

Denmark the concept of ‘regional development’ is used and in Denmark there is also a focus on regional business policy (regional erhvervspolitik). These different ways of labelling policies for regional development to some extent refl ect the fact that, despite the existing and extensive similarities between the Nordic countries, various ways of handling disparities in development and strategies for striking a balance between the different parts of these countries exist.

The Treaty of Lisbon has institutionalised the principle of territorial cohesion as an overarching goal of the European Union, together with economic and social cohesion. The creation of balanced living conditions across all parts of the territory has been, and to a large extent remains, an overall ambition of regional policy in the Nordic countries and in the European Union more generally. Previously, the main tool to accomplish this was the redistribution of resources between different parts of the country. It will be shown that this ambition still characterises regional policy in the Nordic countries but that there is now a signifi cant national variation in the way in which this is achieved. Differences also emerge in how the various policy areas link to regional policy. To a large extent the Nordic countries face the same challenges, e.g. an ageing population and dwindling labour market participation though the ability to handle these challenges often differs between the countries.

The more traditional way of thinking regional


policy can be characterized as developing strategies that focus on specifi c parts of the country that need support for development. In Norway, there is a distinction between regionalpolitikk which aims at encouraging development across the whole country and distriktspolitikk which aims at developing the parts of the country that are facing specifi c challenges. Regional policy in Norway retains a strong focus on the development of the more peripheral parts of the country. In Sweden, on the other hand, traditional regional policy was de-prioritised in 2001 when regional development policy, regional utvecklingspolitik was launched as a new policy area. In 2007, this policy area was replaced by regional growth policy, regional tillväxtpolitik. The overall aim of regional growth policy in Sweden is to address initiatives to all parts of the country and not only to the most remote areas. In Finland, the current programmes for regional development focus primarily on city-regions, rural areas and the archipelago. Regional policy in Finland also has a strong focus on innovation and coordination between different stakeholders in the regions. In Denmark, the structural reform in 2007 substantially changed the structure for the governing of regional development.

Five new regions, responsible for preparing Regional Development Plans, and six Regional Growth Foras, playing a crucial role in the implementation of policies for regional development, were established.

There has to a large extent been a discernable shift in focus from redistribution in regional policy in the Nordic countries to a stronger focus on endogenous economic growth. First generation regional policy was characterised by state subsidies and centralised territorial planning aiming at striking a balance between different regions within the countries. This view characterised regional policy in the Nordic countries during the 1960s 1970s and 1980s. From the beginning of the 1990s increasing globalisation meant new challenges to the Nordic economies and the second generation regional policy therefore became more focused on the regional level as an appropriate arena for the formulation and implementation of regional development strategies. Third generation policy takes this a step further and focuses on basing strategies for regional development on the characteristics of each region and not imposing one single model for development on all regions (see Box).

Box: Towards a third generation regional policy?In the study “Mot den tredje generationens regionalpolitik: Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner” (Towards third generation regional policy: Lessons from the Nordic autonomous regions and peripheral island regions) the examples of the autonomous areas of the Nordic countries; Greenland, Åland and the Faroe Islands were used in order to analyse the extent to which a more autonomous system could contribute to and enhance regional development. The objective was to contribute to the discussion on the degree to which the regional level should be more autonomous in order to create incentives for a more fl exible and effi cient regional policy in the Nordic countries. In order to facilitate the comparison with more “typical” Nordic regions, the Danish island region Bornholm, which does not have autonomous status but maintains a certain regional responsibility with its own Growth Forum, was also included in the study. At the onset of the study it was stressed that a limited institutional capacity to act within a region can be an obstacle to regional development but it must also be borne in mind that the development of regional economies depends not only on responsible regional or national actors but also, increasingly, on the interplay between public and private initiatives and actors.

The authors of the study conclude that there has to be a match between the responsibility given and the capability of regional actors to act and therefore the degree of regional responsibility must be adapted to the economic capacity of the region. Greenland has a weak economic capacity but a signifi cant level of autonomy within Denmark. There tends to be a discrepancy between the responsibility given and the capacity to act in Greenland. Åland, on the other hand, has a relatively strong economy but only a limited level of autonomy. The report concludes that there is potential for stronger development if Åland is given a greater level of autonomy within Finland. In the Faroe Islands, the degree of autonomy corresponds better to its economic capacity level than in Greenland or Åland. The Faroe Islands have a large degree of autonomy and also a relatively high capacity level for innovation.

An important conclusion of the study is that a well-functioning regional policy has, as far as possible, to be adapted to different production conditions in the regions. This also implies that there must be a will to open the way for the creation of a more asymmetric system in the Nordic countries, e.g. it should be possible to have different degrees of self-governance in different regions. There must also be a clearer structure when it comes to who is responsible for what. Another policy implication of the study is that regional reform aiming at the creation of larger regions does not necessarily lead to economic growth.

Source: Karlsson, A., Lindström, B., och Van Well, L. (2009), Mot den tredje generationens regionpolitik – Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner. Nordregio report 2009:1.


The shift away from the fi rst generation regional policy tends to be more pronounced in Sweden, Denmark and Finland than in Norway where regional policy is still formulated on the basis of the redistribution ambition. In the Nordic countries, innovation has also become a key word in policies for enhancing regional development at the analytical level as well as the political level.

A commonly used way of enhancing coordination between sectors is to gather responsibility for all programmes and instruments relevant to a specifi c policy fi eld within the same ministry or national authority. The Ministry for Economic and Business Affairs in Denmark and the Ministry of Employment and Economy in Finland are examples of such “super-ministries”6. Different policy fi elds with relevance to regional development are brought together under one “umbrella”. As regional policy has many different dimensions and touches upon most other policy areas coordination is a necessity but also a challenge.

The fi nancial and economic crisis beginning in the autumn of 2008 posed signifi cant new challenges to the Nordic countries. The situation has been particularly severe on Iceland while the rest of the Nordic countries have been impacted by the crisis to a much smaller extent. In the other Nordic countries the crisis in the fi nancial sector was relatively limited. Yet, governments in all the Nordic countries gave strong support to the fi nancial sector. Macro-economic instruments have been used to repair the consequences of the crisis and other types of initiatives have also been taken. Export industries across the Nordic countries were also struck by the crisis. Many regions dominated by export-orientated manufacturing industries had been growing rapidly in the years before the economic crisis and were severely impacted by it. In Sweden, for example, the automotive industry and its sub-contractors in the Västra Götaland region were heavily affected by the decline in international demand. In regions more dependent on services and on public sector employment, the effects of the fi nancial crisis have, hitherto, been more limited. Although the issue of public sector debt, and thus of public sector spending and employment, is only now being addressed and this is likely to have an effect on such regions going forward.

Denmark: New regions and Regional Growth ForaThe Danish Structural Reform of 2007 reduced the number of local authorities from 271 to 98 and transformed 14 county councils (amtskommuner) into fi ve regions the main task of which, besides health care, is regional development. In April 2006, as a 6 Moxnes Steineke, Jon (2009) Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working Paper 2009:2.

part of the reform process, a regional growth forum was established in each region. A total of six regional growth fora were established, since Region Hovedstaden (The Capital Region) also includes Growth Forum Bornholm. The growth fora are organised in line with the partnership principle and include representatives of the following fi ve groups of actors: the region, the local authority, knowledge and education institutions, the business community and the labour unions. The executives and the secretariat of the growth fora are part of each region’s Department of Regional Development. The main tasks of the regional growth fora are to formulate a regional business development strategy; to monitor the regional and local conditions for growth; to propose allocation of Structural Funds; and to propose co-fi nancing for regional business development activities. The regional growth fora are also responsible for regional development funding and industrial development7.

The Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority (Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen), which is part of the Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs (Økonomi- og Erhvervsministeriet) is the responsible authority, on the national level, for regional development. Each year the government publishes a declaration on regional policy for growth (regionalpolitisk vaekstredegørelse). In order to control the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda at the regional level, the government has formulated a ‘globalisation strategy’ which is operationalised through the government’s partnership agreement with each of the six regional growth fora.

Thus far, apart from Growth Forum Hovedstaden’s and Bornholm’s solely focus on regional growth, the Regional Growth Fora’s focus has been on both regional growth and on internal regional balance. The latter aspect of the focus has been legitimised by a national policy of distributing a certain percentage of the Structural Funds to the region’s rural hinterlands. This two-legged focus has resulted in a wide-ranging implementation of the regional growth fora’s business development strategy.

As a consequence of the new political patterns created by the reform process the development of what is called “Udkantsdanmark” (Outskirt-Denmark) and concerns over the infl uence decisions taken in Copenhagen may have in rural areas - a new political party was formed in 2010 which aims to promote greater political and economic support for these vulnerable areas. The discussion related to the special characteristics of the peripheral regions as well as of the smaller islands has been ongoing for some time, among other things in response to increasing old age dependency ratios, the outmigration of young people 7 Larsen, Peter Wilgaard (forthcoming) Partnerskab og regional erhvervsfremme i Danmark, PhD dissertation, Aalborg University.


and especially younger women. Representatives for the smaller peripheral municipalities and islands have objected to the characterisation of these regions in the media as being “losers” and as rapidly turning into “reservations for elderly people”. The debate subsequently made something of an impression on the Government and in early September 2010 a new proposal aimed at strengthening peripheral areas was

presented. The proposal includes a proposal for a radical change to the Danish planning system relating to a suggested amendment to the Planning Act which differentiates the access to conduct planning between the peripheral municipalities and other municipalities in Denmark. This differentiation will give the peripheral areas greater freedom in terms of planning, including in their coastal zones.

Finland: Highligthing regional centres and innovation Regional policy in Finland combines national incentives for development with EU strategies and aims at giving the regions the possibility to develop on the basis of their own opportunities while also providing for special measures to be taken aimed at less favoured regions. Regional policy is based on the Regional Development Act and the government’s decision on national goals for regional development. The overall target of Finnish regional policy is to improve the competiveness of regions to manage increasing international competition and to create a better balance between different regions.

The strategy for Structural Funds 2007-2013 sets out the guidelines for the formulation and implementation of development projects. The goal of the strategy is to strengthen the competiveness of Finnish regions with particular incentives aiming at the development of the parts of the country facing particular diffi culties. When it comes to territorial cooperation Finland gives priority to cooperation with Russia, primarily in its northernmost regions and in the wider Baltic Sea area.

The Ministry of Employment and the Economy (Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö/Arbets- och näringsministeriet) is in charge of regional policy at the national level. A number of programmes have been initiated to realise the goals set up for regional development. The Regional Centre programme focuses on creating competiveness

in urban regions as a driver for regional development in each region. Regional centres are defi ned as labour-market and service regions. The programme combines innovation and regional development.8 Evaluation of the previous programme period 2000-2006 shows that the differences between urban regions in Finland have decreased. The programme has also helped to encourage further cooperation both between municipalities and between other public and private actors within the urban regions. Other programmes include the Centre of Expertise Programme, the Special Rural Policy Programme, and the Island Development Programme. The Regional Centre Programme and the Centre of Expertise Programme are part of a long tradition in Finland focusing on the connection between urban and regional policies.

In November 2009 the Finnish government approved the Regional Cohesion and Competitiveness Programme, ‘COCO’. The aim of the programme is to give regions the ability and incentive to develop according to their own characteristics and conditions. COCO commenced in early 2010 and will continue until the end of 2013. COCO covers the entire country, excluding Åland. All regions forming an operative strategic entity are eligible. There are altogether 52 COCO regions covering 322 of 326 municipalities 8 Moxnes Steineke, Jon (2009) Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working Paper 2009:2.

Box: The debate on rural areas in DenmarkOne incidence triggering the political debate was the location of a hospital in Western Jutland. While the local politicians had agreed upon its location, the Government (headed by “Venstre”, i.e. the liberal party which has a number of its core voters in that particular region) decided otherwise. Thereby the representatives from “Udkantsdanmark” experienced not only a peripheral economic and demographic situation, but also their own politicians overruled by politicians representing “Copenhagen”. In a rather short time the new political party was formed around a policy emphasising the need for economic compensations and the transfer of state employment from Copenhagen to the periphery - and fi rst and foremost emphasising a “no interference from Copenhagen” policy. The members were primarily a group of politicians from the right wing spectrum, including representatives from municipal governments in the region, and with pensioners and pre-pensioners (persons with “Efterløn”) constituting the major group. For some time they managed to create a momentum, and it looked like they might become a new player in the political game. After a while, however, it has become clear that the internal divisions among them are also rather signifi cant as individual interests differ markedly.


in continental Finland. The implementation of this new programme was also a way for the government to simplify the system of regional programmes. The programme should coordinate the work of different actors within the region and between regions while also providing the basis for larger development projects. The municipalities within the 52 programming regions own the projects and can therefore use them in the way that they fi nd most suitable for the needs of their region.

Norway: Local growth and strong belief in the futureOne of the strongest ambitions of regional policy in Norway remains the desire to preserve the main settlement patterns in all the regions of the country. In the most recent government’s report on regional and rural policies the government states that the citizens should “be able to have real freedom when it comes to choosing where they want to live”9. The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (Kommunal- og regionaldepartementet) is in charge of the coordination of regional and rural policies in Norway. Most resources for regional development are channelled through the county councils (fylkeskommuner) and Innovation Norway (Innovasjon Norge) which is a public company promoting industrial development through funding, internationalisation and competence development services for SMEs and new business ventures.

Even though the focus in Norway is regions and areas with a low population density and long distances to important markets, the centralisation tendencies have been diffi cult to stop. Nevertheless, this situation is not dramatic thanks to immigration. Employment is no longer the only decisive factor when it comes to where people choose to live; good living conditions, activities etc., are increasingly important. Infrastructure is considered crucial in securing the possibility to settle down and live in all parts of the country. The local community is given priority and, therefore, the importance of local government is underlined10. The responsibility of the county councils as regional development actors has also gained importance in recent years. In 2003 funding were delegated to the 19 county councils for regional development with regional plans and regional partnerships as important elements. The county councils’ responsibility for regional development became even more important with the structural reform implemented on 1st January

9 St meld 25. 2008-2009; Lokal vekstkraft og framtidstru. Om distrikts- og regionalpolitikken, p.710 Ibid.

2010. The reform gave, among many other things, the county councils responsibility for Innovation Norway with a 49% share of the agency. In regional and district policy, North Norway is given priority not only by the Ministry in charge of regional policies, but also by other Ministries. There is an important emphasis now on the exploitation of resources in the North, both off-shore and land-based. Regional policy in Norway tends to have a stronger focus on rural and peripheral areas than is the case in the other Nordic countries. The use of tax incentives and transfer payments to strike a balance between different parts of the country is more common in Norway than in the other Nordic countries. Examples here include differentiated payroll tax and increased child benefi ts in Nord-Troms and Finnmark, the northernmost parts of Norway.

In the debate on the future development of regional policy in Norway a discussion has been initiated on opting for a stronger focus on centre regions and not only on rural and peripheral regions. Discussion on infrastructure, e.g. high speed trains between the largest cities and enhanced focus on innovation policy are other characteristics of the current debate in Norway.

Sweden: Policy for regional growthWhen regional development policy was launched in 2001 the focus of regional policy shifted towards the contributions that each region could make to its own improvement though priority was still given to the weaker parts of the country. In 2007, the name of the policy area changed from regional development policy to regional growth policy. This further strengthened the focus on local and regional responsibility for economic growth. Actors responsible for regional growth in their respective country such as county administration boards, county councils or regional co-operative bodies are obliged to set up Regional Development Programmes (RDP). The aim of the RDPs is to create strategies for sustainable development in the respective regions. The RDP is the overall strategy for one or several regions on which the Structural Fund programme, the Regional Growth Programmes (RGP) and other relevant programmes are based. The process to set up RDPs is continuous and should involve both public and private actors in a broad regional partnership. The actors responsible for regional growth may also develop Regional Growth Programmes (RGP) which are generally more operative programmes focused on promoting business development and growth.


The ambition of the centre-right governmentduring the period in offi ce 2006-2010 to focus on growth is refl ected in the reorganisation of the national institutional structure11, resulting in the establishment of two new state authorities the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (Tillväxtverket), with responsibilities in the fi eld of regional growth policy, and the Swedish Agency for Growth Policy Analysis, (Tillväxtanalys), which is responsible for analysis, statistical studies and evaluation aiming at promoting growth and competiveness in all parts of the country.

The Swedish National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013 coordinates the national policy for regional development, the national labour market policy and EU cohesion policy12. The NSRF is the overall document for implementation of EU cohesion policy in Sweden and should provide directions for different regional programmes and activities. As a consequence of the economic crisis, the Swedish government named regional coordinators initially in those regions particularly affected by the crisis and later in all regions of the country. The assignment of these regional coordinators was to map the consequences of the crisis in each region, analyse the needs of the region and present this to the government. The task was in most Swedish counties (regions) shared between the county governor and a political leader in the region, such as the head of the regional co-operative bodies.

Iceland: Bank collapse and a renewed discussion on EU membershipDuring the past two years Iceland has experienced the most severe fi nancial crisis in the country’s history. In the autumn of 2008 the three largest banks in Iceland collapsed following a rapid depreciation of the Icelandic krona in the fi rst half of 2008. This consequently led to a severe downturn in the Icelandic economy and further depreciation of the currency. Foreign currency transactions were virtually suspended for weeks and capital controls are still in place. In addition to this the market capitalisation of the Icelandic stock exchange dropped by more than 90%. As a result of the crisis, Iceland experienced a severe economic recession. The Icelandic government decided to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). On November 19th 2008 the IMF approved Iceland’s request for a two year stand-by arrangement. Iceland will receive 11 The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (NUTEK), The National Rural Development Agency (Glesbygdsverket) and The Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies (ITPS), were closed down. 12 Moxnes Steineke, Jon (2009) Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working Paper 2009:2.

USD 2.1 billion (approximately € 1.6 billion) from the IMF. Additional loans of up to USD 3 billion have been secured from the other Nordic countries, Russia, and Poland. The IMF stand-by arrangement has the overarching goal of re-establishing confi dence in the Icelandic economy with the main focus on stabilising the exchange rate, rebuilding confi dence in monetary policy and enabling the lifting of capital controls while also reviewing and revising fi scal policy and undertaking banking sector restructuring and the reform of the insolvency framework

In April 2010 a two-thousand-page report on the Icelandic crisis was delivered to the Icelandic Parliament, Althingi.13 The report shows that the assets of Icelandic banks were extremely overrated and that the Financial Supervisory Authority FME, the Icelandic Central Bank and leading politicians had failed to take any measures to prevent the banks from collapsing. Due to rising unemployment and overall levels of economic insecurity an increasing number of Icelandic people have opted for migration, a large share of them to the other Nordic countries. The fi nancial crisis has also led to the emergence of a heightened level of distrust among people in the fi nancial and political system. After the crisis report was published the Icelandic government appointed a commission of independent experts to investigate how public institutions should respond to the conclusions drawn in the report.

The debate on joining the EU was also renewed in Iceland with the driving force of the debate centred on the question of joining the euro as a hedge against future fi nancial and economic crises. The two main political parties in Iceland, the Social Democratic Alliance and the Independence Party represent opposite standpoints on the issue. After an intense debate where the Social Democrats argued in favour of EU membership and the Independence Party against, the Parliament (Althinget) decided to apply for membership. At the beginning of 2010 the European Commission recommended that the EU initiate formal talks with Iceland on membership. Even though Iceland already fulfi ls many of the criteria for membership there are nevertheless a number of problems to be overcome before Iceland can become a full member. The Netherlands and the UK, both of which have large claims on one of the fallen banks, Landsbankinn due to retail deposits, are in negotiation with the Icelandic government on the terms of the repayment of the deposit guarantees. This could impact the membership talks.

13 Report of the Special Investigation Commission (Chapter 2: Summary of the Reports Main Conclusions), http://sic.althingi.is/, downloaded 2010-07-09


Structures and reforms

Structural changes are generally based on changes in society’s demands. It may be changes in the political structure, changes in demographics or economic characteristics, or it may be due to new demands on services. Structural changes, however, can also be based on a conscious process aiming at moving decisions closer to the population, or to centralize the decision processes, in order to enable a situation where more general rules and regulations may apply and be managed unaffected by the local discourse. Finally there is also an economic dimension as administration based on an “economic of scale” approach may provide savings by concentrating the activities on fewer units or levels. Very often the structural reforms are closely linked to a reform of responsibilities and activities.

During the fi rst years of the new century there seemed to be a clear tendency towards a strengthening of the regional administrative level in the Nordic countries, especially in Sweden and Finland. Since then however developments have taken a new direction. In Denmark, the creation of the fi ve new administrative regions has in some respects reduced the importance of the regional level, as tasks have been transferred ‘down’ to the municipalities and back ‘up’ to the state. The new regions do not have the right to levy taxes but they do however still play a strategic role in regional development. In Norway, the regional level lost an important part of its portfolio as health care was transferred from the county councils to the state in 2002. The structural reform in 2005 intended to strengthen the regional level by creating, on a voluntary basis, new larger administrative regions. By the time that the reform was fi nally implemented in January 2010 however the original intentions were not accomplished. In Sweden, the regionalisation tendencies have been stronger, with the formalisation of the regional administrative experiments in Västra Götaland and Skåne (självstyrelseorgan) and the creation of 14 cooperative councils (samverkansorgan), taking over tasks related to regional development from the state representative in the regions (länsstyrelser). The regional reform proposal presented by the Committee of Public Sector Responsibilities (Ansvarskommittén) in Sweden in 2007 has been strongly supported by regional and local actors, but less so on the national level. In Finland, large-scale structural reform and the amalgamation of municipalities began in 2005 though the effects of the reform process have not been deemed entirely positive. On the 1st of January 2010 a new regional state

administration was established in Finland. In Iceland, a large number of small and often isolated municipalities remain and resistance to merging into larger entities is still signifi cant.

Denmark: A regional reform, reducing the regional mandateOn 1st January 2007 the 14 counties, amter, were replaced by 5 new administrative regions. The new regions are directly elected, but do not have tax-raising powers and are thus funded by the state and the municipalities. The main responsibility of the new regions is health care. The reform process implied that several tasks, including secondary education and environmental issues were transferred from the regions to either the state or the municipalities. At the same time, the number of municipalities was reduced from 271 to 98.

The new administrative regions have now existed for more than three years. The Danish regional reform process oversaw de facto weakening of the regions, as several tasks were transferred to the state or to the municipalities. The Danish regions also lost their right to levy taxes. The Danish structural reform process was a top-down political initiative and the implementation process was fast. It took less than fi ve years from when the committee was appointed to investigate a new structure in 2002 to the implementation of the reform 1st January 2007. No long drawn out discussion was entered into before implementation. This can also be considered a sign of the consensus that had already emerged around the notion of reform or at least as signalling a basic lack of political opposition to it.14

Norway: Debated reform, but an increased role for county councilsIn 2005, the left-centre coalition government in Norway launched an ambitious reform project to redraw the administrative map of Norway and transfer responsibilities from the state to new larger administrative regions. The aim was to abolish the county councils replacing them with larger regions with greater responsibility for regional development. The debate on where to draw the new borders between the regions was thus joined. The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS) was strongly in favour of this new reform. However, due to differences of opinion between and within the political parties, both 14 Aalbu, Hallgeir, Böhme, Kai and Uhlin, Åke (2008) Administrative reform – Arguments and Values, Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008: Report: 6, Nordregio.


on the national and the regional level, the decision was taken after all not to amalgamate counties and draw new borders. On January 1st 2010, the Norwegian regional administrative reform was implemented, putting an end to the 4-year political process. The administration reform maintains the multi-level organisation of the state, with politically-elected bodies at all three tiers. Thus, the county councils are maintained without any alterations to their current territorial division.

The role of the county councils has been, and remains, vigorously debated in Norway. In 2002, when specialist health care was transferred from the county councils to state-owned health care enterprises, its role as a welfare service provider decreased. Following the reform, some additional responsibilities were transferred from the national level to the county councils. Most signifi cantly, the county councils are now responsible for the management and maintenance of the regional road network. In addition, the county councils have taken on coordination tasks in the public health area as well as in some new environmental issues (water and natural resource management). The county councils have also been prepared to take on a more prominent role as a regional development agent by taking a 49% stake in Innovation Norway. In addition, the county councils are coordinating seven newly established regional research funds and will be board members of the regional university colleges. The aim of the regional research funds is to encourage and support research and innovation for regional development. The resources of the funds shall also contribute to the building and strengthening of highly competitive research centres in all Norwegian counties.

Sweden: Experimenting with different regional organisationsIn Sweden, the Committee of Public Sector Responsibilities (Ansvarskommittén) launched a report on a new regional structure in February 2007. The report suggested a model with new administrative regions (regionkommuner) covering a larger territory and new assignments. The experimental projects to develop directly elected regional organisations (själstyrelseorgan) in the form of county councils in Västra Götaland and Skåne served as a model for the structural reform proposal. A process began where the government appointed a coordinator who was assigned to probe regional and local actors about how they wanted the reform process to proceed. Support by local and regional actors turned out to be massive but agreement over where to draw the borders between the new regions

proved to be rather more diffi cult to reach. In January 2009, almost two years after the reform

proposal had been presented by the Committee of Public Sector Responsibilities, the government agreed to award permanent status to the two experimental projects in Västra Götaland and Skåne in 2011. In this process, the same status will be awarded to Halland and Gotland. Applications to merge counties in the northern and central parts of Sweden have been set aside for further study. A new committee has now been given the task of looking for geographical solutions for these applications.

In Stockholm there has been some reluctance among local and regional politicians to establish a ‘Stockholm region’. The creation of a joint region in the capital area with greater responsibility for regional development tasks has however recently attracted more support.

The Swedish debate on formal structures for regional development issues have been dominated by two different views, one arguing that the state representative on the regional level, in the county administration boards (länsstyrelser), should handle regional development, the other that regional development should be the assignment of a directly-elected regional assembly. A third or intermediate approach was also forwarded when the government made it possible for municipalities to indirectly elected regional co-operative bodies (samverkansorgan) designed to assume the tasks of regional development from the state representative in the region. Since 2007, new co-operative bodies have been established and are currently active in 14 counties15 while in fi ve counties, county administration boards still has the main responsibility for regional development. The current situation in Sweden indicates that the infl uence of regional directly or indirectly elected assemblies on regional growth policy has increased.

Finland: Reorganising regional state administration After a period of minor reforms at the beginning of the 2000s, an extensive structural reform process was launched in Finland in 2005. The reform aimed at making the municipal structure more effi cient by encouraging municipal mergers. The consequences of the reform process have however been rather variable with the effects generally viewed as not wholly positive. In some cases existing cooperation between pre-reform municipalities has disappeared or been weakened when these municipalities were amalgamated.

15 In addition, the municipalities and the county council of Jämtland have decided to form a co-operative body for Jämtland from the 1st January 2011.


Notwithstanding this, at the beginning of 2010 the number of municipalities was reduced from 412 to 342.

In 2008 the government launched a reform of the regional state administration. This was known as the ALKU project. As a result, a signifi cant reform was implemented in January 2010, when the provincial offi ces and other state administrative bodies in the regions were abolished and replaced by two new types of authorities: 15 Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment and six Regional State Administrative Agencies (EVY). The overall aim of the reform was to bring assignments related to state control into one organisation, making the regional administration more effi cient and client-friendly. An additional aim was to transfer regional development tasks to the indirectly-elected regional councils (maakunta liitot). The Finnish two-level system (state-municipality) is strongly embedded in Finnish administrative culture and even though the issue has been discussed it is unlikely that a third directly elected administrative level will be added. The weightiest argument in this regard is undoubtedly that there is no need for a third level of administration in a country like Finland with only 5 million inhabitants. It took some time before the restructuring reform of National Ministries in Finland settled down and it will now take even more time before the reform of the regional state administration is fully implemented. This might prove to be an obstacle to coordination between the various actors involved

The Kainuu experimental project, which began in 2005, implied that a directly-elected regional assembly could be established in Kainuu, a region in East Finland with high unemployment. The primary aim of the experimental project was to fi nd a solution to the diffi culties of the municipalities that are too small to be able to provide welfare services in an effi cient way. Evaluations show that the experiment has only had a minor impact on the development of the region. The strengthened role of the regional council when it comes to regional development was not, however, fully implemented. Restructuring of services in the experiment has nevertheless helped keep costs down while spending on health care has actually been lower in the Kainuu region than in the rest of the country.

Iceland: A fragmented structure at the local levelIceland has a two-tiered administrative system with the state and the municipalities as the only levels of administration. The Icelandic municipalities are generally small in terms of population. The average municipality has approximately 4,000 inhabitants. The smallest are agricultural communities without a village, in some cases with a population of only 50 persons. At

the same time, Iceland can be characterised as a highly urbanised country where the capital region’s share of population is about 75% when it is considered as a travel-to-work area.

In Iceland, local government tasks are more limited than in the other Nordic countries, as the municipal structure makes it more diffi cult to use the local government structure as a driver for welfare delivery. The main share of the municipalities’ responsibilities involves the management of primary education. In order to strengthen the responsibilities of the municipal level, the Icelandic government has repeatedly encouraged municipal mergers, but until recently only with limited success. The parliament has maintained that amalgamations shall be voluntary and that any merger must have popular support in all of the municipalities involved. In the smaller municipalities in particular widespread resistance to change has meant that it has been impossible to implement any meaningful reform in relation to the current division of responsibilities between central and local government. Meanwhile, in recent years some amalgamations have been carried out, as the 124 municipalities in the year 2000 had been reduced to 78 by 2010, of which 16 have a population of less than 200.

The Institute for Regional Development is the main implementing authority in terms of regional policy in Iceland. The Institute of Regional Development is an independent institution owned by the Icelandic state with the Minister of Industry as its managing authority. The purpose of the Regional Development Institute is to work towards the strengthening of regional and economic development in Iceland outside the greater Reykjavík area.

Greenland and Faroe Islands: New structural focusIn relation to the municipal reform in Greenland the expressed intentions have focused on two overall goals. In order to enable a delegation of responsibility and decisions to the regions, a choice has been made to reduce the number of municipalities from 18 to 4, thus deliberately establishing fairly large units. Secondly, in order to enable the same level of delegation of responsibility to each of the new municipalities, neighbouring units have been merged in such a way that they have become population-wise reasonably similar sized units, with one exception, though: the Sermersooq region encompassing the most populated town, the capital of Nuuk, while also including municipalities in both East and West Greenland. The other overall goal of the structural reform has been a reduction in the economic overhead required by maintaining a large number of municipal governments, and to use the


savings as a basis for new services for the population. Both before and after the reform work has been done in order to generate new structures enabling the delegation of activities, and in terms of planning one of the key issues has been a total re-structuring of the physical planning system, where most of the activities formerly handled by the Home Rule Government have been transferred to the Municipalities. Several of the planning activities were previously duplicated, as the municipalities were generating their own plans, for instance in relation to housing, land use etc. and then submitting them to the central government for approval. Some general control mechanisms are still maintained, but basically it is the responsibility of each of the four municipalities to develop their own plans – of course still in accordance with national rules and regulations. Consequently a new, highly decentralised planning system has been inaugurated, and will be challenged to stand the test of practical use over the next few of years.

While the shift of focus in the planning debate in the Faroe Islands has been moved from Bygdamening (development of the villages) towards Økismening (development of the regions), and some restructuring of the municipal structure has taken place over the last couple of years, the huge difference in population size between the municipalities strongly limits the possibilities of delegating activities and responsibilities to the municipalities. The smallest municipalities are unable to provide the required skills and knowledge, just as the economic sources needed are also lacking. As such, identifying the proper functions of the municipalities remains a question of creating the proper social framework for the communities and functional management units for local activities, while more overarching planning ‘authority’ has, to some extent, been delegated to the larger municipalities, while being, primarily, maintained as a centralised activity.

Concluding remarksThe four main drivers of structural reform are given similar expression across the Nordic countries16. Democracy is being used as an argument both in favour of and against reform. On the one hand it is argued that

16 Aalbu, Hallgeir, Böhme, Kai and Uhlin, Åke (2008) Administrative reform – Arguments and Values, Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008: Report: 6, Nordregio.

smaller units are more democratic because decision-making is brought closer to those who are concerned. On the other hand it is stressed that larger municipalities and/or administrative regions are capable of handling more tasks. Larger units will allow a transfer of tasks from the state to the municipalities and/or the regions.

The second main driver behind the reforms is effi ciency. Larger units are expected to make the provision of welfare services more effi cient. The third driver is that larger units may have a positive effect on economic growth as larger units in theory have more resources to promote development in the region. The fi nal driver is that – as things currently stand - defi ciencies undoubtedly remain in the reform processes: there is a need for more time, more actors should be involved and legislation is needed.

When it comes to the division of responsibilities between different levels in the political system the main question is whether the state representative in the region, a regionally elected assembly or municipalities in cooperation should be in charge. This is an ongoing debate, especially in Norway and Sweden. The move towards stronger regions is a general tendency in most West European countries. The Nordic reform processes might be compared to regionalisation processes in other countries. The regionalisation tendencies in France and the establishment of Regional Development Agencies17 in England in 1999 are closer to the Nordic situation. These processes, as in the Nordic countries, are the result of a policy approach which seeks to strengthen the role of the regions as actors in regional development.

As shown above, the Nordic countries have taken different directions, even though the intentions of the reform proposals were similar - to strengthen the role of the administrative regions. The reform process in Denmark differs from the processes in Finland, Sweden and Norway. In Denmark, a general opinion exists that implementation of the reform has been rather seamless. However, the management of hospitals, the most important task of the new regions, is still criticised. In Norway, Sweden and Finland, the process has been much slower with the ambition being to have a wide-ranging debate, involving different actors.

17 The new centre-right government in the UK will abolish the RDAs in England. The argument is that business was more successful in the years before the establishment of RDAs than after but the abolishment of the RDAs is also part of the process of cutting the budget defi cit.


The Evolution of Rural Development Policies

Rural development has not traditionally been addressed as a policy fi eld in its own right in Denmark, Finland, Norway or Sweden18. After the Second World War, politics in the Nordic countries was dominated by a concentration on building the welfare state while the development of rural areas was seen to be in the purview of ‘strong’ regional policy combined with policies supporting the primary sector.

With the EU accession of Denmark, and subsequently also some twenty years later of Finland and Sweden, more attention was given to the issue of rural development. Policies affecting rural areas, with a wider focus looking beyond agricultural activities, were implemented. In the same period rural areas were also affected by the shifting focus of regional policy away from regional balance towards a greater focus on competitiveness and regional growth as well as by increased competition between places. This imposed a new set of challenges for policies aiming at the further development of rural areas.

Since 1945 the Danish strategy has shifted from supporting national redistribution and welfare service provision to a greater focus on grassroots developments. Swedish politics have shifted from a focus on regional equalisation policy to the creation of competitiveness based on the endogenous strengths of each region combined with support to the primary sector for securing public goods, such as environmental. In Finland rural development politics have gained acceptance over the last twenty years. Finland is today characterised by a holistic view of rural areas and by the search for a coherent policy covering a number of administrative sectors. In contrast, distinguishing it from the other larger Nordic countries, Norway has attempted to maintain established settlement patterns – and continues to do so.

Denmark The Danish welfare state developed after the Second World War supported decentralisation and aimed at distributing the wealth of the country evenly between places and people. This idea was further strengthened by national and municipal reforms in the 1970s and, until recently, signs of convergence between the different regions could be seen.

The so-called ‘village movement’ was fi rst to draw attention to the need for a more explicit rural development policy in Denmark, a policy which went beyond regional and agricultural policies. Local

18 Hedström, M. (2010), Politics of Nordic rural development. Journal of Nordregio No. 2 September. Volume 10. 2010

associations mobilised to make the voice of the countryside heard during the 1980s and 1990s. In 1997 the fi rst national rural development initiative was designed to support development initiatives at the local level. Recently the role of the village movement was enhanced when the local action groups (LAGs) were strengthened in the implementation of the EU rural development programme.

The state, the primary sector and civil society have all taken part in shaping the rural development work that today mainly consists of support programmes for local development projects, combined with business and environmental support to the agricultural sector. The content of rural policy in the broadest sense is to some degree formulated through a fundamentally ‘agricultural-based’ approach. It may be argued that Danish rural policy’s aims and approaches are somewhat limited because of this ‘agricultural hegemony’, but the administrative reform process has undoubtedly brought forth new tasks for the municipalities, including planning responsibilities in respect of rural areas. The ongoing changes in rural areas are no longer exclusively anchored in agriculture, and agriculture is no longer the concentric core of Danish ‘rurality’.

The Danish Rural Development Programme now squares with important societal needs and addresses real societal problems. The strategy and goals are also in line with EU priorities in terms of both the Gothenburg Declaration on sustainability and the Lisbon Declaration on economic growth and employment. This is clearly stated in the programme’s objectives, which emphasise innovation and promote new earning potential, while still focusing on preserving natural assets. The programme also has the potential to bestow signifi cant economic effects in rural areas in the form of new employment and businesses opportunities and increased innovation. Innovativeness is particularly well presented in most of the measures in the Rural Development Programme.

Finland The 1960s and 1970s saw a period of heavy urbanisation and structural change in Finland. This gave rise to the fi rst measures directed at peripheral areas, concerning fi elds beyond agriculture. In addition, a more holistic approach highlighting the desirability of conceptualising rural areas as entities composed of nature, people and different activities emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. These changes also gave rise to the


Finnish village movement, which remains today one of the cornerstones of the country’s rural development policy.

As in Denmark, rural policy emerged as a policy fi eld in its own right in the 1990s; in 1991 a fi rst rural development programme defi ned the initial tools for rural development. In the same period a national rural policy committee with representatives from a number of different administrative sectors was created. The rural policy system has since then expanded, and today consists of both a broad policy, outlining the direction, and a narrow policy, containing different project support measures. This is designed to ensure cross-cutting territorial rural development at all levels19.

The key focus here has long been about enabling rural areas, including remote areas, to keep pace with urban areas. Finnish rural policy was outlined within the context of national regional policy, drawing attention to its intersecting dimension and underlining a distinct differentiation with agricultural policy. The strengthened institutionalisation of broad rural policy has been emphasised through regional policy. In recent years, however, regional policy has, as elsewhere, focused increasingly on competitiveness.

On the other hand, narrow rural policy, i.e. development projects implemented through the Rural Development Programme was, on the basis of the implementation of EU rural policy, placed within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. This arrangement has caused some tension between agricultural and rural development policies since they often compete over priorities and resources.

Norway The Norwegian welfare state was developed after 1945, while the country recovered through economic growth based on the transfer of labour from the primary sector to industries in more urban settings. The fi rst actions to reverse the relative decline of rural areas came in 1961 when a public fund was established to prevent the loss of rural jobs and depopulation. However, the term ‘rural’ was then, and is still, not used. Instead, such policies used the term districts. Over time specifi c policies for agriculture, fi sheries and businesses were developed with the aim of creating a balance between rural and urban areas.

In the 1960s and 1970s the development of infrastructure and industry, as well as the decentralisation of higher education, was high on the rural policy agenda. Since the 1980s competitiveness, deregulation and the development of regional urban centres once again became the main focus. Compared with the other

19 Kahila, P. (2009), Deliverable Deliverable 1.1 Country profi le on rural characteristics, Finland, RuDI project.

Nordic countries, Norwegian national policies remain to a greater extent focused on adapting to the situation in the different regions of the country through the strong tools available to it for fi nancial redistribution.

The political debate in Norway has, over the last fi fty years, been dominated by two camps; one promoting decentralised growth and local development initiatives, the other promoting policies focusing on the provision of infrastructure and growth centres. Current policies are a mix of the two, but the focus is still to some extent placed on avoiding centralisation and enabling the existing settlement patterns to continue.

Sweden A strong welfare state policy dating back to the 1950s, a redistributive regional policy and a well developed local public sector have helped for many years to minimise urban-rural disparities in Sweden. Specifi c policies supporting the primary sector did initially exist, but had been phased out by the 1990s. On reappearing after EU accession in the context of the CAP, public interest in payments to farmers remained low. The policy only gained public acceptance when it was clearly designed to support farming activities with positive effects on environmental and other public goods.

In the 1970s the welfare state model started to weaken, partly in the wake of increased globalisation and the infl uence of neo-liberalism .One result was a gradual change in regional policies, from redistribution towards competitiveness and endogenous growth. The aim of achieving regional balance in economic development was thus largely superseded. In the late 1980s policy started to attach more importance to local village associations and community initiatives. “Regional enlargement”; increasing labour markets, has also attracted more interest as a tool for sustaining rural areas20.

The focus of regional policy in Sweden has shifted from equalisation and compensation towards improving regional competitiveness. This is not necessarily negative for agriculture. It may strengthen the competitiveness of rural businesses and thereby contribute to enhancing the economic vitality of the countryside. The Rural Development Programme does not substitute for the absence of rural policy in the Swedish countryside. On the other hand, the stronger position of rural policy has not been regarded as important in Sweden, since regional policy and the distribution of welfare services are expected to provide for all economic and social needs in rural areas. However, regional policy and the distribution of welfare services have not yet converged in terms of rural needs in Sweden. To address these

20 Kahila, P., Steineke, Moxnes. J. and Copus, A. C. (2009), Deliverable 2.2 National report on RD policy design Sweden, RuDI project.


needs, in 2009, the Swedish Government presented a Rural Development Strategy with the aim of delivering measures across a wide range of policy areas with the objective being to make it easier for people to live, work and start a business in rural areas.

Concluding remarksFrom a broader European perspective, rural policies in the Nordic countries are characterised by an inter-sectoral approach at the regional and, especially also, at the local level. Signifi cant focus remains on the

‘bottom up’ management of rural policy, based on a strong and powerful democratic local government, a relative equality between citizens and an active process of citizen engagement. Nevertheless two factors continue to complicate the implementation of rural policy in the Nordic countries. Firstly, local government reforms have in some cases weakened local engagement in rural development work. And secondly, the weight of agricultural policy is still stronger than rural policy, i.e. activities and sources of livelihood which are not directly linked to agriculture have not gained more attention in policy making.


Cross-Border Interactions

Introduction

Cross-border cooperation is an important means to achieve the overall EU aim of economic and social cohesion across the EU. At the core of Nordic and European cooperation lies cooperation activities across borders, regional as well as national, and a wide range of programmes are at work in the Nordic and Baltic countries in this respect, some of which have been ongoing for a long period of time (Nordic cross-border cooperation), some which are a continuation of previous programmes (for example the INTERREG Community Initiatives), and others which are of a more recent vintage (the Baltic Sea Region Strategy). These programmes vary in geographic scope, available funding, political grounding and backing, aim, thematic content and desired process.

The large number of programmes and initiatives – often geographically overlapping both in terms of geographic scope and participating actors - might seem to bring about a messy ‘reality’ for the Nordic countries, but it can also be viewed as a multilevel approach to regional development. One positive outcome of these multiscalar (multilevel) cross-border activities is that there is a multitude of programmes in place to assist the local, regional and national actors in building

cooperation and fi nancing their projects, and these programmes are interrelated to the overall aim of enabling regional development in border regions. In this respect, the previous INTERREG-programmes have paved the way for EU level funding for the Nordic cross-border regions, while more recent initiatives, such as the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), also point to the continuous attention given to cross-border regions. Most recently the working programme of the Nordic Committee of Senior Offi cials for Regional Policy recognised this interdependent relationship between EU and Nordic initiatives when stating that:

“Active utilisation of the old, well-established cross-border cooperation network and the potential for integration should promote the competitiveness and visibility of the Nordic region as a pioneer in EU cross-border territorial policy” (Nordic regional policy cooperation programme 2009-2012, p. 57)

In this chapter we shall explore some of the major contributions to cross-border organisation-building and activity currently operating in the Nordic countries.

Continuous development of Nordic cross-border cooperation

Nordic cross-border cooperation has a long history; beginning as early as the 1960s when transnational coordination organisations were set up to strengthen the integration of the Nordic region across national borders. Of the current 11 Nordic cross-border committees, eight have previously had the status of being the permanent organisation through which the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM) carried out their integration work in terms of cross-border territories. Two of these eight cross-border committees can trace their origin back to the 1960s; another four were set up during the 1970s and 1980, while the remaining two – NORA and Øresundskomiteen – were established in

their current organisational form in the 1990s. However, both of these base their operations on previous organisations in the cross-border region.

Recently, NCM fi nancing of the Nordic cross-border committees underwent an important change when, in 2009, the Nordic Council of Ministers changed their conditions for cross-border fi nancing in an attempt to open the funding option up for other cross-border cooperation organisations in the Nordic countries. The intention of NCM was to invite new recipients, as well as to induce a more dynamic approach to the available funding, as the funding went from being fi xed to being application-based. All cross-


Table 1: Nordic Cross-border committees, 2010

Organisation Countries Members Established

ARKO Norway-Sweden Municipal actors 1967

Bothnian Arc Sweden-Finland Regional and municipal actors

1999

Kvarkenrådet Sweden-Finland Regional and municipal actors

1972

Mittnordenkomiteen Norway-Sweden-Finland Regional actors 1977

NORA Greenland, Faroe Islands, Iceland, and west-Norway

National and regional actors

1996

Nordkalottrådet Norway-Sweden-Finland Regional actors 1967

Skærgårdssamarbejdet Sweden-Finland Regional actors 1978

Tornedalsrådet Norway-Sweden-Finland Municipal actors 1987

TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna Norway-Sweden Regional actors 2008

Øresundskomiteen Denmark-Sweden Regional and municipal actors

1993

Østfold-Bohuslän/Dalsland

Norway-Sweden Regional and municipal actors

1980

border cooperation organisations now have to apply for funding, at minimum every third year, and in the fi rst application round of the new procedure a total of 11 Nordic cross-border committees received funding. Eight of these were the original Nordic cross-border committees, while another three received funding from NCM for the fi rst time. The 11 current committees are

listed in Table 1.Although three additional cross-border

committees were new under NCM auspices only one was an actual new cross-border organisation, namely TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna. Tornedalsrådet and Bothnian Arc were established already in 1987 and 2002, respectively.

The 11 Nordic cross-border committees are located throughout the Nordic region (cf. Figure 1) and this, together with differences in organisational structures, makes them quite different from each other. However, since they all work towards the same aim – regional development of the cross-border region – they also have some resemblances in terms of the thematic areas of their activities, the process of work and the roles undertaken in this process.

Geographical differencesThe regions that the Nordic cross-border committees cover vary from quite small areas, such as Østfold-Bohuslän/Dalsland at approximately 9 500 km², to vast areas, such as the North Calotte Council, which covers three large regions in the north (310 000 km²), and NORA, which covers a total ice free land mass in excess of 720 000 km², plus an even larger marine area between the Member States.


In addition, the border regions vary from regions dominated by metropolitan areas, such as the Öresund Committee with both Copenhagen and Malmö in its region and a population density of 185 inhabitants/km², to peripherally situated areas with a very low population density, such as Tornedalsrådet, with a population density of only 1.5 inhabitants/km².

Furthermore, the geographical locations of the individual border region committees mean that the number of national administrative systems involved varies from two (e.g. Norway/Sweden in ARKO and Sweden/Finland in the Bothnian Arc and Kvarkenrådet), to three (Norwegian-Swedish-Finnish in the North Calotte Council and Mid Nordic Comitte), to 4–5 for an organisation such as NORA, which has to interact with the administrative echelons of Greenland, Norway, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and, to some extent, Denmark in the course of its work.

These differences in geographical scope have implications in terms of how cohesively the region is perceived – both internally and externally – and also creates different working conditions for a cross-border committee that seeks to serve the entire area it covers. More specifi cally, these geographical differences affect which problem areas the regions work with. Several border region committees cover peripheral areas (nationally and internationally) and, as a result, topics such as depopulation, lack of educational opportunities and expensive infrastructure projects to service a rather small population characterise the political challenges in the region. At the other end of the scale are the dense commuter belts where a topic such as minimising border obstacles for these commuters is an important work area for the cross-border committee.

Organisational differences The cross-border committees are also wide-ranging in their organisational structure and history, which affects their traditional areas of operation, and the purpose for which the organisation was set up.

The member organisations in the individual cross-border committees come from different political levels – from purely municipal composite organisations (ARKO, Tornedalsrådet), to committees comprising representatives of both the municipal and the regional administrative level (Öresund, Kvarkenrådet), to cross-border committees such as the North Calotte Council and Mid Nordic Committee which also involve regional organisations, such as chambers of commerce as formal partners within their organisation.

As mentioned, the organisations also vary widely in terms of history. Most of the committees have a long history of collaboration behind them, both the old ones that were established in the 1960 and 1970s, but even

those with a more recent start date can often trace their organisation further back. One such example is NORA, which was established on the basis of the earlier “Vestnordensamarbejde” (West Nordic Partnership), another is Tornedalsrådet, which was established in 1987 by amalgamating two earlier organisations in the region. Only TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna is a new organisation that is currently seeking to consolidate its existence, both in its region and within the wider network of Nordic cross-border activities.

The longstanding tradition of cross-border collaboration in most regions means that the cross-border committee has been able to consolidate its position as the natural anchor organisation for the region’s cross-border collaboration. Conversely, the long history can also mean that some cross-border committees have had to evaluate their purpose from time to time and perhaps even revitalise collaboration. Revitalisation may be necessary in order to re-engage the member organisations or to identify a new, shared vision of where collaboration is supposed to lead.

Another organisational difference with a very real impact on the day-to-day workings of the cross-border committees is their resources – the number of staff in their secretariats, fi nances, and opportunities for external project involvement. The size of the cross-border committee secretariats ranges from one-person secretariats (Skærgården, ARKO), to secretariats with a few employees (Østfold-Bohuslän/Dalsland, Kvarkenrådet, Mid Nordic Committe), to NORA which, in addition to a small main secretariat on the Faroe Islands, also has liaison offi cers in the other member countries. The Öresund Committee has by far the largest secretariat, with a staff of ten, and in addition it serves as the host organisation for the secretariats of INTERREG in the Öresund Region (9 employees) and the Danish part of ØresundDirekt (6 employees).

Secretariat sizes depend to some extent on the fi nances of the committee in question. One committee operates primarily on NCM funds (the North Calotte Council), whereas the vast majority of committees also receive substantial fi nancial subsidies from their member organisations.

With regard to external project involvement the structure of project management varies widely. NORA and the North Calotte Council have annual grants and dedicated application procedures, and, by prioritising areas for applications, thus infl uence and also often coordinate activities in the border region. Tornedalsrådet and TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna are currently involved in INTERREG projects while the remaining cross-border committees’ project involvement ranges from projects they host to projects they have chosen to co-fi nance.


Similarities in themes and approachesDespite the apparent differences described above, the Nordic Cross-border committees also share a number of similarities. First of all, the main purpose of all cross-border committees is to contribute to increased growth and the development of the individual border regions. This concept of development is rooted in the expectation that dynamic and well-integrated regions will be able to retain and attract companies and people, as bigger regions have a better foundation in terms of resources for growth and development, and because each region has the potential for further development. Thus, all border regions have the same overall task: to break down physical and mental border obstacles within their region and to encourage member organisations, collaboration partners, residents, politicians, companies, etc., to look beyond national boundaries when addressing the region’s potential for development.

Furthermore, despite the various geographical starting points, there are similarities in the overall themes that are addressed, as well as in the approach to these themes. The way the cross-border committees carry out the work within each theme varies over time. Similarly, not all organisations address the same topics. This depends on the chosen focal areas of the member organisations, as well as other project initiatives in the region. Nevertheless, most of the following themes are addressed by the cross-border committees to a varying degree.

Business development is a natural focus for all cross-border committees, since economic growth is essential to regional development. The individual cross-border committees deal with this differently – depending on the availability of potential and collaboration partners – but job creation is absolutely vital to all eleven cross-border regions. The different approaches include: dismantling the legislative border obstacles that prevent companies and commuters in the border region from being active on both sides of the border; fi nancing product development projects in signifi cant sectors of the region; or organising annual business fairs for companies in the border region.

Since the cross-border committees are themselves a network of their member organisations, network building is an absolutely fundamental activity for all of them. Above all, the existence of cross-border committees means that a political, and often also administrative, network has been created between the member organisations, a network which is used in working on all of the topics that each individual cross-border committee has enshrined in its articles of association and action plans. Secondly, a majority of cross-border committees also regard it as a signifi cant task to build networks among other players on both sides of the border. Often, business networks are

formed between companies and business organisations, but also social networks among the youth, networks involving institutions of learning, and networks in the energy sector are notable examples of unifying action areas. These networks may be established as part of a specifi c project, but all cross-border committees also organise seminars, meetings, conferences, fairs, etc., which serve as meeting platforms for regional actors and thus also serve to create networks.

Expansion of existing, and/or the establishment of new, infrastructure is another theme that is of importance for both peripheral as well as more centrally located cross-border regions. It can involve lobbying for national funding and awareness of the need for improving or establishing roads and railway lines, but priority is also given to maintaining and establishing air and ferry services. Infrastructure also includes IT infrastructure which is a topic of particular importance for the peripheral regions.

The cross-border committees are all situated in part or in whole in scenic regions making nature and tourism obvious focal areas. The activities within this theme range from creating networks among businesses in the tourism sector to participating in development projects with the aim of creating new attractions in order to increase tourism. Some cross-border committees work more generally to protect nature in their region, for example by driving the process of inclusion of valuable areas on the UNESCO World Heritage list.

Reinforcing regional identity and culture is another important function for just about all the cross-border committees while the initiatives for and purposes of the projects are many and varied. This includes strengthening regional minority cultures, such as the Sami culture, or historical ties to Finland; running a complete cultural programme with annual culture days and festivals, or publicising cultural institutions and events on both sides of the border.

Dismantling border obstacles that render cross-border collaboration and mobility more diffi cult is a vital task for all the border region committees. The committees often refer to the mental border obstacles as the greatest barriers, and all initiatives that involve parties on both sides of the border help to a large extent to remove this blind spot regarding the potential of cross-border cooperation. Border obstacles can also be understood in a more literal sense as legislative or administrative border obstacles that prevent or limit the opportunities of citizens and companies to operate freely across Nordic borders.

Working within these remits contributes overall to the economic and social development of the individual border regions, but several cross-border committees also put a special focus on producing dedicated strategic planning for the region. Several of the cross-


border committees are helping to coordinate local and regional plans at a higher strategic level while most of the infrastructure projects are also closely linked to the strategic potential of border regions.

Changes in the Nordic cross-border committeesWhat is important to bear in mind is that despite most of the cross-border committees’ long history, a cross-border committee is never a stable entity. Building a cross-border region is a constant process where the commitment, and perhaps even the formal membership of the committee, must be reinforced. This of course happens through the ongoing development of and involvement in projects, working groups, political goals etc., but also more concretely when wishing to expand the cross-border committee to neighbouring regions and municipalities. Thus the geography of the Nordic cross-border committees’ changes over time, just as a

new committee can appear if they have the opportunity to establish a formal cooperation committee.

The partners involved in the Nordic cross-border committees have changed slightly over the previous decades. Where the original cross-border committees often consisted of municipal cooperation actors, a tendency has emerged in terms of the regionalisation of cross-border cooperation – probably due to the strong EU focus on “regional” cooperation. The latest cooperation initiatives that have attained funding for their activities from the Nordic Council of Ministers are TRUST Hedmark-Dalarna; Bothinan Arc; and Tornedalsrådet, all of which cover more extensive areas than, for instance, ARKO which to this day remains a small municipal cooperation organisation. Participation in the INTERREG-programmes has strengthened the cooperation abilities of the regional level just as the specifi c projects and activities have often had a regional rather than a local focus.


Figure 1: Location of the Nordic cross-border committees that receive funding from NMR in 2009


A long-term focus on regional development has been one of the core activities of the EU as it is seen as a means to achieving the overall EU aim of economic and social cohesion across the European Union. Regional policy plays an important role in reducing regional disparities with the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) making up one part of the EUs Structural Funds. ERDF funding makes up the bulk of fi nancing for cross-border activities in the Nordic countries.

European Territorial Cooperation objective The INTERREG initiative commenced in 1989 and is fi nanced under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). It was launched as INTERREG I for the programming period 1989–1993, and continued as INTERREG II for the subsequent period 1994–1999. It moved on to INTERREG III for the period 2000–2006, with projects from this programming period closing by the end of 2008. The European Territorial Cooperation objective is the new programme period for what was previously termed the INTERREG Community Initiative. This fourth programme, which runs for the period 2007-2013, is currently midway.

The aim of both the previous INTERREG initiatives and the current European Territorial Cooperation objective is to stimulate interregional cooperation in the European Union and, similarly to most Cohesion Policy measures projects within these programmes require co-funding to be provided by the Member States, regional authorities or the project leaders themselves. The amount of co-funding required differs by region, ranging from 50% down to 0% in the poorest regions. The objective involves collaboration among authorities of two or more Member States, and are not only required to demonstrate a positive impact on the development on either side of the border but their design and their implementation must be carried out on a common cross-border basis. The benefi ciaries of the objective are usually public authorities, interest associations and non-profi t organisations, such as chambers of commerce, employer organisations, unions or research institutes. In the new programme period, private fi rms are eligible if they apply through a consortium of several fi rms; in previous programme periods they were not eligible.

The European Territorial Cooperation initiative covers three types of programmes: cross-border cooperation, transnational cooperation, and interregional cooperation.

Cross-border cooperation programmes promote projects whose partnership is constituted by partners coming from two or more member states and who are located in the border area. There are 52 cross-border programmes in Europe, eight of which are located in the Nordic region. Whether the challenges in the cross-border regions relate to infrastructure, to markets and services, or to cultural and linguistic barriers, the cross-border cooperation programmes are intended to address them. Thus the issues dealt with in the programme include encouraging entrepreneurship, the joint management of natural resources, supporting links between urban and rural areas, improving access to transport and communication networks, developing joint use of infrastructure, and promoting employment.

The transnational cooperation programmes aim to promote cooperation and better integration among large groups of European regions which have similar characteristics. The programme enables regions from several EU member states to coordinate a strategic response to, for example, accessibility, the environment, innovation, and sustainable urban develop ment. Thus, issues covered include telecommunication networks, fl ood management, international business and research linkages, and polycentric development. There are 13 transnational cooperation programmes; 3 of which involve Nordic countries.

Finally, the interregional cooperation programmes aim to promote the exchange and transfer of knowledge and best practices among European regions. As such it functions at the pan-European level, covering all 27 member states. The intention is to build networks to develop good practice and showcase what regions do well for the benefi t of those still learning. Under this banner, the INTERREG IV C programme as well as three additional networking programmes can be found. The INTERREG IV C programme enables EU regions to work together on two priority areas: innovation and the knowledge economy; and environment and risk prevention. The three networking programmes are: URBACT II which brings together actors at local and regional level to exchange experience and to facilitate learning on urban themes; ESPON (the European Spatial Planning Observation Network) which provides scientifi c information for the development of regions and larger territories through applied research, analysis and tools; and the INTERACT II programme which provides training, services and tools to programme managers and administrators of cooperation programmes.

European cross-border and transnational cooperation programmes


Table 2: European Territorial Cooperation, ongoing programmes, 2010

Programme nameTotal programme

budget (in millions of €)

Eligible Nordic countries1

ISL/FO/GL

NO SE FI DK

Transnational cooperation programmes

Baltic Sea Region programme € 293 X X X X

Northern Periphery programme € 59 X X X X

North Sea Region programme € 134 X X X

Cross-border cooperation programmes

North programme € 57 X X X

Botnia-Atlantica programme € 61 X X X

Sweden-Norway programme € 68 X X

Central Baltic programme € 136 X X

South Baltic programme € 75 X X

Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak € 223 X X X

Syddanmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N. € 69 X

Fehmarnbelt programme (Denmark-Germany programme)

€ 31 X

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/index_en.cfm

European Neighbourhood and Partnership InstrumentIn addition to the internal European interregional and transnational programmes the EU has set up a number of programmes that target cooperation along the external borders of Europe: The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). The ENPI targets sustainable development and approximation to EU policies and legislation, and improves the EUs capacity to support cross-border cooperation along the EUs external borders – thus giving substance to the aim of avoiding new dividing lines. The ENPI has replaced the previous instruments of MEDA and TACIS, and the current programme runs from 2007-2013.

The ENPI is a policy driven instrument that operates in the framework of the existing bilateral agreements between the EU and the neighbouring countries. Legislative approximation, regulatory convergence and institution building are supported through mechanisms such as the exchange of experience,

long-term twinning arrangements with member states or participation in EU programmes and agencies.

A specifi c and innovative feature of the instrument is its cross-border cooperation component. Under this component, the ENPI will fi nance joint programmes bringing together regions of member states and partner countries sharing a common border. The approach used here is similar to that taken within the European Territorial Cooperation objective with partnerships and co-fi nancing. The cross-border cooperation component of the ENPI is also co-fi nanced by the ERDF.

The Nordic countries close proximity to Russia obviously makes this an interesting programme for regions bordering Russia, particularly in Norway and Finland. With a total budget of €12 billion, this programme is yet another way to fi nance cross-border activities and also enhance the necessity to cooperate with Russia. There are three ENPI programmes applicable to the Nordic region, cf. Figure 2.


Box: European Grouping of Territorial CooperationThe European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) is a new EU legal instrument established in 2006 to enhance and create better conditions for cross-border cooperation throughout the EU. Partners in an EGTC can be member states, regional and local authorities, associations and any other public bodies. The EGTC instrument differs from previous regulations of cross-border cooperation as it makes it possible to create a legal entity across national borders that can own property and have employees. The establishment of an EGTC must be agreed upon by the national governments of each country from where there are partners. The establishment of an EGTC does not require that an international agreement is made by the national parliaments. An EGTC must consist of partners from at least two EU member countries but partners from non-EU member states can also join in if an international agreement is made in relation to their participation.


Figure 2: Current EU programmes in the Nordic region


With the increase in cross-border commuting in recent years an increased level of demand for statistical data on the cross-border labour market has emerged. The local and regional labour markets along the Nordic national borders increasingly spill across those borders creating a need for cross-border statistics on commuter patterns and other basic statistical measures, such as household incomes, that are not registered in the national databases.

National statistics display some often signifi cant shortcomings in attempting to gain a clearer picture of the border regions. A general problem here is that national statistics only register data that occurs within national borders. A cross-border commuter who is registered as living in Sweden will, for example, not have his income from across the border registered in the same register, which results in too low a level of household income.

Since the register-based employment statistics in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland are similarly built up, it is possible to identify individuals that live in one country and work in another by running cross-checks in all national registers. Several initiatives have been taken to shed light on the missing statistical parameters in the border regions. This illustrates how several actors with different funding sources have attempted to solve a common problem.

To be able to follow the effect of the building of the Öresund Bridge, Örestat was one of the fi rst projects to address the topic of cross-border commuting. It originated as two INTERREG IIIA projects (Örestat I during the period 1998-2001 and Örestat II during the period 2002-2005), in a cooperative venture between Statistics Denmark and Statistics Sweden. Region Skåne was the lead partner in partnership with City of Copenhagen and with fi nancial contributions from other regional and local stakeholders. Statistics on cross-border commuting in the Öresund region were produced for the period 1997-2003 and a database – Öresundsdatabanken – was set up and made available on the internet. Since the end of the INTERREG project periods, the Örestat database continues to be updated. In Denmark this work has become a permanent task of Statistics Denmark, while the Swedish contribution is seen as a regional responsibility, and thus Region Skåne is responsible for the fi nancing.

A similar project was subsequently carried out in the Swedish-Norwegian border region of Västra Götaland-Østfold, where the outcome of the INTERREG-project ‘Gränslöst Samarbete’ (running

during the period 2004-2007) was a database containing cross-border data for the region from the period 2001-2006. The project owners were the regional planning organisations and it was co-fi nanced by regional organisations as well as municipalities and sectoral authorities. The partners are currently applying for further funding to continue the update and development of the database.

Other work that has addressed the issue of cross-border commuting statistics is the Nordic Commuter Maps (Nordiska Pendlingskartan), which describe the commuter fl ows in all Nordic countries. This project is fi nanced by the Nordic Council of Ministers, and the reports are created in cooperation between the four Nordic statistical offi ces, with Statistics Sweden as the coordinator. The fi rst report was initiated when it became clear from the fi rst stages of the Örestat project that it was possible to fi nd a method that could illustrate these cross-border patterns. It was published in 2005 – based on data from 2001. The report was followed up with new reports in 2007 (2004 data), 2008 (2005 data) and 2009 (2006 data). Another report is due at the end of 2010, based on 2008 data. However, this last one will not include Finland.

Simultaneously, with the development of the regional databases, a number of regional and local authorities and organisations question why they have to pay for producing statistics needed for planning, which is freely available for non-border regions. In the autumn of 2008, the Nordic Council of Ministers decided to give the statistical offi ces of Denmark, Norway and Sweden the task of constructing a Nordic statistical database – StatNord – with the aim of presenting cross-border statistics in respect of migration and labour markets in the Nordic countries. The work of producing comparable statistics from all three national frameworks begun in late 2008 and on the 30th November 2009 the new database was launched. Since the launch, further discussion on the development and future fi nancing of a continued update of the database has taken place. Sweden is currently fi nancing the upkeep of the database and is prepared to continue to do so in addition to fi nancing their part of the data development; Norway has committed to fi nance their data part, while Denmark is questioning their need for additional cross-border statistics other than those that are developed in the context of the Örestat database. Finland was not part of the initial development process and is currently not interested in participating.

The Challenge of Cross-Border Statistics


The status of the cross-border commuting in the Nordic countriesCross-border commuting has steadily increased since the fi rst quantifi cation of the total number of cross-border commuters in Norden was made in 2001. In the fi rst Nordic commuter map from 2001, 25 400 individuals were classifi ed as cross-border commuters, defi ned as having their residence in one Nordic country and their main workplace in another. In 2006, this number had increased to a total of 44 000 individuals21.

In the period from 2005 to 2006 alone the total number of cross-border commuters in the Nordic countries increased by 23%; representing approximately an additional 8 000 individuals. Swedish commuters accounted for the majority of this increase – 87% or 7 000 commuters – while Danish and Finnish commuters to Sweden made up the remaining 13%.

Commuting from Sweden to Denmark or Norway is the major commuter fl ow, making up 75% of total cross-border commuting traffi c. Norway has by far the largest number of in-commuters, about 19 500 individuals, and relatively few out-commuters, about 2 700 individuals, which results in an in-commuting surplus of approximately 16 800. Denmark follows in second place with an in-commuting surplus of 10 200 commuters. Sweden is the main provider of cross-border labour, with a net surplus of out-commuters of 25 600 individuals, while Finland has only a net total of 1 400 out-commuters, cf. Figure 3.

21 According to the Nordic commuter map 2009

The Öresund region accounts for the majority of Swedish-Danish cross-border commuting and is also the most intensive border region with regard to commuting in the Nordic countries. In 2006 approximately 13 500 individuals commuted across the Öresund, with the fl ow going from Malmö municipality to Copenhagen municipality being the most intensive, about 4 100 commuters. Another 3 600 commuted from Malmö to other parts of Eastern Denmark.

Between Sweden and Norway the pattern is more complex. Within the region of the ‘Gränslöst samarbete’ – the region of Västra Götaland in Sweden and some municipalities in Østfold and Akershus regions in Norway – 1 000 individuals commute across the border. Oslo draws commuters from numerous parts of Sweden. Approximately 5 770 Swedes commute to Oslo with the largest fl ow coming from Göteborg, about 400 cross-border commuters, which means that the Oslo in-commuters originate from a large number of Swedish municipalities.

The commuter fl ows between Sweden and Finland are also increasing even if the numbers are not as dramatic. In the border area of ‘Tornedalen’ in the North of Sweden and Finland, approximately 530 individuals commuted across the border in both directions. The fl ow is larger from Sweden to Finland and the largest fl ows went between the municipalities of Haparanda in Sweden and Tornio in Finland.


Figure 3: Commuting between the Nordic countries (2006 fi gures)


June 2009 saw the adoption of a major strategic policy document on the territorial future of the Baltic Sea Region (BSR): The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). This document sets the framework for the adoption of a number of jointly agreed points of departure designed to strengthen territorial and thus transnational cooperation around the Baltic Sea. This marked the beginning of the EUs implementation of a macro-regional strategy, since it was subsequently also announced that this strategic policy paper for the BSR may be viewed as a forerunner for the implementation of further macro-regional strategies across the European Union22. At the current time of writing (September 2010) a so-called ‘Danube Strategy’ is in its consultation and developing phase with the action plan due to be adopted by the end of 2010. This specifi c kind of a macro-regional strategy is currently also being debated for the North Sea Area, as proposed by the North Sea Commission and the Committee of the Regions North Sea Intergroup. It is, moreover, highly likely that in the future we expect to see more macro-regional strategies, with different geographical scopes and thematic foci. Apparently macro-regions are seen to constitute a new strategic policy arena within the context of transnational cooperation.

One of the most important elements in the EU Baltic Sea Strategy is its ‘demonstration effect’, where it acts as a ‘model’ for further macro-regional strategies. However, the critical question remains, namely, do these strategies help to better take into consideration the existing ‘territorial diversity’ and the enormous socio-economic disparities, on the one hand, and to make better use of the available ‘territorial capital’ within the EU, on the other?

What is a Macro-Region? The defi nition of a macro-region relates to the exercise of how to defi ne a region regardless of the prefi xes - macro, micro, meso, sub-national etc - used. Under current usage the term ‘region’ can refer to anything from an administrative unit to a functional area. Regions are consequently not pre-given as physical objects. Instead they are formed and framed through specifi c practices. They can be considered as products of intended actions by a set of stakeholders. The process of regionalisation itself can be viewed as a strategic and interest-led articulation of power. The strategies of the stakeholders can, however, change over the course 22 Dubois, A./Hedin, S./Schmitt, P./Sterling, J. (2009) EU macro-regions and macro-regional strategies – A scoping study, Nordregio Electronic Working Paper 2009:4, 43 pp. http://www.nordregio.se/inc/openitem.asp?id=88929&nid=2112

of time, if established attempts at regionalisation are perceived as being no longer successful. This might, at least to some extent, be the case in respect of macro-regional strategies, since they try to introduce ‘new regions’ by bringing together different stakeholders with an interest in responding to certain transnational challenges (for example polluted oceans, innovation transfer, security issues) with specifi c pre-defi ned projects and actions.

With regard to policy it is critical how macro-regions are mobilised to assume (political) power in order to better shape and negotiate ‘their futures’. In particular, ‘macro’-regions demand the discursive negotiation of the required coordinating and regulatory institutional arrangements as they offer a ‘new scale’ for territorial governance. In other words, their production as new objects for policy attention challenges the installation of new modes of governance in order to literally ‘fi ll’ the organisational and institutional vacuum that emerges once a new ‘macro’-region is produced (such as the Baltic Sea Region for instance). This vacuum emerges at least in terms of the need to govern the programmatic focus of such a strategy and to manage the implementation of a specifi c action.

Such a project - creating a new level of ‘actorness’ in the multi-level political system - is normally a highly contested process often precipitating a power struggle, which revolves not only around the content of this new level, but also around the relation to existing levels and between different levels (including National States, sub-national regional/district level, municipalities). Macro-regions can thus be considered as a specifi c interface between different established levels. Once a macro-region that is capable of acting is installed and is used as a new channel to implement policies its maintenance and functioning could consume many resources at the expense of other requirements in respect of politics and planning.

To sum up, regions are ‘constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed’ through the interaction between various actors in response to changes in their internal and external environments. This implies that there are no pre-given conditions or criteria for what constitutes a region, including macro-regions – even though certain coherent structures and characteristics, be they political, geographical, cultural (or mental in terms of identities), can help enormously in the construction of a macro-region.

A Macro-Regional Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region


Since World War II transnational integration has developed from refl ecting a closed intergovernmental and geopolitical interpretation of security and international trading agreements, into a more complex and open multidimensional structure, infl uenced mainly by the process of globalisation. It has gone beyond exclusive trade concerns and has started to deal with a number of other fi elds of cooperation, as well as common challenges and joint interests such as environmental protection and economic growth. The macro-region has become a setting in which several actors, state and non-state, public and private are equally interested in the process of transnational integration and cooperation thus forming a new multi-levelled structure of interaction. In this sense we can distinguish at least four different ‘reasons’ for constructing macro-regions:

1. to foster international relations with the National States as the main actors (e.g. in terms of security issues such as the NATO)

2. to foster functional relations with the National States as the main actors (here in particular trade relations such as EFTA)

3. to utilise cultural and political homogeneity with the National States as the main actors (e.g. the Nordic Council)

4. to utilise cultural and political homogeneity in order to respond to common challenges (e.g. the latest EU macro-regional strategies as discussed in this chapter).

In view of the latter, it has to be stated that macro-regions are not only about the grouping of homogeneous territories. Indeed, this exercise can also be based on heterogeneity, for instance by facilitating a complementary critical mass of stakeholders.

At fi rst glance in a purely EU context, EU macro-regional strategies seem to be very much akin to the transnational cooperation programmes that started in the end of the 1990s under the labels INTERREG IIC 1996-1999, INTERREG IIIB 2000-2006 and fi nally INTERREG IVB 2007-2013. Having said this, as the potential added-value of macro-regional strategies (corresponding to the EUSBSR-type, see below), we can identify, as a minimum, the following aspects:

• Addressing of joint challenges as a common denominator (such as pollution of the Baltic Sea)

• Promoting transnational and cross-border cooperation

• Establishing a thematically focused process/dialogues on territorial cooperation

• A new way of thinking about multi-level governance and subsidiarity

• A globalisation strategy for European macro-regions

A EU BSR Strategy – A critical appraisalThe EU BSR Strategy represents a novel approach to the introduction of the EUs territorial policy agenda. It can be viewed as a comprehensive and inter-sectoral inspirational source built on four central pillars: environmental protection, economic prosperity, accessibility and attractiveness, and fi nally, safety and security. The strategy includes, in total, 15 priority areas, under which 76 so-called fl agship-projects are defi ned plus ten horizontal actions that shall serve the objectives of territorial cohesion. This is important to stress, since the strategy is indeed developed by the Directorate General for Regional Policy (DG Regio), though a number of other DGs have been involved in the elaboration process. Hence it is rather weak in depicting a spatial perspective for the Baltic Sea Region; its central part is the Action plan and the defi nition of numerous concrete projects. As such it is focused on implementation and visibility rather than on application and symbolism through coordinating the many actors and organisations and their numerous programmes, agendas and available instruments, because the Commission feels that a stronger commitment from the relevant local, regional and national stakeholders is required in future to use the already available fi nancial resources more effi ciently.

In this respect, the Strategy has also drawn criticism as some have suggested that the Baltic Sea Region is already overburdened and ‘too rich’ in its ‘organisational capital’ due to the existing multiplicity of state and non-state stakeholders (the pan-Baltic organisations, councils, networks and foundations, which have evolved over the past 60 years or so). The argument here is that there is no need for another player such as in this case the EU Commission who advocates the Strategy backed-up by other EU institutions like the European Parliament and the Committee of Regions. Other voices have argued however that the Strategy is to be welcomed, in the hope that it can better coordinate the existing multiplicity of stakeholders and thus can perhaps make better use of this critical mass and its ‘organisational capacity’ for transnational cooperation.

Perhaps the most eye-catching element in the EU-strategy is a number of proposed actions/projects that will not be followed by new legislation, instruments or institutions. This approach is labelled the three “No’s” (no new legislation, no new instruments and no new institutions). Consequently the implementation of the action plan will require a multi-level and cross-sectoral coordination approach, diverse partnerships and functioning programme-based management and assessment procedures. The strategy itself does not propose any new mode of governance concerning the management or prioritisation between the many proposed actions/projects among the participating


actors/institutions – the Strategy relies on a ‘learning-by-doing’ approach and a strong level of commitment by the responsible stakeholders to implement such proposed actions.

In addition, it neither demarcates the entire macro-region nor proposes ‘where’ the intended actions/projects might have the largest impact in terms of improving the territorial capital and/or promoting territorial cohesion within this macro-region. In other words, the strategy will challenge the horizontal as well as the vertical coordination between different spatial entities (for example municipalities, planning regions, National States) and sectors.

In sum, macro-regional strategies seem to have become a central pillar in the EU’s strategic policy approach to territorial policies. In this sense, such macro-regional strategies can mark a turning point in European spatial policy discourses as other strategic documents such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP, 1999) or the Territorial Agenda (TA, 2007) have been jointly developed by the Member States. Now it is the EU Commission who ‘owns’ this new territorial policy approach, although it has been elaborated in close cooperation with some Member States. In this light it is striking that this multi-sectoral strategy with several actions that might have a signifi cant territorial impact are not integrated into any specifi c European territorial perspective. In the EUSBSR, there are neither explicit references to the ESDP and the TA, nor, what is most notable, to the EUs intrinsic desire for territorial cohesion as manifested in the Lisbon Treaty (art. 3.3). Instead the BSR is treated as a homogeneous area since almost no intra-regional differentiation in terms of territorial characteristics is made (in relation to urban-rural areas, islands - continental areas, dense – sparsely populated areas, level of accessibility to services/infrastructures/human capital/markets, economic performance etc.,) along with the identifi cation and descriptions of the proposed actions and projects.

From the Three No’s then it becomes evident that the elaboration of macro-regional strategies needs to fi t into the existing dynamics and initiatives within the macro-region as well as the EUs policy framework. Discussions have now, however, begun in respect of whether a specifi c budget line in the EU budget can be allocated to macro-regions in the programme period starting from 2014. For the stakeholders concerned this means that a thorough evaluation of the state of affairs in the Baltic Sea macro-region is a necessary fi rst step. Indeed, as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region exemplifi es, one should bear in mind that the most promising ‘added-value’ of a macro-regional strategy

lies not so much in the main lines of argumentation in terms of its ‘strategic’ focus, but rather in the identifi cation and prioritisation of the concrete actions that would potentially have the biggest impact on the state of the macro-region in general and on its specifi c local territorial characteristics in particular.

Example: Baltic Sea Region climate change responsesThe eleven countries surrounding the Baltic Sea, including Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, cooperate transnationally on various projects on topics related to regional development. One example here is climate change adaptation, which is a particularly demanding topic. This is being refl ected in the EU Baltic Sea Region Strategy (EUSBSR) calling for “a regional adaptation strategy at the level of the Baltic Sea Region”. The call for action has been converted into a project called BaltAdapt which was approved in June 2010 for funding under the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2012. The Danish Meteorological Institute is leading the process that incorporates all efforts made by the countries involved. The Nordic countries are important partners in the strategy, since all of them have adopted a National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) or a respective document while a number of national projects and research programmes are ongoing.

Transnational learning and governance issues related to climate change adaptation are the focus of the project, “Climate Change: Impacts, Costs and Adaptation in the Baltic Sea Region (BaltCICA)23. Through the coordination of 24 partners, including municipalities, regional authorities and research institutes from eight countries, the project is part of the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 and aims to support both adaptation processes on the local level in regions and municipalities and pan-Baltic cooperation, for example multi-level and transnational approaches in respect of climate change adaptation. Therefore, the project assesses the costs and benefi ts of climate change adaptation on both levels. Under the priority “Baltic Sea as a common resource” the BaltCICA project runs from 2009 until 2012 and is led by the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK) with a total budget of €5.3 million.

Within this project a climate change adaptation strategy on the macro-regional level in the Baltic Sea Region is being investigated from a multilevel governance perspective, bringing together “top-down” and “bottom up” approaches to climate change adaptation.

23 For more information, see http://www.baltcica.org


Figure 4: State of play for National Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the BSR


Box: Climate Change for the new Baltic 21 Strategic Action Plan for 2010 to 2015A preliminary version of the Climate Change Actions to be included in the Portfolio of Actions within the Baltic 21 Strategy 2010-2015 has been produced. The portfolio is seen as a major policy input to the Eco-region project funded under the EU BSR Programme 2007-2013 and will be viewed as a ‘living’ document of actions by which Baltic 21 members and Baltic 21 Lighthouse Projects are committed to implement in the next 5 years.

Baltic 21 was initiated by the Prime Ministers of the Baltic Sea countries in 1996 and is a regional expression of the global Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations “Earth Summit” in 1992. Baltic 21 facilitates an open and transparent network for cooperation by linking together a wide range of stakeholders in a common venture for regional sustainable development.Comprising a multinational team, its members include various government ministries and agencies from the eleven Baltic Sea States, the European Commission, numerous intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, academic and fi nancial institutions, as well as local, city and business networks. As of 1 January 2010, Baltic 21 became integrated into the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and operates as one of its expert group focusing on the following strategic areas:

• Climate change• Sustainable urban and rural development• Sustainable consumption and production• Innovation and education for sustainable development


Regional development is closely related to a number of economic, demographic, social, and political processes, connected by intimate supply and demand relations as indicated in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5: Relations between GDP, jobs and population

Company location and activities infl uence the demand for employment and jobs in the region. The total number of available jobs affects migration as well as, the regional distribution of population. This, however, has an impact on the age structure, the regional level of qualifi cations and employment rates. As such it also

Regional Development Trends

Introduction

Source: Ponnikas et al 2010 (modifi ed)

affects household incomes and taxes in the region. Similarly, the availability of human resources attracts businesses, and provides a basis for new activities.

On the one hand, the availability of human resources and their characteristics, such as age structure, educational level, mobility, and affi nity to the labour market, and on the other, the economic structures and business characteristics of the regions, with a focus on the individual region’s ability to respond to global market challenges, and with the question of overall performance, being measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) both as a general development over time, and to show the differences between the regions.

In the overview the latest development trends are shown on the national level in order to refl ect the most recent economic changes in this economically turbulent period. To provide linkage to labour markets productivity has also been included. Labour markets and population structures follow the same logic, with the general and latest trends on the national level and more detailed information down to the municipal level provided.

And while the main foci lie in the Nordic regions, a more general view of Nordic regions in the European context will be also be provided. Finally it should be noted that the regional divisions are presented as of 2010.


Human Resources as a base for regional development

As indicated above, human resources are a vital component in regional development being a supply base for labour markets and a source of economic activities, generating household incomes, taxes and the production/consumption of private and public services. To attract people to and maintain them in a region has becom a critical issu for many regions, just as a well-functioning infrastructure and new investment in transportation, housing and education are also crucial. In this section, therefore, the main focus is on population characteristics and changes, including also the interaction between urban and more rural/peripheral regions.

Variations in population change During the period 2005-2010 the Nordic population grew modestly by approximately 0.67% per annum or a total of 842 000 persons. This was more than the average in the European Union, which saw a 0.40% growth rate or an increase of 9.9 million persons. At the Nordic national level, Denmark, Finland and Sweden each saw a total population increase around average EU rates, in spite of an increasing growth rate recently in Sweden. Norway had a higher annual population increase, above 1% over the last fi ve years. Nevertheless, it remained below the level of population increase in Luxembourg, Ireland, Spain and Cyprus. From a European perspective, Iceland had the most dramatic development with a population increase over 2% per annum in 2005-2008. However, as a result of the more recent economic changes the total population decreased by approximately 0.50% between 2009 and 2010. In the Faroe Islands the population change over the last fi ve years has been modest, with an increase of approximately 0.1% per annum and in recent years this has actually changed to a minor decrease, similair to that of Greenland where the total population has been decreasing on average by 0.5% per annum.

Delving more deeply into the details at the regional level, however, differences in the rates of change have been much more marked. Between 2005 and 2009 an increase higher than 2% per annum was experienced in 30 EU regions, with this group including Oslo and Reykjavík regions (Figure 6). Similarily, 12% of EU regions have experienced a population increase above 1.0% per annum. Helsinki and Stockholm regions

together with West Norwegian Hordaland, Rogaland and Sør-Trøndelag are in this group. In Europe in general, most regions with rising populations are located in the old EU 15 countries and in major city regions, while many regions located beyond the major cities or transport corridors - especially in Eastern Europe - are losing population. Similar territorial imbalances can, at a lesser scale, be found among the Nordic regions, especially in Sweden and Finland. For example, the sparsely populated Eastern Finnish regions of Kainuu and Etelä-Savo were among the EU regions where population losses were highest – as indicated on the map with losses above 0.5% per annum.

The overall population change is a combination of births, death and migration to and from the region. Up to the end of the 1980s, natural population increase was by far the major component of general population increase in Europe. Since then, decreasing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and the rising importance of international migration have changed this picture. Over the last 20 years migration has become the major component of population growth. Approximately two thirds of the European NUTS 3 regions had a migration surplus in 2005-2009. At a general level, there is a spatial polarisation concerning net-migration, between Eastern and Western Europe, as well as between metropolitan and more rural and peripheral regions. Regions gaining population due to migration are located in northern Italy central Spain, south-west France, England and Wales and some Eastern European capital regions, while regions gaining population due to natural increase are located in more rural and peripheral regions, including the North Calotte region, but also in some more densely populated areas like the Netherlands and the Copenhagen region

In general terms and in a European context, the Nordic countries have high birth rates, and in respect of the West-Nordic region in particular (Western Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland) they remain very high. The only countries with comparably high fertility rates are France, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Excluding Sweden, a Nordic trend is discernable where high natural increase is in some regions compensating for negative net migration, thus maintaining the trend towards a total population increase.


Changing population trends in recent years In the Nordic countries, population development is strongly linked to the urban hierarchy and its functional dimension, gaining population both due to natural increase and to net in-migration. Over the last ten years the Nordic capital commuter catchments areas experienced an annual average population increase of 1.0% or more (Figure 7). The population increase was even higher in several Nordic second-tier metropolises, particularly Stavanger/Sandnes (NO), Malmö/Lund (SE), Reykjanes Peninsula (IS) and some regional centres

like Oulu (FI) and Vejle (DK). In Copenhagen, the increase was not as high, with an annual average increase of 0.5%. At the same time municipalities outside the city areas have experienced signifi cant population losses in recent decades, mainly in the Danish, Finnish and Swedish countryside. A few Icelandic and Norwegian coastal rural settlements have managed to increase their populations due to successful tourism and/or fi shing and aquaculture activities, but the general development has been more or less like that in the other Nordic countries.

Similarly, many Nordic city areas have

Figure 6: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009


experienced population increases both due to immigration and natural increase. The highest natural increase rates between 2000 and 2010 are found in the Finnish Sievi and Oulu areas (both located in Northern Ostrobothnia), the Reykjavík and Reykjanes regions in Iceland and in the Norwegian Saami Kautokeino-Alta area. The role of secondary metropoles and expanded capital labour markets becomes even more visible when looking at those Nordic commuter catchment areas that are gaining most from migration. Reykjanes peninsula, Malmö/Lund, Tampere and the expanded Oslo region were those with the highest in-migration rates.

In contrast to this, rural and sparsely populated areas in the north have generally experienced population decreases. The largest rate of natural decrease was found in municipalities in Norwegian East Finnmark and in north-eastern Finland both of which had experienced signifi cant levels of out-migration. Exceptions to this pattern include places where traditional activities have been supplemented by new initiatives, often in relation to tourism, renewable energy generation, education and other public-sector activities.

While the above description relates to the general development pattern, considerable changes in Nordic population development trends occurred in 2009 due in the main to the economic crisis and to resultant changes in mobility (Figure 8). The effects of this on the various Nordic countries clearly have not however been uniform in nature.

In Denmark the population has become increasingly concentrated to city regions and larger labour markets with the option of commuting. Over the last ten years the whole of Zealand has become a part of the Copenhagen labour market, while the labour market with the highest growth has been in the Vejle-Århus urban area in eastern Jutland. The small islands, especially in the South Funen Archipelago and in the northern part of Jutland have, meanwhile, seen the largest population decrease. Previously, all fi ve Danish regions had a positive population development trend. In 2009, however, changes in this pattern began to occur. Western Jutland which had traditionally benefi ted from an increasing population, despite out-migration, began to lose population. This is due to declining birth rates in the medium sized cities of Esbjerg, Holstebro and Skjern. Another striking change has been in the Vest- and Sydsjælland region in the capital commuter catchment area, where a previous population increase has turned into a decrease. Among the explanations for this has been the consequences of declining house prices in the Capital area due to the economic crisis in addition to increasing fuel prices and congested roads during rush hour periods. To a more limited extent, the same phenomenon also occurred in the Århus area. Labour market changes relating to the economic

crisis have encouraged this development through an increased level of migration of young adults to cities with educational possibilities. This concentration is even clearer in geographical terms: in 2005-2009 72% of Danish land area measured on the municipal level experienced population increase while in 2009 it was only 43%.

In Finland, the polarisation between metropoles and regional centres with a university on the one hand, and other labour markets and municipalities on the other from the 2000-2010 perspective, is more striking than in the other Nordic Countries. Outside metropoles and regional centres few other municipalities have seen a positive population development in the last ten years. Some of these growing small municipalities are located in the expanded Helsinki commuter catchment area, heading towards Lahti, Tampere and Turku via the main transport corridors. Other growth areas are located along the Ostrobothnian coast between Pietarsaari and Raahe. In this area a high birth rate has kept the total population increasing, and this is even more infl uential in 2009 as total fertility has risen in ten years from 2.15 children per female to 2.40. The same pattern is seen in Finland more general as the total fertility rate for whole country in 2009 was 1.93, the highest rate since 1969. The only deviators from the above path were some small municipalities with major tourist attractions, such as the northern municipalities of Kittilä and Muonio which have large ski resorts, which experienced a population increase due to immigration last year.

Over the last 20 years the total population increase in the Icelandic regions of Reykjavík and Reykjanes was about 40%, the highest fi gure among the Nordic labour markets, and with the municipality of Álftanes in the capital region exhibiting the highest Nordic extreme with a 165% growth rate. This population increase was due to both high birth rates and in-migration. Since all regions, and 90% of Icelandic municipalities, have seen a natural population increase, migration has been the most important component in generating regional differences in population. And as a consequence of the migration of the last decade the population had concentrated to the expanded capital region, including the Reykjanes peninsula, Sellfoss and Akranes and the Akureyri region. In addition, construction work in relation to the Alcoa aluminium smelter during the 2004-2008 period temporally created a population growth ‘spike’ in Eastern Iceland. However, the onset of the fi nancial crisis from the middle of 2008 resulted in major changes in population development with Iceland, for the fi rst time since 1889, experiencing a decrease in population. Even though natural population change remained positive at a level of approximately 1%, a negative net migration of as many as 5 000 people in 2009 resulted in an overall population decrease.


Although half of the emigrants were foreign citizens who had been working in Iceland during the ‘economic boom’ years, the population change map of Iceland was nevertheless turned upside down. The previous growth regions lost population and the few municipalities that did see a population increase in 2009 were mostly tiny rural municipalities with tourism activities.

Over the previous decade the Norwegian population has continued its concentration to major coastal cities, especially the greater Oslo and Stavanger regions, while large land areas in northern Norway and the inland areas of Oppland, Buskerud and Telemark have lost population. Still, compared to the other Nordic countries, the Norwegian population change is more balanced while some small coastal municipalities outside the regional centres have even managed not only to maintain but to increase their populations. This relates to high birth rates, but the role of international migration is also important here. In 2009 the Norwegian population change on the NUTS3 level was positive in all regions for the fi rst time in over twenty years. Notable changes can be seen in northern Norway and Vestlandet in particular, where the decline in domestic out-migration contributed to a population increase. For example, in Sogn and Fjordane region out-migration was at its lowest level since 1971. Bodø, Tromsø, Lofoten and Northern Sognefjord regions, including also some municipalities with a signifi cant Saami population, also

saw a very positive population development during 2009. As in Denmark, this shift is even more visible in geographical terms but in the opposite way. When in 2005-2009 38% of the Norwegian land area measured on the municipal level saw a population increase, the share in 2009 was up to 62% of the land area.

In Sweden the population continues its concentration to regional centres and especially to the Stockholm and Malmö-Lund regions. Some minor labour markets in the traffi c corridors between Gothenburg – Malmö and Gothenburg-Stockholm have also experiences population increase while small labour markets particularly in northern Sweden have experiences serious declines. In contrast to other Nordic countries, the natural population increase is heavily concentrated to the major city regions of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. In all other regions, population has either been relatively stable or is decreasing. Population increase in Sweden is heavily related to migration and especially to international migration. The regions that are growing most due to migration are Malmö-Lund, with important commuter fl ows to Copenhagen, and the municipal labour markets of Strömstad and Årjäng, both located in the expanded Oslo labour market. The role of tourism in some municipalities in northern Sweden and in Dalarna is becoming more and more visible, resulting in positive in-migration.


Figure 7: Population change in the Nordic commuter catchment areas in 2000-2010


Increasing importance of migrationThe share of Nordic municipalities with a migration surplus has been increasing in recent years. Over the last two decades, only 45% of Nordic municipalities saw positive net migration – almost all of which were regional centres or in the commuter catchment areas of such centres. In the period 2005-2009, the share of municipalities with a migration surplus increased to 56%, the most obvious change being in the geographically expanded capital and metropolitan growth regions and in relation to the effects of the tourism industry in northern Finland and Sweden. In Iceland and Norway some small coastal communities saw positive net migration due to the emergence of tourism and various fi shing and aquaculture activities. Some isolated municipalities with large multi-year construction projects placed within them have also seen a (temporary) migration surplus, for example eastern Icelandic municipalities with an aluminium smelter, Norwegian Hammerfest with natural gas installations and Faroese Vágar with a underwater tunnel that facilitated commuting between the island and the capital region on the main island. Part of the explanation for this increase is in some cases related to changes in municipal structures where the amalgamation of smaller municipalities more sensitive to changes into larger units – often with a local centre – has provided them with a higher level of stability.

When looking at the main components of migration, domestic as well as international, about one third of Nordic municipalities saw positive net migration on both counts. An additional third saw a migration surplus in respect only of international

migration. Most Nordic municipalities gained from international migration in the period 2005-2009, with the main exceptions being the Faroe Islands, Greenland and some smaller Icelandic municipalities. Even while similar in general structure, signifi cant differences remain in terms of intensity. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden the overall level and share of international migration was much higher than in Finland. And the domestic migration patterns follow the overall migration picture, but with an even higher concentration to major city regions. In many rural municipalities, especially in Norway and Sweden, negative domestic migration is compensated by extensive international migration.

In 2009, however, there were some remarkable changes in the migration pattern, especially in Iceland and in the Danish regions of Western Jutland and Zealand. Over 10% of the Nordic population changed its place of residence in 2009. Even if most of these people simply moved to nearby municipalities or to other regions in the same country, 1.6% of the Nordic population, or slightly more than 400 000 persons, nevertheless changed their country of residence. In relation to total population the population in Finland and Iceland were most mobile, and mobility was highest in city regions with universities and in some tourism-oriented rural municipalities. When dividing migration fl ows after direction, domestic migration fl ows are highest in the capital regions of Copenhagen, Stockholm and Uusimaa (Helsinki), and in the Finnish regions of Pirkanmaa and Pohjois-Pohjanmaa. International migration fl ows are most intense in the capital regions of Oslo, Copenhagen-Malmö and Stockholm, Norwegian Vestlandet and Finnmark, Åland and Iceland.


Figure 8: Population change in the Nordic municipalities in 2009-2010


On the Nordic level one third of all international migrants are nationals of the origin/destination country. Signifi cant differences nevertheless exist between immigration and emigration. On average, 23% of immigrants and 48% of emigrants are nationals of origin/destination country. In the Faroe Islands and Greenland, the share of national immigrants and emigrants varies between 85 and 93%. These high fi gures can be explained by temporary emigration due to studies and other short term activities.

On average 25% of all international migration in Norden occurs within the Nordic countries (Figure 9). Internationally total fl ows are highest to and from Denmark and Sweden, but compared to other international migration fl ows, people in Sweden move

mostly to other Nordic Countries, whereas the relative share of Nordic immigrants is highest in Iceland. More than 40% of all Nordic migration is to and from other European countries (Figure 10). Relatively speaking, non-(intra) Norden migration is most important in Iceland and least important in Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Sweden. The main (non-Norden) European origin and destination countries are the Baltic States and Poland, and those countries have especially high rates to and from Iceland and Norway. In Finland, the share of Russian migration is also signifi cant. The Nordic share of extra-European migration is around one third, Sweden being the country with the highest extra-European migration rates.

Over half of all migrations in the Nordic Countries occur among population segments aged 20-34 years, the age group of 20-24 years being the most mobile. Different types of regions attract people in different phases of life. The metropolitan core cities and regional centres with a university, for example, are particularly attractive migration regions for young adults in the age range 20-24. Five years later the metropolitan core cities are still maintaining their position, but the regional university cities have lost their position to capital core cities. In the age group between 30 and 50 years the capital regions are the highest gainers, although the age

group 30-39 years prefers the capital core cities while the age group 40-54 years prefers the municipalities around the capital core cities. As a result, regions with the relatively highest shares of mobility among children are found in the capital regions outside the core municipalities. A surprisingly high share of child mobility can also be found in medium-sized towns and in non-urban areas, just as non-urban areas are also the most mobile region type for population in their late careers, between 50-64 years. Retired population migrates primarily to metropolitan regions outside the core municipalities and to small cities in rural areas.

Figure 9: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (a)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Oth

er

Asia

Afric

a

Amer

ica

Othe

r Eur

opé

othe

r EEA

Balti

cum

an

d Po

land

Intr

a -

Nord

ic

International migration in 2009, in persons

Intra-NordicBalticum and Polandother EEAOther EuropéAmericaAfricaAsiaOther

Immigration, %

19

13

217

7

8

22

2

Emigration, %

36

823

4

8

2

10

9EmigrationImmigration


Figure 10: Migration between the Nordic Countries in 2009 (b)


Long term population change in West Norden Across West Norden recent major political and economic phenomena, in addition to ongoing natural change processes, have had a signifi cant infl uence on net migration rates. Due to the small size of the domestic markets, such phenomena can clearly be seen to have acted as either ‘push’ or ‘pull’ factors in

terms of international migration rates where people are either moving (back) to regions in good times or voting with their feet due to rapid and negative changes in their social conditions in bad times. As West Norden is characterised by natural resource dependency, and especially by dependence on fi sheries, changes in fi sh stocks have historically affected migration rates.

Figure 11: Net migration rate in the West Nordic Countries in 1970-2009

-5.00-4.00-3.00-2.00-1.000.001.002.00

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

IcelandFaroe IslandsGreenland

Longterm population changes in West Norden -Annual net migration rate in %

Bank Crisis

Home ruleBank Crisis

When reviewing the last 40 years it can be seen that in the 1970s and 1980s the net migration rate was rather modest, experiencing both net immigration and emigration. In 1973, for the fi rst time in over 35 years, the Faroes experienced a positive net immigration. Some of the major factors in this change were the general increase in the standard of living, very low unemployment (especially compared to unemployment in Denmark), a rise in the number of jobs for women and particularly also in the fi shing industry, better educational opportunities for young people, and rising demand for educated people. This precondition was supported in the Faroe Islands as early as 1965 when the University was founded.

The main demographic crisis in the Faroe Islands is thus related to changes in the fi sheries sector. During the 1970s successful skippers managed to accumulated capital and invested in new fi lleting plants, and thus a highly successful fi sheries industry was established. This was however soon rocked by a marked decline in resources caused by a combination of over-fi shing and environmental variation which led to a drastic decline in fi sh stocks off the Faroes. At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s the fi sheries sector not only collapsed (fi sh made up approximately 90% of exports), but, due to over-investment in new technologies, the major Faroese banks went bankrupt and foreign indebtedness rose sharply. Most of the fi sh processing plants were closed and the Faroese economy was placed directly under Danish administration.

Combined with rapidly increased unemployment up to as much as 20% in Tórshavn, and even higher in the outlying islands, and a growing international boycott of Faroese produce over the pilot whaling (grindadráp) issue, many people emigrated. Heavy emigration between 1989 and 1994 saw the population decrease by 10%, from approximately 48 000 to 42 000 persons. Emigration was especially high among young people. The measures used to get the Faroes ‘up running again’ largely worked, and in 1996 net immigration was once again positive. The following economically positive years kept net immigration positive until 2004, while since then migration has remained rather stable.

In Greenland, before Home Rule was established in 1979, the importation of workers from Denmark was often used to maintain a stable and viable workforce. While the 1950s and 1960s in Greenland were characterised by an infl ux from Denmark of a short term labour force connected to the building industry, a number of these people got married to Greenlanders leading eventually to the out-migration of both Danes and their Greenlandic spouses during the 1970s. With the establishment of Home Rule in 1979 Greenlanders took over many jobs leading to a massive increase in out-migration of Danes especially prior to the new government, which, by the 1980s had the knock-on effect of a perceptible decline in the volume of international migration. Parallel to this, the establishment of attractive workplaces in Greenland has impacted on migration pattern, as


did major investments in education. This helped to reduce the emigration rate of native Greenlanders, while at the same time there was an increase in the immigration academically trained Danes to Greenland to provide the qualifi cations needed when management responsibilities moved from Denmark to Greenland. This shift in government change related migration saw a peak in Greenlandic net migration fi gures. The policy which oversaw native Greenlanders taking over the jobs previously held by former colonial power nationals turned out to be rather successful in the sense that only ten years after Home Rule was established net out-migration had ceased. Most of the jobs, however, were for men, so the migration pattern is highly gender and born-place oriented. For the Greenland born population, a major share of emigrants are female, and the out-migration of younger people – primarily women – looking for educational and job opportunities has led to a continuous outfl ow since the beginning of the 1990s of both Greenlanders and Danes. This has led to a situation where more than 18 000 Greenlanders (defi ned as persons born in Greenland) are now living in Denmark, compared to the total number of just below 50 000 actually living in Greenland.

Until recently the population development in Iceland has been rather stable. In the period 1986-2008 up to 79% of Icelandic citizens who migrated returned after an average stay of 2.4 years abroad. This pattern of short term employment and study period ‘excursions’ kept migration rates rather stable. The diversifi cation and liberalisation of the Icelandic economy after 1994, when Iceland joined the European Economic Area, can clearly be seen as being expressed in an increase in net immigration rates. In the period 2003-2007 Iceland developed from a nation best known for its fi shing industry into a country providing sophisticated fi nancial services. Due to the emergence of new business opportunities, beginning in 2004, a huge infl ux of persons came from abroad into Iceland, with 2005 and 2006 seeing recorded fi gure which were relatively higher than any other European country. Part of this undoubtedly related to the building activities connected with the Alcoa aluminium smelter in eastern Iceland in 2004-2008, with a 1 500 -person foreign workforce, mostly from Poland. Iceland was hit hard by the 2008 global fi nancial crisis, which extended into 2009. The crisis has resulted in the greatest migration from Iceland since 1887. In 2009, net emigration was around 5 000 persons, half of those being foreign citizens. However, between January – June 2010, the Icelandic population increased by approximately 400 persons.

Demographic structureDemographic trends are signifi cantly impacting the

Nordic countries and the European Union more generally. Low fertility rates, combined with increased life expectancy, have resulted in demographic ageing across the EU population. The share of those in the older generations is increasing, while the share of other age categories is decreasing. There are, however, some differences between the European Union and the Nordic age structures. Ageing, in terms of further increase in the number of the group of retirement age, will signifi cantly impact the Nordic countries in the next fi ve to ten years. Compared to the EU27 average, the age group 60-64 years is signifi cantly larger in the Nordic countries while the age groups 20-54 years are slightly smaller. In contrast, the share of children aged 0-19 years is higher in Norden than in the EU, which means that relatively large age cohorts are not only currently exiting but also entering Norden’s labour markets.

The demographic dependency ratio refers to persons aged 0-14 and to those over 65 years, compared to population aged 15-64. In general, the highest dependency ratios up to 0.90, meaning that 90 persons in the age groups below 15 and above 64 are depending on 100 persons in the age group 15-64, can be found in Finnish Keski-Suomi and in the Swedish Torne Valley and Västerbotten mountain areas. The lowest ratios can be found in capital regions, West Norden, south-east Norway and in some small municipalities in northernmost Norway and Finland with signifi cant Saami populations, the lowest ratios being around 0.35. There is, however, a signifi cant difference depending on whether the high or low dependency ratio is a result of many children or of a high share of elderly people, especially in a long term perspective. In the Nordic countries, regions with, in relative terms, the most children can be found in West Norden, the Finnish Ostrobothnian coastal rim and in some municipalities around the capitals. The lowest share of children can be found in eastern Finland, Lappi and in northern Sweden. The oldest population lives in eastern Finland and northern Sweden.

The average Nordic citizen is 40.2 years old. Looking at the population structure by age, the development is rather cohesive across all Nordic countries. Nevertheless, differences remain between settlement types and countries. A common trend here is that the population in urban areas is younger, while in rural and sparsely populated areas the population is older. Among the larger Nordic Countries, the population in Norway is, in general, younger than in the other countries. In Norway the youngest population can be found in regional centres with a university and in capital core cities. In Denmark, Finland and Sweden the youngest population can be found in capital core cities. This pattern has become even clearer in recent years. Many families with children are currently choosing to


stay in, or move to, the core city areas instead of to the surrounding municipalities. This trend is particularly visible in Stockholm, where the trend has had a signifi cant impact on the housing market. The price gap between one and four-to-fi ve room apartments has become much smaller (per square metre) in central Stockholm. In the West Nordic region, the population is much younger than in other parts of Norden. In Greenland, the average age is 33.4 years and in Faroe Island and Iceland slightly higher at 37.2 and 36.1 years respectively.

In relation to national trends the most noticeable development is to be found in the rural and sparsely populated areas. In addition there is clearly an overall trend towards a relatively older population in the rural and peripheral areas of Finland and Sweden. This development is not only a consequence of an ageing population but also related to the depopulation in these areas. For Norway and Denmark, similar patterns are to be seen although the development here is not so pronounced.

The gender balance in the Nordic countries is almost equal. On average there are 101 females per 100 males in the Nordic countries. This overrepresentation of the female population is not surprising, since Nordic females on average tend to live between 4 and 6 years longer than Nordic males, the level of difference depending on the place of residence. Considerable regional variations do however exist. Generally speaking, the city regions - with capitals on top - have the highest share of female population. The Nordic capital core cities of Helsinki and Copenhagen are the most female-dense regions. The main reasons for women to move to cities or to the south relate to the existence of educational opportunities and

to a lack of advanced jobs in northern and rural regions. The expanded capital regions, together with the Nordic metropoles and regional centres, have, in general, a rather balanced gender distribution. In small and medium-sized towns and in some more rural regions, especially in West Norden, males predominate. The most male-dense regions are some of the Greenlandic and Icelandic municipalities, but some striking differences can also be found in some rural municipalities in the North Calotte area and in Kainuu region. The out-migration of female population in the rural areas is even more obvious when looking at the labour force aged population where there is a Nordic average, 97 females per 100 males.

36.00 37.00 38.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 46.00

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Denmark

Average Age on Nordic Settlement Types in 2010

Capitals core cities

Capitals

Metropoles core cities

Metropoles

Regional centre with university

Other regional centre

Medium-sized town

Non-urban area

Figure 12: Population change in the European NUTS3 regions in 2005-2009


Over the last decade the Nordic countries have experienced a period of signifi cant economical turbulence and of rapid GDP growth between fi rst a minor and then a major economic depression. Clearly the economic performance of the Nordic countries has suffered as a result of the global crisis. The level of prosperity remains high but the reduction both in gross domestic product (GDP) and in labour mobilisation rates has been signifi cant. For the Nordic regions this entails the emergence of new challenges to the maintenance of their hitherto healthy and attractive economies particularly in relation to maintaining local welfare and attracting new people and capital. Economic performance, measured as GDP per capita in purchasing power standards (PPS), provides an indication of the value of all market and some non-market goods and services produced within a region. The adjustment to local price differences24 shows the ability of countries to succeed in the global scenario. The level of production, in turn, sets the sustainable level of prosperity that can be earned by an economy - more competitive economies tend to be able to produce higher levels of income for their citizens.

This chapter will provide an overview of the economic changes that have occurred over the last decade both from a Nordic and from a more general European perspective.

Economic development before the crisisGlobal economic growth increased in the middle of 1990s and, after the minor recession at the beginning of 2000, was historically high until 2008. Between 2002 and 2007 the global economy expanded by approximately 5% per annum, the main growth taking place in Asia, principally in China. This economic growth in Asia is mainly related to the expansion of industrial production and Asia’s share of global industrial production is now around 40%, with Europe and North America having both around 25%. In the period 2000-2008 the annual European GDP growth rate was 1-3% during the peak years of growth around 2007. This increase was generally shared across all EU countries, despite a period of rather unstable development in some minor economies, such as Malta.

Most Nordic countries, however, have seen – relatively speaking - rather modest economic growth rates, close to the European Union (27 countries) average during the last decade (Figure 13).

24 Purchasing power parity or standard

Until 2008 the Danish growth rate was on a modest level, slightly below the EU average and following a similar trajectory as countries like Germany and France. Norway was more or less in line with EU average growth, while Finland and Sweden started the decade some 1-2 percentage points above the EU average but during the prosperous years of 2007 and 2008 growth rates here were as high as 7-9 percentage points above the EU average. Between 2000 and 2008 the Icelandic economy grow reached nearly 40%, a rate similar to development in European countries like the Czech Republic and Slovenia.

From the 1990s onwards economic development in the Nordic Countries, as in many other advanced economies, has become increasingly dependent on innovation and growth in knowledge-related activities. This is clearly visible in relation to investment patterns, as material investments have decreased, while immaterial investments in human capital, R&D, education, organisational development and ‘branding’ have become more central.

The main growth engines across all the Nordic countries have been a combination of high domestic consumption, both private and corporate, and high investment rates. The below average growth rate in Denmark and, to some extent, Norway can in part be explained by the existence of almost full employment during these years. Therefore, economic growth could not be easily boosted by an increase in labour intensive activities as was the case in Finland and Sweden. Housing markets, especially in some of the larger metropolitan areas, and increasing stock prices have also affected economic performance.

In 2009, a broad span existed in terms of GDP per inhabitant expressed in PPS across Europe. The national level varied from 43% to 271% of the EU27 average between member states. Norway was at the high end at 76 percentage points above the EU27 average, exceeded only by Luxembourg. The other Nordic countries were in a more modest position. Denmark, Iceland and Sweden were between 18 and 20 percentage ponts above the average and Finland 11 percentage points above, indicating a period of modest growth in most Nordic economies. Even if the Nordic countries have maintained their overall position in European terms, however, their relative scores have decreased and only Norway has increased its percentage point score since 2000.

Economic Development and Business


Figure 13: GDP growth at market prices 2000-2010

Large regional differencesIn terms of economic performance on the regional level (Figure 15), signifi cant differences exist between European regions. GDP per capita is highest in central and northern Europe, particularly in the capital regions. Major metropolitan regions generally score well in Europe, as all those European regions with GDP per capita fi gures at least twice the EU average are regions such as Paris and Brussels or German industrial centres like Munich and Frankfurt. However, numerous smaller regions in these parts of Europe also score well and altogether 38% of European NUTS3 regions had GDP per capita fi gures above the EU average in 2007.

At the low end of the scale we fi nd mostly eastern European and some southern European regions outside the main cities. Some regions in Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey attained only 25% of the EU average. Countrary to this, however, some metropolitan regions in Eastern Europe, such as Prague, Warsaw and Budapest were actually among the best European performers.

Four out of fi ve, or 60 out of 74 Nordic regions, had a higher GDP per capita than the EU average and varied between 84% and 255% of the EU27 average. In all capital regions and in western Norway the rate was even 50% or more above the EU average. The lowest Nordic fi gures are found in eastern Finland. And as for the rest of Europe, there is a considerable variation in regional performance between capital, industrial and other regions in the Nordic countries. In all countries, the capital region is performing best, followed by other metropolitan regions and industrial areas. The lowest

scores are found in primary production dominated rural regions. In Denmark and, to a lesser extent, Sweden, poorly performing regions in terms of these production based GDP fi gures are also found near capital regions. In these regions, mainly residential, there are no, or very few, industries and a signifi cant share of the population is out-commuting to other regions where the production of goods and services actually takes place.

The economic importance of some Nordic regions has changed over the last decade. Norway and, to some extent, Finland managed to increase their percentage share importance of Nordic GDP in PPS per capita during the period 2000-2007. Nevertheless the economic development of the regions tells a number of different stories. Norway has seen increasing polarisation between the regions, whereas in Finland regional polarisation is decreasing due to changes in the economic balance between the regions. At the Nordic level the largest increase in regional economical performance has occurred in the regions of western Norway Rogaland and Hordaland, and in the Finnish regions of Itä-Uusimaa and Keski-Pohjanmaa. The most signifi cant decrease can be found in western Jutland (DK) and in Kymenlaakso (FI).

Figure 14: GDP in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) per Capita in 2007

When shifting focus from welfare, measured as GDP per capita in PPS, to productivity per employed, the Nordic map looks rather different (Figure 14). At the national level Iceland, Denmark and Finland are just over the EU27 average, Sweden score a little higher, while Norway together with Luxembourg are in a class of their own.

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010 (est)

inde

x 20

00=1

00

GDP at market prices 2000-2010

Iceland

Norway

Sweden

Finland

EU 27

Denmark

75.0

95.0

115.0

135.0

155.0

175.0

195.0

215.0

235.0

255.0

275.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5

GDP per capita and per employed person in the Nordic regions in 2007

National average

GDP/capita

Productivity

Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden


While 80% of the Nordic regions have higher GDP per capita than the EU average, only 60% of regions score higher in terms of production per employee. Even if the per capita and per employed person rates correlate a number of important differences nevertheless remain. Beyond the well-performing capital regions and western Norway, signifi cant production per capita fi gures are also found in regions dominated by natural resource industries, like Nordland, Norrbotten and Etelä-Karjala.

The lowest productivity rates in Norden, apart from those in Greenland and the Faroe Islands, are found in Zealand’s out-commuting regions and in the small rural islands of Gotland and Bornholm. Considerable differences also exist between the countries. Lower Finnish GDP per capita fi gures are compensated with higher productivity, whereas in Denmark and Sweden the opposite situation prevails.


Figure 15: GDP in PPS per capita and per employed person in 2007. Index, EU27 = 100


The Financial CrisisThe fi nancial crisis was ignited in 2007, due to a liquidity shortfall in the United States banking system caused by the overvaluation of assets. The immediate cause of the crisis was the bursting of the US housing ‘bubble’ with subprime loans25, culminating in a global crisis one year later when the bankruptcy of the fi nancial services fi rm Lehman Brothers was declared. Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability, and damaged investor confi dence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses, especially during late 2008 and early 2009. The world economy generally shrank by 0.6% in 2009 as a result of the global fi nancial crisis and in European Union by 4.1%.

Consequently, in autumn 2008, Europe (including the Nordic countries) was hit by economic crisis. The effects of the fi nancial crisis were most profound in Iceland. In 2001, the deregulation of Icelandic banks opened up the possibility for banks to fi nance their expansion with loans on the interbank lending market by attracting deposits from outside Iceland while also encouraging a signifi cant level of domestic household debt (in Iceland). Between 2000 and 2008 Icelandic GDP grew annually over 10%; incomes increased over 70% and the stock market rose 174%. At the same time house prices increased over 70% in the Greater Reykjavík area. While banks and other fi nancial institutes expanded by 554% the increase in industrial production was much more modest. The Icelandic bank ‘bubble’ lasted until the summer of 2008 when the banks became unable to refi nance their debts. In September-October 2008 all three of Iceland’s major banks collapsed as a result of their inability to refi nance their short-term debt and stem a run on deposits in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that at the time those three major banks held foreign debt in excess of €50 billion, compared with Iceland’s gross domestic product of €8.5 billion. Relative to the size of its economy Iceland’s banking collapse can be seen as the largest in economic history.

After a period of strong growth in the middle of this decade all fi ve Nordic economies were hit by the global economic crises in 2008/2009. The GDP growth rate decreased in all the Nordic and indeed all EU countries, excluding Poland. In most of the Nordic Countries the decrease followed the EU average trend. However, as the GDP increase before the crisis had been higher in Iceland, Finland and Sweden, the following downturn was more dramatic on average than in the EU more generally. Finland experienced an unprecedented drop to -8.0%, its worst economic performance in over 90 years, and in Iceland the situation was even worse. To a great extent, explanations can be found in the 25 A type of loan that is offered at a rate above prime to individuals who do not qualify for prime rate loans.

development of the global market. Finland and Sweden each have a large share of capital goods in the makeup of their exports. In Norway, the depression was more modest, with only a roughly 2 percentage point change in GDP. Even if the decline in GDP growth in Iceland and Finland in 2008-2009 was large, it was still relatively modest compared to the extreme changes in the Baltic States. In the Nordic regional context, major centres, depending on external trade and international economic development, seem to have experienced a deeper depression than regions more dependent on domestic trade and services.

Recovery and the European Debt crisisIn 2010 the global economy is still recovering from the fi nancial crisis of 2008 and 2009. During the fi rst quarter of 2010 GDP expanded at an annualised rate of over 5%. This - better than expected - result was, in the main, due to continuing robust growth in Asia. More broadly, there were encouraging signs of renewed growth in private demand. In the European Union and in the Euro-area countries the economy has started to recover, although at a moderate pace. In the second quarter of 2010 economic growth was +1.7% higher than in the second quarter of 2009 in both zones26. This was the highest quartile increase in the Euro region in three years. A major factor in the general recovery of the Euro area has undoubtedly been the strong German export-led recovery strategy.

The small and open Nordic economies were hit hard by a signifi cant decline in external demand. Given their strong public fi nances, however, the Nordic economies, with the exception of Iceland, had resources available to cushion their contractions, and to be among the fi rst economies to recover. From a regional perspective, the larger and economically robust metropolitan regions are important Nordic growth engines.

Norway’s economy experienced the smallest GDP contraction in the Nordic region in 2009 while Iceland saw the largest contraction. Norway’s economic recovery began somewhat earlier than in most other OECD countries. The quick rebound to positive growth was made possible by a strong fi scal and monetary stimulus programme driven by increased household fi nal consumption expenditure and public demand. Sizeable reserves of oil revenues also gave it freedom in economic policy that other countries lacked. In spring 2010, the export-reliant Nordic countries of Finland and Sweden have recovered, mainly as a result of increasing levels of demand for their export products. Sweden has even taken a lead in European economic recovery. In Finland, economic recovery is export-led 26 Eurostat


with forest and metal products in particular doing well. In Sweden the export sector more broadly has increased with even the hard hit automotive industry reporting unexpectedly strong second-quarter results in 2010. In Denmark GDP increased by 0.5% in the fi rst quarter of 2010 compared to the previous quarter.

Iceland’s economy is still in deep recession. According to preliminary fi gures, GDP decreased by 3.1% in April-June from the previous quarter, and fell by as much as 8.6% units below the second quarter of 2009. It is estimated that the Icelandic contraction will continue in 2010, due in the main to still falling or low private and public consumption and investment. Private consumption has fallen dramatically since 2008 as households have to balance between increasing debt and declining disposable income. Most private loans were indexed to foreign currencies and the dramatic infl ation experienced by the Icelandic krona made loans unbearable. High loans together with historically high unemployment at around 9% has led to a situation where, in 2009, almost 40% of all households in Iceland faced some kind of fi nancial problem according to offi cial statistics. Positive GDP growth is expected from 2011, if some large scale industrial investments are begun as planned. The agreement with the government and IMF aims at a positive primary fi scal balance in 2011 and a positive overall fi scal balance in 2013. When looking at specifi c sectors, the best recovery has taken place in fi sheries, tourism and some parts of the industrial sector, especially ICT.

Recent turbulence in the fi nancial markets, with the 2010 debt crisis in some southern European countries like Italy and Greece to the fore, could still slow Nordic recovery. In Italy and Greece the national debt in 2010 exceeded 120% of GDP and in Portugal and Spain the debt was about 94-98% of GDP. Even if the high level of national debt is the biggest problem for Greece, the crisis in Italy is more of a structural problem. Even if the Nordic Countries have more or less avoided the fi scal problems faced by other European nations, allowing their governments to contemplate further stimulus spending, the Nordic region is not immune from the impact of austerity measures by some of its biggest trading partners in the Euro region and beyond. One possible risk relates to the issue of mortgage debt hangover. Interest rates have remained at a record-low level for some time which may eventually contribute to a new real estate ‘bubble’. While housing prices are going down in most part of the Western Europe and the US, they are still accelerating in Finland, Norway and

Sweden. One explanation for this is that many people borrow money at a fl oating rate, which makes rate policy an effi cient instrument to boost consumption. Sweden is even among the OECD countries with the greatest increase in housing loans. Norway, followed by Sweden, was the fi rst western European country to raise interest rates at the beginning of the global recession. This is suggestive of a strong economic recovery in the country.

Different trade patternsOne reason for GDP decrease in recent years is perhaps suggested by the trade statistics. In 2005-2008 both Nordic exports and imports increased steadily but in 2009 exports and investment collapsed. The most striking values can be found in Finland where the volume of exports shrunk by 20% and imports by 18%. The Faroe Islands were however the Nordic exception here with an increase in exports to European Union countries.

In 2009 the total value of trade in the Nordic Countries was about €540 billion. Around 20% of this was intra-Nordic trade and around 50% trade with other European Union countries. Geographical location, politics and history affect trade pattern. As such, Denmark and Norway are more connected to Central European markets, such as Germany and France, while in Finland, the role of Russian trade is very important. In terms of exports the Nordic countries are mostly connected to other Nordic Countries and to EU countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The United States, China and Russia are other important partners. In terms of in imports, the pattern is similair, although China is also among the Nordic countries main partners. In the small West Nordic Countries the trade pattern is slightly different. Trade connections to North America, and particularly to Canada, are more important, and the role of long distance exports to countries, like Japan and some African countries, is also - relatively speaking - more important.

Differences in trade patterns between the Nordic countries are evident when looking at exports by sectors. All three countries from West Norden show high shares of food and live animals exports, primarily due to products from fi shing and the fi sheries sector (dark blue in Figure 16) which account for up to 88% in the Faroe Islands, 72% in Greenland and 41% in Iceland of total national exports.


Figure 16: Total exports and imports by sector in the Nordic Countries, 2009

Norway has more or less the same situation, but with the sector including mineral fuels, lubricants and related materiales (related to high levels of oil exportation) accounting for up to 64% of total Norwegian exports. In Finland and Sweden the highest share of exports corresponds to machinery and transport equipment with fi gures between 36% and 41% respectively,followed by manufactured goods which constitute the second highest share of commodities exported from Iceland (38%). In Denmark the highest shares are machinery and transport equipment, food and live animals and miscellanous manufactured articles each with shares between 15% and 25% respectively.

Differences between countries are less signifi cant when looking at imports by sector. For all countries imports of machinery and transport equipment account for the highest shares varying between 26%

in Greenland and 39% in Norway. This is followed by imports of manufactured goods and miscelanous manufactured articles in all countries except Greenland and the Faroe Islands where imports of food and live animals is higher than in the rest of Nordic countries.

Intra-Nordic trade linkages are important for all Nordic countries, each of the countries has at least one other Nordic Country – Sweden or Norway - among its main three most important trade partners, both in terms of exports and imports. Intra-Nordic trade is relatively most important for Sweden (24%) and Denmark (23%), and least important for Norway (16%), while Faroese and Greenlandic trade is heavily depended on trading with the other Nordic countries, at 50% and 81%, respectively. Of this, however, the major portion is due to trade with Denmark.


Figure 17: Trade fl ows in the Nordic Countries 2009


Labour Market

Despite the remarkable upswing after the economic crisis of the 1990s, where a substantial number of jobs were created in the Nordic labour markets, the global fi nancial crisis of the late 2000s resulted in a new increase in unemployment rates in all countries. Iceland, Sweden and Finland were especially hard hit. Among other factors, the increase has been affected by an ageing population, population changes especially in sparsely populated areas and the marginalisation of vulnerable groups such as youth, the long-term unemployed and immigrants. A strong focus on the need for education and training, further cooperation between companies, the establishment of job centres and educational institutions, as well as new activities and occupations are already initiatives collectively agreed among the Nordic countries, and considered as being the most crucial tools in creating new jobs and reducing unemployment. This section will focus on the state of the Nordic labour force, including questions of unemployment and employment patterns, as well as looking at the various measures used to combat unemployment in recent years across the Nordic countries.

A positive general stateThe European Council in Lisbon (2000) set the long-term target for national employment to at least 70% by 2010. This goal was updated in 2010 in the Europe 2020 strategy, which sites that 75% of the population aged 20-64 should be employed. Total employment for people in the EU27 aged 15-64 increased from 62.4% in 2002 to 65.9% in 2008, but decreased again to 64.6% in 2009. The employment rate for women fell to 58.6% after a continuous increase in the previous years. In contrast, the employment rate for people aged 55-64 has continued to rise, from 36.9 in 2002 to 46% in 2009. The global fi nancial crisis of 2008-2009 thus had a signifi cant impact on EU employment rates. Today, the original target of 70% has been achieved in only 8 states, including Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden, with employment rates between 72% and 78%. Finland with 68% is just slightly below the target. Thus the Nordic area is performing well with regard to employment rates in a European perspective.

However, the current status of the labour force is affected by several factors, such as changes in the population, an ageing population, an increment of vulnerable groups in the labour market, youth unemployment and long term unemployment. And as the population of the Nordic countries grows older over the coming years the Nordic labour force will experience a process of ageing which will be characterised by an uneven distribution across the Nordic countries. Similarly young adults tend to move from peripheral areas to metropolitan areas due to the greater availability of ‘opportunities’, adding to the existing reality of uneven development. Metropolitan areas will thus have a signifi cantly more favourable age structure, while peripheral regions have a larger share of non-active persons over 50 years. As the employment rate among immigrants tend to be lower than the national average, metropolitan regions may have a relatively larger share of non-active persons of immigrant origin.

Variations in unemployment rates The unemployment rate indicates the effi ciency of the regional labour market. In an effi cient labour market the supply and demand of labour is supposed to be relatively balanced. The regional challenge is thus to reach a level of unemployment that secures a dynamic labour market, without creating social or economic problems. Often an unemployment rate of 2% is considered necessary in order to be able to respond to structural changes thus keeping labour markets energised.

Unemployment levels are strongly infl uenced by the economic situation. During the period 2003-2005 the European unemployment rate was around 9%. From the beginning of 2006 unemployment decreased rapidly. Between the summers of 2007 and 2008 European unemployment reached a minimum of around 7%. However, the economic crises in the fall of 2008 resulted in a rapid increase in the European unemployment rate. In 2009, the annual average unemployment rate of the EU27 was 8.9%. According to Eurostat, the rate was still increasing in June 2010 (Figure 18), but remained unchanged to July (9.6%). The Baltic States and Spain were still the most affected,


with rates over 15%. All Nordic national rates remained below the EU27 average, which indicates a modest level. Nevertheless, signifi cant changes occurred between and within countries as a consequence of the crisis.

Unemployment is expected to continue rising but it is still uncertain whether it will fi nally turn down in 2010 or 201127.

27 SEB, 2009 & Danske Bank 2009

Figure 18: Unemployment rates in June 2010 compared to 2008 annual rates

As in other advanced economies and in the rest of Europe, the development of employment growth rates in the Nordic countries throughout the global fi nancial crisis experienced a signifi cant negative change. In the fi rst half of the 2000s, weakening economic growth in the EU and the Nordic countries reduced the demand for labour in the fi rst three years of the century, but the emergence of a revitalised economic situation after 2003 shifted the Nordic countries back into growth

(Figure 19). Employment growth rates increased at an average speed of 1% per year, but rapidly declined in 2008-2009 reaching levels even lower than those registered in the middle of the 1990s. From a gender perspective, the Nordic female employment rates for 2009 are well above the EU27 average of 58.6%. Iceland (76.5%) registered the highest female employment rate followed by Norway (74.4%), Denmark (73.1%), Sweden (70.2%) and Finland (67.9%).

Figure 19: Total employment growth rate 1995-2009

Among the Nordic countries, Iceland has suffered the most dramatic change in unemployment over the last fi ve years. Before the crisis, the country had the lowest unemployment rate in Europe, less than 2% in February 2007. However, in less than three years it reached an unprecedented rate of around 8%. Between March 2008 and 2009, unemployment in Iceland increased by a factor of nine, from 1 600 to almost 15 000 persons. Sweden and Finland had the highest annual unemployment rates at the end of 2009, 8.5% and 8.4% respectively. Unemployment was a problem

in both countries already during periods of economic growth. In Finland, after a stable recovery after the 1990s recession, unemployment rates rose again in 2008. In Sweden, the level has fl uctuated over the last three years. In Denmark, the unemployment rate almost doubled between 2008 (3.3%) and 2009 (6.0%), though it still remains well below the EU27 average. Norway had only shown a moderate increase in unemployment and has the lowest unemployment rate in Europe in 2009 (3.1%).


Figure 20: Unemployment development in the Nordic countries in the last 10 years (annual change) and during the global fi nancial crisis (quartile change)

Vulnerability of youth, long-term unemployed and immigrants Some groups in the Nordic labour force are more vulnerable to unemployment such as youths, immigrants and those already suffering from long-term unemployment. Youth unemployment includes persons aged 15-24 years. In this group, young graduates and

others who have not already been in work, such as those who leave education at an early stage, are among the most vulnerable to being excluded from the labour market.

Figure 21: Total and youth unemployment (2009) and youth unemployment development between 2006 and 2010 (fi rst quarter)

A considerable risk exists that many of these unemployed youths will become marginalised, lacking links to either work or school. Problems often begin before youths are unemployed and several factors, such as family background, income, divorced parents and fi rst generation immigrants, have to be taken into consideration when analysing the risk of marginalisation. Annual averages of youth unemployment rates in 2009 are higher in Sweden and Finland, with rates over 21%, followed by Iceland 15.9%, Denmark 11.2% and Norway 8.9%. National rates of youth unemployment

in Denmark and Norway are below the EU27 average, while Finland, Sweden and Iceland register the highest rates in Europe along with Spain, Ireland and the Baltic States. In Finland, for example, problems employing youths after graduation during the current crisis were intensifi ed after the university reform in 2008, when thousands of new students with master’s degrees came onto the labour market in search of jobs. This led to a signifi cant increase of the share of highly-educated unemployed, from 18 500 to almost 26 800 persons between the fi rst half of 2008 and 2010. The situation


is most diffi cult in the technology, social sciences, and commercial sectors.

According to Figure 22, all Swedish NUTS2 regions, as well as three out the fi ve Finnish regions, are above the EU27 youth unemployment average. Danish and Norwegians regions, on the other hand, have the lowest rates and shares, especially in Danish regions with a low number of youths as a percentage of the total workforce. Following these national patterns, there is also a discernable difference between Nordic capital regions, where Oslo and Copenhagen register low rates, while Stockholm and Etelä-Suomi (which includes Helsinki and other adjacent cities) have intermediate fi gures close to the EU27 average.

Figure 22: Youth unemployment in the Nordic regions at the end of 2008

The category of ‘long-term unemployed’ includes any person who has been outside the labour market for one year or more. The share of long term unemployment as a percentage of the total workforce in the Nordic countries is well below the EU level. In 2009, the EU27 average was 33.2% and it was higher for women (34.8%) than for men (31.8%). Among the Nordic countries, the highest share of long-term unemployment is registered in Finland (16.8%) and the lowest in Denmark (9.1%). This is illustrated in Figure 23 showing all Finnish NUTS2 regions, with the exception of Åland, with the highest shares. In terms of long-term unemployment as a percentage of total population in the workforce, Nordic regions are located below the EU27 average of 2%, indicating a low level from a European perspective. All Norwegian regions, Åland and some Danish regions have the lowest rates, followed by the Nordic capital areas and some regions in the northern areas of Finland, Sweden and Denmark.

Figure 23: Long term unemployment in Nordic regions at the end of 2008

Another vulnerable group is immigrants. Total unemployment among immigrants in 2009 was highest in Finland and Sweden, with rates over the EU27 average of 16.4%. Iceland and Denmark had rates between 11 and 13% and Norway registered the lowest unemployment rate among immigrants with 7.1%. The low number for non-EU immigrants in Denmark relates to the restrictive policies for this group of immigrants. When looking at the origin of foreigners in the Nordic countries, citizens from outside the EU27 have higher unemployment rates than nationals from other EU27 countries. Metropolitan regions tend to attract more foreign labour than peripheral regions and therefore they have relatively larger shares of non-immigrant persons and faster population change patterns.

Figure 24: Total and immigrant unemployment rates in the Nordic countries in 2009


In terms of numbers, vulnerable groups such as youth, immigrants and the long term unemployed can be expected to vary considerably in different regions. Some regions have business structures that rely more on manual and labour-intensive work, while other regions have business structures that rely on work at the higher end of the production chain. The marginalisation of different groups in a regional context will depend on the existence of such differences across regions.

Regional and municipal unemployment Substantial regional differences continue to exist in terms of unemployment between the Nordic countries. The lowest fi gures (below 2%) are found in most municipalities in Norway and in Åland, the only Finnish region with rates below 5%. The highest fi gures (above 16%) are found in northern Swedish and Finnish municipalities, located in Pohjois-Karjala, Lappi and Norrbotten, in Læsø in Nordjylland (Denmark) and Trollhättan in Västra Götaland (Sweden). In Denmark, Iceland and Norway, regional differences are smaller, with only a few municipalities at the EU average level or above.

In Sweden, more or less all regions experienced an increase in unemployment after the crisis. All municipalities in the traditional manufacturing area of Blekinge, Västernorrland and Gävleborg exceeded the annual EU 27 average of 2009 (8.9%), with a similar situation in other northern sparsely populated areas, such as Norrbotten and Jämtland, and regions adjacent to Stockholm County, for instance Västmanland and Södermanland. Other regions with high unemployment rates above the EU average include Örebro and Värmland, which have suffered from a permanent population decrease in recent years. High rates (above 16%) were also found in municipalities bordering Finland and in Trollhättan in Västra Götaland, the hardest hit municipality in Sweden in 2009 as a consequence of the automotive industry bankruptcy. In total, 10 out of 21 Swedish regions had rates above the 2009 EU27 average. The only municipalities with low rates, about 2-3%, were some high-income municipalities in Stockholm County (Vallentuna, Täby, Lidingö, Ekerö, Danderyd and Vaxholm). According to the Labour Force Survey and Statistics Sweden, 488 000 persons were unemployed in June 2010, of whom 263 000 were men and 225 000 women.

In Finland after the 1990s crisis a constant decline in unemployment was sustained until 2006. After that, the already high rates of employment seen from a Nordic perspective rose substantially. This indicates that Finland has suffered long-term structural unemployment on the labour market28. The earlier

28 Norden, 2010b

increase in unemployment was related to problems in the forestry sector, for example concerning tree custom fees with Russia and export markets for paper and pulp. Rates have still not returned to the levels registered before the crisis. The only region with very low unemployment in Finland is Åland, where all 16 municipalities have rates below 3%, among the lowest in Norden. The lowest rates in mainland Finland (between 5% and 6%) are found in south and south-eastern regions such as Uusimaa, Itä-Uusimaa and Pohjanmaa In contrast, some of highest rates in Norden (above 12%) are found in north and north-eastern regions such as Pohjois-Karjala, Kainuu and Lappi. Thus a clear regional and geographic polarisation, including both some of the highest and lowest municipal rates in the Nordic regions, is visible in Finland. Additionally 11 out of the 20 regions currently have unemployment rates above the EU27 average. According to the Labour Force Survey, there were 248 000 unemployed in April 2010, which was 15 000 more than in April the year before. The number of male unemployed increased in comparison with 2009 while female unemployment remained stable.

In Iceland, when looking at the 2010 regional and municipal unemployment rates, the country does not have rates as high as those shown in Sweden or Finland. Only 5 out of 76 Icelandic municipalities are above the EU27 average. However, these fi gures hide the reality of the considerable change in unemployment that the country experienced in the years subsequent to the outbreak of the global fi nancial crisis. Unemployment in 2010 is 8-9 times higher than 2-3 years before. According to Statistics Iceland, in the second quarter of 2010, 16 200 persons were unemployed, representing 8.7% of the workforce. The unemployment rate was higher for men (9.4%) than for women (8%), but highest among persons aged 16-24 years old (21.3%). The highest rates are found in the north-eastern regions and the Reykjavik region with some surrounding municipalities, for example Reykjanesbær and Sandgerði, the only two Icelandic municipalities with rates over 10%. Even though the authorities have allocated hundreds of millions of Icelandic kronor to measures designed to alleviate the situation, the country still has limited resources to fi ght unemployment, leaving youths, early school leavers, recent graduates and those who have not already been in work very vulnerable29.

In Denmark, after a long period of falling unemployment which reached the lowest level of recent times in the middle of 2008, rates began to increase and continued to climb throughout 2009. The number of unemployed in 2009 was in comparison double that of the year before. The highest regional unemployment rates correspond to regions in the Danish periphery

29 Nordic Labour Journal, 2010b


(Bornholm and Nordjylland). A few municipalities have rates over the EU27 average, while the majority of municipal rates fl uctuate between 4.5% and 6.5% in 2009. The highest rates are found in the most peripheral islands, such as Læso, Bornholm, Lolland, Samsø and Langeland, but also in some of the municipalities in the Greater Copenhagen area.

Among all Nordic and European countries, Norway was the only economy that managed to exit the global crisis with only relatively minor alterations and the lowest unemployment rate in Europe. In comparison with the rest of Nordic countries, Norway shows a stable and homogenous picture in terms of unemployment. The unemployment rate in Norway rose from 2.3% in March 2008 to 3.2% in March 2009, according to Labour Force Surveys. The 2009 rates in Norwegian regions ranged between 2% and 3.5%, but all municipalities had unemployment rates below the EU27 average and below the rest of the Nordic municipalities. Only a few municipalities, mainly located in northern areas of the country, had rates over 5%. Around three quarters of all Norwegian municipalities had very low rates (0.5-3%). According to Statistics Norway, a high percentage of the adult population in Norway is in employment, mainly due to the high level of female employment. About 7 out of 10 women and almost 8 out of 10 men are currently employed.

In the Faroe Islands, unemployment reached

its lowest level around the fi rst half of 2008, but the following year it increased to 5.3%. In Greenland, after a short recovery between 2005 and 2008, unemployment increased to 7.1% in 2009. The high dependence on fi shing makes the Faroese and Greenlandic economies very vulnerable to fl uctuations in world demand and world market prices, though the periods of unemployment are often very short due to the availability of seasonal jobs. At the same time it may be diffi cult to determine when unemployment appears in the small scale fi sheries sector. This has been a general problem in connection with the registration of unemployment in smaller settlements in Greenland. Regions with the highest unemployment fi gures include Kujalleq (10%) in Greenland and the Norðoya district (7.3%) in the Faroe Islands.

The geography of the unemployment rate and the labour market situation illustrates the situation of potential labour shortage in the metropolitan and major city regions and the excess supply of labour in the less central regions. The imbalances are particularly large in Sweden and Finland. Regions with a less prosperous development are those that tend to be characterised by an old-fashioned industrial structure based on manufacturing and natural resources-based industries. The labour supply in these regions often simply does not possess the qualities demanded by modern industries in central regions.


Figure 25: Harmonised unemployment rates 2009 at municipal level in the Nordic countries


A service-oriented and highly skilled labour forceThe sectoral structure of the Nordic labour market has changed considerably in recent decades. The Nordic countries have shifted from agrarian and industrial societies into societies dominated by a large service sector. While the major shift away from being agrarian took place already during the decades after World War II, the shift from industries to services being the major contributor to the economy become even clearer when looking at employment by sector from the beginning of the 1990s onwards. All Nordic countries are characterised by small primary sectors, shrinking industrial sectors and large – and generally expanding - service sectors.

By looking at its development over the last 5 years (Figure 26), all three sectors have experienced a negative trend as a consequence of the global fi nancial crisis. Figure 43 in the Annex shows this situation at

the regional level. The secondary sector, including employment in manufacturing, industry, construction and energy has been most affected. After a period of relative growth up to 2007, with rates above 2%, there was a signifi cant drop in 2008-2009, this was primarily caused by the collapse of exports in respect of manufactured goods. This is visible particularly in Sweden, which experienced a signifi cant negative change due to the bankruptcy of the automobile industry, and in Finland, in the paper and pulp industry. Norway suffered least in terms of negative growth, probably due to the stable situation of the petroleum market. The large Nordic tertiary sector also experienced negative growth, although to a much lower extent, while the primary sector, including forestry, mining and agriculture, had already experienced a negative trend as a consequence of the shift in activity across the Nordic economies in favour of the services sector.

Figure 26: Employment growth by main economic sectors in the Nordic countries 2005-2009

Reviewing the various service sub-sectors employment in transport and communication has declined in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but increased in Finland and Iceland. The fi nance, insurance, real estate and business services sub sector has, however, seen a moderate increase in the number of employees. In all Nordic countries, between 45% and 54% of all employment is found in these particular sectors30. The Nordic countries are European leaders, along with Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium, with regard to persons employed in highly skilled occupations, including highly educated professionals, legislators, senior offi cials, managers, technicians and other associated professionals. In Iceland 48.5% of the workforce is employed in such jobs, followed by Sweden, Denmark and Finland (46.1%) and Norway (45%), all above the 2009 EU27 average of 39%. The Nordic countries also have the lowest shares of employees working in elementary occupations in the EU27, with Norway (4.5%), Sweden (6%), Iceland

30 Norden, 2009

6.2%) and Finland (7.6%)31.An additional asset for the Nordic labour

market is its highly skilled labour force, as the Nordic countries can boast the highest levels of population with a tertiary education in Europe at a regional level. Skilled workers tend to be more productive, less exposed to unemployment; more satisfi ed with their professional lives and retire at an older age. There is, however, something of a trade-off between immediately exploiting young persons’ labour potential and the benefi ts which accrue with their attainment of a higher education to meet the requirements of the ‘modern’ labour market. The EU Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion states that the competitiveness and prosperity of territories increasingly depends upon the capacity of the people and businesses located within them to make the best use of all their territorial assets. Therefore, the level of education and the quality of the entire educational system are crucial elements in the construction of a skilled labour force.32 31 Eurostat, 201032 Damsgaard, O.; Lindqvist, M.; Roto, J.; Sterling, J. (2009) Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working


Figure 27: Labour force levels of education in the Nordic countries

Paper 2009:6

On average, 23% of the European working age population has a tertiary level education, with in general all Nordic countries being above the EU27 average (Figure 27). At the Nordic regional level the highest percentages are associated with densely populated areas and/or major cities. Oslo (46%) and Etelä-Suomi (40%) are, along with London and Brussels, among the highest

skilled regions in Europe. Not only large metropolitan areas but also regions with low population densities in northern Norway and Finland have a highly skilled workforce with a tertiary level educated population above 30%.

When it comes to ‘life-long learning’, the tendency is similar and all Nordic countries have fi gures


well above the EU27 average of 9%, with Finland (29%), Denmark (20%) and Sweden (18%) at the top.

Apart from the so-called ‘traditional economic sectors’, new highly skilled activities and occupations in the Nordic countries are expected to emerge driven by new technologies, innovation and specialisation. A crucial driving force for this is constituted by high schools, universities and other educational or training institutions as they have the potential to fi nd new niches in the labour market for which they can offer an education.

Measures countering unemployment: education and training as the main driversThe Nordic countries have a strong commitment to education and assistance on an individual level to bring the young and long-term unemployed people back into working life. The last Nordic meeting of labour ministers in Reykjavik in November 2009 confi rmed this by stressing solutions and measures to fi ght unemployment among the most vulnerable groups, especially among young persons, with or without education or skills. A big concern regarding the current employment situation in the Nordic countries is the fear of a “lost generation” of young people falling into long-term unemployment33. At the same time the issue of gender-bias in relation to education has also become a major concern. There is now a clear discernable pattern developing that a larger proportion of persons with secondary and tertiary level education are women (see section on Education for details). This section describes some of the main measures adopted by the Nordic countries in this regard.

Iceland was perhaps the most unprepared of the Nordic countries to face the change in unemployment as the Icelandic benefi ts system was designed at a time when unemployment was basically unknown. However, the government has been trying to address the situation. In January 2009 a new regulation on labour market measures, prepared by the Directorate of Labour, was introduced. It included initiatives for the unemployed such as further training subsides, self-improvement courses, job introduction, vocational training, trial engagements, counselling, employment-related rehabilitation, and a further promotion of youth entrepreneurship. There were also initiatives to support companies, such as help with the development of business plans and economic support to fi rms engaged in innovation projects. Later in 2009, the Ministry of Social Affairs introduced a programme called “Youth Action” oriented towards young job seekers under 25 years of age, without an education and to early college leavers. The purpose was to offer counselling, job

33 Nordic Labour Journal, 2010b

training and employment within three months of them losing their previous jobs. The programme is operated in conjunction with colleges and other educational institutions, municipalities, voluntary organisations and some companies. In 2010 the Icelandic Directorate of Labour introduced ThOR (ÞOR in the Icelandic alphabet for þekking og reynsla), a programme on knowledge and experience, oriented mainly to the long-term unemployed and offering a variety of activities, including courses, seminars, education and employment-based sessions.

In Denmark measures to counter unemployment are based on cooperation between job centres, companies and educational institutions. In 2009, the Ministry of Employment gathered key social partners, such as trade unions, employers and municipalities, agreed upon the importance of a highly educated and skilled labour force as one of the main measures to combat unemployment. A political agreement in February 2009 defi ned a number of changes in the rules for active labour market programmes, aimed at targeting the need to re-skill the unemployed. Employees could, for example, receive a training subsidy when they hired unemployed persons with at least 3 months of inactivity. Training can last up to 6 weeks and is provided by an external services provider. In August 2009, a reorganisation of the local job centres took place through the merger of the state and municipal branches. This meant that from 2010 full economic responsibility was given to the municipalities, with a refund from the state. Job centres were to play a more active role and offer courses and training. In January 2010 a joint set of 23 initiatives between the Ministry of Employment and the social partners was presented. The initiatives were oriented to assisting employers that were in the process of restructuring and employees who were about to be dismissed. These measures included extended education and support opportunities for the unemployed even after the person left the fi rm; counselling and the development of action plans for the newly unemployed. Persons not covered by a collective agreement were to get the same right as those working under such agreements. In the autumn of 2009, a large parliamentary majority voted in a youth plan (the so-called ‘ungepakken’) designed to prevent the emergence of a lost generation. In April 2010, the government also introduced an action plan oriented towards increasing the recruitment of foreign workers into the Danish labour market, as part of a long-term effort to improve both the quality and size of the workforce. The Minister of Employment will announce later in 2010 a number of new initiatives oriented towards reducing long term unemployment based on giving education and training a high level priority and improving contact between job centres and the unemployed34.

34 Based on EEO, 2010a


In Sweden the main goal is to keep young people active while focusing on education and re-activation programmes. The measures are conceived within the education system in combination with active labour market measures, giving young people a chance to increase their competences. New tasks have been given to the job centres as they are in charge of executing labour market measures aimed at both the short and the long term unemployed. Already from the fi rst day of unemployment, coaching will be offered and the youth guarantee (which comes into effect after three months of unemployment) will be strengthened while the government has stated that it will also focus on creating new start jobs for the long term unemployed. There is also an increase in the number of education and training places and a modifi cation of some courses in order to re-attract early school leavers to both secondary and college education. As in Iceland, entrepreneurship activities will be used to encourage young people to start their own businesses. Extensive fi scal measures adopted by the Parliament at the end of 2009 were implemented during the fi rst quarter of 2010 as a way of securing the welfare system by maintaining levels of employment in the public sector. A reduction in the tax levels paid by pensioners and an increase in the housing supplement support for people with sickness and activity compensation took effect on 1 January 2010. Additionally, eligibility requirements for individuals who were long term absentees from the labour market were modifi ed and employment offi ces started a programme oriented to assessing the ability of this group to eventually return to the labour market35.

The Finnish government has developed an expansive economic programme and introduced tax cuts as its two main incentives to stimulate growth. There is also great interest in the availability of a skilled labour force, including professional skills derived from education, as an increasingly important element of future economic growth. Education remains a top priority in Finland, in line with the rest of the Nordic countries. Finland’s main target groups are young

35 Based on EEO, 2010c

people and those who are not in education or work. After overseeing a continuing rise in unemployment, in early 2010, the Finnish government implemented a series of measures including wage subsides targeted at young school leavers and those who cannot fi nd a job, as well as the introduction of subsidised salaries to encourage employers to hire young people. In May 2010, the so-called “Sanssi kortti” (Finnish for “Chance card”) was launched. This gave employers the right to have some of the employee’s salary covered by the state, lowering the threshold for employing young people for both normal jobs and apprenticeships. The main objective was to strengthen employment among new graduates under 30 years of age. Persons under 25 years qualify automatically, but older persons must have been out of work for more than six months. The job centres act as centres for counselling, since every time a card is issued by the Employment and Economic Offi ces of Finland, a so called ‘employment plan’ has to be designed for the job seeker.

As noted previously, since the start of the economic crisis Norway has not suffered to anything like the same extent in terms of dramatic changes in employment compared to the other Nordic countries. Nevertheless, labour market measures were implemented to combat unemployment and to help those who were deemed to be at risk of being excluded from the labour market. In general, these measures aimed at improving the individual’s chances of fi nding employment through work training, education and new qualifi cations. In line with the Nordic trend, such measures prioritise target groups such as youth, the long-term unemployed, those with an impaired work capacity, long-term recipients of social security benefi ts and immigrants, with emphasis on the newcomers for whom a special introductory programme has been drawn up. The Youth Guarantee scheme is offered to those below 20 years of age who are not in education. Those between 20 and 24 who have been unemployed for more than three months are eligible for additional follow-up assistance and help with job seeking and personal activity.


Combined challenges and future possibilities

When combining the latest total population change in 2005-2010, the level of employment in 2008 and economic performance in terms of GDP in PPS per capita in 2007 on the regional level, the Nordic map (Figure 28) shows the existence of a number of rather diverse regional situations.

The capital regions, together with some major secondary city regions are clearly the best performers (dark blue regions). Many of the other regions included in this category with increasing populations, high employment levels and high GDP per capita, such as western Norway, Jutland, southern Sweden and Finnish Ostrobothnia, are not however in a similarly favourable situation. They are suffering from domestic out-migration, compensated for by higher birth rates, but with the out-migration eventually posing a challenge for future development as many of the out-migrants are young and skilled persons, often with a tertiary education. In contrast, the Nordic regions with decreasing population levels, low levels of employment and low GDP per capita (dark red regions) are found in the most rural regions, like Bornholm in Denmark, Finnmark in Norway and Värmland in Sweden. Similarly in Finland a signifi cant number of eastern and northern regions have to cope with combined risks such as these.

Even if overall regional polarisation in the Nordic countries slowed during the previous decade Nordic regions still display different preconditions in their attempts to meet future challenges. Population and job development is still fastest in the major city regions while domestic migration may alter the picture somewhat - though the net migration gains and losses are smaller.

In recent years, the overall population increase has smoothed while GDP growth has not been that high compared to many other European – or global –

regions. The Nordic labour force, moreover, continues to present a number of favourable characteristics when compared to the European average. Achievement of the Lisbon and Europe 2020 targets in terms of employment rates situates the Nordic area in a favourable position among advanced economies, while indicators such as total unemployment and long-term unemployment were below the EU27 average in 2009, even though severe changes in national and regional rates were evident, especially in 2009.

The likely future challenges to the Nordic regions, and their labour markets in particular, relate primarily to the issue of population change. In the coming years the potential labour force will decrease in size in most of the Nordic regions as a result of the retirement of large age-classes - the post-war baby-boomers, worsening the dependency ratio and the depopulation of some sparsely populated peripheral regions. In addition, the number of persons in those groups deemed as being ‘at risk’ of exclusion from the labour market, such as the young and immigrants with previous experience of unemployment, is still critical in some Nordic regions.

Future economic development and growth must therefore be sought through increased employment and productivity. In that light it looks promising that the overall level of education has risen rapidly in recent decades. This trend is expected to continue, as age groups with lesser training leave the labour market, although the challenge still remains for young people to fi nd employment. The highly skilled workforce, with high levels of education and a high female labour participation rate in the Nordic workforce seems to be both a comparative and a competitive advantage in relation to other regions in Europe. Moreover, the measures related to the ability to adapt to the changes in the global economy should be prioritised.


Figure 28: Regional Development types


Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Introduction

Approaches to innovation by national authorities dealing with the issue in the Nordic countries have been inspired by the defi nition of innovation used by the OECD. According to the OECD’s Oslo Manual (2005) innovation is the implementation of a new or signifi cantly improved product (good or service) or process, a new marketing method or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations. Similarly, the defi nition used by the Nordic Innovation Centre states: “Innovation covers a new product, including a service-product, a new process or a new organisational or managerial structure.” The Swedish government agency VINNOVA uses a briefer

defi nition: “new or improved services, products and processes.” One example shows some divergence from other defi nitions in its reference to knowledge and society. This defi nition is introduced by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES): “Innovation implies that knowledge and competence is used in a new way either commercially or societally.”36

Entrepreneurship is, by policy makers, considered an important driver of innovation, economic growth, productivity and employment. This chapter aims to provide an overview of the state of innovation and entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries.

36 Hedin, S.; Dubois, A.; Ikonen, R.; Lähteenmäki-Smith, K.; Neubauer, J.; Pettersson, K.; Rauhut, D.; Tynkkynen, V.; Uhlin, Å. (2008) Regionally Differentiated Innovation Policy in the Nordic Countries – Applying the Lisbon Strategy, Nordregio Report 2008:2, Stockholm, Sweden.

Knowledge as a resource base

In a globalised world, knowledge is becoming an increasingly important factor in the development of regional competitiveness. In a knowledge-based economy, the pressure on the labour force to have a high level of education and for the state to enable the existence of a high quality school system increases. It also becomes necessary to invest in research and development as the primary resource base for innovation and development. However, a high level of research expenditures may not be enough. There is also a need for mechanisms to stimulate the commercialisation of academic research and the transfer of different types of knowledge between the public and private sectors.

Occupational structureFigure 29 illustrates the differences in occupational structure in the Nordic countries and two of the autonomous territories, Faroe Islands and Greenland.

Some variation can be found between the signifi cance of sectors in the different countries. In the Faroe Islands, the share of employment in agriculture and construction is relatively high compared to the other countries, while in Sweden the share of these two sectors is low. The industrial sector maintains the highest share of total employment in Finland, whereas it has the least relative weight in Greenland and Iceland. Financial and similar activities, compared to other countries, have the highest share of total employment in Sweden. Other service activities, including public administration, have a similarly high weight of approximately 40% in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, while this share of employment is almost 50% in Greenland.

Educated human resourcesThe level of education and the quality of the entire education system are of high importance in the


Figure 29: Share of employment by sector in Norden 2008

knowledge-based economy. Figure 30 illustrates the average level of education in the regions of the Nordic countries, and the location of higher education opportunities, providing an overview of the gender distribution at universities and university colleges across the Nordic countries.

Higher education is clearly concentrated to metropolitan areas in the Nordic countries, as one third of students at higher education institutions study in the capital regions. On average, 57.7% of students are female. As depicted on the map, only ten municipalities, Filipstad (with the lowest share of female students - 16.7%) followed by Narvik, Lappeenranta, Mariehamn, Karlskrona, Vaasa, Tampere, Oulu, Trondheim and Kotka, have more male than female students. They all have either a technical university or a (university) college focusing on maritime or forestry studies. With regard to the level of education in the regions of the Nordic countries, it is clear that the share of the population with a tertiary level education above 30% exists mainly in capital regions.

The increasing signifi cance of knowledge-intensive business servicesFirms delivering knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) are increasingly cited as occupying a central role as integrators of various parts of the innovation system, e.g. through their inclusion in the knowledge and innovation infrastructure of society together with education and research institutions. Research has confi rmed that the largest concentration of KIBS is found in large metropolitan areas across Europe. For knowledge-intensive fi rms, which operate in competitive markets, spatial concentration offers advantages connected with the production and diffusion of knowledge and with individual and collective learning processes. Spatial and socio-cultural proximity make access to information and knowledge easier37. As illustrated in Figure 30, urban areas also hold the highest concentration of educated human resources, which is an essential element for the competitiveness of KIBS fi rms.

37 Simmie, J.; Strambach, S. (2006) The contribution of KIBS to innovation in cities: an evolutionary and institutional perspective, Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.26-40


Figure 30: Students in Higher Education in Norden


Knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) are characterised by employing a large number of highly skilled employees. They operate in sectors such as R&D, IT-consultancy, legal services, management, training, advertising and PR and book keeping and can be defi ned as follows:

“KIBS refer to those services provided by businesses to other businesses or to the public sector in which expertise plays an especially important role38” (Toivonen, 2004).

A recent study which explored the signifi cance of KIBS in Stockholm and the two other larger cities in Sweden, Gothenburg and Malmö, found that relative to the rest of the country, the cities have a high concentration of KIBS. Thus, the share of individuals employed in the KIBS sector is twice as large in the three city regions combined. In a comparison between the three cities, however, it becomes evident that the KIBS sector is mainly concentrated to the capital region of Stockholm.39

Research and development expenditureHigh levels of private and public expenditure in research and development (R&D) is considered another signifi cant precondition for innovation. In 2002, the goal of spending at least 3% of GDP on R&D by 2010 was added to the Lisbon Strategy. In a Europe-wide study however it was clearly evident that only the two Nordic countries of Finland and Sweden have reached this goal40. Figure 31 illustrates the position of the Nordic countries relative to a number of EU member states and the EU27 average in the year 2008. The fi gure demonstrates that the fi ve Nordic countries have some of the highest public R&D expenditure as a share of GDP, of which Iceland takes the lead with an expenditure of 1.26% of GDP. Finland, followed by Sweden is ranked highest, compared to all countries, in terms of private sector R&D expenditure in 2008 with respectively 2.56% and 2.50% of GDP. In a comparison of the Nordic countries, Norway has the lowest expenditure on both public and private R&D expenditure. Its share in private sector R&D expenditure, at 0.80% of GDP, is low compared to both the EU countries in general and the other Nordic countries in particular.

38 Toivonen, M. (2004) Foresight in Services: Possibilities and Special Challenges, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.79-9839 Lindqvist et al (2010), Kunskapsintensiva tjänsteföretag i svenska storstadsregioner: regionala utvecklingsstrategier och påverkan av den ekonomiska krisen, Regionplane- och trafi kkontoret, Stockholm, (Forthcoming)40 Damsgaard, O.; Lindqvist, M.; Roto, J.; Sterling, J. (2009) Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working Paper 2009:6.

Figure 31: Private/public sector R&D expenditure

Figure 32 illustrates the development of the total expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP during the period 2001-2007 for the Nordic countries and the EU27 average. Throughout the period, Sweden had the highest expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP, ranging from more than 4% in 2001 to 3.5% in 2007. Norway is at the other end of the scale with an expenditure rate of approximately 1.5%, which is slightly below the EU27 average.

Figure 32: Evolution of gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP


Regional Innovation Performance

As indicated above, innovation concerns the transformation of resources, e.g. R&D expenditures and human capital, into commercialised products (goods and services), processes and procedures. Innovations are often created cooperatively between the private and public sectors41. Figure 33 illustrates the regional innovation performance of European regions in 2006-2007. The fi gure demonstrates that the regions of the Nordic countries are not among the lowest

41 Damsgaard, O.; Lindqvist, M.; Roto, J.; Sterling, J. (2009) Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working Paper 2009:6.

performing in Europe. However, Iceland and Norway are categorised as delivering a moderate innovation performance. This is also the case in eastern Finland and the central area of Sweden, while Denmark and the main parts of Sweden and Finland are categorised as high performance regions. Very high performance exists only in the capital regions of Finland and Sweden, also including the city regions of Skåne and Västra Götaland in Sweden.

Figure 33: Regional Innovaion Performance in Europe


Entrepreneurship is an important mechanism in the stimulation of innovation and development. However, a high level of formal education may not be enough to guarantee that innovation takes place. A strong national and regional entrepreneurship culture indicates a higher potential to create growth from new start-up activities42. In a global comparison the Nordic countries have not been found among the highest performers in terms of entrepreneurship. The Nordic Innovation Monitor 2009 states that43:

“In the area of entrepreneurship, the Nordic countries lag behind signifi cantly. The Nordic countries have a weak entrepreneurial culture, and there is a shortage of emerging growth entrepreneurs when comparing against the best performing countries.”

Meanwhile, qualitative differences between the Nordic countries are emphasised. In 2009, Finland had the highest share of high-growth entrepreneurs of the Nordic countries, and Denmark has been introduced as an example of a country where entrepreneurialism fl ourishes. In 2007, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor ranked Iceland as the most entrepreneurial nation. Finland, Norway and Denmark were just below the US level of entrepreneurship, and from the Nordic

Figure 34: Enterprises birth rates by sector in the Nordic countries 2006

42 Damsgaard, O., Lindqvist, M., Roto and Sterling, J. (2009), Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working Paper 2009:6.43 Andersen, J. B. (2009), Mid-term evaluation of Nordic innovation policy 2005-2010, Nordic Innovation Centre.

countries only Sweden lagged behind. Figure 34 exhibits the division of enterprise birth rates, by sector, in 2006 for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.

Based on this fi gure, Denmark, followed by Finland and Sweden, has the highest enterprise birth rate in all sectors except for electricity, gas and water supply. Norway has the lowest level of enterprise birth rates. The highest number of enterprise births in the three leading countries is in the real estate, fi nancial intermediation and hotel and restaurant sectors. Moreover, all four countries show a relatively high activity rate in the construction sector.

Women’s Entrepreneurship PoliciesRecent developments within international organisations like the EU, OECD and the ILO have put a strong emphasis on supporting the development of women entrepreneurs. The OECD stresses that women’s entrepreneurship relates both to women’s position in society and entrepreneurship in general: A weak social position for women combined with a weak general (political) interest in entrepreneurship have a very negative effect on women’s entrepreneurship. Recent research overviews made by the international research programme Global Entrepreneurship Monitor also underline the importance of women’s entrepreneurship

The importance of entrepreneurship


in the development of national economies and national economic growth.44

Between 2002 and 2008, the respective levels of men and women in the Nordic countries among the ranks of the self-employed were relatively stable at around 30%, except for Finland with approximately 35% (Figure 35). Perhaps this is an indication that the

44 Reynolds, P. et al. (2001), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 Executive Report.

increased support for women’s entrepreneurship since the mid-1990s, at least in Sweden and Norway, has had a rather limited impact. Only a short time period is displayed however and the levels of entrepreneurship are connected to certain structural conditions, for instance a gender segregated labour market and education system.

Table 3: Entrepreneurial activity among men and women in the Nordic countries

Source: GEM, 2007, Report on Women and Entrepreneurship, p. 12.

All Nordic countries, except for Iceland, have a programme or an action plan with the aim of supporting women’s entrepreneurship. However, the measures

applied vary between the countries and consist of individually focused efforts, as well as more structurally focused efforts.45

45 Pettersson, K. & Hedin, S., forthcoming, Support for Women’s Entrepreneurship – a Nordic Spectrum.

Country Men (%) Women (%)Total Established Early stage

(nascent+new)Total Established Early stage

(nascent+new)Denmark 14,75 8,54 6,21 8,00 3,43 4,56

Finland 19,27 10,31 8,96 9,60 4,8 4,81

Iceland 30,83 13,43 17,4 11,42 3,98 7,44

Norway 16,79 8,2 8,59 7,78 3,5 4,28

Sweden 12,65 6,87 5,78 4,95 2,48 2,47

Figure 35: Distribution of self-employed workers in the Nordic countries, 2002-2008.

Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/13/31919215.pdf

In 2007, the GEM-study revealed that entrepreneurial activity in the working force varies between women and men in the Nordic countries. Iceland has the

highest level of entrepreneurial activity among men as well as among women, particularly in terms of early stage companies, while Sweden has the lowest levels.


Table 4: Measures supporting women´s entrepreneurship in the Nordic countries

Denmark Norway Sweden Finland Iceland

a) Individually focused

networking- and mentoring initiatives x

access to fi nancing x

women role-models (ambassadors) x x

entrepreneurship training and development x x x

improve the compilation of statistics on women’s entrepreneurship and support research x x x x

Reinforced prioritisation of women in the existing support system x

b) Structurally focused

parental money with 100% coverage for self-employed x

increase fathers quota of the parental leave x

education of business advisors x

Support entrepreneurship and family life development x

The programmes vary in their underlying rationales for supporting women’s entrepreneurship, from seeing it as a driver of economic growth (neoliberal market paradigm), as a way to improve the situation of poor self-employed women and workers in the informal sector (feminist empowerment paradigm), or as a tool for socially responsible growth (interventionist poverty alleviation paradigm).46

The Norwegian policy programme is most clearly infl uenced by a feminist empowerment paradigm, seeking to transform the existing support system through measures aimed at women. Consequently, Norway most clearly builds on an understanding and recognition of gendered inequalities, e.g. the gender segregated education system and labour market. Norway has launched a policy on parental money with 100% coverage for the self-employed, a budget line of NOK 122 million per year, while also encouraging men to take more parental leave. This seems quite unique in the context of the Nordic countries, as well as in a larger international context. Denmark, on the other hand, focuses more on economic growth among female business owners, while Sweden uses a mixed approach. Swedish policy considers men and

46 Cf. Mayoux, L. (2001), Jobs, gender and small enterprises: Getting the policy environment right, SEED WP 15, International Labour Organization, Geneva.

women entrepreneurs to resemble each other to a large degree, but still recognises that the gendered labour market and education system segregation infl uences entrepreneurship and who becomes an entrepreneur. At the same time, it promotes measures to overcome perceived barriers to women’s entrepreneurship. In Finland, most of the proposed actions focus on individual women. Women’s entrepreneurship is seen as important for national and regional competitiveness, employment and welfare, but also for equality between men and women. Iceland simply lacks a more general national strategy for supporting women’s entrepreneurship. However, there are some public policy initiatives to support women’s entrepreneurship relating in particular to the establishment of two grant schemes in the 1990s. The Icelandic approach seems to focus on complementing the existing support system with special measures for women.47

Clearly also the geographical perspectives, and possible focus on rural and sparsely populated areas, vary in the Nordic countries. Sweden seems to have shifted focus from rural areas in the north48 to a less geographically centred policy. Still, in the Swedish 47 Pettersson, K. & Hedin, S., forthcoming, Support for Women’s Entrepreneurship – a Nordic Spectrum.48 Nilsson, P. (1997), Business counselling services directed towards female entrepreneurs - some legitimacy dilemmas, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 9, p. 239-258.


programme supporting women’s entrepreneurship for 2010, there is a focus on rural areas and farm-related sectors of the economy, possibly in order to compensate for a certain previous bias. Norway has a clear focus on the more peripheral parts. Interestingly enough, it is concluded that rural conditions can be benefi cial for entrepreneurs as there are less employment opportunities there. At the same time, fi nancial capital sources may be limited. Iceland, through its system of support initiatives, has put in place some efforts directed at rural areas and with a view to counteracting depopulation. Also in Finland there is a focus on women’s entrepreneurship in rural areas. Denmark has no specifi c focus on spatial variations.



Climate Change and Energy Policy

Introduction

Thanks to the growing collaboration between climate science and policy-makers, governments globally have commenced making plans to secure developments that would contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); stabilizing climate change (mitigation) and take into account the unavoidable consequences; (adaptation). In order to reduce vulnerability to climate change, adaptation efforts are considered to be imperative. Thus, the National Adaptation Strategies (NAS) have initiated the start of a new phase in terms of developing new plans and practices for tackling climate change that are currently being discussed more extensively in European and the Nordic regions as general plans of actions (EEA 2008). While sharing similar goals, the strategic approaches to climate change predominantly differ depending on the geographic specifi cities, the assessments of the current and future vulnerability besides the institutional capacity to adapt to the likely impacts of climate change.

At the international scale, the most authoritative body shaping the climate change discourse is the United Nations´ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC provided a scientifi c basis for the climate negotiations at the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is stated in Article 4 of the UNFCCC that every effort must be made to adopt national or regional adaptation strategies (NAS).

The development of such strategies corresponds to the countries’ individual needs and conditions49. They set the scene for the next steps towards the development and implementation of adaptation actions by covering the key issues especially in vulnerable sectors such as agriculture, forestry, water and energy management, health, biodiversity, fi nance and insurance. Projected climate change impacts indicate that, depending on the geographical characteristics, opportunities might emerge in some countries, while possibilities might be constrained in others. Without adaptation to climate 49 In the Nordic countries, except Sweden, government authorities have a central position in steering climate adaptation. In Sweden, responsibility is shared between the local and regional authorities.

change, projected impacts would likely alter the adaptive capacity of the countries both in institutional and societal terms. The main motivation behind the preparation of the NASs have been the growing amount of data, as acknowledged by the IPCC´s assessments, as well as the impacts of extreme weather events that have been experienced around the world. Furthermore, underlying socio-economic conditions in countries play an important role in providing opportunities to implementearly measures against climate change. In longer-term, these perspectives help to form resilient cities and regions.

In terms of climate change mitigation the Nordic countries share common policy challenges by being committed to further reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing their share of energy production from renewable sources and by improving energy effi ciency in all sectors. Today, energy and climate change policy in the Nordic countries is strongly infl uenced by the European energy and climate change package approved by the European Parliament in December 2008. The aims of this policy package are threefold; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990, to increase the share of renewables by at least 20% compared to 1990 and to oversee a 20% reduction in primary energy use compared with projected levels by improving energy effi ciency. A central instrument for reaching these targets is the Emission Trading System (ETS).50 The decision to support a mix of energy sources and their related support mechanisms has however continued to be individually assigned by each country, mainly determined by access to natural resources, industrial structure, political and cultural traditions and contexts, trading opportunities, public attitudes and – last but not least - joint international agreements.

Nordic countries differ in their institutional settings but share similar targets for their climate policies. A clear deduction from the Nordic climate change policies is that more research and knowledge 50 The EU Climate and Energy Package. European Commission’s webpage. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm (Accessed 2010-06-3)


are needed to set realistic targets for climate change adaptation since so little is known about the methods of dealing with the ongoing changes in the environment and also coping with the uncertainty of the future. Accordingly, research and development activities are emphasised as the key strategies in coping with climate challenges according to the Nordic Prime Ministers’ Declaration on Climate Change51. A recent joint research programme entitled “Top Level Research Initiative (TLI)” established by the Nordic Council brought several Nordic organisations and national institutions together in 2008 and the signifi cance of the research programme was highlighted in the Nordic declaration. The programme has its primary focus on climate change, energy and the environment where the

51 The Nordic Prime Ministers’ Declaration on Climate Change was agreed on 16 June 2009, in Egilsstaðir, Iceland.

development of environmentally-friendly technologies will be at the centre of its activities during the period of 2009-2013. Research investments will be made in topics such as energy effi ciency, wind power together with other renewable energy sources as well as carbon capture and storage technology (CCS).

Close cooperation with the private sector will be the key in the utilisation of the research results which may provide international solutions through cross-border cooperation. The facilitation of dialogue and the exchange of knowledge and experience between the various levels of public administration are thus essential in creating synergies and developing effective climate adaptation strategies.

The Nordic response to climate change

Climate change poses a common challenge across the Nordic countries as the regional level will face similar types of problems due the prevalence of similar climatic and geographical conditions. It is projected that with the continuing warming trend there will be a signifi cant increase in winter temperatures with a considerable reduction in the snow cover and also an increase in precipitation which may cause fl ooding and the intensifi cation of hydrological cycles. In order to avoid the negative impacts of climate change, it is of the utmost importance to integrate these challenges into urban planning.

Nordic cooperation on climate change adaptation and mitigation is well known and is considered to improve the region’s ability to cope with these challenges. Similarly, all the Nordic countries started incorporating concerns for climate change into energy policy by instituting a range of relevant policy initiatives such as CO2 taxes in the context of the environmental tax reforms from early 1990s. In addition, carbon pricing has been considered as a challenging but crucial part of climate policy.

A recent example of Nordic cooperation was launched through the creation of a joint strategy in the fi eld of energy where Sweden and Norway will strengthen their cooperation in relation to climate change with their ‘green certifi cate’ initiative. On 7 September 2009, the energy ministers of Sweden and Norway announced their agreement on the establishment of a common market for green electricity certifi cates. The main goal here is to put in place a tradable green certifi cate market

from 2012 onwards. Cooperation between the two countries is expected to improve their security of energy supply.

The next section sets out the climate change measures being taken in the Nordic countries. In Iceland, however, the focus seems to be mainly on mitigation while climate change is viewed as an opportunity. The strategies point out different institutional approaches to climate change adaptation in the Nordic countries. While Finland considers sectoral adaptation strategies, Denmark and Sweden emphasise the role of local or regional actors in carrying out these climate change adaptation efforts. On the other hand, Norway and Iceland emphasise adaptation by considering climate change as a positive opportunity.52

Denmark: Strategies for coordination and informationDenmark, in line with the UN Kyoto Protocol, aimed to reduce its emission of GHGs by up to 21% by 2012 compared to the level in 1990 and its NAS was published through Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen) in March 2008. The strategy was initiated by the Ministry of Environment with the Ministry of Climate and Energy subsequently taking up the work.

The main objectives are recognised as the establishment of a platform for the authorities at various levels, industrial sectors and individuals to implement information initiatives and consider adaptation in their planning schemes. The key steps are:

52 Planning for Climate Change: The Adaptation Challenge - A Nordic Perspective. Conference Report. Lisa Van Well et al. Stockholm 2007. 45pp


• Assigning inter-ministerial working groups to function as a coordination forum on adaptation in assessing the realisation of the strategy by improving the exchange of information on climate change adaptation.

• Establishment of an information tool located under the Ministry of Climate and Energy to inform a wider audience and develop planning tools for governmental authorities to encourage collaboration among national and international research centres53.

Denmark places emphasis on autonomous adaptation where authorities, stakeholders and communities are seen as the main actors and their initiatives on adaptation will provide the best approach. A “Coordination Unit for Research in Climate Change Adaptation” was founded for better research coordination; to supply the knowledge required on climate change adaptation and to secure a more consistent climate change research output for the NAS.

An Information Centre for Climate Adaptation has been established in the Ministry of Climate and Energy and a Coordination Unit for research in climate adaptation established at the National Environmental Research Institute of the University of Århus. These units are currently working with the challenges posed by the vulnerable sectors. A shared risk system to cover damage from extreme weather impacts such as storm surges and windfalls is now also under debate in Denmark.

On September 26 2009, The Danish Board of Technology and the Danish Cultural Institute organised the fi rst-ever global citizen deliberation “World Wide Views (WW Views)-Global Citizen Consultation on Climate Policy”; an innovative methodology coordinated by The Danish Board of Technology in a network of 44 countries to utilise public participation in climate change discussions. It aims to provide a democratic channel for the involvement of citizens who were asked to share their opinions on climate change. The results were incorporated into the COP 15 sessions54.

Finland: Exemplary initiative in comprehensive climate change adaptationThe Finnish NAS was prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and published in March 2005. Being the fi rst country in the EU to adopt a NAS, Finland has, to some extent, inspired both the Nordic countries and the other European countries

53 www.klimatilpasning.dk/da-dk/sider/forside.aspx54 www.wwviews.org

to do more in this regard. The process was supported by the research project FINADAPT (assessing the adaptive capacity of the Finnish environment and Finnish society to a changing climate); a research group coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute. The key points regarding energy and climate policy in the NAS were presented to the parliament in 2005. Hence, adaptation in Finland has started at the national level with the objectives of reducing climate change impacts and exploiting potentials.

The NAS emphasises the synergy between mitigation and adaptation. Land management and planning are outlined as the most important issues in the adaptation process. The Ministry of Environment, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture prepared a comprehensive plan for the implementation of NAS in various sectors. In November 2008, the government started to revise the strategy to include “planning” as a response to the climate change challenges where the role of planners together with state authorities was to identify the main risks in fl ood-sensitive areas. Hence, a working group was established under the Ministry of Agriculture and currently the fl ood protection system is under revision. The Ministry of Transport and Communications and The Finnish Road and Rail Administration worked together on the main adaptation challenges and subsequently provided a set of recommendations. The maritime and the aviation administrations are also at work on the strategy.

In October 2009, the government adopted the Foresight Report on Long-term Climate and Energy Policy: Towards a Low-carbon Finland.55 The report was drafted, in cooperation with sectoral ministries, within the prime Minister’s Offi ce, after a series of consultations with experts, specialists and stakeholders. It defi nes the goal for this work as enabling Finland to be the leader in climate protection work and setting an ambitious target for reducing Finland’s GHGs emissions by at least 80% from the 1990 level by 2050 as part of a wider international effort.

According to a recent report, `Evaluation of the implementation of Finland´s NAS to climate change 2009´ conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (4a/2009) preparatory actions in respect of implementation should be considered. The report also states that the experiences of sector based perspectives such as forestry and agriculture should be vital for improving the adaptive capacity of Finland to climate change while taking advantage of the unique opportunities peculiar to Northern regions.

55 http://www.vnk.fi /hankkeet/tulevaisuusselonteko/en.jsp


Iceland: Leader on Climate friendly technologyIceland’s climate change strategy (2007) puts forward the government’s long-term vision which includes a primary focus on mitigation plans and a 50-75% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 fi gures. Iceland is a recognised leader in clean technologies, especially regarding geothermal and hydrogen power generation. There are almost no GHG emissions from stationary energy production thanks to the extensive use of renewable energy sources. Currently, the government aims to further prioritise the development and use of renewable energy, while improving energy effi ciency and other climate-friendly technologies. The next step involves tackling emissions in relation to the transport industry. The government has set fi nancial incentives for low emission cars.

The Icelandic Strategy has statistical indicators which will work as a registry to monitor the effectiveness of the strategy and the progress made on tackling emissions as well as increasing carbon sequestration. The main objectives are:

• To focus on international commitments under the UN Framework Convention on climate change (UNFCCC) as well as the Kyoto Protocol by improving its infrastructure.

• Further reduction of fossil fuel usage and more emphasis on renewable energy sources & environment-friendly fuels.

• Increasing carbon sequestration through re-vegetation, afforestation, wetland recovery and land use change.

• More investment in climate change research activities. Promoting the transfer of Icelandic expertise in renewables and environmentally-friendly technology.

Despite Iceland’s vulnerability to climate change, the melting of glaciers undoubtedly presents an opportunity for the economy as extra water fl ow will boost the country’s hydroelectric industry according to the Icelandic Meteorological Offi ce and the Icelandic Scientifi c Committee on climate change. This expert committee published its fi rst report, “Global climate change and its Impact on Iceland” in August 2008, stating that climate change is already demonstrable in Iceland as the country has experienced an unprecedented period of warmth during the 20th century (Ministry for the Environment, 2009). The committee will continue its feasibility studies based on the strategy, calculating the cost-effectiveness of different options to reduce emissions, improve carbon sequestration and use fl exibility mechanisms56.

56 National Energy Authority of Iceland (2009)

Norway: A distinctive energy and industry profi leNorway has adopted a comprehensive approach to addressing the need for energy effi ciency. The country has focused on renewable energy sources and also joined the EU’s trading scheme in 2008. Energy relevant research and development activities have been prioritised within Norwegian climate policy.

On 15 May 2008, the government presented its report, “Climate Change Adaptation in Norway - A government initiative on climate change adaptation”, highlighting common challenges in adaptation. It emphasised that climate change adaptation does not demand changes in administrative setups; each sector and administrative level should be responsible for adaptation within their own areas of responsibilities.

A draft consultation paper “the Norwegian climate change Adaptation Programme” prepared by the Ministry of Environment in 2008, addressed 3 key points to reduce society’s vulnerability to climate change:

• Mapping vulnerability to climate change and incorporating climate change considerations into social planning

• Integrating climate change adaptation considerations into research programmes

• Stimulating the exchange of information and capacity building.

Norway’s adaptation strategy (Offi cial Norwegian Report (NOU) on climate change adaptation) is still in the process of being drafted by the Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (DSB) and is due to be published in the autumn of 2010. The strategy aims at assisting information exchange between different sectors and the state and local administrations, guiding local and regional planners in the utilisation of “Klimatilpasning Norge (Climate Adaptation Norway)57 ”.

The Norwegian government has a long-term vision for reducing GHG emissions and considers mitigation an effective instrument for addressing adaptation. Based on the report, “The most crucial adaptation approach for Norway is to reduce the GHG emissions.” Accordingly, Norway’s climate policy is to reduce emission fi gures for 1990 by 30% by 2020 and to become carbon neutral by 2050. The Government also seeks the possibility of using other policy instruments such as the promotion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and hydrogen technologies by setting all new gas plants on CCS technologies, supporting renewable energy development and setting climate friendly building regulations besides improving public transport and railways.57 www.klimatilpasning.no


Sweden: A decentralised approach to climate changeThe Swedish agenda on climate change was formulated between 1996 and 2003 within the context of the Swedish Regional Climate Modelling Programme (SWECLIM). SWECLIM undertook several regional climate change projections to provide a platform to help planners and decision-makers within industry, public administration and political bodies to assess climate change. The process led to a broad process of communication among Swedish stakeholders. Moreover, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) under the Ministry of Environment provided scientifi c information58 to the process while the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was responsible for the dissemination of information and for raising awareness of climate change and adaptation59.

Sweden’s approach is not to develop a NAS, but to facilitate adaptation by integrating long-term planning into sectoral responsibilities. The County Administrative Boards were assigned the task of steering climate change adaptation work.

In June 2005, an advisory committee, “Klimat och sårbarhetsutredningen - The Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability” was established within the Ministry of Environment to develop assessments on the regional and local impacts of climate change on the society. Its fi rst report “Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities60” was published in October

58 www.smhi.se59 www.naturvardsverket.se60 Regeringen (2007), Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities , SOU 2007:60

2007, presenting the challenges and regional scenarios which emphasised that strategic planning and policy development are crucial in reducing vulnerability. According to the report, Sweden is likely to face challenges in Baltic Sea ecosystems such as the increasing risk of fl oods, landslides and erosion. However, opportunities may arise from forest growth, improved agricultural production, reduced need for heating and hydropower potential as in Iceland. The report addresses the potential role of each sector in reducing vulnerability.

In 2009, the Swedish Government submitted its proposals in the form of two government bills, the climate policy bill targeting reductions in GHG emissions and the energy policy bill, presenting proposals for the energy sector. These two bills were constituted into “An Integrated climate and energy policy”, setting an ambitious target of a 40% reduction in emissions by 2020 (i.e. activities not included in the EU emissions trading scheme). The mitigation-oriented measures proposed for 2020 are as follows:

• 50% renewable energy• 20% more effi cient energy usage• 10% renewable energy in the transport sector.

The fund allocated to Swedish climate research strategy has been increased and the Swedish Energy Agency61 assigned to support these research activities.

61 www.energimyndigheten.se/en/Research/

Energy policy in the Nordic Context

An understanding of the three pillars of energy policy, namely energy effi ciency, security of supply and the environmental impact of energy usage has clearly been a part of the discourse in the Nordic countries. Over the last three decades, the Nordic countries have sought to respond to economic and environmental challenges through the implementation of various national policy frameworks for the energy sector. Starting in the 1970s, in the wake of the ‘oil crises’ security of supply was top of the political agenda, which materialised into power generation from coal in Denmark, while in Sweden and Finland nuclear power was chosen. In

Norway, the abundance of hydropower resulted in the extensive use of that resource. During the 1970s, Iceland witnessed an expansion of not only hydropower but also of geothermal energy, a source that has been exploited for district heating since the 1930s. As a result of environmental concerns during the 1980s and 1990s, renewable energy sources have progressively substituted coal - mainly wind power in Denmark and district heating based on biomass in Sweden and Denmark. However, in Finland and Norway, increases in renewable energy usage have been modest during this period, except in heat generation by Finnish industries,


where biomass became an important energy source. 62

The success of generating electrical power and heat from renewable sources in the Nordic countries has also been the results of various support schemes for these technologies, for example feed-in-tariffs (Denmark), green certifi cates (Sweden), taxation of fossil fuels in heat production (Finland, Sweden and Denmark), CO2 emission trading and R&D support. In Iceland, state subsidies or other support schemes for electricity generation have however not been applied given the abundance of, and easy access to hydro- and geothermal power. 63

Progressive deregulation towards the market-based trade of electric power has also been taking place in the Nordic countries, a successful process that has received signifi cant political support from the national authorities. The Nordic power sector acts today as a single integrated market and transmission operation managed by independently regulated operators that initially cooperated in Nordel. Since its foundation in 1963 Nordel had a common ground for cooperation between the Transmission System Operators (TSO) in the Nordic countries, and aimed at developing a harmonised Nordic electricity market. This cooperation has undoubtedly enhanced the competitiveness advantages of energy-intensive Nordic industry. In 2009 the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) took over the operational tasks of Nordel together with fi ve other TSO associations in Europe. The ENTSO-E pursues coordinated, reliable and secure operations in relation to the electricity transmission network, and promotes the development of the interconnected European grid and investment to create a sustainable power system. It also offers a platform for the electricity market by proposing and implementing standardised market integration and facilitates the integration of new energy sources, particularly in respect of renewable energy.64

62 Tennbakk Berit, Rydén Bo and Sköldberg Håkan (2006) The energy policies in the Nordic countries. In: Ten Perspectives in Nordic Energy. Final report for the fi rst phase of the Nordic Energy Perspectives Project. Available online: http://www.nordicenergyperspectives.org/Ten%20perspectives%20introd.pdf 63 Tennbakk Berit, Rydén Bo and Sköldberg Håkan (2006) The energy policies in the Nordic countries. In: Ten Perspectives in Nordic Energy. Final report for the fi rst phase of the Nordic Energy Perspectives Project. Available online:: http://www.nordicenergyperspectives.org/Ten%20perspectives%20introd.pdf 64 ENTSO-E webpage. Available online: https://www.entsoe.eu

Sweden and Finland are the Nordic countries which have nuclear power as a major source for electricity generation. In the last two decades, development in the energy sector in Sweden aimed at the progressive phasing out of nuclear power capacity up to June 2010 when the ban on building new nuclear reactors was removed by the Swedish Government. This decision has opened the possibility to continue operating a maximum of ten reactors in Sweden in the future by replacing phasing out reactors, but only in sites where they currently are located. Nevertheless, new reactors shall be built without government subsidies at the same time as an increased responsibility for damages in the event of an accident shall rest on nuclear plant owners.

In Finland, a new nuclear construction programme has been up and running since 2002, when the building of Olkiluoto 3 was approved in order to complement the already four existing reactors in the country. The construction of Olkiluoto 3 has, however, been delayed by three years, and is currently projected to be completed in 2012. In 2010, the Finnish government also approved the construction of Olkiluoto 4 while an additional reactor is projected for construction in northern Finland.

Energy supply and demandDespite the fact that the Nordic countries are generating only moderate emissions of greenhouse gases compared to other developed countries of a similar size (due to a lower dependency on fossil fuels), their consumption of energy per capita is among the highest in the world. Relatively high heating demand due to the cold climate, combined with a sparse population distribution, greater needs for individual transportation and generally high levels of income are considered the main factors behind this high level of energy demand. In spite of continuous economic growth in the region, however, the demand for energy has remained stable over the last ten years.


Figure 36: Total energy consumption and total primary energy production in the Nordic countries 1997-2007

The most important energy sources for the Nordic countries, in order of importance, are oil, renewable energy sources (mainly hydro-, geothermal and wind energy), nuclear power, coal and gas. The Nordic region has been privileged to have good access to renewable energy sources as well as a high innovation capacity and effi cient national energy policies. This has resulted not only in the region’s capacity to supply its own energy needs but has also led to the export of primary energy. However, both at national and regional level, there are important differences in terms of the availability of

energy sources among these countries. Norway, and to lesser degree Denmark, are oil and gas exporters. Norway produces over 600% more energy than its domestic demand, while Denmark has a production of approximately 50% above its own demand. Finland and Sweden are however dependent on foreign imports of fossil fuels. Norway, Iceland and Sweden each have a signifi cant ability to generate hydropower. Geothermal energy is also a substantial contributor to Iceland’s energy supply, while nuclear power is an important energy source in Sweden and Finland.

Figure 37: Generation of electrical energy by source 2008

At the regional level the differences in terms of the geographical distribution of energy supply and demand become even more pronounced. For the generation of hydropower, the Norwegian regions, especially in the south, are dominant thanks to the availability of large amounts of hydrological sources. Sweden has, on the contrary, a more heterogeneous supply mix, as hydropower dominates in the north, while the major urban regions in the south are supplied by nuclear

power plants. In Denmark, thermoelectric generation is the main source of electric energy while wind energy corresponds to a share of approximately 20% of the total energy supply. In Finland, nuclear energy is dominant in the south along with thermoelectric generation from natural gas and biomass. Hydropower generation is however rather modest in Finland and is mainly found in its northern regions.


Figure 38: Electricity generation by source in NUTS 3 regions


Figure 39: Electricity consumption by consumer group and per capita in NUTS 3 regions


The metropolitan regions in the Nordic countries with the highest level of consumption of electric power are Stockholm (20.5 TWh), Västra Götaland (19.8 TWh), Oslo og Akershus (16.1 TWh), Hordaland (13.4 TWh), Uusimaa (13.2 TWh) and Skåne (12.6 TWh). Services are the most intensive sectors in these regions in particular Stockholm (49.8 %), Oslo og Akershus (42.1%) and Uusimaa (42.7%). Households also stand for a considerable proportion of the total consumption of electricity in the metropolitan regions, primarily Oslo og Akershus (48.5%), Skåne (35.9%), Uusimaa (35.6%), Stockholm (31.5%) and Västra Götaland (28.5%). The industrial sector is the major consumer in Iceland (76.8%), followed by Finland (52.6%), Norway (45.8%) and Sweden (41.2%). The mining industry is among the most energy intensive, particularly in Iceland, but also in Norway and Sweden. The pulp and paper industry also consumes a considerable share of electricity particularly in Sweden and Finland. As a consequence of the availability of natural resources for these industrial activities the regions with high energy consumption patterns by industrial sector are often located in the northern regions of Sweden, across Finland or along the west coast of Norway.

Figure 40: Consumption of electric energy by sector in Gwh.

Renewable energyThe Nordic countries have made considerable progress in the use of renewable sources of energy during the last two decades. On average, the Nordic countries generate electricity from renewable sources at four times the level of the OECD countries. However, there are considerable variations between countries and regions mainly as a result of the availability of natural resources as shown in Figure 41 and Figure 42. Iceland and Norway almost exclusively base their electricity generation on renewable energy sources. While, in Norway hydropower stands for almost 100% of all the electricity generation from renewable, in Iceland hydropower stands for approximately 76% of the total supply of electricity while the rest comes from geothermal power. Denmark produces approximately 30% of its electricity from renewables of which approximately 64% is generated from wind power with the rest coming from solid biomass and municipal waste. In Finland and Sweden biomass and hydropower are the main sources of renewable energy, which combined stand for approximately 35.5% in Finland and 55% in Sweden of the total generation of electrical power. Hydropower in Sweden stands for approximately 84.6% of the total electric power generated from renewables while in Finland this fi gure is approximately 58%. Considering that its fi rst hydropower plant became operational in 1993 Greenland is a relative newcomer in terms of renewable energy production. Due to the expansion of capacity, mainly through the construction of three additional hydropower plants during the last years, Greenland has reached a situation where 11% of the total energy consumption is based on renewable energy and almost 50% of the electricity generation is based on hydropower.

Figure 41: Share of renewables and non-renewables for electricity generation


Figure 42: Electricity generation by renewable energy source in the Nordic Countries


In Finland and Sweden, the supply of renewable energy has been fairly stable over the last ten years. Common to all the Nordic countries however is the increase in the use of biomass for heat generation. Denmark has in particular made a signifi cant improvement in this respect by increasing the ratio between the electricity generated from renewable energy sources and the gross national electricity consumption - from 5.8% in 1995 to 28.2% in 2005 mainly thanks to the fast development and deployment of wind energy technologies.

Because certain renewable energy sources have been exploited to the extent that further expansion possibilities are limited, as is the case now in Denmark in respect of wind energy, and in Norway and Sweden with hydropower, future developments in terms of renewable sources of energy are expected to take new directions towards the utilisation of unexploited resources. This is the case in Norway and Sweden, where wind power appears to be the currently preferred option and the one with the highest potential for expansion.

Nordic energy innovationThe Nordic countries have a strong position worldwide in energy innovation thanks to strong national support for this sector. These countries stand for more than 30% of the word’s market in the production of wind

energy technology. Innovation in bio-energy is also strong with a share of almost 30% of all biomass-based generation of heat and power in the industrialised world and around 10% of the total scientifi c knowledge production. Energy innovation is a very important economic activity in the Nordic countries assuming approximately 6% of total revenues and employment in the region while exports of energy technology and equipment accounts for approximately 5 to 9% of total industrial exports. 65

Energy innovation systems in the Nordic countries vary with respect to the energy resources available, technology regimes, institutional structures and the political commitments on energy and climate change. Sweden, Finland and Denmark each exhibit strong positions on bio-energy innovation; particularly in terms of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) technologies. The main reason that Sweden and Finland are strong in bio-energy is their well developed forestry and paper pulp industries, as well as the easy availability of biomass. Denmark is an innovation leader in the wind energy sector which has become an important exporter of technology. Norway on the other hand has gained a reputation in the solar energy industry through the development and production of components. Norway is also stronger in small-hydro technology relative to its Nordic neighbours. 66

65 Mads Borup, Per Dannemand Andersen, Steffan Jacobsson and Atle Midttun (2008). Nordic Energy Innovation Systems –Patterns of need integration and cooperation. Nordic Energy Research. Available Online: http://www.nordicenergy.net/download.cfm?fi le=1240-A9078E8653368C9C291AE2F8B74012E7 66 Mads Borup, Per Dannemand Andersen, Steffan Jacobsson and Atle Midttun (2008). Nordic Energy Innovation Systems –Patterns of need integration and cooperation. Nordic Energy Research. Available Online: http://www.nordicenergy.net/download.cfm?fi le=1240-A9078E8653368C9C291AE2F8B74012E7


Bibliography

Reports and studiesAalbu, H., Böhme, K. and Uhlin, Å. (2008), Administrative reform – Arguments and Values, Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008: Report: 6, Nordregio.

An Agenda For a Reformed Cohesion Policy-A Place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations, Independent Report , prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner For Regional Policy by Fabrizio Barca, April 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/future/pdf/report_barca_v0306.pdf, accessed 19th October 2010.

Andersen, J. B. (2009), Mid-term evaluation of Nordic innovation policy 2005-2010, Nordic Innovation Centre.

Baldersheim, H. and Fimreite, A. L. (2005), Norwegian Centre-Periphery Relations in Flux: Abolition or Reconstruction of Regional Governance? West European Politics, Vol. 28, No.4, pp.764-780.

Baldersheim, H. et al. (eds) (2009), The rise of the networking region: The challenges of regional collaboration in a globalized world. Nordic Research Programme 2005-2008: Internationalisation of regional development policies – Needs and demands in the Nordic countries. Report: 10, Nordregio.

Borup, M., Dannemand Andersen P., Jacobsson S, and Midttun, A. (2008), Nordic Energy Innovation Systems –Patterns of need integration and cooperation. Nordic Energy Research. http://www.nordicenergy.net/download.cfm?fi le=1240-A9078E8653368C9C291AE2F8B74012E7

CEC (2005), Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008), Brussels April 12, 2005. COM (2005) 141 fi nal 200572007 (CNS).

Damsgaard, O., Lindqvist, M., Roto, J. and Sterling, J. (2009), Territorial Potentials in the European Union, Nordregio Working Paper 2009:6.

Danske Bank (2010), Nordic Outlook Economic and Financial Trends, July 2010. http://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/59314939-0f46-4712-ba6c-10abb0f69bec/e2c10868-c9cd-4a5a-a8b9-7fe2cb4c4d33.pdf

Dubois, A., Hedin, S., Schmitt, P. and Sterling, J. (2009), EU macro-regions and macro-regional strategies – A scoping study, Nordregio Electronic Working Paper 2009:4, 43 pp. http://www.nordregio.se/inc/openitem.asp?id=88929&nid=2112

EEO European Employment Observatory (2010a), Long term unemployment in Denmark, Prepared by Per Kongshøj Madsen, SYSDEM Correspondent for Denmark, May 2010. http://www.

eu-employment-observatory.net/resources/reports/Denmark-AdHocRequest-LTU.pdf

EEO European Employment Observatory (2010b), Long term unemployment in Iceland, Prepared by Sveinn Agnarsson, SYSDEM Correspondent for Iceland, June 2010. http://www.eu-employment-observatory.net/resources/reports/Iceland-LabourMarketDevelopmentandPolicy.pdf

EEO European Employment Observatory (2010c), Quarterly Reports, June 2010, Executive Summary. http://www.eu-employment-observatory.net/resources/quarterly_reports_exec_summary/QRES-June2010.pdf

European Commision (04.11.2010), Regional Development Programmes 2007-2013.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_pol icy/countr y/prordn/search.cfm?gv_pay=ALL&gv_reg=ALL&gv_obj=11&gv_the=ALL&lan=EN&gv_per=2

European Commision (05.08.2010), External Cooperation Programmes.http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/overview/index_en.htm

European Commision (2009), EU strategy on the Baltic Sea Region.

European Commision (17.12.2009), European Territorial Cooperation.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm

European Commission (2008), Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/eccp_impacts.htm

European Environment Agency (2008), National adaptation strategies. http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/national-adaptation-strategies

Eurostat (2010), Euro area and EU27 GDP up by 1.0% . Eurostat news release 120/2010 - 13 August 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-13082010-BP/EN/2-13082010-BP-EN.PDF

Eurostat (2010), European Union Labour Force Survey – Annual results 2009. July 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-10-035/EN/KS-QA-10-035-EN.PDF

Eurostat (2010), GDP per inhabitant in the Member States varied between 41% and 268% of the EU27 average. Eurostat news release 91/2010 - 21 June 2010. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-21062010-AP/EN/2-21062010-AP-EN.PDF


Evaluation of the implementation of Finland´s National Strategy for Adaptation to CC (2009). http://www.mmm.fi /attachments/mmm/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/2009/5IEsngZYQ/Adaptation_Strategy_evaluation.pdf

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2007), Report on Women and Entrepreneurship.

Government Offi ces of Sweden (2009), Energy and Climate. http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/5745/a/116401

Green Paper from the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions: Adapting to CC in Europe – options for EU action {SEC(2007) 849}. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0354:FIN:EN:PDF

Hagstova Ìslands (2010), Economic forecast 2010–2015. Hagtíđingi 2010:8. Published in June 15. 2010. http://www.statice.is/lisalib/getfi le.aspx?ItemID=11197

Hedin, S., Dubois, A., Ikonen, R., Lähteenmäki-Smith, K., Neubauer, J.;, Pettersson, K., Rauhut, D., Tynkkynen, V. and Uhlin, Å. (2008), Regionally Differentiated Innovation Policy in the Nordic Countries – Applying the Lisbon Strategy, Nordregio Report 2008:2, Stockholm, Sweden.

Hedin, S. (Ed.) (2009), Higher education institutions as drivers of regional development in the Nordic countries, Nordregio working paper 2009:3.

Hedström, M. (2010), Politics of Nordic rural development, Journal of Nordregio, No. 2 September, Volume 10 2010.

Hörnström, L. (2010), Redistributive regionalism. Narratives on regionalization in the Nordic periphery, Umeå: Umeå university, Doctoral Thesis.

IMF (2010). World Economic Outlook Update - Restoring Confi dence without Harming Recovery. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/update/02/pdf/0710.pdf

Karlsson, A., Lindström, B., och Van Well, L. (2009), Mot den tredje generationens regionpolitik – Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner. Nordregio report 2009:1.

Kahila, P. (2009), Deliverable Deliverable 1.1 Country profi le on rural characteristics, Finland, RuDI project. http://www.rudi-europe.net

Kahila, P., Steineke, Moxnes. J. and Copus, A. C. (2009), Deliverable 2.2 National report on RD policy design Sweden, RuDI project. http://www.rudi-europe.net

Kuntaliitto (2010), Rakennemuutoskatsaus 2010. http://hosted.kuntaliitto.fi /intra/julkaisut/pdf/p20100304143639181.pdf

Larsen Wilgaard, P. (forthcoming), Partnerskab og regional erhvervsfremme i Danmark, PhD dissertation, Aalborg University.

Lindqvist, M. (Ed), forthcoming, Kunskapsintensiva tjänsteföretag i svenska storstadsregioner: regionala utvecklingsstrategier och påverkan av den ekonomiska krisen, Regionplanekontoret, Stockholm.

Moxnes Steineke, J. (2009), Mot en mer samordnet nasjonal politikk for regional utvikling? En nordisk erfaringsutveksling og sammenlikning av aktuelle arbeidsmetoder. Nordregio Working Paper 2009:2.

Moulaert, F. and Mahmood, A. (2010), Analysing Regional development and Policy: A Structural-Realist Approach. Regional Studies, Vol. 44, No.1, pp. 103-118.

Mörck, J. (2008), Regionalt samhällsbyggande i otakt. En studie av den varierande framväxten av samverkansorgan, Örebro: Örebro universitet.

Neittaanmäki, P. and J. Ärje (2010), Suomen ja Keski-Suomen korkeakoulutetut työttömät koulutusaloittain ja –asteittain 2005–2010. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Computer Sciences. https://www.jyu.fi/hallintokeskus/tilastot/muut/suomen-ja-keski-suomen-korkeakoulutetut-tyottomat-koulutusaloittain-ja-asteittain-2005-2010.pdf/at_download/fi le

Neubauer J., Dubois A., Hanell T. et al (2007), Regional Development in the Nordic Countries 2007, Nordregio, Stockholm

Norden (2010a), Nordic Statistical Yearbook 2010, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 2010

Norden (2010b), Labour Market Mobility in Nordic Welfare States, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 2010

Norden (2009), Nordisk pendlingskarta 2009, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen 2009, http://www.norden.org/sv/publikationer/publikationer/2009-555

Nordic Insurance Survey (2009), Best Practice on Climate Assessing Risks and Implementing, Nordic Nature Indicators of CC. (NICC- http://www.nicc.dk)

Nordic Labour Journal (2010a), Labour ministers up the fi ght to prevent a lost generation, January 2010. http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/theme-nordic-meeting-of-labour-minister-with-focus-on-youth/labour-ministers-up-the-fight-to-prevent-a-lost-generation

Nordic Labour Journal (2010b), Youth unemployment: Iceland fi ghts in every font, July 2010. http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/theme-youth-outsiders/youth-unemployment-icelands-fi ght-on-many-fronts

Nordic Labour Journal (2010c), Employers offered wage subsides to hire young people in Finland, July 2010. http://nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/theme-youth-outsiders../employers-offered-wage-subsidies-to-hire-young-people

Nordic Prime Ministers’ Declaration on CC (2009), http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/12/84/35/2b4ed090.pdf

Nordiska Ministerrådet (2009), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2009.h t t p : / / w w w . n o r d e n . o r g / d a / p u b l i k a t i o n e r /publikationer/2009-555/

Nordiska Ministerrådet (2008), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2008. http://www.eda.se/UserFiles/Archive/620/Dokument/pendlingskarta05.pdf


Nordiska Ministerrådet (2007), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2007.http://www.norden.org/fi/julkaisut/julkaisut/2007-584/at_download/publicationfi le

Nordiska Ministerrådet (2009), Nordiskt regionalpolitiskt samarbetsprogram 2009-2012.

Nordiska Ministerrådet: Grenseregional strategi 2009-2012.http://www.norden.org/da/nordisk-ministerraad/ministerraad/nordisk-ministerraad-for-erhvervs-energi-og-regionalpolitik-mr-ner/strategi/grenseregional-strategi-2009-2012/

Nordregio (2010), Nordiska gränskommittéer och gränsöverskridande myndighetsintegration.

Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (2007), Norwegian climate policy, Report 2006-2007:34 http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/2065909/PDFS/STM200620070034000EN_PDFS.pdf

OECD (2010), Investment in US dollars - Gross fi xed capital formation at current prices and current PPPs. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/table/2074384x-table5

Pettersson, K. and Hedin, S., forthcoming, Support for Women’s Entrepreneurship – a Nordic Spectrum.

Ponnikas Jouni, Timo Tiainen, Johanna Hätälä & Jarmo Rusanen (2010), Suomi ja alueet 2030 – toteutunut kehitys, ennakointia ja skenaariot. Kunnallisalan kehittämissäätiön tutkimusjulkaisut, nro 60. http://www.kaks.fi /sites/default/fi les/Tutkjulk_60_1.pdf

Rauhut, D. and Kahila, P (2008), The Regional Welfare Burden in the Nordic Countries. Nordregio Working Paper 2008:6.

Rauhut, Daniel & Eðvarðsson, Ingi Rúnar (2009), The Potential Labour Supply in the Nordic Countries, Nordregio, Stockholm 2009

Reynolds, P. et al. (2001), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2001 Executive Report.

Regional centre programmes. http://www.intermin.fi /intermin/hankkeet/aky/home.nsf/pages/indexsve, accessed 23th June 2010

Report of the Special Investigation Commission (Chapter 2: Summary of the Reports Main Conclusions). http://sic.althingi.is/, accessed 9th July 2010

Riché, M. (2010), Regional Focus: Regional Innovation Governance. Papers on regional research and indicators produced by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy. No. 2/2010.

SEB (2010), Nordic Outlook, February 2010, http://www.sebgroup.com/pow/content/pdf/NOFeb2010_Eng.pdf

Simmie, J. and Strambach, S. (2006), The contribution of KIBS to innovation in cities: an evolutionary and institutional perspective, Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.26-40

Sixth progress report on economic and social cohesion. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffi c/offi cial/reports/interim6/com_2009_295_en.pdf, accessed 19th October 2010.

Statistiska Centralbyrån (2005), Nordisk Pendlingskarta 2005. http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/OV9999_2001A01_BR_AM76ST0502.pdf

St meld 25. 2008-2009; Lokal vekstkraft og framtidstru. Om distrikts- og regionalpolitikken

Statistics Finland (2010), Output of the national economy grew in May from the year before. Published 6 August 2010. http://www.stat.fi/til/ktkk/2010/05/ktkk_2010_05_2010-08-06_tie_001_fi .html

SOU 2007:60 (2007), Sweden facing climate change-threats and opportunities, Final report from the Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability. http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/09/60/02/56302ee7.pdf

Swart, R. et al. (2009), Europe Adapts to Climate Change Comparing National Adaptation Strategies, Partnership for European Environmental Research (PEER) Report No 1, www.peer.eu

Swedish Government Bill (2009), Climate and energy policy for a sustainable future, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, 2009-03-11. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2023/a/123252

Syntyneet 2009 (2010), Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.fi /til/synt/2009/synt_2009_2010-04-15_fi .pdf

The Economic Times (2010), IMF raises 2010 world GDP forecast, fl ags Europe risks. Published 8 Jul 2010. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International-Business/IMF-raises-2010-world-GDP-forecast-flags-Europe-risks/articleshow/6142266.cms?curpg=2

The Icelandic Government Information Centre (2010), Economic programme in cooperation with IMF. Accessed August 2010. http://www.iceland.org/info/iceland-imf-program/

The Top Level Research Initiative (2008), A major Nordic venture for climate, energy and the environment. http://www.toppforskningsinitiativet.org/en?set_language=en&-C

Tennbakk, B., Rydén, B. and Sköldberg H. (2006), The energy policies in the Nordic countries. In: Ten Perspectives in Nordic Energy. Final report for the fi rst phase of the Nordic Energy Perspectives Project. http://www.nordicenergyperspectives.org/Ten%20perspectives%20introd.pdf

Toivonen, M. (2004), Foresight in Services: Possibilities and Special Challenges, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.79-98

Ylä-Anttila Pekka (2008), Maailmantalous ja Suomi – keskeisiä megatrendejä. Etlatieto 25.8.2008. http://www.tekes.fi /fi /document/42719/412594_maailmantalous_art_pdf


Data sources used in maps & fi gures

NSIs - National statistical institutes:

Danmarks Statistik (Statistics Denmark) - http://www.dst.dk/

Hagstova Føroya (Statistics Faroe Islands) - http://www.hagstova.fo/

Hagstofa Íslands (Statistics Iceland) - http://www.hagstofa.is/

Kalaallit Nunaanni Naatsorsueqqissaartarfi k (Statistics Greenland) - http://www.stat.gl/

Statistiska centralbyrån (Statistics Sweden) - http://www.scb.se/

Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway) - http://www.ssb.no/

Tilastokeskus (Statistics Finland) - http://www.stat.fi /

Eurostat - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home

ILO – International Labour organisation - http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/Statistics/lang--en/index.htm

UNECE – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe - http://www.unece.org/

Homepages

www.statnord.org

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/13/31919215.pdf.

www.orestat.scb.se

www.vgregion.se/grensestatistikk

www.regiondalarna.se/Verksamhet/Vara-projekt/TRUST/

www.nordkalottradet.nu

www.bothnianarc.net

www.tornedalen.org

www.skargarden.com

www.kvarken.org

www.arko-regionen.org

www.oresundskomiteen.dk

www.mittnorden.net

www.granskommitten.com

www.nora.fo

www.regjeringen.no

www.os.is


Technical Annex

The statistical material used in this report was obtained mainly from the National Statistics Institutions (NSIs) of the Nordic Countries and Autonomous Territories. Material from other National Statistical Institutes throughout Europe as well as from Eurostat (the Statistical Offi ce of the European Communities), the OECD and national labour market authorities has also been widely used. In most cases the raw data comes from the stated sources while all of the calculations of indicators, changed rates etc., have been made by Nordregio.

The analysis of regional development trends in terms of population and labour markets is mainly based on the latest available ‘state-of-the-region’ data and change data on timeframes of long-term changes from the 1990s to the short timeframe changes of last year or the last fi ve-years. In the Nordic countries the change data of fi ve-year averages is provided in order to produce a stable and accurate picture. In the smallest municipalities and commuter catchment areas in particular however annual change rates may vary from year to year and therefore changes occurring within a single year may give an inaccurate impression of the regional state. Additional resources have been used in order to render the Nordic and European-level data more comparable between countries. The change data has, in relative terms, been used in calculating the so-called ‘crude’ rates. In most cases the data has been related i.e. to the size of the total population.

Regional Divisions In the Nordic countries four different administrative divisions have been used, namely municipalities, commuter catchment areas, regions (NUTS3) and the national level. All the administrative divisions used in this report are ‘as of ’ 1.1.2010 with the exception of the Icelandic municipality of Arnarneshreppur which was merged into Hörgárbyggð after the Municipality election in June 11, 2010. Changes and mergers between municipalities in recent years across the Nordic countries are therefore already incorporated into all maps and analyses used in this report. In the case of now merged municipalities we have simply added them together for the previous years. In the case of municipalities that have been divided we have used the ratio of them from the fi rst year after the split (separate ratio for each ‘item’), and adjusted this backwards for

the previous years. In this way we have been able to add change rates over time i.e. for Denmark where the new regional structure was introduced on January 1st 2007.

In the West Norden countries the regional representation varies from the other Nordic countries. The commuting catchment areas are not defi ned to these regions and regional values have instead been used. In Iceland two regional divisions have been used; one with eight regions (landafræði) and another one with two regions (NUTS3), depending on data availability. In the Faroe Islands the six Faroese regions (sýsla) are the base unit for the analysis whenever the regional data is available. The municipal division is not used because of data availability issues and the small geographical and demographic size of many municipalities. In Greenland a recent municipal reform in 1.1.2009 reduced the previous 18 municipalities to a total of 4 units. One of these – the municipality of Sermersooq – includes on the one hand the former capital municipality of Nuuk and the two other municipalities on the west coast, and on the other hand the two former East Greenland municipalities, Ittoqqortoormiit and Tasiilaq. The regional differences between the eastern and the western part of Greenland are among the most marked differences in the country – and in the Nordic countries, so it has been advantageous to operate with the eastern and the western part as individual regions in the analysis.

The European regional division is based on NUTS (The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) nomenclature. Based primarily on the administrative divisions currently in force in the Member States, NUTS serves as a reference for the collection of regional statistics and for regional analysis. The data and indicators are mainly shown on NUTS3 level (counties in the Nordic context) though the NUTS 2 -level has also been used in some indicators.

PopulationData for population is as of January 1st for Denmark, Norway and Greenland and as of 31st December for Finland, Sweden, Iceland and the Faroe Islands for the respective year. The total population change is a result of two components: the natural change which is defi ned as the difference between the numbers of live births and deaths, and net migration, which represents the difference between inward and outward migration fl ows.


The migration data includes all migration over municipal boundaries (intra-municipal migration is not included in the statistics). The international migration data is based on national civil registration systems in each country. To be registered as an immigrant a person is intended to live in the country for a specifi c time. This specifi c time is, for Denmark, three months, for Norway six months and for the other Nordic countries 12 months. Due to the existence of these statistical differences between the Nordic countries, migration fl ows between two countries can appear to be unbalanced. This difference in the statistics is solved in two different ways. In the fi gure and analysis of intra-Nordic migration fl ows, the total number of migrants shows the average number of migrants between two named countries. For other international moves the national criteria is used. Another important issue related to international migration is that refugee migration is not separated from i.e. labour immigrants. Therefore some very rural and peripheral areas, like Ånge in Swedish Västernorrland or Kontiolahti in Finnish Pohjois-Karjala appear to be very attractive to immigrants, especially if immigration is measured in terms of immigrants per 1000 inhabitants, while in reality these regions are in fact very unattractive to immigrants. The logic behind this is that when refugees receive their permit to stay, they become registered as immigrants in that municipality/region in which the refugee centre is located. The fi rst thing the refugees do when they have their permit to stay is to move to the larger cities where they can improve their chances of getting a job. It is at that point that they are registered as domestic migrants.

Economic developmentTwo GDP concepts were used in this report: the fi rst, GDP at market prices, shows the fi nal result of the production activity of all producer units within a certain territory, no matter whether the units are owned by nationals or foreigners (Eurostat, 2010); while the second, GDP in PPS (PPS = Purchasing Power Standards) has been employed to make international comparisons of the national/regional production values and to discern their variations. The Purchasing Power Standard (PPS) is an artifi cial reference currency unit that eliminates price level differences between countries. One PPS buys the same volume of goods and services in all countries. This unit allows meaningful volume comparisons of economic indicators across countries. Aggregates expressed in PPS are derived by dividing aggregates in current prices and national currency by the respective Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) (Eurostat,

2010). Trade fi gures were taken from two different sources: in the case of the total value of trade and bilateral trade fl ows between the Nordic Countries, data was obtained from the IMF (International Monetary Fund) database; in the case of total imports and exports by country by sectors, data was obtained from UN-COMTRADE, the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database which uses the so-called SITC classifi cation, accepted by the UN in the analysis of international merchandise trade. For more information and a detailed structure of the SITC classifi cation by sectors and sub-sectors, visit the following link: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=28

Labour marketThe two main sources used for the labour market section include the European Union Labour Force Survey (or EU LFS) and Eurostat’s online datasets and press releases. The EU LFS is a quarterly sample survey across the 27 Member States of the EU and two countries (Norway and Iceland) from EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. It provides annual and quarterly results on the labour participation of persons aged 15+ and also registers persons outside the workforce and their characteristics. The sample covers population in private households and provides data on employment, unemployment and inactivity representing an important resource in respect of the current situation and trends pertaining to the various European labour markets. The national statistical institutions are responsible for conducting the sample, selecting and preparing the questionnaires, driving the interviews among households and forwarding the results to Eurostat in accordance with the common coding scheme. Each of the national statistics institutions publishes the results on a monthly basis. The samples are also published annually in order to make regional estimates even though margins of error might exist.

At the national level, fi gures were obtained from Eurostat and confi rmed with NSIs data. The quarterly EU LFS also forms the basis for Eurostat’s own calculation of monthly unemployment fi gures, complemented either by monthly estimates of the unemployment rates or from additional sources such as the unemployment register. The resulting harmonised fi gures are published in the form of news releases in the online database67. The latest annual fi gures correspond to 2009 according to Eurostat’s newsletter 25/2010 recently published (July 2010). Data on employment and unemployment rates in general, national youth unemployment, long term-unemployment, immigrant unemployment as well as employment by occupation/

67 Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction


skills was obtained from this source. Regional fi gures for Nordic NUTS2 regions

regarding youth and long-term unemployment shares and rates were obtained from Eurostat’s LFS databases and correspond to the latest annual averages registered in 2008. Regional fi gures for the qualifi cations of the labour force (persons with tertiary level education ISCED 5-6) and national fi gures for life-long learning were also obtained by Eurostat’s Labour Force Survey adjusted series.

When it comes to unemployment at the municipal level, data was collected from the Nordic countries’ system of register-based labour markets available from the national labour market authorities. This includes public databases from Arbetsförmedlingen (Sweden), Employment and Economy Ministry (Finland), regional offi ces newsletters of NAV or The Norwegian Welfare and Labour Administration (Norway), Vinnumálastofnun (Iceland) and the Register-based Labour Force Statistics (RAS) of Statistics Denmark. Data for the Faroe Islands and Greenland was obtained directly from the LFS’s registers from the national statistics institutions. In the case of Greenland, unemployment corresponds to fi gures registered only in villages.

Other supporting sources include the ILO (International Labour Organisation) and UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe).

With effect from January 2006, some changes were made in the Norwegian Labour Force Survey (LFS) following International Labour Organisation (ILO) recommendations. The changes improve the level of comparability with other EU countries and consist of some minor revisions in defi nitions, adjustments to questions about working hours, and the classifi cation of lay-offs and of lowering the lower age limit from 16 to 15 years (Statistics Norway). Statistics Denmark adjusted the unemployment statistics as from the publication of unemployment fi gures for January 2008. The underlying primary data has been edited and changes made to the concept of unemployment, which implies that the Danish concept of unemployment is now closer to the defi nition of unemployment applied by the ILO. All changes have been backdated to the year 2000 (Statistics Denmark). In October 2007 Statistics Sweden introduced some changes in relation to measuring unemployment in accordance with the international standards of the LFS. Previous to this change, people who have been studying full-time at any time during the three weeks before the reference week have been classifi ed as ‘not in the labour force’ instead of as simply ‘unemployed’ (Statistics Sweden). Statistics Finland also revised the data content and data collection method of the LFS from the beginning of 2002 to comply with the EU Regulation concerning the LFS. The data content was extended and some defi nitions

of concepts were revised. For example the defi nition of ‘employed’ is revised as regards persons who were absent from work during the survey week (Statistics Finland).

Commuter catchment areasIn Denmark, Finland and Sweden the given regional divisions of commuter catchment areas are based on existing national defi nitions of the regions. Each of these commuter catchment areas includes simultaneously several municipalities from different NUTS 3 regions (i.e. län in Sweden or fylke in Norway) including also municipalities not necessarily adjacent to the main regional centre but rather those with a commuting relation with it.

When defi ning commuter catchment areas a number of important steps have to be followed. In step 1 there is a defi nition of self-standing or independent municipalities containing a regional centre. Those municipalities should have a) a total share of out commuters under 20% of the total number of employees of the municipality and b) an individual share of commuters to other municipalities under 7.5%. In step 2 there is a defi nition of which local centre the non-independent municipalities belong to. This is defi ned according to the municipality to which the largest commuting fl ow is directed. And in step 3 there is a defi nition of multi-core areas where more than one regional centre is identifi ed; that is municipalities with connections with several other municipalities. An example of this is the multi-core commuter catchment area of Stockholm-Solna, divided between three different sub-local market areas where Uppsala, Södertälje and Stockholm act as main centres in its respective sub-area with commuting from surrounding municipalities. In total there are 36 municipalities in this commuter catchment area (5 depending on Södertälje, 6 on Uppsala and 25 on Stockholm-Solna). In Norway the commuter catchment areas are defi ned on the basis of these three steps and commuting data from 2009.

Regional typologies A Nordic regional typology is used in this report as a spatial analytical tool to distinguish regional development trends between different types of regions in a Nordic comparable manner. The typology includes (1) Nordic capital regions; (2) Other Nordic metropolises; (3) Nordic regional centres with a university; (4) Other Nordic regional centres and (5) Nordic medium-sized towns. The approach is built on the size of the LLM (Local Labour Markets) in population numbers refl ecting the range of variation in four Nordic countries leading to a classifi cation of


Metropoles, Regional centres and Medium-sized towns. Factors considered here include population density, the number and density of localities within each of them and distance to neighbouring LLM’s.

The location of universities as sources of knowledge production and enhancement of human resources and the primary characteristic function of the region (in terms of the range of services provided) leads to the categories, Nordic regional centres with university and Other Nordic regional centres. To show further results in a more detailed way, some sub-categories were created, including exclusively core areas in the case of capital regions and metropoles as often core areas have different patterns when extracted from their regional surroundings.


Annex of fi gures


Figure 43: Dominant branch of employment in Nordic Local Labour Market Areas


Figure 44: Total age dependency 2010


Figure 45: Young age dependency 2010


Figure 46: Old age dependency rate 2010


Figure 47: Domestic net migration 2005-2009


Figure 48: Natural population change 2005-2009


Figure 49: Gross domestic product per capita and productivity in 2007


Figure 50: Regions and municipalities in the Nordic Countries in 2010


Demographic and economic indicators for Nordic regions and municipalities 2010Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.

Region Population Area Population GDP 2007 Municipality Number density

2010 0-14 15-64 65+ Total Young Old Persons,annual

average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)

EU27 497 670 577 4 231 551 118 15 64 20 55 23 32 1 991 616 4.0 3.1 1.0 213 883 000 64.6 9.0 100Nordic Countries 25 507 906 1 579 694 16 17 66 17 52 26 25 170 943 6.7 4.5 2.2 12 450 616 74.2 6.8 132

GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100

Population structure 2010 Population change 2005-2010 Labour market 2009Age composition Age dep. Ratio (3) Total change Net

migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average

Employment Unempl.rate

DENMARK - DANMARK (excl. Faroe Islands and Greenland)

Whole country 5 534 738 43 098 128 18 65 16 52 28 25 24 668 4.5 3.3 1.0 2 776 000 76.5 6.0 117

678 873 180 3 769 15 73 12 37 21 16 7 116 9.6 5.1 5.8 367 086 74.3 7.4 170155 Dragør 13 564 18 748 19 61 20 65 32 33 83 6.1 7.3 -1.1 6 919 84.2 3.7147 Frederiksberg 96 718 9 11 028 15 69 16 45 22 23 1 093 10.2 7.2 4.5 52 207 78.2 5.6101 København 528 208 88 5 985 15 74 10 34 20 14 5 769 10.0 4.6 6.7 287 067 73.0 7.8185 Tårnby 40 383 65 622 18 64 17 55 28 27 171 4.0 5.2 -0.9 20 893 80.4 7.1

512 692 340 1 508 19 64 17 55 29 26 1 908 3.2 2.6 1.1 261 414 79.2 5.4 102165 Albertslund 27 730 23 1 204 20 67 14 50 29 20 -73 -3.0 -7.4 4.7 13 719 74.0 9.2151 Ballerup 47 652 34 1 398 19 63 19 59 30 30 184 3.8 2.5 1.4 23 848 79.6 3.8153 Brøndby 33 795 21 1 637 18 64 18 55 27 28 -133 -4.2 -4.6 0.7 16 403 75.4 6.6157 Gentofte 71 052 26 2 782 20 63 18 59 31 28 460 5.9 6.5 0.2 35 813 80.1 3.8159 Gladsaxe 64 102 25 2 564 19 65 16 54 29 25 440 6.6 6.1 1.0 32 399 77.7 6.5161 Glostrup 21 296 13 1 600 17 65 18 54 26 28 107 4.9 5.1 0.1 11 086 80.0 5.9163 Herlev 26 556 12 2 206 18 64 18 57 28 29 -116 -4.5 -1.5 -2.8 13 698 81.0 4.7167 Hvidovre 49 724 22 2 269 18 65 16 54 28 25 10 -0.6 -0.9 1.1 26 285 81.2 4.1169 Høje-Taastrup 47 664 78 608 20 66 14 52 30 22 446 9.1 4.6 4.9 24 899 79.3 7.5183 Ishøj 20 606 26 794 20 68 12 47 29 18 -6 -0.6 -6.3 6.0 10 662 76.1 9.5173 Lyngby-Taarbæk 52 237 39 1 344 18 63 19 58 28 30 234 2.4 6.7 -2.2 26 751 81.1 3.6175 Rødovre 36 233 12 2 990 18 64 19 57 28 29 0 -0.4 -0.4 0.4 18 797 81.5 4.7187 Vallensbæk 14 045 9 1 535 20 64 16 56 32 24 356 27.2 23.8 4.1 7 054 78.3 2.8

Region Hovedstaden - Bornholm 42 154 588 72 16 63 22 60 25 35 -233 -5.6 -0.3 -5.1 18 800 71.3 9.6 90400 Bornholm 42 154 588 72 16 63 22 60 25 35 -233 -5.6 -0.3 -5.1 18 800 71.3 9.6

446 451 1 459 306 20 62 18 61 32 29 2 135 4.5 3.9 1.0 229 500 82.6 4.4 102201 Allerød 24 089 67 357 22 62 16 62 36 26 125.8 5.3 1.3 4.0 12 908 86.7 3.0240 Egedal 41 513 73 566 22 64 14 57 35 22 463.0 11.1 5.4 6.0 23 130 87.6 1.9210 Fredensborg 39 226 112 350 20 64 16 57 31 26 15.2 0.2 -0.5 0.9 20 820 83.3 3.1

Region Hovedstaden - København by

Region Hovedstaden - Københavns omegn

Region Hovedstaden - Nordsjælland


Footnotes at the end of the table. For methodological issues consult the technical notes.



average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


250 Frederikssund* 44 182 126 351 19 63 18 60 31 29 261.0 5.7 4.8 1.2 23 444 84.8 3.9190 Furesø 38 232 57 675 21 61 18 64 34 29 196.2 4.9 4.0 1.2 19 104 81.7 5.4270 Gribskov 40 694 280 145 18 63 19 59 29 30 77.8 1.4 2.7 -0.8 20 978 82.0 5.1260 Halsnæs 31 077 255 122 18 63 19 58 28 30 168.6 5.4 6.0 -0.6 15 758 80.3 4.7217 Helsingør 61 143 121 505 19 63 19 59 30 30 -4.0 -0.5 0.6 -0.7 29 828 77.8 6.7219 Hillerød* 47 473 122 390 21 63 16 58 33 25 585.0 12.8 8.8 3.9 24 954 83.0 4.8223 Hørsholm 24 378 214 114 19 59 23 70 32 39 23.4 0.7 3.1 -2.2 11 966 83.6 4.6230 Rudersdal 54 444 31 1 735 20 60 20 67 33 34 222.6 3.0 5.5 -1.3 26 609 81.5 3.8

Region Sjælland - Østsjælland 234 574 965 243 20 64 16 55 31 25 1 233 5.1 2.6 2.7 121 000 80.2 4.3 94253 Greve 47 826 249 192 20 64 16 56 31 25 41 0.6 -1.8 2.7 24 732 80.8 5.3259 Køge 57 125 60 949 20 64 16 56 31 24 448 7.9 5.2 2.7 29 175 79.6 4.0350 Lejre 26 794 405 66 21 63 16 58 33 25 176 6.2 3.5 3.2 14 031 82.9 3.9265 Roskilde 81 947 212 387 19 65 16 54 29 25 534 6.2 4.6 2.0 42 118 79.1 3.9269 Solrød 20 882 40 522 21 64 15 56 33 23 33 1.7 -2.9 4.5 10 945 81.6 5.5

585 990 6 301 93 18 64 18 56 27 29 1 857 3.0 4.9 -1.7 279 800 74.6 5.6 91320 Faxe 35 306 604 58 19 64 17 56 29 26 207 5.7 6.1 -0.2 17 868 78.7 4.8376 Guldborgsund 62 912 903 70 16 63 21 58 25 34 -115 -2.0 3.8 -5.6 29 031 73.1 4.3316 Holbæk 69 550 579 120 19 65 16 53 29 24 619 8.6 7.5 1.5 34 745 76.6 4.9326 Kalundborg 49 265 295 167 18 64 18 56 28 28 122 2.3 3.5 -1.0 23 887 75.8 4.3360 Lolland 46 984 892 53 15 62 23 61 24 37 -499 -10.3 -2.6 -7.7 19 405 66.3 8.8370 Næstved 81 112 684 119 18 65 17 54 28 26 541 6.7 6.5 0.2 40 054 75.9 5.9306 Odsherred 33 030 355 93 16 62 22 62 25 36 61 1.8 6.7 -4.8 14 976 73.3 4.6329 Ringsted 32 584 567 57 20 66 15 52 30 22 355 11.1 8.4 2.8 16 736 78.2 3.9330 Slagelse 77 475 250 310 18 65 18 55 27 27 264 3.4 4.0 -0.5 36 007 71.8 9.1340 Sorø 29 522 240 123 19 64 17 56 30 26 245 8.2 8.6 -0.1 14 640 77.4 3.8336 Stevns 21 931 310 71 18 63 19 58 28 30 44 1.4 3.0 -1.0 11 142 80.1 3.7390 Vordingborg 46 319 621 75 17 62 21 60 27 33 12 0.1 4.5 -4.2 21 309 73.7 5.2

Region Syddanmark - Fyn 484 862 3 486 139 18 65 18 54 27 27 1 810 3.4 3.3 0.4 228 200 72.7 6.7 102492 Ærø 6 679 90 74 13 59 28 69 22 47 -50 -7.6 4.5 -11.8 2 709 68.6 7.3420 Assens 42 054 512 82 19 63 18 58 30 28 184 4.1 4.8 -0.4 19 957 75.1 6.5430 Faaborg-Midtfyn 52 085 637 82 18 63 19 60 29 31 192 3.6 4.7 -1.0 24 502 75.2 5.2440 Kerteminde 23 770 206 115 18 62 19 61 30 31 153 6.0 7.8 -1.3 11 221 76.1 5.9482 Langeland 13 510 291 46 13 60 26 66 22 43 -139 -10.3 -1.4 -8.7 5 466 67.0 11.4410 Middelfart 37 661 300 126 19 63 18 59 31 28 325 8.4 8.8 0.0 18 429 77.9 4.1

Region Sjælland - Vest- og Sydsjælland


480 Nordfyns* 29 638 452 66 19 63 18 58 30 28 205 6.7 6.6 0.4 14 212 75.8 7.1450 Nyborg 31 690 276 115 18 63 19 60 29 31 144 4.3 5.7 -1.1 14 833 74.8 5.4461 Odense 188 777 304 620 17 68 15 48 25 23 646 3.1 0.4 3.0 89 732 70.3 7.5479 Svendborg 58 998 417 142 17 65 18 54 26 28 151 2.2 3.2 -0.6 27 139 71.0 7.2

Region Syddanmark - Sydjylland 715 415 8 720 82 19 64 17 56 29 27 1 880 2.3 1.5 1.1 351 400 76.4 5.7 120580 Aabenraa 59 978 942 64 18 64 18 56 29 28 -6 -0.6 0.2 -0.3 28 062 73.2 8.4530 Billund 26 160 537 49 19 64 17 57 30 27 35 0.6 0.1 1.2 13 194 79.2 5.7561 Esbjerg* 115 114 791 146 18 66 16 51 27 24 95 0.8 -0.6 1.4 56 461 74.1 5.6563 Fanø 3 219 56 58 15 62 22 61 25 36 11 4.3 8.6 -5.1 1 560 78.0 5.8607 Fredericia 49 849 134 371 18 64 17 55 29 27 151 2.8 2.6 0.5 23 941 74.5 7.4510 Haderslev* 56 346 813 69 18 64 18 56 28 28 9 -0.1 0.4 -0.3 26 801 74.3 8.3621 Kolding* 89 071 612 146 19 65 16 53 29 24 639 6.7 4.0 3.3 45 769 78.6 4.1540 Sønderborg 76 439 497 154 18 62 20 61 29 32 55 -0.1 0.8 0.0 35 657 74.9 6.3550 Tønder* 39 710 1 252 32 17 64 19 57 27 30 -260 -7.0 -3.7 -2.7 18 622 73.7 8.9573 Varde* 50 378 1 208 42 19 63 17 58 30 28 66 1.1 0.1 1.2 25 707 80.6 3.7575 Vejen 42 768 814 53 20 63 17 59 32 27 287 6.7 5.0 1.8 21 663 80.5 2.2630 Vejle* 106 383 1 066 100 20 64 16 55 31 25 797 7.7 4.8 2.9 53 964 78.7 4.1

Region Midtjylland - Vestjylland 427 075 7 217 59 19 64 16 56 30 26 1 579 3.4 1.5 2.2 204 200 74.4 11.0 120657 Herning 85 548 1 324 65 19 65 15 53 30 23 546 6.2 2.9 3.6 41 226 73.8 10.5661 Holstebro 57 056 800 71 19 65 16 54 29 25 192 3.0 0.8 2.6 28 343 76.5 9.1756 Ikast-Brande 40 312 736 55 20 64 16 56 31 25 200 4.7 2.6 2.4 18 817 72.6 13.0665 Lemvig 21 790 508 43 18 63 19 60 29 31 -187 -8.7 -6.4 -2.1 10 234 74.9 10.9760 Ringkøbing-Skjern 58 439 1 489 39 20 63 17 58 31 27 148 2.1 0.9 1.6 28 438 76.9 10.1779 Skive 48 137 691 70 18 64 18 57 29 28 -32 -1.0 -1.1 0.5 21 997 71.8 13.5671 Struer 22 483 251 90 19 63 18 58 30 28 -52 -2.4 -2.2 -0.1 10 631 74.5 10.8791 Viborg* 93 310 1 419 66 20 65 16 55 30 25 764 8.0 4.7 3.6 44 514 73.9 11.2

Region Midtjylland - Østjylland 826 923 5 892 140 19 67 15 50 28 22 7 417 8.4 5.7 3.5 431 600 78.3 3.1 113710 Favrskov* 46 529 541 86 22 64 14 57 35 22 573 12.2 7.3 5.4 24 775 83.8 2.1766 Hedensted* 45 982 552 83 21 63 16 58 33 25 490 10.8 7.9 2.9 24 787 85.3 1.3615 Horsens* 81 957 515 159 19 66 15 52 29 23 1 162 13.4 11.4 3.2 42 674 78.9 2.5707 Norddjurs* 38 148 721 53 17 64 19 56 26 30 -27 -1.2 2.3 -3.0 19 062 78.0 3.4727 Odder 21 721 225 96 19 63 17 58 31 27 123 5.5 4.6 1.1 11 261 81.8 2.5730 Randers* 94 750 731 130 18 65 17 54 28 26 559 6.1 5.4 0.6 48 331 78.8 2.8741 Samsø 4 010 114 35 15 60 26 67 25 43 -21 -5.7 4.4 -9.6 1 794 74.9 6.7740 Silkeborg 88 481 865 102 20 65 15 55 31 24 899 10.0 6.6 3.8 46 896 82.1 2.2746 Skanderborg* 57 303 462 124 22 64 13 56 35 21 650 11.4 6.1 5.6 30 743 83.4 2.1706 Syddjurs 41 392 696 59 19 63 19 60 30 30 266 5.9 6.8 -0.3 20 682 79.8 4.0751 Århus 306 650 469 654 17 71 13 42 24 18 2 742 7.8 3.6 5.5 160 596 74.2 4.0

Region Nordjylland - Nordjylland 579 628 7 949 73 18 65 18 54 27 27 658 0.8 0.9 0.2 283 000 75.2 7.0 110810 Brønderslev 35 804 633 57 19 63 18 59 30 29 98 2.7 2.0 0.8 16 592 73.9 9.7813 Frederikshavn 62 007 649 96 16 63 20 58 26 32 -351 -5.7 -3.1 -2.5 29 777 75.8 8.2860 Hjørring 66 803 930 72 18 64 18 57 28 29 -196 -3.0 -2.4 -0.5 31 954 74.9 8.4849 Jammerbugt 38 927 873 45 19 63 18 58 29 29 14 0.2 -0.2 0.6 19 020 77.2 6.6825 Læsø 1 969 114 17 13 59 28 70 22 48 -34 -17.1 -7.5 -9.2 735 63.4 25.4846 Mariagerfjord* 42 604 736 58 18 64 17 56 29 27 111 2.0 3.0 -0.4 21 121 77.3 5.7773 Morsø 21 833 368 59 17 63 20 59 27 32 -131 -5.8 -2.6 -3.3 10 514 76.5 5.4840 Rebild* 28 852 625 46 21 64 16 57 33 25 111 3.5 1.0 2.9 15 138 82.5 4.0787 Thisted 45 297 1 102 41 18 64 18 57 28 29 -164 -3.8 -2.5 -1.1 22 687 78.6 5.4820 Vesthimmerland* 38 106 776 49 18 63 19 58 29 29 60 1.6 2.4 -0.8 18 601 77.4 7.0851 Ålborg 197 426 1 144 173 17 68 16 48 24 23 1 141 5.2 3.9 2.0 96 863 72.5 6.7

411 Christiansø 101 0.22 459 23 66 11 51 34 16 1 6.0 12.5 0.0 : : :





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


THE FAROE ISLANDS - FØROYAR - FÆRØERNE

Whole country 48 778 1 396 35 22 64 14 57 34 22 88 1.3 -3.7 5.6 26 420 84.9 5.2 82

Norðoy 5 878 241 24 22 64 16 58 34 24 -20 -3.9 -7.1 3.8 2 880 76.1 8.6Eysturoy 10 826 285 38 22 64 14 57 35 22 23 1.7 -3.5 5.6 5 810 83.9 4.8Streymoy 22 717 391 58 23 64 13 55 35 20 116 4.6 -2.7 7.9 13 010 89.5 3.5Vágar 3 081 187 16 22 62 16 62 36 26 36 11.5 6.5 5.5 1 530 80.4 8.9Sandoy 1 385 125 11 21 63 19 64 33 31 -15 -11.5 -9.3 -1.0 630 71.8 6.0Suðuroy 4 763 167 29 19 65 17 56 30 27 -53 -11.1 -9.7 -1.1 2 560 82.6 8.6

GREENLAND - KALAALLIT NUNAAT - GRØNLAND

Whole country 56 452 2 415 100 <0.5 23 70 7 42 32 10 -103 -1.8 -8.8 7.0 25 796 64.8 7.4 74

Qaasuitsup Kommunia 17 749 68 400 <0.5 24 68 8 46 35 12 -159 -8.7 -15.3 6.5 7 599 62.6 8.3Qeqqata Kommunia 9 677 34 000 <0.5 22 70 7 42 32 10 -1 -0.4 -9.3 9.2 4 650 68.2 6.6Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq, West 17 737 25 000 1 21 74 5 35 28 7 163 8.4 1.7 7.8 8 808 67.1 4.8Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq, East 3 495 66 000 <0.5 31 64 5 56 49 8 -16 -4.6 -15.9 11.3 1 260 56.4 8.9Kommune Kujalleq 7 589 13 500 1 22 69 9 44 31 13 -58 -7.9 -12.2 4.6 3 479 66.1 11.9Kommuneqarfiit avataanni 205 203 549 <0.5 0 99 1 1 0 1 -9 -42.0 -36.6 -4.5 : : :

FINLAND - SUOMI

Whole country 5 351 427 303 899 18 17 66 17 51 25 26 22 830 4.3 2.4 1.9 2 457 299 69.2 8.3 111

1 423 576 6 395 223 17 70 13 43 24 19 14 794 11.1 5.5 5.2 733 092 73.8 6.3 16249 Espoo - Esbo 244 330 312 783 20 70 11 44 28 16 3 328 14.3 4.4 9.7 128 175 75.5 5.378 Hanko - Hangö 9 597 117 82 15 64 21 55 23 32 -63 -6.3 -4.7 -1.8 4 564 73.8 10.191 Helsinki - Helsingfors* 583 350 213 2 739 14 72 15 39 19 20 4 433 7.8 5.4 2.4 303 266 72.3 6.7106 Hyvinkää 45 270 323 140 17 67 16 49 26 23 353 7.9 5.0 2.9 22 060 72.8 7.0149 Ingå - Inkoo 5 609 350 16 19 64 17 55 29 27 91 17.0 15.6 1.3 2 717 75.3 4.5186 Järvenpää 38 708 38 1 030 18 70 11 42 26 16 275 7.3 0.5 6.7 20 241 74.2 6.5223 Karjalohja 1 504 121 12 18 61 21 63 29 34 2 1.7 6.5 -5.0 674 73.0 5.9

Uudenmaan maakunta - Landskapet Nyland


224 Karkkila 9 109 242 38 17 65 18 54 26 28 61 6.9 7.3 -0.5 4 318 73.2 7.8235 Kauniainen - Grankulla 8 617 6 1 465 19 63 18 59 30 29 31 3.6 2.7 0.9 3 879 71.7 3.8245 Kerava 33 833 31 1 105 17 70 13 43 25 18 494 15.2 8.8 6.3 17 927 75.7 5.6257 Kirkkonummi - Kyrkslätt 36 509 366 100 23 67 10 50 35 15 739 21.6 11.6 9.7 18 467 75.8 5.7444 Lohja - Lojo 39 334 349 113 19 66 15 52 28 23 373 9.8 6.6 3.1 19 238 74.1 6.9505 Mäntsälä 19 747 581 34 22 64 13 55 35 21 373 19.7 13.8 6.1 9 436 74.2 5.3540 Nummi-Pusula 6 125 468 13 17 63 19 58 28 30 42 7.1 7.0 -0.1 2 746 70.9 6.7543 Nurmijärvi 39 628 362 110 24 65 11 53 36 17 614 16.1 7.8 8.3 20 022 77.2 4.0611 Pornainen 5 067 147 35 26 63 10 58 42 16 100 20.7 11.0 9.6 2 410 75.2 4.4710 Raseborg - Raasepori 28 944 1 148 25 16 63 20 58 26 32 109 3.7 5.3 -1.5 13 340 72.8 7.3755 Siuntio - Sjundeå 6 024 241 25 22 66 12 51 33 17 143 25.2 17.6 7.7 3 036 76.0 4.1858 Tuusula 36 766 220 167 22 67 11 50 33 17 448 12.6 6.4 6.1 18 704 76.1 4.492 Vantaa - Vanda 197 636 238 829 18 70 12 43 26 16 2 383 12.8 4.0 8.4 103 949 75.0 7.3927 Vihti 27 869 522 53 21 67 12 49 31 18 467 17.3 10.9 6.5 13 922 74.6 6.0

93 966 2 736 34 18 66 16 53 28 25 732 3.3 5.7 2.1 47 533 77.2 4.4 12118 Askola 4 831 212 23 21 66 13 51 31 20 60 12.9 9.8 3.1 2 473 77.4 4.2407 Lapinjärvi - Lappträsk 2 926 330 9 15 63 22 58 24 34 -11 -3.6 1.8 -5.4 1 336 72.1 4.9434 Loviisa - Lovisa 15 549 854 18 15 64 21 57 24 33 9 -1.5 3.4 -2.9 7 629 77.2 5.2504 Myrskylä - Mörskom 2 021 200 10 17 62 21 61 27 34 -3 -1.5 1.9 -3.4 929 74.1 5.2638 Porvoo - Borgå 48 599 655 74 18 67 15 50 27 22 362 7.6 3.9 3.6 24 998 77.0 4.7616 Pukkila 2 004 145 14 20 62 18 62 32 30 3 1.2 1.0 0.4 969 78.3 3.6753 Sipoo - Sibbo* 18 036 340 53 21 65 14 54 33 22 312 16.8 12.6 4.2 9 199 78.8 2.9

462 914 10 663 43 16 66 18 51 24 27 1 844 4.0 3.3 0.7 219 491 71.7 7.4 11619 Aura 3 840 95 40 21 66 14 53 32 21 43 11.8 5.4 6.1 1 909 75.9 6.1202 Kaarina 30 760 150 205 20 65 15 53 30 22 470 15.9 10.1 5.7 15 004 74.6 5.0322 Kimitoön - Kemiönsaari 7 298 687 11 14 61 25 65 23 42 -39 -5.2 2.5 -7.8 3 265 73.8 4.9284 Koski Tl 2 450 191 13 15 59 26 69 25 44 -18 -7.6 -0.2 -7.0 1 089 75.1 5.2304 Kustavi 881 166 5 12 60 28 65 19 46 -12 -13.2 -2.8 -10.3 399 75.0 5.4400 Laitila 8 442 532 16 17 63 20 59 27 32 -25 -3.0 -3.1 0.2 3 936 74.1 6.1423 Lieto 16 011 199 81 22 65 14 55 33 21 199 13.0 7.5 5.3 7 840 75.7 4.3430 Loimaa 17 005 848 20 15 62 23 61 24 36 -72 -4.2 -0.1 -4.1 7 571 71.6 7.5445 Väst-Åboland - Länsi-Turunmaa 15 490 882 18 17 63 20 58 27 31 42 2.7 4.9 -2.2 7 375 75.4 4.6480 Marttila 2 019 195 10 16 62 22 62 25 36 -16 -7.6 -1.9 -5.7 968 77.4 5.3481 Masku 9 516 203 47 23 65 13 54 35 19 218 24.7 18.8 5.5 4 641 75.3 4.5503 Mynämäki 8 039 520 15 17 63 19 58 28 30 -2 -0.2 1.1 -1.4 3 807 74.6 5.4529 Naantali 18 544 283 65 18 66 16 52 27 25 192 10.9 8.7 1.9 9 038 74.0 5.3538 Nousiainen 4 824 199 24 22 65 14 55 33 22 79 17.3 10.9 6.0 2 378 76.3 4.6561 Oripää 1 403 118 12 19 60 21 68 32 35 12 8.7 8.7 0.0 640 76.4 6.4577 Paimio 10 334 238 43 18 66 16 50 27 23 104 10.4 7.9 2.5 5 120 74.6 4.0631 Pyhäranta 2 233 143 16 16 64 20 56 25 31 -4 -1.6 1.3 -2.9 1 069 74.7 6.1636 Pöytyä 8 459 750 11 18 62 20 62 30 32 22 2.9 4.5 -1.9 3 831 73.3 6.1680 Raisio 24 191 49 497 17 66 17 51 26 25 124 5.0 2.1 3.1 12 027 74.9 6.1704 Rusko 5 822 127 46 22 65 13 53 33 19 47 7.8 4.1 4.2 2 885 75.8 5.2734 Salo 54 889 1 987 28 17 64 19 56 26 30 327 6.1 5.3 0.7 25 618 72.6 8.6738 Sauvo 3 040 253 12 17 65 18 55 27 28 28 9.7 11.2 -1.8 1 412 71.9 3.5761 Somero 9 402 668 14 15 59 26 69 26 43 -58 -5.9 -1.8 -4.3 4 042 72.7 7.2833 Taivassalo 1 692 140 12 12 62 25 61 20 41 -13 -8.1 -1.2 -6.1 771 73.3 5.2838 Tarvasjoki 1 970 102 19 21 62 17 62 34 28 7 3.0 5.4 -2.1 899 74.0 5.5

Itä-Uudenmaan maakunta - Landskapet Östra Nyland

Varsinais-Suomen maakunta - Landskapet Egentliga Finland





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


853 Turku - Åbo 176 087 246 717 13 69 18 44 19 26 276 1.4 0.9 0.6 83 537 68.5 9.4895 Uusikaupunki 15 873 503 32 14 66 20 52 22 30 -77 -4.8 -3.7 -1.1 7 322 70.1 7.6918 Vehmaa 2 400 189 13 16 62 22 61 26 35 -10 -4.0 -1.5 -2.5 1 093 73.2 5.2

227 386 7 957 29 15 64 21 56 24 32 -665 -2.7 -1.5 -1.2 102 159 70.2 8.3 10450 Eura 12 554 579 22 17 62 22 62 27 35 -50 -3.8 -2.6 -1.4 5 699 73.6 5.151 Eurajoki 5 874 345 17 18 64 18 57 28 29 16 2.7 1.1 1.6 2 681 71.6 6.879 Harjavalta 7 548 123 61 15 62 23 61 24 36 -40 -5.2 -2.7 -2.5 3 309 70.4 8.199 Honkajoki 1 889 331 6 13 65 22 54 21 33 -28 -13.7 -7.1 -7.0 874 71.4 7.4102 Huittinen 10 700 533 20 15 63 22 58 23 35 -30 -2.8 0.4 -3.2 4 749 70.2 6.4181 Jämijärvi 2 063 214 10 16 60 24 66 27 39 -33 -15.2 -11.2 -4.2 918 73.7 8.6214 Kankaanpää 12 224 690 18 15 66 19 52 24 29 -93 -7.5 -6.5 -1.0 5 574 69.4 9.4230 Karvia 2 672 502 5 14 60 26 66 23 43 -41 -14.6 -7.0 -7.9 1 166 72.3 9.7254 Kiikoinen 1 270 138 9 16 60 24 68 27 41 -8 -6.7 -0.3 -5.7 529 70.0 9.8271 Kokemäki 8 080 481 17 14 62 24 61 23 38 -68 -8.2 -3.8 -4.4 3 478 69.3 8.0319 Köyliö 2 852 246 12 16 62 23 62 26 37 -21 -6.9 -3.4 -3.7 1 311 74.6 4.4413 Lavia 2 058 321 6 12 60 27 66 20 45 -31 -15.0 -4.5 -10.1 837 67.4 9.8442 Luvia 3 315 169 20 17 63 19 58 27 30 2 0.5 -1.6 2.1 1 488 70.8 7.2484 Merikarvia 3 411 446 8 13 59 28 70 23 47 -46 -13.5 -5.0 -8.2 1 302 64.9 10.5531 Nakkila 5 716 183 31 17 62 20 60 28 33 -29 -4.9 -4.2 -0.8 2 494 70.0 8.8608 Pomarkku 2 482 301 8 16 59 25 70 28 42 -18 -7.6 -2.6 -4.7 1 007 69.1 9.6609 Pori 82 786 834 99 15 65 20 54 23 31 108 1.2 1.7 -0.4 36 486 68.0 9.4684 Rauma 39 793 496 80 15 66 19 53 23 29 -136 -3.3 -3.7 0.3 18 918 72.6 8.2747 Siikainen 1 686 463 4 14 58 28 73 25 48 -26 -14.9 -7.9 -7.1 683 70.1 11.8783 Säkylä 4 721 161 29 15 64 21 56 23 33 -43 -8.7 -5.8 -3.0 2 329 76.8 3.9886 Ulvila 13 692 401 34 18 64 18 57 28 29 -49 -3.5 -5.0 1.5 6 327 72.5 7.7

173 828 5 200 33 17 65 18 55 26 29 1 237 7.3 7.1 0.19 77 676 69.1 7.5 9261 Forssa 17 807 249 72 14 65 21 55 22 33 -55 -3.0 -1.0 -2.1 7 694 66.9 11.382 Hattula 9 625 358 27 19 66 15 52 29 23 72 7.3 5.1 2.5 4 426 70.1 5.986 Hausjärvi 8 826 356 25 20 65 15 54 31 24 65 11.3 5.7 1.9 4 021 70.4 5.4103 Humppila 2 524 148 17 17 62 21 61 28 33 -14 -5.5 -3.8 -1.8 1 131 72.1 9.4109 Hämeenlinna 66 455 1 820 37 16 65 20 55 24 31 496 7.2 7.8 -0.2 29 414 68.5 7.4165 Janakkala 16 795 547 31 19 63 18 58 30 28 225 14.0 13.8 0.0 7 477 70.2 6.7

Satakunnan maakunta - Landskapet Satakunda

Kanta-Hämeen maakunta - Landskapet Egentliga Tavastland


169 Jokioinen 5 753 180 32 19 63 17 58 30 28 2 0.8 -1.9 2.3 2 648 72.7 7.5433 Loppi 8 244 598 14 20 62 18 60 32 28 84 10.5 10.3 0.1 3 653 70.9 5.6694 Riihimäki 28 587 121 236 17 67 16 50 26 24 351 12.6 10.7 1.9 13 119 68.8 7.6834 Tammela 6 628 640 10 18 63 19 60 30 30 30 4.4 5.2 -0.7 2 931 70.6 6.9981 Ypäjä 2 584 183 14 15 64 20 56 24 32 -18 -7.1 -1.6 -5.3 1 163 70.1 8.7

484 436 12 447 39 16 67 17 50 25 26 4 123 9.2 6.5 2.7 219 220 68.0 9.7 11320 Akaa 16 858 293 58 19 64 17 56 29 27 103 6.4 5.3 0.9 7 435 68.9 10.5108 Hämeenkyrö 10 436 464 23 18 63 18 58 29 29 66 6.8 7.2 -0.7 4 428 67.0 9.9143 Ikaalinen 7 424 750 10 14 63 23 58 22 36 -26 -3.9 1.1 -4.6 3 200 68.3 8.1177 Juupajoki 2 116 258 8 16 61 23 64 27 37 -31 -14.5 -10.3 -4.0 919 71.2 9.5211 Kangasala 29 522 658 45 20 64 15 55 32 24 441 15.6 9.1 6.4 13 665 71.9 7.0250 Kihniö 2 257 357 6 13 63 24 59 21 38 -21 -9.4 -4.9 -4.3 929 65.5 8.9418 Lempäälä 20 178 269 75 23 65 13 55 35 19 490 25.8 17.0 8.8 9 256 71.0 7.5508 Mänttä-Vilppula 11 496 534 22 14 62 24 61 22 39 -122 -10.6 -5.6 -4.8 4 925 68.8 9.4536 Nokia 31 357 288 109 20 66 15 52 30 22 554 18.4 12.3 6.1 14 228 69.2 9.2562 Orivesi* 9 634 800 12 16 62 22 62 26 36 32 2.7 5.6 -2.3 3 983 66.9 9.3581 Parkano 7 069 852 8 15 63 23 59 23 36 -82 -11.1 -7.4 -4.0 2 940 66.3 8.2604 Pirkkala 16 515 81 203 22 66 13 52 33 19 392 25.2 16.3 8.9 7 734 71.2 7.3619 Punkalaidun 3 333 361 9 13 59 28 71 23 48 -38 -11.1 -1.2 -9.9 1 356 69.4 5.0635 Pälkäne 7 012 561 13 17 61 23 65 28 37 55 8.0 10.2 -2.1 2 949 69.3 7.1702 Ruovesi 5 101 776 7 13 59 28 69 22 47 -65 -12.5 -3.5 -8.9 2 095 69.4 7.0790 Sastamala 24 476 1 292 19 16 62 22 62 27 35 -18 -0.6 1.4 -2.1 10 422 68.8 6.2837 Tampere 211 507 525 403 14 71 16 42 19 22 1 715 8.3 5.1 3.1 98 743 66.2 11.2887 Urjala 5 362 475 11 14 61 25 63 22 41 -33 -6.0 -0.4 -5.5 2 297 69.7 10.4908 Valkeakoski 20 631 272 76 16 64 20 56 25 31 32 1.5 2.8 -1.2 8 985 68.0 11.8922 Vesilahti 4 365 301 15 24 61 15 63 39 24 141 34.4 29.8 5.1 1 802 67.4 7.0936 Virrat 7 612 1 162 7 13 61 26 64 22 42 -64 -8.5 -2.0 -6.3 3 107 66.9 8.3980 Ylöjärvi 30 175 1 115 27 22 64 13 55 34 21 603 20.9 12.9 8.1 13 820 71.1 7.5

201 270 5 127 39 16 65 19 53 24 29 518 2.6 3.0 -0.4 89 005 67.7 8.1 9116 Asikkala 8 551 564 15 15 62 23 62 25 37 1 0.1 4.6 -4.5 3 720 70.3 6.181 Hartola 3 388 543 6 12 61 27 63 19 44 -61 -17.2 -7.2 -9.9 1 403 67.5 7.6111 Heinola 20 374 676 30 14 63 23 58 22 36 -105 -5.2 -1.2 -3.9 8 807 68.4 9.298 Hollola 21 845 463 47 20 65 15 55 31 24 174 8.2 3.7 4.4 10 008 71.0 5.7283 Hämeenkoski 2 126 188 11 15 62 23 60 24 37 -14 -6.8 -3.9 -2.7 930 70.0 5.8316 Kärkölä 4 875 257 19 17 65 18 53 26 27 -28 -5.8 -3.1 -2.7 2 226 69.8 7.6398 Lahti 100 854 135 747 14 67 18 49 22 27 515 5.2 4.7 0.5 44 687 66.0 9.1532 Nastola 15 065 324 46 19 67 15 50 28 22 56 3.7 0.1 3.7 7 083 70.4 7.1560 Orimattila 16 353 785 21 18 64 18 57 28 29 79 5.0 6.1 -1.2 7 133 68.6 6.7576 Padasjoki 3 448 523 7 13 58 29 72 22 49 -38 -10.7 -2.4 -8.3 1 327 66.1 6.8781 Sysmä 4 391 667 7 12 57 31 75 21 54 -61 -13.5 -2.0 -11.3 1 680 67.0 7.6

182 617 5 112 36 15 65 21 55 23 32 -613 -3.2 -0.4 -2.9 78 324 66.4 9.9 10575 Hamina 21 483 610 35 15 64 21 57 23 34 -80 -3.7 -0.8 -2.8 9 206 67.2 10.7142 Iitti 7 061 588 12 15 63 22 59 24 35 -58 -7.6 -2.3 -5.7 3 123 70.2 8.9285 Kotka 54 775 271 202 15 65 20 54 23 31 7 0.1 3.0 -2.9 23 108 64.8 11.3286 Kouvola 88 174 2 560 34 15 65 20 54 23 31 -408 -4.6 -2.1 -2.5 38 275 66.8 9.2489 Miehikkälä 2 278 422 5 13 59 29 71 22 49 -34 -14.3 -4.8 -9.5 857 64.2 8.4624 Pyhtää - Pyttis 5 316 290 18 17 64 20 57 26 31 -3 5.7 1.9 -2.4 2 278 67.5 7.4935 Virolahti 3 530 372 9 14 63 24 60 22 38 -38 -10.4 -3.4 -7.0 1 477 66.8 8.9

Pirkanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Birkaland

Päijät-Hämeen maakunta - Landskapet Päijänne-Tavastland

Kymenlaakson maakunta - Landskapet Kymmenedalen





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


134 019 5 613 24 14 65 21 55 22 32 -346 -2.6 0.1 -2.7 57 678 66.5 8.6 108153 Imatra 28 676 155 185 13 64 23 57 21 35 -208 -7.2 -3.4 -3.8 11 977 65.4 9.7405 Lappeenranta 71 814 1 452 49 15 67 18 50 22 27 115 1.4 2.0 -0.4 31 819 66.3 8.6416 Lemi 3 041 218 14 18 62 20 60 28 32 -14 -4.4 -2.0 -2.5 1 342 70.6 6.9441 Luumäki 5 179 750 7 14 61 25 64 23 41 -19 -3.6 3.5 -7.1 2 120 67.1 7.8580 Parikkala 5 885 593 10 11 60 29 66 18 48 -76 -12.7 0.0 -12.5 2 332 66.0 8.2689 Rautjärvi 4 037 352 11 12 61 27 65 20 45 -60 -14.3 -5.9 -8.4 1 589 64.9 7.9700 Ruokolahti 5 733 925 6 14 61 25 65 23 42 -44 -7.0 -1.9 -5.7 2 362 67.9 7.5739 Savitaipale 3 957 540 7 13 58 29 73 22 51 -40 -10.1 -1.3 -8.6 1 579 68.9 8.8775 Suomenniemi 809 284 3 13 56 30 78 24 54 -6 -7.0 3.4 -11.0 292 64.4 8.9831 Taipalsaari 4 888 345 14 19 64 17 57 30 27 7 1.8 -0.7 2.0 2 267 72.6 5.7

155 568 13 986 11 14 63 23 58 22 36 -1 155 -7.3 -2.9 -4.4 63 329 64.4 9.6 8846 Enonkoski 1 617 306 5 13 60 27 68 22 46 -24 -14.4 -3.8 -10.2 610 63.3 12.490 Heinävesi 3 975 1 030 4 13 59 29 70 22 49 -87 -20.5 -10.2 -10.5 1 475 63.1 9.797 Hirvensalmi 2 436 465 5 13 59 28 69 22 47 -29 -11.4 3.2 -14.6 895 61.9 8.9171 Joroinen 5 423 575 9 15 64 21 57 24 33 -44 -8.0 -4.2 -3.8 2 257 65.3 9.4178 Juva 7 064 1 164 6 14 61 25 65 23 42 -71 -9.4 -2.8 -6.9 2 923 68.3 7.0213 Kangasniemi 6 024 1 070 6 13 60 28 68 21 46 -57 -9.4 -1.3 -8.0 2 206 61.5 10.3246 Kerimäki 5 658 558 10 15 61 23 63 25 38 -52 -8.5 -3.6 -5.3 2 279 65.6 10.6491 Mikkeli 48 688 1 702 29 15 66 19 53 23 29 -25 -0.6 -0.4 -0.1 21 007 65.8 8.8507 Mäntyharju 6 475 982 7 13 61 26 64 22 43 -87 -13.1 -3.3 -9.8 2 548 64.7 7.8588 Pertunmaa 1 983 375 5 14 58 28 71 24 47 -27 -12.9 -2.9 -10.5 724 62.5 8.3593 Pieksämäki 20 151 1 570 13 13 63 24 58 21 37 -189 -9.5 -4.4 -4.8 7 973 62.5 9.3618 Punkaharju 3 804 471 8 13 61 26 64 21 43 -56 -14.2 -7.2 -6.9 1 582 68.2 9.8623 Puumala 2 549 795 3 9 61 29 63 15 48 -63 -23.3 -9.3 -13.9 961 61.5 10.1681 Rantasalmi 4 076 560 7 13 61 26 63 21 42 -67 -15.7 -6.5 -9.1 1 602 64.1 10.9696 Ristiina 4 938 566 9 16 61 22 63 26 36 -30 -6.3 -1.7 -4.3 2 002 66.0 8.3740 Savonlinna 27 742 1 211 23 14 64 22 56 21 35 -186 -6.8 -3.4 -3.2 11 179 62.8 11.8768 Sulkava 2 965 585 5 13 58 29 72 22 50 -59 -18.8 -7.9 -11.1 1 107 64.2 10.2

Etelä-Karjalan maakunta - Landskapet Södra Karelen

Etelä-Savon maakunta - Landskapet Södra Savolax


248 182 16 771 15 16 65 19 53 24 29 -599 -2.3 -1.5 -0.9 102 718 63.4 9.4 93140 Iisalmi 22 169 763 29 15 66 19 52 23 29 -91 -4.2 -3.9 -0.2 9 365 64.4 11.5174 Juankoski 5 273 465 11 14 64 23 57 21 36 -70 -12.8 -7.7 -5.0 2 083 62.0 12.1204 Kaavi 3 429 674 5 15 60 26 68 24 44 -41 -11.4 -2.8 -8.8 1 158 56.7 11.8239 Keitele 2 563 482 5 13 62 25 61 20 41 -48 -17.9 -10.8 -6.9 1 033 65.0 8.4263 Kiuruvesi 9 318 1 328 7 16 61 23 63 26 38 -109 -11.4 -5.5 -5.9 3 465 60.8 10.1297 Kuopio 96 135 1 597 60 16 69 16 45 23 23 410 4.4 1.7 2.6 41 309 62.5 8.9402 Lapinlahti 10 477 1 097 10 17 63 21 60 26 33 -43 -3.9 -1.0 -3.0 3 995 60.8 10.8420 Leppävirta 10 633 1 136 9 15 62 23 61 24 36 -68 -6.2 -2.4 -3.9 4 189 63.2 9.8476 Maaninka 3 870 467 8 18 61 21 64 29 35 15 4.0 8.6 -4.6 1 608 68.0 9.5534 Nilsiä 6 521 712 9 15 62 23 62 24 37 -13 -2.0 2.5 -4.5 2 542 63.0 7.0595 Pielavesi 5 147 1 154 4 15 57 28 74 26 48 -82 -15.1 -7.2 -8.1 1 794 60.7 9.4686 Rautalampi 3 520 539 7 14 59 27 69 24 45 -37 -10.4 -2.6 -7.8 1 265 60.9 8.7687 Rautavaara 1 918 1 151 2 11 59 30 70 19 51 -43 -21.6 -8.3 -13.1 630 55.8 9.6749 Siilinjärvi 20 964 401 52 21 65 14 53 32 21 145 7.1 0.6 6.4 9 268 67.6 6.5762 Sonkajärvi 4 694 1 466 3 14 63 23 60 22 37 -61 -12.4 -5.9 -6.6 1 800 61.2 10.7778 Suonenjoki 7 611 714 11 15 61 25 65 24 41 -47 -5.8 0.2 -6.4 2 915 63.3 8.8844 Tervo 1 744 348 5 11 62 27 62 18 44 -29 -16.1 -3.7 -12.7 653 60.6 8.1857 Tuusniemi 2 864 543 5 13 61 26 64 21 43 -34 -11.3 -1.1 -10.5 1 055 60.3 9.8915 Varkaus 22 935 386 59 14 65 21 54 22 32 -266 -11.3 -8.3 -2.9 9 158 61.7 12.3921 Vesanto 2 412 423 6 12 58 30 72 21 51 -57 -21.7 -12.0 -10.4 886 63.1 8.7925 Vieremä 3 985 925 4 15 64 21 57 24 33 -31 -7.8 -2.4 -5.3 1 657 65.4 8.7

165 962 17 763 9 15 65 19 53 23 30 -529 -3.2 -1.6 -1.6 64 769 59.6 13.0 86146 Ilomantsi 6 022 2 764 2 11 60 28 66 19 47 -103 -16.4 -5.8 -10.7 2 127 58.7 14.1167 Joensuu 72 704 2 382 31 15 68 17 46 22 24 154 2.0 0.2 2.0 29 227 58.7 13.5176 Juuka 5 705 1 502 4 14 61 25 63 22 40 -95 -15.9 -8.1 -8.0 2 060 58.7 12.6248 Kesälahti 2 460 388 6 13 59 28 70 22 47 -52 -19.5 -11.9 -7.9 910 62.8 13.3260 Kitee 9 401 866 11 13 64 23 56 21 35 -94 -9.9 -5.5 -4.3 3 693 61.4 13.2276 Kontiolahti 13 677 800 17 23 66 11 52 35 17 265 20.6 12.9 7.3 5 851 65.1 9.7422 Lieksa 12 788 3 418 4 11 63 26 60 18 42 -263 -19.2 -9.9 -9.8 4 632 57.9 14.8426 Liperi 12 133 727 17 19 65 16 55 30 25 98 8.3 6.3 1.9 4 851 62.0 9.5541 Nurmes 8 573 1 601 5 13 62 25 61 21 40 -121 -14.0 -6.7 -7.0 3 124 58.6 13.0309 Outokumpu 7 492 446 17 13 64 22 56 21 35 -61 -8.1 -3.9 -4.1 2 745 57.0 14.7607 Polvijärvi 4 821 804 6 14 63 22 58 23 35 -48 -9.2 -4.1 -5.6 1 806 59.2 14.0707 Rääkkylä 2 625 428 6 12 60 27 65 20 45 -64 -22.4 -11.4 -11.8 912 57.4 14.6848 Tohmajärvi 5 079 838 6 14 63 23 60 23 37 -87 -16.3 -7.7 -8.7 1 933 60.8 14.4911 Valtimo 2 482 800 3 13 61 27 65 21 44 -58 -21.9 -15.4 -6.8 898 59.6 12.6

272 784 16 707 16 17 66 18 52 25 27 897 3.3 1.4 1.9 114 090 63.7 11.2 9777 Hankasalmi 5 514 572 10 15 61 24 64 25 39 -20 -3.1 1.6 -5.1 2 060 61.3 10.3172 Joutsa 5 093 867 6 12 60 28 66 20 46 -37 -4.5 1.1 -8.4 1 952 63.7 11.3179 Jyväskylä 129 623 1 171 111 16 70 14 44 24 20 1 341 10.5 4.6 6.1 57 002 63.1 11.1182 Jämsä* 22 949 1 571 15 15 63 22 60 25 35 -193 -8.1 -6.1 -2.1 9 435 65.6 12.1216 Kannonkoski 1 587 445 4 15 56 28 77 27 50 -10 -5.3 0.7 -7.0 562 62.8 11.8226 Karstula 4 564 887 5 15 61 24 65 25 40 -58 -12.5 -7.7 -4.6 1 742 63.0 12.0249 Keuruu 10 757 1 258 9 15 62 23 61 23 38 -101 -9.1 -4.9 -4.3 4 265 63.9 11.3256 Kinnula 1 820 460 4 17 61 23 65 27 38 -24 -12.8 -11.9 -1.1 654 59.3 11.2

Pohjois-Savon maakunta - Landskapet Norra Savolax

Pohjois-Karjalan maakunta - Landskapet Norra Karelen

Keski-Suomen maakunta - Landskapet Mellersta Finland





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


265 Kivijärvi 1 365 484 3 16 55 29 82 30 53 -17 -12.4 -8.5 -3.3 412 55.0 11.6275 Konnevesi 2 971 513 6 14 61 25 64 23 41 -36 -12.0 -5.9 -5.9 1 164 64.2 11.2291 Kuhmoinen 2 589 661 4 11 56 33 78 19 59 -49 -18.4 -4.5 -13.5 927 63.8 14.0312 Kyyjärvi 1 536 448 3 15 61 23 63 25 38 -32 -19.5 -13.3 -6.5 611 64.8 10.3410 Laukaa 17 975 649 28 22 64 14 56 34 23 184 10.4 6.2 4.3 7 673 66.7 9.5435 Luhanka 834 215 4 11 53 37 90 20 70 -11 -13.7 -0.9 -12.4 292 66.3 10.2495 Multia 1 919 733 3 15 55 29 81 28 53 -23 -11.8 -5.3 -6.3 656 61.8 11.8500 Muurame 9 231 144 64 23 65 12 54 35 18 124 14.2 6.7 7.3 4 099 68.3 8.4592 Petäjävesi 3 979 457 9 19 62 19 62 31 31 60 15.5 17.8 -2.0 1 587 64.5 8.9601 Pihtipudas 4 613 1 075 4 17 59 24 69 29 40 -75 -15.5 -12.1 -3.4 1 752 64.2 11.2729 Saarijärvi 10 666 1 252 9 15 61 23 63 25 38 -91 -8.5 -5.5 -2.9 4 036 61.5 13.2850 Toivakka 2 379 362 7 17 62 21 61 28 33 2 0.5 1.9 -0.8 970 65.5 10.6892 Uurainen 3 382 348 10 23 61 16 63 37 26 56 17.7 13.3 4.0 1 280 61.9 12.1931 Viitasaari 7 195 1 249 6 14 60 26 66 22 43 -65 -8.9 -2.0 -6.8 2 753 63.4 11.0992 Äänekoski 20 243 885 23 17 64 19 57 27 30 -28 -1.4 -1.9 0.6 8 206 63.8 12.8

193 524 13 444 14 17 64 19 57 27 30 -116 -0.6 -0.8 0.2 86 157 70.1 7.4 905 Alajärvi 10 573 1 009 10 19 61 20 64 30 33 -90 -8.4 -8.8 0.5 4 308 66.7 7.910 Alavus 9 395 791 12 17 61 22 64 28 36 -57 -5.7 -5.0 -1.0 3 967 69.3 7.052 Evijärvi 2 772 354 8 16 61 23 63 25 37 -33 -11.4 -9.1 -2.3 1 197 70.3 6.6145 Ilmajoki 11 744 577 20 19 64 17 57 30 27 45 3.9 3.0 0.9 5 360 71.6 6.8151 Isojoki 2 406 642 4 14 58 28 72 24 48 -37 -14.9 -6.6 -8.2 1 001 71.4 5.1164 Jalasjärvi 8 277 819 10 15 62 22 60 24 36 -84 -9.8 -5.7 -4.3 3 643 70.4 7.0218 Karijoki 1 529 186 8 13 60 27 65 21 44 -34 -20.4 -11.4 -9.4 671 72.6 6.4232 Kauhajoki 14 384 1 299 11 16 65 19 54 25 29 -32 -2.2 -1.2 -1.0 6 456 68.9 8.4233 Kauhava 17 545 1 314 13 17 62 21 62 28 34 -182 -10.1 -9.1 -1.0 7 833 72.3 5.8300 Kuortane 3 983 462 9 15 60 25 67 25 42 -48 -12.0 -8.0 -3.7 1 747 73.5 5.0301 Kurikka 14 626 906 16 16 64 20 57 25 32 -105 -6.8 -4.8 -2.2 6 418 68.7 10.2403 Lappajärvi 3 495 421 8 13 61 26 65 22 43 -50 -13.9 -7.4 -6.6 1 420 66.9 7.2408 Lapua 14 326 737 19 18 62 19 60 30 31 58 4.4 4.1 0.0 6 287 70.4 6.0743 Seinäjoki 57 024 1 431 40 18 67 15 50 27 23 759 13.6 8.6 5.2 26 678 70.2 7.5759 Soini 2 429 552 4 17 59 24 69 28 41 -47 -18.7 -12.3 -6.4 952 66.1 10.4846 Teuva 5 962 555 11 15 60 25 67 25 42 -69 -11.3 -6.3 -4.9 2 575 72.0 7.1863 Töysä 3 191 298 11 19 61 19 63 31 32 -4 -1.2 -3.3 1.9 1 386 70.8 9.3

Etelä-Pohjanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Södra Österbotten


934 Vimpeli 3 298 287 11 17 62 21 61 27 34 -23 -7.0 -3.0 -3.9 1 390 67.7 7.9989 Ähtäri 6 565 805 8 15 63 22 60 25 35 -81 -11.8 -8.5 -3.4 2 868 69.8 9.3

177 038 7 749 23 17 64 19 56 27 29 722 4.1 2.0 2.2 83 475 73.7 6.5 112152 Isokyrö 4 953 354 14 18 61 21 64 29 35 -26 -4.8 -3.3 -1.8 2 224 73.6 7.0231 Kaskinen - Kaskö 1 442 10 137 12 66 23 53 18 35 -15 -10.4 -6.1 -4.2 722 76.4 9.1280 Korsnäs 2 239 236 10 14 62 24 61 23 38 9 3.6 9.7 -5.9 1 055 75.6 5.9287 Kristinestad - Kristiinankaupunki 7 254 682 11 12 63 25 60 20 40 -99 -13.5 -7.5 -5.8 3 284 72.4 6.9288 Kronoby - Kruunupyy 6 720 712 9 18 62 20 63 29 33 -20 -2.7 -2.4 -0.5 3 242 78.4 5.7399 Laihia 7 794 504 15 18 64 17 56 29 27 54 7.1 4.1 2.9 3 785 75.6 6.3440 Larsmo 4 719 142 33 29 59 12 68 49 20 76 17.5 1.9 15.0 1 981 70.7 5.6475 Malax - Maalahti 5 614 521 11 15 61 23 63 25 38 12 2.1 4.7 -2.6 2 499 72.6 4.5499 Korsholm - Mustasaari 18 338 848 22 19 64 17 57 30 27 216 12.3 6.6 5.5 9 379 80.3 3.9545 Närpes 9 464 977 10 14 61 25 63 22 41 -10 -1.1 4.7 -5.7 4 647 80.2 4.9599 Pedersöre - Pedersören kunta 10 821 794 14 24 61 14 63 40 23 68 5.8 -1.9 8.3 4 967 74.7 5.5598 Jakobstad - Pietarsaari 19 627 88 222 17 62 21 60 27 33 30 1.6 -0.5 2.1 8 811 71.9 9.3893 Nykarleby - Uusikaarlepyy 7 452 732 10 17 62 21 60 27 33 1 0.4 -0.5 0.6 3 674 79.1 4.7905 Vaasa - Vasa 59 175 189 313 16 67 17 48 24 25 443 7.4 4.1 3.5 28 708 71.9 7.3942 Vähäkyrö 4 740 176 27 20 63 17 60 32 27 8 1.7 -1.1 2.9 2 203 74.2 6.5945 Vörå- Vöyri 6 686 781 9 16 62 22 63 27 36 -25 -2.6 -1.0 -2.7 3 184 77.4 4.0

68 131 5 018 14 19 64 17 57 30 27 148 2.2 -1.6 3.8 31 847 73.3 7.2 10574 Halsua 1 323 413 3 16 60 25 67 26 41 -28 -19.2 -14.1 -5.7 578 73.1 7.0217 Kannus 5 793 468 12 20 63 17 58 31 27 -36 -5.7 -7.3 1.2 2 705 73.8 6.8236 Kaustinen 4 298 354 12 18 64 18 56 28 28 -21 -4.4 -6.2 1.3 2 116 76.7 6.2272 Kokkola - Karleby 45 896 1 444 32 19 65 17 55 29 26 319 7.1 2.1 4.9 21 635 72.9 7.5421 Lestijärvi 860 481 2 14 62 23 61 23 38 -19 -21.2 -14.8 -5.5 361 67.4 7.4584 Perho 2 986 748 4 25 58 17 74 44 30 -4 -1.3 -10.0 8.8 1 187 69.0 8.5849 Toholampi 3 493 608 6 19 61 20 64 31 32 -33 -9.6 -11.6 2.5 1 635 76.6 4.3924 Veteli 3 482 502 7 16 62 22 61 26 35 -31 -8.7 -9.1 0.3 1 630 75.3 6.6

392 110 35 490 11 21 65 14 53 31 22 2 826 7.3 0.3 7.1 166 444 65.1 9.8 1059 Alavieska 2 776 251 11 21 60 19 67 35 32 -25 -8.3 -9.9 1.1 1 106 66.5 9.869 Haapajärvi 7 714 766 10 21 62 18 62 34 28 -61 -7.6 -9.5 1.7 3 065 64.4 8.371 Haapavesi 7 396 1 050 7 21 62 17 61 34 27 -74 -9.4 -12.1 2.3 3 012 65.4 8.572 Hailuoto 1 019 197 5 14 61 26 65 23 42 7 6.6 12.2 -5.2 381 61.6 8.884 Haukipudas 18 654 439 42 26 64 10 57 41 16 311 17.5 5.8 11.5 7 819 65.8 10.5139 Ii 9 294 1 551 6 23 61 16 65 39 26 128 14.1 8.0 6.1 3 477 61.7 12.1208 Kalajoki 12 540 922 14 19 62 19 60 30 30 53 4.4 0.2 4.0 5 392 68.9 8.8244 Kempele 15 652 110 142 25 65 10 54 39 15 337 22.6 8.6 14.0 7 163 70.4 8.0255 Kiiminki 12 966 327 40 29 63 8 59 46 13 236 19.2 4.5 14.6 5 612 68.7 8.9305 Kuusamo 16 669 4 979 3 17 64 19 55 26 29 -106 -6.2 -7.7 1.4 6 930 64.5 9.9317 Kärsämäki 2 918 695 4 18 61 21 64 30 34 -35 -11.5 -11.3 -0.4 1 149 64.5 11.0425 Liminka 8 861 637 14 35 57 8 74 61 13 365 46.0 25.7 19.6 3 442 67.6 7.2436 Lumijoki 1 994 212 9 28 58 14 72 48 24 39 20.7 10.4 9.9 720 62.0 9.4483 Merijärvi 1 209 230 5 22 59 18 69 38 31 -18 -15.0 -18.8 4.3 442 61.6 9.1494 Muhos 8 856 784 11 25 61 14 64 41 23 133 15.6 8.3 7.3 3 555 66.0 8.1

Pohjanmaan maakunta- Landskapet Österbotten

Keski-Pohjanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Mellersta Österbotten

Pohjois-Pohjanmaan maakunta - Landskapet Norra Österbotten





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


535 Nivala 11 023 528 21 23 60 16 66 39 27 40 3.4 -3.4 7.0 4 402 66.5 9.4563 Oulainen 7 931 588 13 20 62 18 62 32 30 -39 -4.9 -8.7 3.9 3 230 66.2 9.5564 Oulu 139 133 1 410 99 17 70 13 42 24 18 1 716 12.7 4.2 8.5 62 860 64.2 10.5567 Oulunsalo 9 596 84 115 29 63 8 58 45 13 83 8.6 -8.8 17.7 4 226 69.8 7.9615 Pudasjärvi 8 947 5 639 2 17 61 22 63 27 36 -122 -13.3 -11.4 -1.9 3 215 58.7 13.3625 Pyhäjoki 3 373 542 6 18 62 19 60 29 31 -26 -7.5 -6.1 -1.3 1 391 66.0 8.8626 Pyhäjärvi 6 001 1 311 5 15 61 25 65 24 41 -54 -9.2 -4.3 -4.5 2 184 60.0 12.7630 Pyhäntä 1 648 811 2 22 63 15 59 34 24 -34 -19.9 -23.7 4.5 693 66.8 8.7678 Raahe 22 501 528 43 19 66 14 51 29 22 -2 -0.2 -5.4 5.3 9 708 65.1 10.1691 Reisjärvi 3 020 474 6 20 60 20 66 34 33 -19 -7.0 -6.0 -0.2 1 219 67.1 5.8746 Sievi 5 278 786 7 27 58 15 72 47 25 15 2.6 -8.6 11.4 1 962 64.0 7.7748 Siikajoki 5 776 1 046 6 22 62 16 62 36 26 -11 -1.9 -5.2 3.3 2 262 63.3 9.1791 Siikalatva 6 293 2 171 3 16 60 23 66 27 39 -98 -15.0 -11.4 -3.6 2 546 67.0 8.8832 Taivalkoski 4 491 2 438 2 17 63 20 59 27 31 -57 -12.4 -10.0 -2.2 1 644 58.0 15.1859 Tyrnävä 6 320 492 13 31 58 11 72 53 19 142 23.6 7.6 16.1 2 420 65.8 8.4889 Utajärvi 3 014 1 671 2 17 61 22 63 28 35 -43 -13.9 -10.3 -3.3 1 131 61.2 10.5926 Vihanti 3 173 487 7 18 60 22 66 30 36 -41 -12.6 -13.3 0.6 1 225 64.2 9.5972 Yli-Ii 2 179 769 3 24 57 20 76 41 35 -22 -10.4 -12.9 3.0 782 63.2 9.8977 Ylivieska 13 895 568 24 21 65 15 55 32 23 109 8.1 1.2 6.8 6 079 67.7 8.9

82 634 21 504 4 15 64 21 55 23 32 -669 -7.9 -5.6 -2.3 32 184 60.6 13.8 84105 Hyrynsalmi 2 791 1 421 2 12 61 27 64 19 45 -71 -24.1 -12.4 -11.5 965 56.7 15.7205 Kajaani 38 211 1 835 21 17 66 17 51 25 26 -23 -0.6 -3.6 3.0 15 607 61.6 13.3290 Kuhmo 9 636 4 807 2 13 63 24 59 20 38 -164 -16.2 -11.3 -5.0 3 507 57.8 17.5578 Paltamo 3 917 919 4 15 63 22 59 24 36 -62 -14.9 -8.3 -6.8 1 467 59.6 12.9620 Puolanka 3 123 2 462 1 12 62 26 62 20 42 -69 -21.2 -10.2 -10.9 1 098 57.0 15.4697 Ristijärvi 1 521 836 2 10 60 29 66 17 49 -28 -17.4 -4.5 -13.3 569 62.1 11.7765 Sotkamo 10 703 2 650 4 16 64 20 57 25 32 0 0.0 2.2 -2.2 4 302 63.0 10.4777 Suomussalmi 9 332 5 271 2 12 63 25 59 20 39 -182 -18.7 -9.8 -8.9 3 465 59.0 15.0785 Vaala 3 400 1 303 3 15 60 26 68 25 43 -69 -19.6 -11.1 -8.1 1 204 59.4 15.4

Kainuun maakunta - Landskapet Kajanaland


183 748 92 664 2 16 66 19 52 24 28 -544 -2.9 -2.9 0.0 73 710 60.9 11.8 9647 Enontekiö - Eanodat 1 882 7 946 <0.5 12 69 19 46 18 28 -23 -12.0 -7.1 -4.7 800 62.0 16.8148 Inari - Anár 6 863 15 052 <0.5 14 69 18 46 20 26 -44 -6.3 -6.3 -0.1 2 960 63.0 11.7240 Kemi 22 580 95 237 14 66 19 51 22 29 -67 -2.9 -1.6 -1.4 8 559 57.2 13.0320 Kemijärvi 8 519 3 505 2 11 62 28 62 18 45 -203 -22.4 -14.2 -8.5 3 167 60.4 13.8241 Keminmaa 8 606 625 14 19 65 16 54 29 25 -52 -5.9 -8.9 2.9 3 659 65.3 10.2261 Kittilä 6 115 8 095 1 16 66 18 51 24 27 53 9.4 10.7 -1.8 2 606 64.5 9.4273 Kolari 3 854 2 559 2 12 67 20 49 19 31 -4 -0.4 1.5 -2.5 1 557 60.3 12.5498 Muonio 2 377 1 904 1 16 65 20 54 24 30 -15 -5.4 -5.6 -0.6 956 62.0 12.7583 Pelkosenniemi 1 025 1 837 1 10 64 26 55 15 40 -26 -23.4 -13.3 -10.4 383 58.0 16.4854 Pello 4 021 1 738 2 11 62 27 62 18 45 -102 -23.6 -15.6 -8.1 1 444 58.3 13.1614 Posio 3 945 3 039 1 12 63 25 58 19 39 -75 -18.1 -9.3 -8.8 1 467 58.6 12.9683 Ranua 4 407 3 454 1 20 60 19 65 34 32 -94 -20.0 -21.5 1.0 1 496 56.2 13.0698 Rovaniemi 59 848 7 582 8 17 68 15 47 25 22 476 8.0 4.0 4.1 25 099 61.5 11.2732 Salla 4 231 5 730 1 11 61 28 64 18 46 -91 -20.3 -11.2 -9.2 1 460 56.6 17.8742 Savukoski 1 181 6 439 <0.5 10 65 25 54 16 38 -30 -23.6 -14.8 -9.1 485 63.3 14.4751 Simo 3 496 1 445 2 18 61 21 63 29 35 -31 -8.9 -8.0 -0.7 1 314 61.4 11.5758 Sodankylä - Soađegilli 8 801 11 696 1 14 66 20 51 21 30 -109 -11.8 -9.9 -2.1 3 604 62.0 10.6845 Tervola 3 462 1 562 2 16 58 26 74 28 45 -49 -13.8 -9.9 -3.8 1 237 62.1 10.9851 Tornio 22 426 1 187 19 18 67 15 50 27 23 49 2.0 -0.9 3.1 9 139 61.2 11.0890 Utsjoki - Ohcejohka 1 302 5 144 <0.5 14 64 21 56 22 33 -14 -9.7 -13.4 3.0 573 68.6 7.8976 Ylitornio 4 807 2 029 2 13 60 27 66 21 45 -93 -18.6 -10.3 -8.3 1 742 60.2 11.6

27 734 1 553 18 17 66 18 53 26 27 224 8.9 7.2 1.1 14 400 79.3 5.3 14335 Brändö 498 108 5 13 63 24 58 20 38 -4 -7.1 2.3 -10.5 251 79.6 5.543 Eckerö 924 108 9 15 65 21 54 23 32 5 5.9 4.8 0.2 453 75.5 7.660 Finström 2 486 123 20 19 64 18 57 30 28 16 7.1 2.9 3.8 1 285 81.3 5.262 Föglö 561 135 4 14 60 25 66 24 42 -9 -15.8 -6.8 -8.2 295 87.3 2.165 Geta 457 84 5 13 61 26 64 22 42 -2 -1.7 5.3 -9.7 219 78.5 7.076 Hammarland 1 463 138 11 17 65 17 53 27 26 13 10.7 5.6 3.8 747 78.1 4.5170 Jomala 4 022 143 28 21 67 12 50 31 18 101 27.3 20.7 6.1 2 092 78.0 3.7295 Kumlinge 372 99 4 11 62 27 60 18 43 -1 0.5 3.8 -6.0 178 76.7 3.4318 Kökar 261 64 4 15 61 24 63 24 39 -7 -25.2 -14.1 -9.9 123 77.1 7.7417 Lemland 1 782 113 16 22 64 14 57 34 23 17 10.1 5.4 4.1 944 83.1 3.8438 Lumparland 391 36 11 18 62 20 62 30 32 2 6.2 0.5 5.2 200 82.6 4.0478 Mariehamn 11 123 12 943 15 68 18 48 21 26 75 7.5 6.7 0.1 5 899 78.4 6.3736 Saltvik 1 792 152 12 17 63 19 58 28 31 15 7.9 7.5 0.9 915 80.7 3.5766 Sottunga 125 28 4 11 59 30 69 19 50 -2 -9.4 0.0 -14.7 59 80.3 6.5771 Sund 1 032 108 10 17 63 20 58 27 31 2 1.6 0.4 1.5 536 82.3 5.1941 Vårdö 445 102 4 16 59 26 70 26 44 3 9.2 8.7 -2.3 203 77.9 5.7

Lapin maakunta - Landskapet Lappland

Landskapet Åland - Ahvenanmaan maakunta





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


ICELAND - ÍSLAND

Whole country 317 630 102 806 3 21 67 12 49 31 18 4 408 15.7 5.5 8.8 166 300 78.1 7.2 121

200 907 1 062 189 21 68 12 48 30 17 3 059 17.3 6.2 9.6 107 038 78.6 7.81603 Álftanes 2 523 6 421 28 66 6 51 42 9 97 43.3 26.3 15.5 1 324 79.1 7.21300 Garðabær 10 643 39 273 21 65 14 54 32 22 308 32.4 23.9 7.4 5 568 80.4 5.71400 Hafnarfjörður 25 913 144 180 23 67 9 48 34 14 755 32.7 19.1 12.1 13 732 78.6 7.81606 Kjósarhreppur 197 288 1 14 73 13 37 19 18 11 64.0 52.6 7.8 113 78.7 7.71000 Kópavogur 30 357 113 269 22 66 12 51 34 18 868 32.5 19.4 11.4 15 808 78.8 7.51604 Mosfellsbær 8 553 197 43 25 68 7 48 37 11 341 45.4 30.6 13.3 4 607 79.5 6.70000 Reykjavík 118 326 273 433 19 69 12 46 28 18 711 7.7 -2.5 8.6 63 461 78.2 8.21100 Seltjarnarnes 4 395 2 2 198 18 68 14 48 27 21 -31 -6.8 -12.5 5.5 2 425 81.5 4.4

21 359 829 26 23 68 9 48 34 13 811 44.3 30.5 11.0 10 567 73.0 11.22504 Garður 1 515 23 66 23 68 8 47 35 12 35 26.2 17.4 6.9 763 74.0 10.02300 Grindavík 2 837 434 7 24 67 8 49 36 12 65 25.8 11.1 12.8 1 477 77.4 5.92000 Reykjanesbær 14 091 142 99 22 68 10 47 33 14 599 50.4 37.2 10.2 6 900 72.1 12.32503 Sandgerði 1 710 65 26 23 69 7 45 34 11 59 40.3 21.5 14.6 844 71.4 13.12506 Sveitarfélagið Vogar 1 206 165 7 27 65 8 53 41 12 53 50.4 32.7 14.8 583 73.9 10.1

15 370 9 555 2 22 66 13 52 33 19 170 12.7 3.6 7.6 7 935 78.4 4.63000 Akranes 6 549 9 728 23 65 12 55 36 19 171 29.3 19.1 8.6 3 247 76.7 6.73609 Borgarbyggð 3 542 4 925 1 21 66 13 52 32 21 13 5.5 -1.8 5.4 1 832 78.7 4.33811 Dalabyggð 694 2 439 <0.5 20 63 18 60 31 29 -4 -4.8 -8.5 3.1 351 80.8 1.83713 Eyja- og Miklaholtshreppur 139 378 <0.5 17 73 11 38 23 15 0 0.0 -16.2 16.2 82 81.3 1.23709 Grundarfjarðarbær 904 152 6 19 71 10 40 26 14 -8 -7.4 -16.5 8.4 517 80.1 2.63710 Helgafellssveit 63 250 <0.5 19 60 21 66 32 34 3 58.5 35.3 24.7 30 78.9 4.03511 Hvalfjarðarsveit 624 495 1 21 70 9 42 30 12 12 21.6 8.7 11.0 348 79.5 3.43506 Skorradalshreppur 61 208 <0.5 26 54 20 85 48 36 -1 -9.6 -33.1 19.8 27 80.3 2.33714 Snæfellsbær 1 702 689 2 23 68 9 47 34 13 -6 -2.0 -14.2 10.7 932 80.5 2.13711 Stykkishólmur 1 092 10 109 18 65 17 53 27 26 -12 -8.8 -12.3 2.0 570 80.1 2.6

7 362 9 409 1 20 66 13 50 31 20 -73 -9.0 -16.0 6.1 3 948 80.7 1.94901 Árneshreppur 50 724 <0.5 14 66 20 52 21 30 -1 -26.2 -31.7 4.0 27 81.4 1.04908 Bæjarhreppur 96 511 <0.5 25 57 18 75 44 31 -1 -14.1 -28.0 14.0 45 81.4 1.14100 Bolungarvík 970 111 9 18 70 12 43 26 17 8 8.4 -0.9 9.0 548 80.7 1.9

Vestfirðir

Vesturland

Höfuðborgarsvæði

Suðurnes


4200 Ísafjarðarbær 3 899 2 416 2 21 66 13 51 31 20 -50 -11.7 -17.9 5.5 2 086 80.8 1.74902 Kaldrananeshreppur 112 459 <0.5 18 72 10 38 25 14 -1 -8.7 -16.5 7.3 64 79.1 3.84502 Reykhólahreppur 291 1 103 <0.5 21 63 16 60 34 26 6 21.0 13.5 8.2 148 81.6 0.84911 Strandabyggð 508 1 810 <0.5 22 61 17 64 36 27 -2 -3.9 -9.1 5.2 251 80.9 1.64803 Súðavíkurhreppur 202 761 <0.5 23 62 15 60 37 24 -7 -30.3 -34.3 4.5 95 75.2 8.54604 Tálknafjarðarhreppur 299 180 2 23 66 12 53 35 18 -6 -16.7 -32.4 11.2 160 81.5 0.94607 Vesturbyggð 935 1 334 1 18 69 13 44 26 18 -18 -17.2 -23.0 3.8 524 80.7 1.9

7 394 12 581 1 21 64 16 57 33 24 -45 -5.4 -10.3 4.3 3 671 78.0 2.65706 Akrahreppur 209 1 361 <0.5 22 59 19 69 37 31 -1 -4.7 -9.3 4.6 : : :5604 Blönduóssbær 882 181 5 21 61 18 64 34 30 -8 -7.8 -13.1 3.8 426 79.4 3.45508 Húnaþing vestra 1 116 2 505 <0.5 20 63 17 58 31 27 -13 -10.3 -15.1 4.2 567 80.3 2.45612 Húnavatnshreppur 431 3 823 <0.5 18 67 14 49 27 21 -11 -24.0 -25.6 0.9 235 81.2 1.35611 Skagabyggð 106 494 <0.5 26 56 18 80 47 32 1 9.7 11.8 -2.0 48 80.8 1.75200 Sveitarfélagið Skagafjörður 4 131 4 168 1 21 64 15 55 32 23 -4 -0.7 -5.9 4.8 2 130 80.1 2.65609 Sveitarfélagið Skagaströnd 519 49 11 24 65 11 55 37 18 -8 -14.5 -21.0 5.2 266 79.3 3.6

28 900 22 735 1 22 65 14 54 33 21 81 3.3 -3.7 6.5 14 323 76.6 6.96000 Akureyri 17 573 138 127 22 65 13 54 34 19 194 11.8 2.6 8.7 8 598 75.3 8.46400 Dalvíkurbyggð 1 949 595 3 23 64 13 56 36 20 -1 0.5 -6.7 6.0 996 79.8 3.06513 Eyjafjarðarsveit 1 025 1 795 1 25 65 10 55 39 15 6 6.3 -0.6 6.5 521 78.6 4.46250 Fjallabyggð 2 066 364 6 17 62 21 60 27 33 -62 -27.5 -27.2 -0.7 1 021 79.2 3.76602 Grýtubakkahreppur 337 438 1 25 61 14 63 41 22 -10 -27.7 -35.1 6.7 159 76.6 6.86514 Hörgárbyggð 607 893 1 19 68 13 47 28 19 7 11.9 7.5 3.8 320 77.8 5.46709 Langanesbyggð 521 1 341 <0.5 26 61 13 65 44 21 -6 -10.1 -16.2 5.4 244 77.4 5.96100 NorðurÞing 2 926 3 755 1 19 65 16 54 29 25 -35 -11.2 -15.2 3.4 1 472 77.5 5.86607 Skútustaðahreppur 374 6 034 <0.5 14 71 15 41 20 21 -13 -31.1 -31.6 -1.0 207 78.2 4.96706 Svalbarðshreppur 111 1 131 <0.5 22 68 11 48 32 16 -1 -8.8 -7.2 -1.8 59 78.2 4.96601 Svalbarðsstrandarhreppur 413 50 8 21 70 8 42 30 12 9 24.2 16.5 7.2 229 79.1 3.86612 Þingeyjarsveit 942 6 005 <0.5 18 62 20 60 29 31 -4 -4.2 -6.3 2.3 464 78.9 4.06611 Tjörneshreppur 56 196 <0.5 0 70 30 44 0 44 -2 -26.7 -23.3 -3.3 31 80.3 2.4

12 459 22 007 1 21 67 13 50 31 19 16 2.7 -4.3 5.5 6 578 79.3 3.67509 Borgarfjarðarhreppur 134 444 <0.5 16 66 18 52 25 27 -1 -4.4 2.8 -7.0 70 79.5 3.37613 Breiðdalshreppur 210 452 <0.5 13 65 22 53 20 34 -8 -34.0 -27.6 -7.1 102 74.5 9.47617 Djúpavogshreppur 443 1 153 <0.5 18 68 14 47 26 21 -8 -16.0 -32.4 14.4 239 79.1 3.97300 Fjarðabyggð 4 641 1 069 4 21 67 12 49 31 17 98 22.9 13.4 6.7 2 482 79.5 3.37620 Fljótsdalshérað 3 467 8 916 <0.5 23 66 11 51 34 17 13 5.7 -3.6 7.0 1 805 78.5 4.67505 Fljótsdalshreppur 89 1 528 <0.5 15 73 12 37 20 17 -40 -198.8 -134.2 -1.4 50 76.3 7.27000 Seyðisfjörður 706 214 3 16 66 18 51 24 27 -2 -2.3 -4.5 1.4 365 78.2 4.97708 Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður 2 086 6 317 <0.5 20 67 13 50 30 20 -27 -12.5 -15.1 2.4 1 127 80.9 1.67502 Vopnafjarðarhreppur 683 1 914 <0.5 19 62 19 61 31 30 -9 -12.8 -18.8 6.0 338 79.4 3.4

23 879 24 525 1 21 66 13 52 32 20 389 18.3 9.1 7.7 12 240 77.9 5.38610 Ásahreppur 190 2 966 <0.5 19 67 13 48 29 20 8 48.6 36.8 9.5 102 79.6 3.28721 Bláskógabyggð 935 3 278 <0.5 20 68 12 47 30 18 7 9.2 -2.1 9.2 502 79.1 3.88722 Flóahreppur 602 291 2 22 68 10 47 32 15 17 30.4 16.7 12.8 325 79.5 3.48719 Grímsnes- og Grafningshreppur 415 891 <0.5 18 69 12 44 26 18 14 36.3 25.9 9.3 228 79.1 3.98710 Hrunamannahreppur 788 1 214 1 22 63 14 58 35 23 4 8.8 -4.1 9.2 399 79.8 2.98716 Hveragerði 2 291 11 208 20 64 15 56 32 24 54 25.1 21.0 3.4 1 122 76.2 7.4

Norðurland vestra

Norðurland eystra

Austurland

Suðurland





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


8508 Mýrdalshreppur 510 761 1 20 62 18 62 33 29 0 0.8 -4.8 4.8 256 81.2 1.38613 Rangárþing eystra 1 745 1 727 1 19 67 14 49 29 21 17 11.1 2.3 7.4 938 80.2 2.58614 Rangárþing ytra 1 543 3 177 <0.5 20 67 13 49 30 19 17 13.0 8.6 2.6 816 78.9 4.18509 Skaftárhreppur 445 6 905 <0.5 12 65 23 54 19 35 -13 -26.1 -23.5 -3.8 235 81.3 1.18720 Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur 517 2 404 <0.5 21 68 10 46 31 15 -3 -4.6 -14.1 9.2 284 80.3 2.48200 Sveitarfélagið Árborg 7 811 157 50 24 64 12 56 37 19 248 35.8 22.7 11.0 3 778 75.6 8.18717 Sveitarfélagið Ölfus 1 952 726 3 21 70 9 43 30 13 40 24.8 11.2 10.4 1 051 77.1 6.38000 Vestmannaeyjar 4 135 17 243 20 67 13 50 30 20 -20 -3.8 -9.7 4.9 2 206 80.0 2.7

NORWAY - NORGE - NOREG

Whole country 4 858 199 307 498 16 19 66 15 51 29 22 50 327 10.6 6.9 3.7 2 499 379 78 3.1 176

Østfold fylke 271 662 3 890 70 18 65 16 53 28 25 2 602 9.9 8.7 1.2 130 149 73.3 4.3 1010118 Aremark 1 424 285 5 18 63 19 60 29 31 0 -0.1 1.4 -1.7 694 78.0 3.00124 Askim 14 864 66 225 19 66 15 51 29 22 153 10.7 7.7 2.9 7 137 72.5 4.10125 Eidsberg 10 821 230 47 19 65 16 54 29 25 119 11.8 10.0 1.4 5 333 76.0 3.10106 Fredrikstad 73 638 282 261 18 65 16 53 28 25 630 8.9 8.0 0.8 34 573 71.8 5.00101 Halden 28 776 597 48 18 65 17 54 27 26 239 8.5 8.3 0.2 13 245 70.8 4.60138 Hobøl 4 742 140 34 19 68 13 47 28 19 37 8.0 3.2 4.8 2 555 79.4 3.40111 Hvaler 4 085 87 47 16 67 17 49 23 26 62 15.9 16.6 -0.8 2 076 75.7 3.00119 Marker 3 471 368 9 17 63 20 58 27 32 9 1.9 6.8 -4.3 1 687 76.8 3.00104 Moss 30 030 58 520 18 66 17 53 27 25 392 13.7 11.7 1.8 13 991 71.1 5.10128 Rakkestad 7 517 420 18 18 65 17 54 28 26 49 6.3 7.7 -1.1 3 905 80.0 2.90136 Rygge 14 293 69 207 19 65 16 55 30 24 118 8.3 6.8 1.6 6 996 75.7 3.70135 Råde 6 882 105 66 18 65 17 54 28 26 86 12.5 12.4 0.5 3 556 79.4 3.00121 Rømskog 688 159 4 16 61 23 63 27 37 5 6.2 16.2 -9.3 344 81.7 2.20105 Sarpsborg 52 159 369 141 19 65 16 53 28 25 477 9.4 7.5 1.9 24 429 71.9 4.50127 Skiptvet 3 541 93 38 20 66 14 52 30 22 38 10.8 8.2 2.8 1 854 79.7 2.60123 Spydeberg 5 167 134 39 20 65 16 54 30 24 74 14.8 13.2 1.6 2 702 80.6 2.80122 Trøgstad 5 092 189 27 18 66 16 51 27 24 25 5.2 6.4 -1.4 2 697 80.1 2.50137 Våler 4 472 239 19 20 67 13 49 29 19 91 21.3 17.0 4.5 2 377 78.9 2.9

Akershus fylke 536 499 4 587 117 21 66 14 52 31 21 8 450 16.4 11.3 5.1 289 072 81.8 2.7 1210220 Asker 54 623 97 564 21 65 14 54 33 21 762 14.3 9.4 5.1 29 184 82.3 2.10221 Aurskog-Høland 14 294 897 16 18 66 16 52 28 25 202 14.8 15.6 -0.9 7 674 81.8 3.10219 Bærum 111 213 189 588 21 64 15 55 32 23 1 292 12.1 7.1 4.9 59 321 82.9 2.30237 Eidsvoll 20 689 387 53 19 67 14 50 29 21 409 20.9 17.4 3.5 10 892 79.0 3.4


0229 Enebakk 10 176 196 52 21 68 11 47 32 16 177 18.1 10.6 7.5 5 709 82.5 3.00227 Fet 10 238 138 74 20 67 14 50 29 21 134 13.6 9.4 4.1 5 733 84.0 3.00215 Frogn 14 622 87 169 20 66 15 53 30 23 254 18.1 15.3 2.8 7 799 81.4 2.90234 Gjerdrum 5 821 82 71 23 66 12 52 34 18 155 27.9 21.8 6.8 3 208 83.7 2.40239 Hurdal 2 617 261 10 17 64 19 57 27 30 4 1.1 2.8 -1.4 1 386 83.1 3.20230 Lørenskog 32 730 68 485 20 67 13 48 30 19 405 13.0 6.8 6.0 17 886 81.0 3.10238 Nannestad 10 927 325 34 21 67 12 50 32 18 155 14.9 9.4 5.4 5 964 81.9 3.00236 Nes 18 827 611 31 19 67 14 48 28 21 159 8.7 6.7 2.0 10 170 80.2 2.90216 Nesodden 17 348 60 291 21 67 12 49 31 18 226 13.3 9.3 4.1 9 134 78.5 3.30233 Nittedal 20 939 181 116 22 66 12 52 34 18 276 13.4 7.7 5.9 11 413 82.8 2.50217 Oppegård 24 882 34 725 20 65 15 53 31 22 257 10.7 6.0 4.6 13 381 82.5 2.30228 Rælingen 15 591 57 275 20 68 12 46 29 18 156 10.5 2.2 8.1 8 863 83.1 3.00231 Skedsmo 47 723 75 636 20 66 14 51 30 21 1 129 25.1 19.3 5.8 25 556 80.6 3.30213 Ski 28 023 162 173 21 66 13 53 32 20 243 8.9 3.0 5.9 14 974 81.5 3.20226 Sørum 15 369 199 77 21 66 12 50 32 18 491 34.6 29.4 5.4 8 490 83.1 2.80235 Ullensaker 29 088 250 116 22 67 12 50 33 18 904 33.9 26.1 7.9 15 825 81.7 3.00211 Vestby 14 373 133 108 21 66 12 51 32 18 276 20.2 14.9 5.3 7 794 81.6 2.90214 Ås 16 386 101 162 20 67 13 50 31 20 384 24.8 18.9 6.3 8 717 80.0 2.6

Oslo fylke 586 860 427 1 376 17 71 12 41 24 17 11 499 20.4 11.7 9.0 319 928 77.0 4.4 2580301 Oslo 586 860 427 1 376 17 71 12 41 24 17 11 499 20.4 11.7 9.0 319 928 77.0 4.4

Hedmark fylke 190 709 26 120 7 17 64 19 56 26 29 458 2.5 4.5 -2.0 92 441 75.4 2.7 980438 Alvdal 2 441 921 3 19 61 19 63 31 31 5 2.1 0.2 1.9 1 341 89.4 1.00420 Eidskog 6 327 605 10 16 64 20 57 25 32 -36 -5.4 1.8 -7.4 2 768 68.8 4.20427 Elverum 19 834 1 210 16 18 65 17 53 27 26 196 10.2 8.7 1.4 9 878 76.4 2.40434 Engerdal 1 434 1 921 1 17 60 23 66 29 38 -13 -8.9 -2.3 -6.8 710 82.3 1.30439 Folldal 1 669 1 257 1 16 62 22 62 27 35 -10 -5.7 -3.0 -2.7 844 81.9 2.70423 Grue 5 078 778 7 15 63 22 59 24 36 -38 -7.6 1.3 -8.8 2 328 73.1 2.80403 Hamar 28 344 333 85 16 65 19 54 25 29 175 6.5 7.6 -1.3 13 976 75.9 2.70402 Kongsvinger 17 377 964 18 17 65 18 53 25 28 20 1.1 3.5 -2.3 7 959 70.2 3.60415 Løten 7 272 363 20 17 66 18 53 26 27 -1 0.0 1.5 -1.6 3 587 75.3 2.70418 Nord-Odal 5 118 474 11 16 63 20 59 26 32 8 1.8 6.2 -4.5 2 354 72.9 3.00441 Os 2 033 1 007 2 19 62 19 60 30 30 -10 -5.2 -3.0 -1.9 1 072 84.4 1.90432 Rendalen 1 998 3 060 1 14 61 25 65 24 41 -21 -10.4 0.1 -10.3 988 81.5 1.50412 Ringsaker 32 524 1 130 29 18 65 17 55 29 26 140 4.4 4.0 0.4 16 032 76.2 2.60417 Stange 19 104 641 30 18 65 17 54 27 27 134 7.2 7.7 -0.6 9 320 75.0 2.70430 Stor-Elvdal 2 679 2 130 1 15 63 22 60 24 36 -30 -11.1 -3.1 -7.8 1 234 73.6 2.50419 Sør-Odal 7 791 478 16 17 66 17 52 26 26 36 4.4 6.7 -2.1 3 818 74.7 3.10436 Tolga 1 671 1 098 2 19 62 20 62 30 32 -21 -12.4 -10.4 -2.1 847 82.1 1.00428 Trysil 6 763 2 948 2 15 62 22 60 24 36 -25 -3.5 0.4 -4.0 3 181 75.3 3.00437 Tynset 5 490 1 825 3 19 64 17 57 30 27 17 3.1 4.6 -1.5 2 883 82.7 1.20426 Våler 3 870 679 6 15 64 22 57 23 34 -11 -2.8 3.9 -6.8 1 811 73.6 3.80429 Åmot 4 285 1 295 3 18 62 20 61 29 32 -20 -5.2 -1.9 -2.9 1 992 74.8 2.80425 Åsnes 7 607 1 005 8 14 62 23 61 23 38 -37 -4.5 2.9 -7.7 3 520 74.4 3.5

Oppland fylke 185 216 24 073 8 17 64 18 55 27 28 410 2.2 3.3 -1.1 92 354 77.4 2.3 1000511 Dovre 2 776 1 422 2 16 62 22 62 26 35 -21 -7.0 -2.9 -4.5 1 416 82.5 2.10541 Etnedal 1 389 433 3 17 59 24 70 29 41 -2 -1.1 4.0 -5.5 679 83.2 1.20522 Gausdal 6 142 1 150 5 17 63 20 58 27 31 -6 -1.1 0.4 -1.4 3 127 80.5 2.20502 Gjøvik 28 807 643 45 17 65 17 53 27 27 233 8.2 7.4 0.9 14 104 75.0 2.60534 Gran 13 363 660 20 18 64 18 56 28 28 69 5.4 7.3 -2.1 6 706 78.1 1.8





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


0532 Jevnaker 6 268 197 32 19 65 16 54 29 25 -13 -2.1 -1.4 -0.6 3 005 73.8 2.60512 Lesja 2 174 2 172 1 18 62 20 60 28 32 -3 -0.9 -0.4 -1.2 1 187 87.4 1.30501 Lillehammer 26 381 453 58 17 65 18 53 26 27 265 10.2 9.4 0.9 13 228 76.8 2.20514 Lom 2 410 1 890 1 17 63 20 58 27 31 -14 -4.7 -2.5 -3.1 1 295 84.8 1.40533 Lunner 8 600 272 32 19 67 14 49 28 21 19 2.2 0.1 2.2 4 509 78.0 1.90542 Nord-Aurdal 6 415 861 7 17 66 18 53 26 27 -3 -0.8 0.7 -1.2 3 453 82.1 1.40516 Nord-Fron 5 800 1 113 5 17 64 19 57 27 30 -21 -3.3 -1.7 -1.9 2 897 78.5 2.90538 Nordre Land 6 672 935 7 16 63 20 58 26 32 -34 -5.2 -0.9 -4.3 3 201 75.6 2.30520 Ringebu 4 540 1 226 4 16 63 21 59 26 33 -9 -2.0 3.9 -5.9 2 214 77.5 2.90517 Sel 5 999 866 7 17 63 20 59 27 32 -11 -2.0 -1.3 -0.6 2 842 75.4 3.10513 Skjåk 2 265 2 066 1 16 62 21 61 26 34 -26 -11.1 -5.5 -5.8 1 171 83.0 1.70536 Søndre Land 5 811 662 9 17 64 19 55 26 29 -39 -6.7 -1.8 -4.8 2 604 69.7 3.10540 Sør-Aurdal 3 186 1 072 3 18 61 21 63 29 34 -13 -4.9 -0.4 -3.6 1 594 81.8 1.70519 Sør-Fron 3 175 693 5 17 62 21 61 28 33 -20 -6.0 -3.0 -3.2 1 533 77.6 3.10545 Vang 1 590 1 466 1 16 64 19 56 25 30 -3 -2.9 0.8 -2.9 859 84.1 1.40543 Vestre Slidre 2 225 427 5 17 64 19 56 27 30 -5 -1.8 -1.1 -1.2 1 176 82.6 1.00529 Vestre Toten 12 770 252 51 17 66 17 53 26 26 44 3.5 3.6 -0.2 6 135 73.3 3.40515 Vågå 3 722 1 258 3 17 62 21 62 27 34 -10 -2.7 0.1 -2.7 1 836 79.8 2.40528 Østre Toten 14 518 474 31 17 64 19 56 27 29 -19 -1.2 1.1 -2.4 7 187 77.2 2.50521 Øyer 5 002 619 8 17 66 17 52 26 26 33 6.6 7.1 -0.4 2 589 78.8 2.20544 Øystre Slidre 3 216 793 4 18 64 18 55 28 27 20 6.4 5.2 0.9 1 807 87.2 1.0

Buskerud fylke 257 673 13 928 19 18 66 16 52 28 24 2 829 11.3 9.2 2.1 132 751 78.1 2.5 1140602 Drammen 62 566 137 458 18 66 16 51 27 23 1 088 18.1 15.0 3.2 30 944 74.5 3.10631 Flesberg 2 578 540 5 19 63 18 58 29 28 9 4.8 2.8 0.9 1 382 84.4 1.90615 Flå 998 658 2 16 59 24 69 27 41 -3 -3.2 4.0 -7.2 500 84.5 2.10617 Gol 4 479 515 9 18 64 18 57 28 29 21 4.7 3.2 1.4 2 468 86.4 1.80618 Hemsedal 2 087 726 3 20 66 14 52 30 21 35 17.8 12.5 5.1 1 210 87.9 1.80620 Hol 4 422 1 691 3 16 65 18 53 25 28 -27 -6.0 -5.0 -1.1 2 535 87.8 1.70612 Hole 5 976 136 44 19 66 14 51 29 22 149 26.7 23.6 3.2 3 159 79.8 2.00628 Hurum 9 045 157 58 19 66 16 53 29 24 48 5.5 5.9 -0.6 4 460 75.2 3.30604 Kongsberg 24 714 767 32 18 66 15 51 27 23 294 12.3 8.6 3.8 13 324 81.2 2.00622 Krødsherad 2 117 342 6 15 68 18 48 22 26 -6 -3.2 0.6 -3.5 1 137 79.5 2.50626 Lier 23 267 282 82 20 66 14 51 30 21 303 13.7 10.4 3.1 12 119 78.8 2.00623 Modum 12 911 463 28 17 66 17 51 26 25 73 5.8 5.7 0.1 6 543 76.5 2.90625 Nedre Eiker 22 687 116 196 20 67 13 50 30 20 232 10.5 6.0 4.5 11 491 75.9 2.80616 Nes 3 420 781 4 16 64 20 56 25 31 -12 -3.8 -1.3 -2.2 1 824 83.3 2.3


0633 Nore og Uvdal 2 514 2 304 1 17 62 21 61 27 33 -25 -9.4 -5.0 -4.6 1 386 88.6 1.70605 Ringerike 28 806 1 430 20 16 66 17 51 25 26 146 5.1 6.1 -0.9 14 625 76.5 2.70632 Rollag 1 390 419 3 17 62 21 61 27 34 -10 -7.2 -3.0 -4.2 728 84.2 3.50627 Røyken 18 894 111 170 22 66 12 51 33 19 323 17.9 12.7 5.1 10 006 80.2 2.00621 Sigdal 3 514 833 4 17 63 20 58 27 31 -5 -1.3 1.2 -2.6 1 984 89.1 1.20619 Ål 4 672 1 098 4 18 63 18 58 29 29 1 0.1 1.0 -0.7 2 562 86.7 1.50624 Øvre Eiker 16 616 422 39 19 66 15 52 28 23 195 12.2 9.6 2.5 8 366 76.4 2.5

Vestfold fylke 231 286 2 140 108 18 66 16 52 28 24 2 096 9.3 8.1 1.2 113 569 74.8 3.1 1040719 Andebu 5 294 183 29 20 66 13 51 30 20 45 8.1 5.2 3.5 2 733 77.7 2.50714 Hof 3 064 149 21 20 65 15 53 30 23 3 1.0 -1.1 2.0 1 593 79.7 2.60702 Holmestrand 10 065 84 120 17 66 17 52 27 26 94 9.4 9.4 0.1 4 849 73.4 3.40701 Horten 25 678 68 380 18 66 16 53 28 25 181 7.2 6.6 0.6 11 999 71.3 3.80728 Lardal 2 409 272 9 17 65 18 54 26 27 -2 -0.8 -0.1 -0.7 1 247 79.6 2.00709 Larvik 42 412 497 85 18 65 17 53 27 26 254 6.1 5.7 0.4 20 813 75.2 2.80722 Nøtterøy 20 713 59 350 18 65 17 54 28 26 132 6.8 6.9 -0.5 10 238 76.0 2.70716 Re 8 710 223 39 21 67 13 50 31 19 107 12.5 7.1 5.6 4 631 79.9 2.70713 Sande 8 303 174 48 20 65 14 54 31 22 121 15.3 11.9 3.3 4 225 78.2 2.70706 Sandefjord 43 126 119 361 18 65 16 54 28 25 360 8.7 7.7 0.9 20 540 73.1 3.70720 Stokke 10 994 115 96 19 68 12 47 28 18 193 18.7 14.5 3.9 5 676 75.6 2.60711 Svelvik 6 466 56 115 18 66 15 51 28 23 4 0.8 0.2 0.5 3 110 72.4 3.40723 Tjøme 4 685 38 125 16 66 17 51 25 26 20 4.4 5.9 -1.6 2 246 72.3 3.40704 Tønsberg 39 367 105 376 18 66 16 51 27 25 585 15.4 13.7 1.8 19 669 75.7 3.1

Telemark fylke 168 231 14 186 12 17 65 17 53 27 26 381 2.3 2.9 -0.6 82 831 75.3 3.8 1140814 Bamble 14 107 281 50 18 67 15 50 27 23 -11 -0.7 -2.5 1.7 6 974 73.9 3.90821 Bø 5 595 261 21 18 65 17 53 28 25 70 12.8 10.9 2.0 2 761 75.7 3.30817 Drangedal 4 159 998 4 17 63 20 59 27 31 2 0.8 3.3 -2.8 1 952 74.5 3.80831 Fyresdal 1 381 1 133 1 18 64 18 56 29 27 6 4.1 5.3 -1.0 738 83.3 2.80827 Hjartdal 1 587 750 2 16 62 22 62 26 36 -10 -5.7 -1.5 -4.7 820 83.9 3.10815 Kragerø 10 620 291 37 16 66 18 51 25 27 20 1.7 3.4 -1.6 5 138 73.3 3.90829 Kviteseid 2 522 627 4 16 64 20 56 25 32 -16 -5.9 -1.4 -4.8 1 367 84.7 2.70830 Nissedal 1 404 789 2 16 66 17 51 25 26 -1 -0.6 1.1 -1.6 747 80.4 3.60819 Nome 6 527 390 17 17 65 19 55 26 29 -8 -1.2 1.6 -2.9 3 147 74.7 3.90807 Notodden 12 390 851 15 17 64 20 57 26 31 6 0.5 2.7 -2.2 5 798 73.5 3.60805 Porsgrunn 34 623 158 220 18 66 17 52 27 25 247 7.2 7.7 -0.4 16 911 74.2 3.90822 Sauherad 4 270 286 15 18 64 18 56 28 28 -13 -2.5 -2.8 -0.1 2 115 77.1 3.00828 Seljord 2 966 670 4 16 64 20 57 26 31 10 3.2 5.0 -1.6 1 595 84.3 2.30811 Siljan 2 412 205 12 19 66 14 50 29 21 8 3.3 0.7 2.5 1 231 76.8 3.00806 Skien 51 668 722 72 18 66 16 51 27 24 192 3.9 3.4 0.4 25 197 73.8 4.50826 Tinn 6 022 1 915 3 17 63 20 58 27 32 -73 -11.5 -8.4 -3.5 3 050 80.2 2.40833 Tokke 2 337 932 3 17 63 20 59 26 32 -24 -10.5 -4.8 -5.3 1 237 84.0 2.80834 Vinje 3 641 2 929 1 17 65 18 53 26 27 -24 -6.3 -5.1 -1.3 2 052 86.5 2.6

Aust-Agder fylke 108 499 8 485 13 19 66 15 52 29 23 973 9.2 7.3 1.9 53 075 74.5 2.7 1000906 Arendal 41 655 254 164 18 66 15 51 28 23 393 9.7 7.6 2.1 20 258 73.4 3.00928 Birkenes 4 689 670 7 22 65 13 54 33 20 70 15.5 9.9 5.7 2 273 74.4 2.10938 Bygland 1 223 1 186 1 17 64 19 56 27 29 -21 -16.3 -13.0 -3.8 646 82.3 1.70941 Bykle 970 1 305 1 20 70 11 44 28 15 22 24.8 20.1 3.7 584 86.5 1.60937 Evje og Hornnes 3 397 520 7 19 63 17 58 31 27 18 5.5 4.7 0.7 1 687 78.3 3.10919 Froland 5 002 582 9 21 66 12 51 32 19 66 13.6 9.7 4.0 2 533 76.3 2.9





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


0911 Gjerstad 2 478 315 8 18 65 17 54 28 26 -5 -1.8 1.7 -3.8 1 185 73.5 2.90904 Grimstad 20 497 274 75 21 66 13 52 32 21 322 16.4 11.1 5.3 10 002 74.3 2.40935 Iveland 1 254 246 5 20 68 11 46 30 17 19 16.6 12.7 2.8 618 72.1 2.30926 Lillesand 9 465 175 54 20 66 15 52 30 22 84 9.1 6.0 3.1 4 751 76.3 2.20901 Risør 6 894 174 40 17 65 18 55 26 29 -3 -0.4 3.1 -3.5 3 230 72.4 3.00914 Tvedestrand 5 939 205 29 17 66 17 53 26 26 10 1.7 3.6 -1.9 2 801 72.0 3.50940 Valle 1 289 1 170 1 17 64 19 57 27 30 -19 -14.2 -9.0 -5.6 698 85.2 1.30912 Vegårshei 1 886 322 6 20 63 16 58 32 26 6 3.4 3.7 -0.4 946 79.2 2.40929 Åmli 1 861 1 089 2 19 63 18 58 29 28 12 6.6 11.1 -4.5 865 73.3 1.7

Vest-Agder fylke 170 377 6 817 25 20 65 15 53 31 22 1 815 11.0 6.6 4.4 85 623 76.8 2.8 1281027 Audnedal 1 670 239 7 23 62 15 62 37 25 18 11.7 9.6 1.4 858 83.4 2.51003 Farsund 9 410 251 38 20 63 17 59 32 28 -15 -1.5 -3.0 1.3 4 551 77.1 3.21004 Flekkefjord 9 003 540 17 19 63 18 58 29 29 23 2.8 0.9 1.7 4 641 81.4 1.91034 Hægebostad 1 624 425 4 21 64 15 56 32 24 6 3.7 2.0 1.7 869 83.7 2.21001 Kristiansand 81 295 260 313 19 67 14 50 29 21 1 044 13.3 8.2 5.1 41 161 76.1 3.01037 Kvinesdal 5 776 916 6 19 64 17 56 30 26 39 6.8 4.3 2.6 2 850 77.2 3.11029 Lindesnes 4 661 298 16 20 64 16 56 32 25 35 7.7 5.6 2.1 2 302 77.2 2.51032 Lyngdal 7 739 373 21 22 64 14 57 35 21 98 13.2 6.9 6.2 3 821 77.3 2.81002 Mandal 14 696 208 71 20 65 15 54 31 23 136 9.6 5.5 4.0 7 141 74.9 2.71021 Marnardal 2 231 380 6 21 65 14 54 32 22 13 5.8 6.2 -0.2 1 101 76.0 3.01046 Sirdal 1 790 1 380 1 20 64 17 57 31 26 6 3.4 6.2 -2.5 1 019 89.2 1.51017 Songdalen 5 940 207 29 22 66 12 51 33 18 76 13.4 7.7 5.6 2 980 75.7 2.81018 Søgne 10 509 142 74 22 65 13 53 34 20 193 19.2 12.6 6.8 5 395 78.7 2.41014 Vennesla 13 116 365 36 21 65 14 53 32 21 139 10.8 5.1 5.8 6 461 75.2 2.61026 Åseral 917 834 1 22 62 16 61 35 26 4 2.2 6.6 -2.2 474 83.5 1.0

Rogaland fylke 427 947 8 735 49 21 67 12 50 31 19 6 946 17.0 9.8 7.2 226 302 79.4 1.9 1501114 Bjerkreim 2 583 586 4 22 64 14 56 35 21 23 9.5 6.1 3.2 1 463 88.5 0.71145 Bokn 831 45 18 21 60 18 66 36 30 13 15.5 13.3 2.5 407 81.2 1.41101 Eigersund 14 170 394 36 20 65 14 53 31 22 151 11.1 6.7 4.3 7 421 80.0 1.91141 Finnøy 2 824 105 27 20 64 17 57 31 27 10 3.7 3.1 0.6 1 614 89.9 0.91129 Forsand 1 149 712 2 23 62 14 61 38 23 9 8.4 5.4 2.3 602 84.2 0.91122 Gjesdal 10 208 561 18 23 68 8 47 34 12 186 19.2 10.2 8.9 5 753 82.7 1.51106 Haugesund 34 049 68 504 19 67 15 50 28 22 500 15.4 11.9 3.4 16 921 74.6 3.21133 Hjelmeland 2 744 1 008 3 21 63 17 60 33 27 0 0.6 0.1 -0.1 1 522 88.7 1.31119 Hå 16 342 248 66 23 65 12 54 36 18 311 20.0 10.0 10.2 9 081 85.6 1.3


1149 Karmøy 39 624 217 182 21 65 14 53 32 21 408 10.7 5.0 5.6 19 463 75.2 2.61120 Klepp 16 918 106 160 24 66 10 52 36 16 478 30.3 20.2 10.4 9 218 82.8 1.51144 Kvitsøy 527 6 92 18 59 23 69 31 38 3 6.2 6.1 -0.4 254 81.5 1.81112 Lund 3 139 357 9 21 64 15 56 33 24 -1 0.6 -3.8 3.7 1 594 79.3 2.51127 Randaberg 9 997 24 420 23 65 12 53 35 18 179 18.8 10.2 8.5 5 343 81.9 0.91142 Rennesøy 4 035 65 62 24 64 11 56 38 18 136 37.2 28.7 8.6 2 216 85.5 0.91102 Sandnes 64 671 284 228 22 67 11 49 32 16 1 407 23.1 13.6 9.4 34 670 79.6 1.91135 Sauda 4 695 507 9 17 63 20 59 26 32 -24 -5.2 -1.1 -4.0 2 401 81.2 2.21111 Sokndal 3 285 266 12 20 62 18 61 32 29 -5 -1.5 -2.1 0.7 1 581 77.5 1.71124 Sola 22 831 68 334 23 66 11 50 34 16 591 28.2 18.2 9.7 12 210 80.4 1.51103 Stavanger 123 850 66 1 865 20 69 12 46 28 17 1 977 16.6 8.8 7.9 66 107 77.8 1.81130 Strand 11 206 193 58 22 64 14 55 34 21 151 14.1 7.9 6.1 5 805 80.4 1.91134 Suldal 3 849 1 673 2 19 62 18 60 31 29 -9 -2.7 -2.7 0.4 2 090 87.1 0.91121 Time 16 077 169 95 22 66 12 50 33 17 322 21.2 11.6 9.5 8 949 83.7 1.21146 Tysvær 9 928 393 25 24 64 12 56 37 19 112 11.6 3.1 8.6 5 117 80.6 1.61151 Utsira 218 6 36 18 63 19 58 28 30 1 4.6 10.3 -3.8 115 83.6 0.81160 Vindafjord 8 197 608 13 21 62 17 60 33 27 13 1.9 -0.9 2.5 4 386 85.7 1.2

Hordaland fylke 477 175 14 771 32 20 66 14 51 30 22 5 752 12.5 7.3 5.2 252 261 80.0 2.4 1411247 Askøy 24 993 93 268 24 65 11 54 36 17 594 25.3 15.6 9.8 12 975 79.7 2.51244 Austevoll 4 571 112 41 21 64 14 55 33 22 24 5.3 0.5 4.8 2 543 86.3 1.11264 Austrheim 2 738 55 49 18 66 17 52 27 25 42 16.0 14.7 1.8 1 454 80.9 2.11201 Bergen 256 600 445 577 18 68 14 48 27 21 3 474 14.0 8.3 5.8 137 000 79.0 2.61219 Bømlo 11 275 219 51 22 64 14 56 34 21 87 8.1 1.8 6.1 5 860 80.9 1.51232 Eidfjord 958 1 459 1 16 66 18 52 24 28 9 9.4 13.4 -4.1 548 86.8 1.51211 Etne 3 882 678 6 19 62 19 60 31 30 -5 -1.1 -0.5 -0.9 2 161 89.3 1.51265 Fedje 594 9 67 19 58 23 72 32 40 -13 -21.4 -14.3 -7.1 284 82.3 2.81222 Fitjar 2 931 152 19 22 64 14 57 35 22 8 2.5 -2.0 4.7 1 552 82.9 1.51246 Fjell 21 823 141 154 24 66 10 50 36 14 354 17.0 8.2 8.7 11 396 78.6 2.81241 Fusa 3 823 355 11 20 61 18 63 33 30 21 6.1 4.9 0.8 2 023 86.2 1.51234 Granvin 947 205 5 16 63 21 59 25 34 -13 -12.5 -6.4 -6.6 507 84.9 1.41227 Jondal 1 036 190 5 17 61 22 64 27 37 -8 -7.9 -3.0 -5.0 518 82.0 1.81238 Kvam 8 360 584 14 18 63 19 60 29 31 4 0.6 0.5 0.1 4 323 82.5 1.81224 Kvinnherad 13 187 1 093 12 20 63 17 60 32 28 12 1.0 -1.6 2.5 6 769 82.0 2.21263 Lindås 14 286 454 31 21 65 14 54 32 21 251 18.2 11.4 6.9 7 620 81.9 2.01266 Masfjorden 1 635 528 3 18 61 22 65 29 36 -11 -7.0 -4.1 -2.4 846 85.3 1.51256 Meland 6 631 86 77 23 66 11 52 35 16 153 24.7 17.1 7.6 3 527 80.7 2.21252 Modalen 344 377 1 21 65 15 55 32 23 -3 -9.6 -10.7 1.7 197 88.7 1.01228 Odda 7 047 1 584 4 17 62 21 61 27 34 -67 -9.2 -4.8 -4.5 3 562 81.2 2.61243 Os 16 684 133 125 22 66 12 52 33 18 353 22.5 14.0 8.3 8 934 81.2 2.51253 Osterøy 7 421 248 30 20 63 16 58 32 25 43 5.9 3.8 2.1 3 882 82.6 2.31260 Radøy 4 825 106 46 19 65 16 55 30 25 34 7.1 6.4 0.8 2 495 80.0 2.11242 Samnanger 2 375 256 9 19 65 16 54 29 25 10 4.5 2.2 2.0 1 201 77.8 3.11221 Stord 17 565 138 128 22 66 13 53 33 20 209 12.3 5.0 7.3 9 284 80.6 2.21245 Sund 6 079 94 64 21 67 12 50 32 18 109 18.7 12.4 6.5 3 094 76.3 3.21216 Sveio 4 999 224 22 22 65 13 55 34 21 66 13.5 8.5 5.3 2 623 81.1 2.11223 Tysnes 2 779 245 11 17 61 22 63 28 35 -9 -3.3 -1.7 -1.7 1 421 83.4 1.71231 Ullensvang 3 382 1 306 3 17 61 22 64 28 35 -29 -7.8 -5.1 -3.2 1 854 89.8 1.31233 Ulvik 1 129 682 2 17 60 23 67 28 38 -7 -5.9 -5.0 -1.2 558 82.2 3.41251 Vaksdal 4 107 717 6 18 61 21 65 30 35 -11 -2.3 -1.3 -1.3 1 939 78.0 2.51235 Voss 13 902 1 739 8 18 62 19 61 30 31 10 0.7 0.7 0.0 7 235 83.6 2.01259 Øygarden 4 267 64 66 21 65 14 55 33 22 62 14.2 8.9 6.0 2 078 75.5 3.5





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


Sogn og Fjordane fylke 107 080 17 925 6 19 64 17 57 31 27 9 0.1 -2.0 2.1 56 453 82.9 1.6 1141428 Askvoll 2 999 268 11 17 60 23 66 28 38 -46 -14.8 -10.6 -4.2 1 505 83.4 1.91421 Aurland 1 682 1 419 1 17 65 18 54 26 28 -20 -11.7 -10.0 -1.6 926 84.8 1.21418 Balestrand 1 344 724 2 18 65 17 55 28 27 -18 -12.5 -10.4 -2.5 705 81.2 1.41438 Bremanger 3 908 805 5 18 59 23 70 31 39 -24 -6.2 -4.0 -2.1 1 837 80.0 2.81443 Eid 5 849 416 14 20 65 15 55 31 24 16 2.9 -0.1 2.9 3 118 82.5 1.61429 Fjaler 2 846 464 6 16 64 20 55 24 31 -14 -4.9 -1.8 -3.1 1 354 73.9 1.11401 Flora 11 586 668 17 21 66 13 53 32 21 45 3.9 -0.9 4.9 6 019 79.3 1.91432 Førde 12 035 565 21 23 67 10 48 33 15 176 15.3 4.2 11.0 6 898 85.0 1.31430 Gaular 2 778 514 5 20 63 18 59 31 28 5 2.1 2.0 0.0 1 509 86.5 1.11445 Gloppen 5 696 1 013 6 19 62 19 62 30 31 -20 -3.4 -4.3 0.8 3 011 85.5 1.01411 Gulen 2 302 578 4 18 62 20 61 29 32 -32 -13.2 -9.8 -3.8 1 216 84.9 0.91444 Hornindal 1 227 177 7 21 61 18 63 34 29 6 5.0 1.7 3.3 665 88.5 1.11413 Hyllestad 1 502 250 6 18 62 21 62 28 34 -5 -3.2 0.7 -4.0 738 79.8 1.71416 Høyanger 4 256 861 5 19 62 19 61 30 31 -49 -11.2 -8.8 -2.3 1 945 73.5 5.61431 Jølster 2 981 620 5 21 62 16 61 34 27 12 4.3 1.6 2.4 1 607 86.8 1.01422 Lærdal 2 199 1 235 2 18 63 18 58 29 29 8 3.8 2.7 1.0 1 181 85.1 1.01419 Leikanger 2 182 472 5 20 63 17 58 31 27 -5 -2.5 -5.2 3.0 1 227 89.1 0.91426 Luster 4 945 2 637 2 20 62 19 62 32 30 4 0.7 0.2 0.6 2 571 84.2 1.11433 Naustdal 2 675 354 8 20 64 16 56 31 25 -1 -0.5 -3.5 3.0 1 488 86.7 1.01441 Selje 2 821 228 12 18 62 20 62 30 32 -37 -12.2 -10.9 -1.8 1 434 82.2 2.61420 Sogndal 7 035 435 16 20 65 15 53 30 23 50 7.0 1.1 6.2 3 800 82.6 1.11412 Solund 867 220 4 16 62 21 60 26 34 -1 -1.8 4.1 -5.7 449 82.9 2.01449 Stryn 6 967 1 329 5 20 63 17 59 32 26 25 3.6 0.4 3.3 3 799 86.6 1.51417 Vik 2 768 569 5 17 60 23 67 29 38 -23 -8.0 -5.7 -2.3 1 460 88.3 1.21439 Vågsøy 5 996 162 37 19 63 18 59 30 29 -44 -7.3 -7.9 0.6 3 036 80.7 2.41424 Årdal 5 634 942 6 16 64 20 56 25 31 1 0.1 0.9 -0.7 2 953 81.7 1.0

Møre og Romsdal fylke 251 262 14 597 17 19 65 16 55 29 25 1 311 5.3 3.2 2.1 129 000 79.5 2.7 1281547 Aukra 3 196 58 55 21 62 17 62 34 28 29 9.4 5.2 3.9 1 664 84.4 1.81576 Aure 3 502 624 6 17 63 21 60 27 33 -25 -7.0 -3.8 -3.2 1 742 79.5 2.91554 Averøy 5 477 172 32 19 64 17 56 29 27 7 1.1 1.4 -0.1 2 784 79.3 2.81551 Eide 3 382 146 23 21 64 15 57 33 24 11 4.7 -0.8 4.2 1 729 80.0 2.11548 Fræna 9 336 360 26 20 65 15 53 31 22 68 6.8 3.4 4.0 4 819 79.0 2.81532 Giske 7 029 39 179 23 63 14 59 36 23 86 12.9 6.6 6.1 3 646 82.3 2.21557 Gjemnes 2 599 372 7 19 64 17 56 30 27 -20 -7.6 -7.9 0.4 1 357 81.7 2.31571 Halsa 1 650 296 6 16 61 23 64 26 37 -9 -5.6 0.5 -5.6 818 81.1 2.4


1534 Haram 8 739 250 35 19 63 18 57 29 28 4 0.6 -0.8 1.2 4 505 81.2 2.31517 Hareid 4 859 77 63 20 65 16 55 30 24 42 8.4 6.0 2.9 2 426 77.2 4.11515 Herøy 8 383 120 70 20 64 16 57 31 26 -1 -0.1 -2.5 2.3 4 284 80.3 2.41503 Kristiansund 23 238 86 270 18 67 15 50 27 23 180 8.0 6.7 1.3 11 415 73.7 3.81545 Midsund 1 952 94 21 20 60 20 68 34 33 2 1.3 1.9 -1.0 967 83.1 2.41502 Molde 24 795 355 70 18 66 16 51 27 24 134 5.5 3.2 2.3 13 136 80.2 2.21543 Nesset 3 074 990 3 17 64 19 57 27 30 -22 -6.8 -4.6 -2.4 1 534 78.5 4.31524 Norddal 1 801 901 2 20 60 20 66 34 33 -3 -1.8 0.6 -2.2 909 84.1 1.91539 Rauma 7 413 1 443 5 18 63 19 59 28 31 15 2.1 3.0 -1.0 3 768 80.8 3.71567 Rindal 2 041 621 3 19 59 22 70 32 38 -12 -5.8 0.8 -6.4 1 045 87.2 1.21514 Sande 2 518 131 19 17 62 20 61 28 33 -12 -4.6 -2.9 -1.7 1 248 79.8 1.91546 Sandøy 1 320 20 67 19 60 21 66 32 34 9 7.1 8.7 -1.6 707 88.7 1.81529 Skodje 3 944 111 36 21 66 12 51 32 18 68 18.4 12.6 5.4 2 097 80.2 2.11573 Smøla 2 143 265 8 15 62 23 62 25 37 -10 -4.8 -1.3 -3.5 1 043 78.7 2.91526 Stordal 1 030 246 4 22 60 18 66 36 30 5 4.5 3.6 1.2 477 76.9 5.41525 Stranda 4 531 847 5 18 61 20 63 30 33 -15 -3.2 -3.7 0.4 2 360 84.9 2.31531 Sula 7 931 58 138 22 64 15 57 34 23 94 12.4 6.4 5.9 4 105 81.3 2.51563 Sunndal 7 289 1 652 4 17 64 19 55 27 29 -17 -2.2 -0.2 -2.1 3 532 75.3 3.41566 Surnadal 5 956 1 316 5 18 63 19 59 29 30 -40 -6.7 -3.3 -3.2 3 033 80.8 2.11528 Sykkylven 7 589 329 23 20 65 15 55 31 24 28 3.8 0.4 3.3 4 067 82.9 2.81560 Tingvoll 3 071 323 10 17 62 22 62 27 35 -7 -2.2 -0.1 -2.0 1 491 78.5 2.61516 Ulstein 7 461 94 79 22 65 13 53 33 20 132 18.7 12.4 6.5 3 938 80.7 1.51511 Vanylven 3 471 322 11 16 63 21 59 25 33 -44 -12.4 -9.2 -3.3 1 741 79.6 2.51535 Vestnes 6 506 349 19 18 66 16 52 27 25 26 3.6 3.0 1.1 3 307 77.2 2.61519 Volda 8 573 526 16 20 64 17 57 31 26 46 5.2 2.2 3.3 4 221 77.2 2.01504 Ålesund 42 982 93 463 19 66 14 51 29 22 536 12.9 7.9 4.9 22 807 79.9 2.81523 Ørskog 2 138 127 17 19 65 17 54 29 26 4 1.6 1.6 0.3 1 148 83.0 2.01520 Ørsta 10 343 785 13 19 63 17 58 30 27 22 2.1 -0.1 2.3 5 131 78.3 2.6

Sør-Trøndelag fylke 290 547 17 839 16 19 67 14 49 28 22 3 607 12.8 8.3 4.5 149 955 77.1 3.7 1261622 Agdenes 1 719 324 5 15 63 22 60 25 35 -16 -9.1 -3.2 -6.0 897 83.3 2.21627 Bjugn 4 548 354 13 18 62 20 61 28 32 -24 -5.9 -3.3 -1.8 2 063 73.0 3.91620 Frøya 4 314 221 20 18 64 19 57 28 29 41 9.5 11.1 -1.2 2 180 79.4 3.11612 Hemne 4 207 626 7 19 63 18 59 30 29 -15 -3.3 -4.3 0.8 1 991 75.2 5.11617 Hitra 4 256 647 7 17 65 18 55 26 29 47 11.2 14.9 -3.5 2 192 79.8 3.11644 Holtålen 2 064 1 171 2 16 60 24 68 27 41 -12 -6.5 -0.7 -5.1 1 036 84.1 3.11662 Klæbu 5 801 174 33 24 65 10 53 37 15 104 18.9 10.0 8.8 2 962 78.0 3.31663 Malvik 12 550 165 76 22 67 11 50 33 17 91 7.4 0.4 7.0 6 406 76.6 3.41636 Meldal 3 920 613 6 16 62 22 61 26 35 -2 -0.7 3.9 -4.5 1 874 76.9 3.31653 Melhus 14 841 655 23 21 65 14 53 32 21 175 12.0 7.2 5.0 7 497 77.5 3.71648 Midtre Gauldal 6 012 1 809 3 17 64 18 56 27 29 42 7.3 8.2 -1.1 3 168 82.2 3.51634 Oppdal 6 603 2 203 3 18 64 18 57 29 28 25 4.0 3.6 0.3 3 516 83.5 2.51638 Orkdal 11 276 562 20 19 65 16 53 29 24 152 14.0 9.4 4.6 5 613 76.3 4.11633 Osen 1 033 370 3 17 59 24 71 29 42 -4 -3.6 -2.7 -0.8 512 84.6 3.51635 Rennebu 2 622 921 3 17 61 22 63 28 35 -8 -2.9 -1.4 -1.5 1 344 83.5 2.11624 Rissa 6 442 587 11 19 63 18 59 30 29 0 0.3 0.8 -0.7 3 128 77.3 4.11632 Roan 999 356 3 15 61 24 65 25 40 -14 -14.5 -6.0 -8.0 501 82.9 3.81640 Røros 5 576 1 757 3 17 63 20 60 27 32 -13 -2.1 -0.7 -1.6 2 994 85.7 2.41664 Selbu 4 004 1 144 4 18 62 20 62 29 32 3 0.8 2.1 -1.5 2 089 84.4 2.91657 Skaun 6 626 213 31 22 65 13 54 34 20 111 17.8 11.4 6.2 3 459 80.3 3.31613 Snillfjord 998 462 2 17 62 21 60 27 34 -6 -5.5 1.0 -6.7 503 80.9 2.9





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


1601 Trondheim 170 936 321 532 18 69 13 45 27 18 2 963 18.1 11.5 6.6 89 477 75.9 3.81665 Tydal 859 1 215 1 15 60 25 66 24 41 -8 -9.8 -4.1 -4.6 469 90.4 1.61630 Åfjord 3 220 898 4 17 61 22 64 28 36 -24 -7.1 -2.9 -4.5 1 642 83.5 2.21621 Ørland 5 121 71 73 18 64 17 55 28 27 -2 -0.6 -3.6 3.2 2 442 74.1 4.7

Nord-Trøndelag fylke 131 555 21 056 6 19 64 17 57 30 26 614 4.8 3.0 1.7 64 645 76.9 3.9 901749 Flatanger 1 104 433 3 16 62 21 61 27 35 -20 -17.5 -10.9 -6.6 529 77.3 4.71748 Fosnes 670 480 1 15 62 22 60 24 36 -8 -13.6 -6.6 -5.5 321 76.7 3.11717 Frosta 2 495 73 34 20 61 19 63 32 31 0 0.2 0.5 -0.6 1 160 75.8 4.21742 Grong 2 361 1 101 2 18 62 21 62 28 33 -25 -9.9 -5.6 -4.8 1 206 82.7 2.41743 Høylandet 1 270 729 2 20 60 20 68 34 34 5 3.7 1.9 2.2 685 90.5 2.01729 Inderøy 5 879 146 40 20 64 16 56 31 24 -8 -1.0 -3.4 2.1 2 945 78.0 3.41755 Leka 593 106 6 14 60 26 66 23 43 -4 -5.3 -4.7 -1.7 300 84.1 1.31718 Leksvik 3 528 403 9 19 63 18 59 30 29 5 1.1 0.7 0.7 1 747 78.7 4.21719 Levanger 18 580 618 30 20 65 15 54 30 24 115 6.3 2.0 4.3 9 220 76.2 3.61738 Lierne 1 435 2 672 1 17 61 21 63 28 35 -15 -10.1 -4.2 -5.8 767 87.0 2.61711 Meråker 2 471 1 240 2 17 62 21 60 27 34 -18 -7.1 -2.4 -4.9 1 096 71.2 5.51723 Mosvik 810 205 4 17 63 21 59 26 33 -15 -18.4 -13.7 -3.3 403 79.4 3.41751 Nærøy 4 990 1 027 5 19 62 19 61 30 30 -52 -9.5 -8.2 -2.1 2 409 77.5 3.41725 Namdalseid 1 697 751 2 18 61 21 63 29 34 -16 -9.7 -7.3 -2.0 856 82.4 2.61703 Namsos 12 795 784 16 20 64 16 56 32 24 58 4.7 1.6 3.0 6 348 77.5 3.61740 Namsskogan 928 1 368 1 17 58 24 72 30 42 -3 -2.8 -2.6 -0.6 463 85.6 3.51744 Overhalla 3 577 683 5 20 64 17 57 31 26 19 5.7 3.4 2.2 1 885 82.6 4.01739 Røyrvik 495 1 371 0 17 61 21 63 28 35 -9 -18.1 -15.8 -1.2 262 86.0 2.91736 Snåsa 2 164 2 172 1 18 61 22 65 29 36 -19 -8.7 -5.5 -3.3 1 100 83.8 3.31702 Steinkjer 21 080 1 435 15 18 64 18 57 28 28 107 5.3 4.2 1.0 10 161 75.5 4.51714 Stjørdal 21 375 928 23 21 64 15 56 33 23 364 17.7 13.0 4.7 10 636 77.5 3.61721 Verdal 14 222 1 468 10 20 65 15 53 30 23 82 5.8 2.3 3.5 6 751 72.8 5.01724 Verran 2 914 556 5 14 66 20 51 21 30 48 17.5 25.1 -8.0 1 262 65.3 4.81750 Vikna 4 122 311 13 20 64 16 56 32 24 23 5.4 3.7 2.0 2 135 80.8 3.6

Nordland fylke 236 271 36 302 7 18 65 17 55 28 26 -138 -0.5 -1.5 0.9 113 941 74.6 4.0 1061820 Alstahaug 7 196 405 18 18 66 16 51 27 23 -43 -5.5 -6.4 0.5 3 574 74.7 3.51871 Andøy 5 002 625 8 18 61 21 63 29 34 -68 -13.1 -10.3 -3.0 2 337 76.0 3.21854 Ballangen 2 616 849 3 17 63 21 59 26 33 -25 -9.0 -7.6 -1.8 1 119 68.2 4.11839 Beiarn 1 114 1 194 1 13 62 25 62 22 40 -10 -9.0 -0.4 -8.8 535 77.7 3.01811 Bindal 1 601 1 208 1 16 61 23 65 27 38 -36 -21.0 -14.6 -6.8 703 72.3 3.5


1804 Bodø 47 282 1 305 36 20 67 13 48 29 19 569 12.5 5.2 7.2 24 681 77.3 3.11813 Brønnøy 7 660 1 002 8 20 65 16 55 31 24 16 2.0 -0.1 2.1 3 683 74.5 3.31867 Bø 2 789 237 12 15 58 27 74 27 47 -43 -14.8 -5.5 -9.4 1 139 71.0 6.81827 Dønna 1 431 187 8 20 61 20 65 32 32 -20 -13.1 -11.4 -2.3 664 76.4 4.51853 Evenes 1 357 231 6 17 61 22 64 28 36 -12 -8.7 -2.0 -6.4 585 70.7 2.31841 Fauske 9 552 1 115 9 18 65 17 54 27 27 2 0.1 -0.3 0.5 4 467 72.0 5.01859 Flakstad 1 369 171 8 17 61 22 64 28 36 -19 -14.2 -9.3 -4.2 629 75.2 5.31838 Gildeskål 1 996 627 3 16 61 23 64 26 38 -38 -17.5 -11.7 -6.5 940 77.3 2.81825 Grane 1 496 1 904 1 17 62 21 61 27 34 -9 -6.3 -2.0 -4.1 693 74.8 4.31866 Hadsel 7 981 552 14 18 64 19 57 28 29 -13 -1.4 -1.0 -0.6 3 658 71.9 4.91849 Hamarøy 1 752 935 2 14 64 22 57 22 35 -18 -9.4 -1.3 -8.5 825 74.0 3.61826 Hattfjelldal 1 444 2 434 1 17 61 22 64 29 36 -17 -11.6 -8.3 -3.5 720 82.0 2.21832 Hemnes 4 584 1 470 3 18 62 20 62 30 32 2 0.8 0.2 0.2 2 008 70.8 4.51818 Herøy 1 618 61 26 15 63 22 60 24 35 -25 -14.4 -11.4 -3.3 754 74.4 4.81822 Leirfjord 2 140 443 5 17 66 18 53 26 27 -4 -1.5 -0.1 -1.9 1 011 72.1 4.11834 Lurøy 1 900 256 7 17 62 21 62 28 35 -26 -13.0 -8.4 -4.9 945 80.7 3.71851 Lødingen 2 181 514 4 14 62 24 62 23 39 -36 -14.8 -8.7 -7.0 974 72.5 5.81837 Meløy 6 639 820 8 19 63 18 58 30 29 -22 -3.6 -3.7 0.4 3 215 76.6 2.61874 Moskenes 1 130 112 10 16 60 24 67 26 41 -15 -12.2 -6.2 -6.4 530 78.4 4.91805 Narvik 18 402 1 942 9 17 66 17 53 26 26 -26 -1.2 -2.7 1.3 8 785 72.8 3.81828 Nesna 1 786 202 9 18 64 18 57 29 28 -2 -1.7 1.2 -2.4 794 69.6 5.01833 Rana 25 282 4 295 6 19 65 17 55 29 26 -9 -0.3 -2.1 1.7 12 076 73.9 4.31836 Rødøy 1 281 686 2 20 61 19 64 32 31 -33 -23.8 -21.2 -3.4 615 78.7 2.81856 Røst 612 11 57 18 66 16 52 27 25 2 3.3 2.3 1.7 316 78.5 6.41840 Saltdal 4 692 2 093 2 16 66 18 53 25 28 -21 -4.6 -3.0 -1.5 2 329 75.7 3.41870 Sortland 9 819 560 18 20 66 14 51 30 22 59 5.8 3.8 2.3 4 784 73.8 4.91848 Steigen 2 619 976 3 16 63 21 59 25 34 -37 -13.5 -6.3 -7.3 1 246 75.6 4.21812 Sømna 2 041 189 11 19 63 18 59 30 29 -7 -3.3 -1.3 -1.9 990 77.2 2.91845 Sørfold 1 984 1 521 1 17 62 21 61 27 34 -37 -16.3 -12.0 -5.9 849 68.8 6.41852 Tjeldsund 1 345 312 4 16 61 24 65 26 39 -16 -11.0 -8.6 -2.9 577 70.9 3.81835 Træna 489 15 33 22 61 16 63 36 27 9 19.3 24.5 -4.4 236 78.6 5.41850 Tysfjord 2 007 1 365 1 16 64 20 57 26 31 -28 -13.8 -11.0 -2.6 831 64.9 6.31857 Værøy 761 18 43 17 64 19 55 27 29 3 4.8 5.6 -1.1 367 74.9 8.11824 Vefsn 13 388 1 617 8 17 65 18 55 27 28 -21 -1.5 -1.8 0.2 6 565 75.9 3.71815 Vega 1 288 156 8 17 62 21 61 27 34 -13 -10.3 -4.4 -5.8 620 77.6 3.21860 Vestvågøy 10 674 404 26 19 63 18 58 30 28 -22 -1.7 -2.8 0.7 5 000 74.1 4.71816 Vevelstad 510 517 1 17 63 20 59 27 32 -3 -5.4 2.8 -7.9 232 72.3 5.01865 Vågan 9 023 460 20 18 65 17 54 28 26 -3 -0.2 -0.8 0.5 4 279 73.0 4.81868 Øksnes 4 438 308 14 19 63 18 58 30 28 -24 -5.0 -5.2 -0.1 2 059 73.2 4.6

Troms fylke - Romssa fylka 156 494 25 121 6 19 67 15 50 28 22 754 4.9 1.0 3.9 79 662 76.5 3.5 1021933 Balsfjord 5 515 1 442 4 18 61 21 63 29 35 -10 -1.6 0.0 -1.8 2 578 76.4 3.91922 Bardu 3 949 2 543 2 20 64 16 56 31 25 15 3.8 -3.2 7.1 2 114 83.4 2.01929 Berg 926 271 3 12 67 21 50 19 31 -16 -18.2 -9.3 -7.5 496 80.3 3.01915 Bjarkøy 482 75 6 18 56 26 77 31 46 -10 -20.9 -4.7 -15.2 218 80.1 1.71926 Dyrøy 1 233 279 4 16 61 24 65 26 39 -11 -8.7 -2.9 -6.1 514 68.9 5.41940 Gáivuotna - Kåfjord 2 207 923 2 16 63 21 58 25 33 -17 -7.2 -4.8 -2.8 1 018 72.9 6.41919 Gratangen 1 150 307 4 16 59 25 69 27 42 -23 -19.5 -10.8 -8.5 491 72.1 2.01901 Harstad 23 257 349 67 18 66 15 50 27 23 31 1.3 -1.2 2.5 11 650 75.4 3.01917 Ibestad 1 408 236 6 13 58 29 71 22 49 -48 -31.6 -15.9 -15.1 600 72.9 4.3





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


1936 Karlsøy 2 371 1 004 2 16 63 21 59 26 33 -11 -0.1 -2.1 -2.4 1 108 74.2 6.11911 Kvæfjord 3 049 643 5 18 65 16 53 28 25 -5 -1.5 0.7 -2.4 1 454 73.0 3.21943 Kvænangen 1 316 2 058 1 16 60 24 67 27 39 -18 -12.5 -7.2 -5.9 611 77.3 3.61920 Lavangen 1 012 299 3 18 58 24 72 31 41 -2 -3.3 -1.2 -1.0 427 72.3 4.01931 Lenvik 11 243 855 13 21 63 16 58 32 26 42 3.7 0.3 3.5 5 386 75.7 2.91938 Lyngen 3 152 879 4 18 62 20 61 29 32 -2 -0.4 0.1 -0.8 1 510 77.3 3.81924 Målselv 6 510 3 219 2 18 65 17 54 28 26 -29 -4.5 -6.9 2.6 3 525 83.3 2.01942 Nordreisa 4 757 2 903 2 18 65 17 54 28 26 2 0.5 0.5 -0.2 2 321 75.2 3.91923 Salangen 2 211 439 5 17 65 17 53 27 27 -7 -3.0 -0.8 -2.2 1 051 72.9 3.51941 Skjervøy 2 881 883 3 18 64 17 55 28 27 -25 -8.3 -7.1 -1.3 1 349 72.7 5.41913 Skånland 2 855 465 6 15 65 20 53 23 31 -17 -6.8 -4.6 -1.4 1 396 75.0 3.21939 Storfjord 1 888 1 445 1 18 67 15 50 28 22 -10 -4.8 -4.9 -0.2 948 75.3 2.81925 Sørreisa 3 366 345 10 20 63 16 58 32 26 6 2.2 0.5 1.4 1 626 76.1 3.11928 Torsken 899 239 4 13 63 24 59 21 38 -26 -27.8 -15.8 -11.7 431 76.4 4.81927 Tranøy 1 552 501 3 17 60 23 66 27 38 -16 -10.1 -4.9 -5.3 704 75.2 2.71902 Tromsø 67 305 2 520 27 20 70 11 43 28 15 961 14.6 5.8 9.0 36 138 76.9 3.7

Finnmark fylke - Finnmárkku fylka 72 856 46 499 2 19 66 14 51 29 22 -42 -0.6 -4.0 3.4 35 366 73.1 3.9 1012012 Alta 18 680 3 699 5 22 67 11 50 33 16 212 11.6 3.1 8.6 9 034 72.5 3.42024 Berlevåg 1 044 1 094 1 16 63 21 58 25 33 -18 -16.4 -11.4 -4.8 458 69.5 6.22028 Båtsfjord 2 070 1 431 1 18 68 14 47 27 20 -23 -10.8 -12.8 2.0 1 000 71.2 5.42025 Deatnu - Tana 2 912 3 865 1 17 65 18 55 27 28 -26 -8.4 -8.1 -0.7 1 415 75.1 4.02023 Gamvik 1 009 1 378 1 16 65 19 55 25 30 -21 -19.8 -14.6 -5.3 438 67.1 5.62011 Guovdageaidnu - Kautokeino 2 949 9 082 <0.5 20 69 12 46 29 17 -9 -3.2 -13.3 10.2 1 359 67.2 8.72004 Hammerfest 9 724 844 12 19 68 13 47 28 19 93 9.8 3.2 6.7 5 130 77.4 3.42015 Hasvik 934 541 2 15 65 20 55 24 31 -22 -23.2 -16.0 -6.4 422 69.8 5.42021 Kárášjohka - Karasjok 2 789 5 244 1 20 66 14 51 30 21 -16 -6.1 -8.3 2.8 1 344 72.8 5.12017 Kvalsund 1 026 1 775 1 16 60 24 66 27 40 -9 -10.3 -3.6 -5.2 448 72.7 5.52022 Lebesby 1 342 3 288 <0.5 18 63 19 58 29 29 -18 -12.7 -8.7 -4.4 601 70.9 4.52014 Loppa 1 087 684 2 15 61 24 63 24 39 -38 -30.5 -21.9 -10.8 488 73.2 4.22018 Måsøy 1 267 1 325 1 15 64 21 57 24 34 -25 -19.0 -13.2 -5.4 582 72.3 4.32019 Nordkapp 3 185 653 5 17 66 17 53 27 26 -47 -13.9 -12.1 -2.2 1 472 70.5 5.72020 Porsanger - Porsáŋgu - Porsanki 3 991 4 697 1 17 67 16 48 25 23 -62 -14.9 -16.0 1.0 1 925 71.5 2.92030 Sør-Varanger 9 738 3 670 3 19 67 15 50 28 22 54 5.7 2.2 3.5 4 952 76.4 2.02027 Unjárga - Nesseby 884 1 405 1 14 63 22 58 22 35 -4 -3.8 -0.5 -4.1 413 73.6 3.12003 Vadsø 6 101 1 240 5 20 67 14 50 29 21 -16 -2.6 -6.1 3.4 3 036 74.6 3.02002 Vardø 2 124 585 4 15 66 19 52 23 30 -48 -21.6 -17.3 -4.3 849 60.8 9.4


SWEDEN - SVERIGE

Whole country 9 340 682 410 942 23 17 65 18 53 25 28 66 115 7.2 5.5 1.7 4 499 400 73.8 8.3 120

Stockholms län 2 019 182 6 490 311 18 67 15 48 27 22 29 363 15.0 9.0 6.1 1 052 400 77.4 6.8 165127 Botkyrka 81 195 196 413 20 68 12 48 30 18 1 071 13.7 5.2 8.5 40 851 74.4 10.1162 Danderyd 31 150 26 1 177 22 59 19 68 36 32 215 6.9 5.0 2.1 14 801 80.0 2.8125 Ekerö 25 095 216 116 22 64 14 57 35 22 299 12.3 5.3 6.9 12 717 79.6 3.2136 Haninge 76 237 454 168 19 67 14 48 28 20 974 13.2 6.5 6.8 39 273 76.4 7.6126 Huddinge 95 798 129 740 20 67 12 48 30 18 1 623 17.7 10.3 7.5 49 472 76.7 7.4123 Järfälla 65 295 54 1 219 19 65 16 54 29 25 743 11.8 6.2 5.5 32 505 76.6 7.3186 Lidingö 43 445 30 1 431 20 61 19 64 32 31 417 9.6 7.3 2.5 21 223 79.9 3.4182 Nacka 88 085 95 923 21 65 14 54 32 21 1 884 22.5 15.3 7.3 45 003 78.6 5.1188 Norrtälje 55 927 2 000 28 15 63 22 60 24 36 313 5.7 7.4 -1.7 27 292 78.0 5.8140 Nykvarn 9 227 153 60 22 64 14 56 35 21 178 20.5 13.9 6.5 4 676 78.9 4.0192 Nynäshamn 25 781 356 72 17 65 18 55 26 28 223 8.8 7.8 1.1 12 868 77.1 6.7128 Salem 15 313 55 280 22 63 15 59 35 24 237 16.1 9.0 7.0 7 506 77.8 5.4191 Sigtuna 39 219 327 120 19 67 14 50 28 22 579 15.3 9.4 6.0 20 025 76.4 7.5163 Sollentuna 63 347 53 1 193 21 64 15 56 33 23 894 14.6 7.9 6.7 31 652 77.8 5.8184 Solna 66 909 19 3 438 14 70 16 42 19 23 1 568 24.8 18.0 7.0 37 455 79.6 4.9180 Stockholm 829 417 187 4 429 16 70 14 43 23 20 12 946 16.2 9.8 6.5 448 419 77.3 7.2183 Sundbyberg 37 722 9 4 277 16 71 13 41 22 19 781 21.9 15.2 7.0 20 786 77.4 7.3181 Södertälje 85 270 523 163 18 67 15 50 27 23 974 11.7 7.3 4.5 41 292 72.7 12.2138 Tyresö 42 602 69 618 21 64 15 56 33 23 398 9.6 2.8 6.8 21 495 78.7 4.6160 Täby 63 014 60 1 043 20 62 17 60 32 28 526 8.4 4.3 4.3 31 276 79.7 3.5139 Upplands-Bro 23 202 236 98 19 67 13 48 29 20 374 16.7 10.3 6.6 12 051 77.0 7.1114 Upplands-Väsby 38 641 75 513 18 67 15 50 27 22 222 5.9 -0.2 6.1 19 907 77.1 6.9115 Vallentuna 29 361 360 82 22 65 13 55 34 21 493 17.6 10.8 6.8 15 124 79.6 3.5187 Vaxholm 11 001 57 192 23 62 15 61 36 24 221 21.0 14.6 6.6 5 489 80.3 2.9120 Värmdö 37 756 439 86 22 65 13 54 34 20 748 20.8 12.8 7.9 19 321 78.8 4.5117 Österåker 39 173 310 126 21 64 15 56 32 23 459 12.1 5.3 6.7 19 921 79.1 4.0

Uppsala län 331 898 8 166 41 17 67 16 49 25 24 3 111 9.6 5.9 3.7 166 600.0 74.8 7.5 105381 Enköping 39 360 1 179 33 17 64 19 56 27 29 229 5.9 5.5 0.4 18 598 73.8 8.6331 Heby 13 355 1 169 11 16 63 21 59 25 34 -82 -6.1 -3.9 -2.2 6 089 72.5 10.2305 Håbo 19 452 142 137 21 66 13 52 32 20 217 11.4 4.0 7.5 9 735 76.0 5.5330 Knivsta 14 477 284 51 24 65 11 55 37 18 279 20.6 11.2 9.1 7 212 77.0 4.7360 Tierp 20 044 1 543 13 16 62 22 60 25 35 -5 -0.2 2.7 -3.0 8 948 71.5 11.3380 Uppsala 194 751 2 189 89 16 69 14 44 24 21 2 538 13.5 7.8 5.8 101 658 75.3 7.2319 Älvkarleby 9 068 209 43 16 64 21 57 25 33 6 0.6 3.2 -2.6 4 136 71.7 11.4382 Östhammar 21 391 1 451 15 15 63 22 59 24 35 -70 -3.2 -1.1 -2.2 10 224 75.8 5.9

Södermanlands län 269 053 6 062 44 17 63 20 58 26 31 1 607 6.0 6.4 -0.4 125 400 73.5 8.9 102484 Eskilstuna 95 577 1 097 87 17 65 18 54 26 28 885 9.4 8.9 0.6 44 258 71.4 11.6482 Flen 16 139 718 22 16 61 23 63 26 37 -77 -4.8 -0.8 -3.9 7 205 73.0 9.3461 Gnesta 10 318 461 22 17 64 19 57 27 30 77 7.6 8.3 -0.7 5 023 76.3 5.3483 Katrineholm 32 303 1 018 32 16 63 21 59 26 33 11 0.3 2.5 -2.2 14 808 72.7 9.8480 Nyköping 51 209 1 421 36 16 62 21 60 26 34 329 6.5 6.7 -0.2 23 889 74.8 7.4481 Oxelösund 11 126 34 330 14 61 25 64 23 41 -32 -2.6 -0.2 -2.6 5 079 74.7 7.7486 Strängnäs 32 024 736 44 18 63 19 58 28 30 302 9.6 8.4 1.3 15 381 75.8 5.9488 Trosa 11 446 208 55 18 64 18 57 28 29 166 14.8 12.9 2.1 5 606 77.0 4.1428 Vingåker 8 911 370 24 16 62 22 60 26 35 -53 -5.9 -1.7 -4.1 4 151 74.8 7.0





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


Östergötlands län 427 106 10 562 40 16 65 19 53 25 28 2 229 5.3 4.6 0.7 196 800 70.7 9.9 105560 Boxholm 5 248 528 10 15 63 22 59 24 34 -8 -1.5 1.2 -2.6 2 350 71.0 9.1562 Finspång 20 733 1 060 20 15 62 22 61 25 36 -51 -2.5 0.5 -3.0 9 122 70.7 9.6513 Kinda 9 811 1 133 9 16 61 23 64 27 37 -28 -2.9 0.3 -3.1 4 309 72.1 7.6580 Linköping 144 690 1 431 101 16 67 16 48 24 24 1 558 11.1 7.8 3.3 70 366 72.2 8.2586 Mjölby 25 770 549 47 17 64 20 57 26 31 89 3.5 3.7 -0.2 11 437 69.8 10.9583 Motala 41 843 986 42 16 64 20 56 25 31 -43 -1.0 0.1 -1.1 18 453 68.9 12.1581 Norrköping 129 254 1 491 87 17 66 18 52 25 27 971 7.6 6.3 1.3 58 735 69.2 11.9582 Söderköping 14 042 672 21 17 63 20 58 27 32 -12 -0.8 -0.3 -0.5 6 507 73.4 6.2584 Vadstena 7 420 183 40 14 60 26 66 23 43 -29 -3.8 2.0 -5.8 3 207 71.9 8.0563 Valdemarsvik 7 811 734 11 14 62 25 62 22 40 -69 -8.7 -2.9 -5.7 3 463 71.8 8.6512 Ydre 3 672 678 5 15 61 24 65 25 40 -45 -11.7 -6.9 -4.9 1 643 73.7 6.2561 Åtvidaberg 11 498 685 17 17 61 22 64 28 36 -63 -5.5 -3.2 -2.2 4 893 69.8 10.8509 Ödeshög 5 314 432 12 16 62 23 62 25 36 -41 -7.6 -3.4 -4.2 2 315 70.5 10.0

Jönköpings län 336 044 10 475 32 17 64 19 56 27 30 1 352 4.1 3.2 0.8 168 600 78.5 7.4 114604 Aneby 6 446 519 12 15 65 20 54 23 31 -35 -5.4 -3.6 -1.8 3 307 79.1 6.6686 Eksjö 16 353 802 20 15 62 23 60 24 36 -44 -2.6 0.7 -3.3 8 193 80.3 5.4662 Gislaved 29 212 1 141 26 18 64 18 55 27 28 -105 -3.6 -5.0 1.4 14 354 76.3 9.7617 Gnosjö 9 536 422 23 18 66 16 52 27 25 -54 -5.7 -7.8 2.2 4 800 76.7 9.2643 Habo 10 674 330 32 22 64 15 57 34 23 182 17.9 10.1 7.8 5 466 80.6 4.9680 Jönköping 126 331 1 485 85 17 65 18 53 26 27 1 284 10.4 7.8 2.6 65 242 79.1 6.9642 Mullsjö 7 027 201 35 18 64 18 57 28 29 -15 -2.1 -4.2 2.1 3 479 77.8 7.7682 Nässjö 29 489 934 32 16 63 21 59 26 33 21 0.8 2.9 -2.1 14 520 78.2 7.4684 Sävsjö 10 871 679 16 17 62 21 62 28 35 -19 -1.9 0.8 -2.6 5 235 78.1 7.5687 Tranås 18 043 404 45 17 61 23 65 27 37 59 3.3 5.4 -2.1 8 626 78.7 7.2665 Vaggeryd 12 959 830 16 18 63 18 58 29 29 60 4.7 3.5 1.2 6 305 76.8 9.2685 Vetlanda 26 350 1 506 17 16 62 21 61 26 34 -38 -1.4 0.2 -1.7 12 905 78.8 6.9683 Värnamo 32 753 1 222 27 17 63 19 58 27 31 57 1.8 0.9 0.8 16 168 77.8 8.1

Kronobergs län 183 162 8 458 22 16 64 19 56 26 30 977 5.4 4.8 0.6 88 800 75.6 8.2 115764 Alvesta 18 757 975 19 17 63 20 59 26 32 -23 -1.1 -1.4 0.2 9 041 76.4 7.0761 Lessebo 8 165 410 20 17 62 21 61 28 33 -7 -0.8 2.1 -3.0 3 713 73.1 11.2781 Ljungby 27 410 1 755 16 16 64 21 57 25 33 81 3.0 3.7 -0.7 13 273 76.2 7.3767 Markaryd 9 559 519 18 15 62 23 62 25 38 -14 -1.6 1.4 -2.9 4 472 76.0 7.8763 Tingsryd 12 358 1 048 12 14 60 26 66 23 43 -105 -8.5 -2.4 -5.9 5 682 76.5 7.0


760 Uppvidinge 9 320 1 183 8 16 61 23 63 26 37 -40 -4.1 0.0 -4.2 4 310 75.3 8.6780 Växjö 82 023 1 674 49 17 66 17 51 26 26 1 057 13.3 9.3 4.0 40 773 75.2 8.9765 Älmhult 15 570 894 17 17 63 20 59 27 32 28 1.9 3.2 -1.4 7 536 76.9 6.3

Kalmar län 233 639 11 171 21 15 63 22 58 24 35 -170 -0.7 2.0 -2.7 106 000 71.7 9.0 103885 Borgholm 10 806 675 16 13 59 28 70 23 48 -65 -6.0 2.5 -8.4 4 724 74.5 5.7862 Emmaboda 9 223 689 13 14 62 25 62 22 40 -84 -8.9 -3.5 -5.4 4 093 71.8 8.8860 Hultsfred 13 855 1 126 12 13 62 25 62 22 40 -147 -10.4 -4.2 -6.1 5 895 68.8 12.6821 Högsby 5 873 754 8 14 62 24 62 23 39 -75 -12.3 -5.4 -7.1 2 616 72.1 8.3880 Kalmar 62 388 956 65 15 67 18 50 23 27 346 5.7 4.5 1.1 30 090 72.3 8.4861 Mönsterås 12 980 596 22 15 62 23 61 24 36 -50 -3.8 0.0 -3.9 5 740 71.0 9.9840 Mörbylånga 13 834 667 21 17 62 22 63 27 36 86 6.3 8.5 -2.1 6 277 73.8 6.6881 Nybro 19 576 1 182 17 14 62 24 61 23 38 -61 -3.1 0.4 -3.6 8 705 71.5 9.2882 Oskarshamn 26 232 1 047 25 16 63 21 59 25 34 -12 -0.5 1.8 -2.2 12 094 73.2 7.1834 Torsås 7 044 469 15 15 61 23 63 25 38 -44 -6.1 -0.3 -5.8 3 046 70.4 10.6884 Vimmerby 15 538 1 139 14 16 63 21 58 25 34 -11 -0.7 1.6 -2.3 6 931 70.6 10.1883 Västervik 36 290 1 871 19 14 62 24 61 23 38 -54 -1.5 2.7 -4.2 15 790 70.1 11.0

Gotlands län 57 221 3 140 18 15 65 21 54 23 32 -90 -1.5 -0.16 -1.4 28 400 76.7 9.0 98980 Gotland 57 221 3 140 18 15 65 21 54 23 32 -90 -1.5 -0.16 -1.4 28 400 76.7 9.0

Blekinge län 152 591 2 941 52 16 63 21 59 25 34 453 3.0 3.9 -0.9 68 400 71.1 9.2 1111082 Karlshamn 30 918 491 63 15 63 23 60 24 36 14 0.5 2.5 -2.0 13 900 71.9 8.01080 Karlskrona 63 342 1 043 61 17 64 19 56 26 30 439 7.1 6.4 0.7 29 148 72.0 8.01060 Olofström 13 102 392 33 14 62 24 61 22 38 -84 -6.3 -2.2 -4.1 5 633 69.1 11.51081 Ronneby 28 416 829 34 15 63 22 59 24 35 28 0.9 2.5 -1.5 12 459 69.6 11.11083 Sölvesborg 16 813 186 90 15 62 23 62 25 37 56 3.2 4.8 -1.5 7 259 70.0 10.5

Skåne län 1 231 062 11 027 112 17 65 18 53 25 28 14 107 11.7 9.7 2.1 581 100 72.3 8.6 1101260 Bjuv 14 813 115 128 19 64 17 55 29 26 185 12.8 10.2 2.7 6 834 71.6 9.31272 Bromölla 12 285 165 75 16 63 21 60 26 34 41 3.4 1.3 2.0 5 468 71.1 10.01231 Burlöv 16 509 19 874 19 65 17 55 29 26 245 15.3 12.2 3.3 7 523 70.6 10.61278 Båstad 14 269 218 65 14 60 27 67 23 45 48 3.5 7.2 -3.8 6 362 74.5 5.61285 Eslöv 31 269 422 74 18 65 17 55 28 27 309 10.0 7.3 2.8 14 718 72.9 7.51283 Helsingborg 128 359 346 371 16 66 18 52 25 28 1 448 11.5 9.8 1.8 60 440 71.7 9.41293 Hässleholm 50 036 1 276 39 16 63 21 59 25 33 217 4.4 5.2 -0.8 22 505 71.4 9.41284 Höganäs 24 480 144 170 17 60 22 66 29 37 268 11.3 12.1 -0.9 10 817 73.3 7.11266 Hörby 14 762 422 35 16 64 20 55 25 30 111 7.5 8.2 -0.6 6 994 73.5 6.91267 Höör 15 261 293 52 18 64 18 57 28 29 145 10.0 9.0 0.8 7 143 73.3 7.01276 Klippan 16 382 376 44 16 64 20 56 25 31 77 4.7 6.3 -1.5 7 523 71.8 9.01290 Kristianstad 78 788 1 250 63 16 64 19 56 26 30 642 8.3 7.3 1.0 36 094 71.4 9.61261 Kävlinge 28 638 154 187 21 64 16 57 32 24 524 19.1 12.9 6.2 13 614 74.5 5.61282 Landskrona 41 226 140 294 17 64 19 55 26 30 445 10.9 10.6 0.4 18 269 68.8 13.11262 Lomma 21 065 55 381 21 60 19 67 35 32 495 24.9 21.3 3.8 9 570 75.8 3.61281 Lund 109 147 431 253 16 70 14 42 22 20 1 553 14.7 10.0 4.8 57 705 75.1 5.41280 Malmö 293 909 154 1 913 16 68 16 46 23 23 4 995 17.6 13.4 4.5 143 367 71.4 10.11273 Osby 12 656 578 22 16 62 22 62 26 36 5 0.5 2.6 -2.2 5 570 71.4 9.41275 Perstorp 6 983 160 44 17 63 20 60 27 33 19 2.6 4.0 -1.3 3 129 71.5 9.31291 Simrishamn 19 328 393 49 13 59 28 69 22 47 -29 -1.5 5.0 -6.5 8 138 71.4 9.51265 Sjöbo 18 153 496 37 16 65 20 55 24 30 150 8.4 8.4 0.0 8 556 73.0 7.61264 Skurup 14 867 196 76 18 65 17 55 28 27 125 8.6 7.1 1.4 6 959 72.5 8.11230 Staffanstorp 21 949 108 204 20 63 17 59 32 27 310 14.7 9.0 5.7 10 222 74.1 5.81214 Svalöv 13 290 390 34 18 65 17 54 28 26 62 4.8 2.5 2.2 6 234 72.4 8.11263 Svedala 19 625 219 90 20 65 15 54 31 23 218 11.4 6.4 5.0 9 489 74.5 5.4





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


1270 Tomelilla 12 936 399 32 16 62 22 61 25 36 76 5.9 7.6 -1.6 5 712 71.0 10.11287 Trelleborg 41 891 342 123 17 64 20 57 27 31 484 11.9 11.6 0.3 19 142 72.0 9.01233 Vellinge 33 162 142 233 20 61 19 63 32 31 315 9.7 6.3 3.4 15 321 75.2 4.41286 Ystad 28 109 352 80 14 62 24 61 23 38 243 8.8 11.1 -2.3 12 766 73.3 7.41277 Åstorp 14 667 93 158 19 64 16 55 30 25 256 18.2 14.1 4.1 6 663 70.6 10.51292 Ängelholm 39 083 423 92 16 63 21 58 25 33 190 4.9 5.1 -0.2 17 878 72.4 8.11257 Örkelljunga 9 639 322 30 16 63 21 59 25 34 27 2.9 4.1 -1.2 4 377 72.3 8.21256 Östra Göinge 13 526 434 31 16 63 21 59 25 33 -91 -6.6 -5.5 -1.1 5 999 70.3 10.8

Hallands län 296 825 5 454 54 17 64 19 57 27 30 2 609 9.0 7.3 1.7 147 800 78.3 6.7 1031382 Falkenberg 40 739 1 115 37 16 62 21 61 26 34 263 6.5 6.7 -0.1 19 712 77.7 7.41380 Halmstad 91 087 1 018 89 16 65 19 54 24 29 632 7.1 5.7 1.4 45 909 77.4 7.91315 Hylte 10 277 951 11 17 63 20 59 27 32 -34 -3.0 -2.8 -0.5 5 023 77.9 6.81384 Kungsbacka 73 938 610 121 20 63 17 59 32 27 1 050 14.7 10.4 4.4 36 992 79.5 4.81381 Laholm 23 345 887 26 16 63 21 59 25 34 79 3.4 4.6 -1.1 11 383 77.4 7.81383 Varberg 57 439 873 66 17 64 20 57 26 31 619 11.1 9.5 1.6 28 782 78.8 6.2

Västra Götalands län 1 569 458 23 942 66 17 66 18 52 25 27 9 501 6.2 4.2 2.0 748 100 72.4 9.0 1221440 Ale 27 394 318 86 19 65 16 54 29 24 220 8.2 4.3 3.9 13 004 73.0 8.01489 Alingsås 37 515 477 79 17 64 19 57 27 30 353 9.6 8.4 1.3 17 323 72.6 8.71460 Bengtsfors 9 841 890 11 13 61 26 63 21 42 -99 -9.8 -2.7 -7.2 4 277 71.0 11.01443 Bollebygd 8 253 265 31 18 65 17 54 28 26 54 6.9 3.3 3.3 3 966 74.2 6.51490 Borås 102 458 915 112 16 65 18 53 25 28 716 7.1 6.1 1.0 48 280 72.3 9.11438 Dals-Ed 4 729 728 6 15 62 22 60 24 36 -41 -8.8 -6.1 -2.3 2 105 71.2 10.51445 Essunga 5 601 236 24 16 63 21 59 25 33 -30 -5.3 -2.0 -3.2 2 576 72.9 7.91499 Falköping 31 419 1 059 30 16 62 21 60 26 34 55 1.7 3.2 -1.4 14 255 72.7 8.61439 Färgelanda 6 691 592 11 15 63 22 59 24 34 -37 -5.7 -1.5 -4.0 2 964 70.2 11.11444 Grästorp 5 857 265 22 16 63 20 58 26 32 13 2.2 3.6 -1.4 2 683 72.2 9.11447 Gullspång 5 335 313 17 13 62 25 61 21 41 -65 -11.6 -4.4 -7.6 2 353 71.2 10.81480 Göteborg 507 330 449 1 131 16 70 15 44 22 21 5 180 10.5 5.5 5.0 254 539 72.1 9.81471 Götene 13 186 405 33 17 63 20 58 27 31 47 3.6 3.7 -0.1 6 125 73.2 7.61466 Herrljunga 9 348 501 19 16 64 20 56 25 31 -14 -1.5 0.2 -1.7 4 354 72.8 8.41497 Hjo 8 859 299 30 16 63 22 60 25 35 7 0.8 1.7 -0.9 4 007 72.3 8.81401 Härryda 34 007 270 126 21 65 14 54 33 21 466 14.2 7.6 6.6 16 584 75.1 5.11446 Karlsborg 6 784 433 16 13 61 25 63 22 41 -23 -3.5 2.0 -5.4 3 062 73.6 7.41482 Kungälv 40 727 365 112 18 64 18 56 28 28 492 12.5 9.1 3.4 19 600 75.0 5.51441 Lerum 38 301 259 148 21 63 16 58 33 25 415 11.2 6.4 4.8 18 220 75.1 5.01494 Lidköping 37 989 689 55 16 64 20 57 26 31 147 4.0 3.9 0.0 17 772 73.2 7.81462 Lilla Edet 12 773 318 40 16 66 17 51 25 27 -26 -2.0 -2.9 0.9 6 130 72.7 8.41484 Lysekil 14 535 210 69 14 62 24 62 23 39 -46 -3.2 1.1 -4.2 6 449 72.1 9.21493 Mariestad 23 799 603 39 15 62 23 61 24 36 -20 -0.8 1.6 -2.5 10 407 70.3 11.6


1463 Mark 33 821 936 36 17 63 20 59 28 32 89 2.8 2.8 -0.1 15 623 73.6 7.31461 Mellerud 9 261 514 18 14 61 25 64 23 41 -94 -9.8 -5.0 -4.8 4 016 71.2 10.41430 Munkedal 10 246 637 16 16 62 23 62 26 37 -14 -1.4 1.3 -2.6 4 546 72.0 9.41481 Mölndal 60 381 147 412 19 66 15 51 28 23 533 8.9 4.2 4.8 29 786 74.5 6.31421 Orust 15 308 388 39 15 63 22 59 24 36 28 1.9 4.1 -2.3 7 178 74.7 5.91402 Partille 34 382 57 601 19 65 15 53 29 24 222 6.5 3.4 3.2 16 728 74.5 6.01495 Skara 18 455 439 42 16 65 20 55 25 30 -12 -0.6 0.0 -0.6 8 548 71.7 9.61496 Skövde 50 984 678 75 16 66 18 50 24 27 225 4.5 3.3 1.2 24 061 71.0 10.81427 Sotenäs 9 112 140 65 13 61 26 65 22 43 -45 -4.9 2.1 -6.9 4 085 73.8 7.11415 Stenungsund 23 983 253 95 19 64 17 56 30 26 247 10.6 5.0 5.6 11 533 74.8 5.71486 Strömstad 11 690 482 24 15 64 21 56 23 33 65 5.5 8.4 -2.8 5 609 75.0 5.81465 Svenljunga 10 291 924 11 16 63 21 59 25 34 -37 -3.4 -0.3 -3.3 4 748 73.3 7.51435 Tanum 12 253 909 13 14 62 24 61 23 38 -14 -1.0 2.9 -4.1 5 589 73.3 7.81472 Tibro 10 611 220 48 16 62 22 61 26 35 8 0.7 1.6 -0.9 4 504 68.3 13.61498 Tidaholm 12 632 521 24 15 63 22 59 24 34 19 1.4 3.6 -2.2 5 653 71.0 10.51419 Tjörn 14 961 167 89 15 63 21 58 24 33 -12 -0.8 -1.9 1.1 7 167 75.6 4.91452 Tranemo 11 622 745 16 16 63 21 59 26 33 -54 -4.6 -2.5 -2.0 5 382 73.8 6.71488 Trollhättan 54 873 411 133 17 65 18 53 26 27 338 6.4 5.0 1.2 24 467 68.1 14.21473 Töreboda 9 255 545 17 15 63 22 58 24 34 -39 -4.1 -0.3 -3.8 4 137 70.5 11.31485 Uddevalla 51 518 642 80 16 64 20 56 26 31 291 5.7 6.2 -0.4 23 462 71.3 10.41491 Ulricehamn 22 753 1 051 22 17 62 21 60 27 34 80 3.6 4.5 -1.0 10 430 73.6 7.61470 Vara 15 771 701 22 15 63 21 58 24 34 -51 -3.2 -0.3 -2.9 7 332 73.4 7.51442 Vårgårda 10 967 429 26 18 65 17 54 28 26 58 5.3 2.4 3.0 5 148 72.3 8.71487 Vänersborg 36 871 642 57 17 63 21 59 26 33 -44 -1.3 -1.3 0.1 16 469 71.2 10.31492 Åmål 12 434 481 26 15 61 24 64 24 40 -78 -6.2 -1.4 -4.7 5 223 68.9 13.21407 Öckerö 12 292 25 483 18 63 19 60 29 30 28 2.4 1.5 0.8 5 648 73.3 7.2

Värmlands län 273 257 17 586 16 15 64 21 57 24 33 -48 -0.2 2.2 -2.4 122 600 70.5 9.5 1031784 Arvika 26 100 1 659 16 15 63 22 59 24 35 -36 -1.3 2.7 -4.1 11 494 70.0 10.21730 Eda 8 577 825 10 14 63 23 60 23 37 -11 -1.6 2.7 -4.0 3 820 71.1 8.41782 Filipstad 10 626 1 546 7 14 61 26 64 22 42 -90 -8.4 -1.1 -7.2 4 415 68.3 12.21763 Forshaga 11 401 350 33 17 63 20 59 27 31 -12 -1.0 -1.4 0.3 5 030 70.0 9.71764 Grums 9 142 385 24 15 63 22 58 23 35 -56 -6.1 -3.3 -2.7 4 022 69.5 10.61783 Hagfors 12 636 1 835 7 13 60 27 66 22 45 -172 -13.2 -4.7 -8.5 5 257 69.1 11.21761 Hammarö 14 833 57 262 20 64 16 56 30 25 90 6.1 4.3 1.9 6 847 71.9 7.41780 Karlstad 84 736 1 167 73 15 67 18 50 22 27 599 7.1 5.6 1.6 40 260 71.1 8.81715 Kil 11 717 359 33 17 63 19 58 27 31 -28 -2.2 -3.0 0.6 5 165 69.7 10.51781 Kristinehamn 23 963 747 32 14 63 23 59 23 36 -5 -0.2 4.5 -4.7 10 507 69.8 10.31762 Munkfors 3 793 142 27 13 59 28 69 22 47 -49 -12.6 -4.4 -8.2 1 518 67.7 12.61760 Storfors 4 363 394 11 15 62 22 60 24 36 -43 -9.2 -3.7 -5.8 1 852 68.1 12.31766 Sunne 13 345 1 297 10 15 63 22 59 24 35 -52 -3.8 0.8 -4.6 5 934 70.7 8.91785 Säffle 15 602 1 219 13 15 61 25 65 24 40 -93 -6.0 -1.4 -4.5 6 654 70.3 9.41737 Torsby 12 508 4 187 3 13 61 26 64 22 42 -115 -9.0 0.2 -9.2 5 374 70.5 9.01765 Årjäng 9 915 1 417 7 16 62 22 61 26 36 25 2.4 6.1 -3.7 4 451 72.5 6.8

Örebro län 278 882 8 517 33 16 64 19 55 25 30 995 3.6 3.8 -0.2 123 100 68.6 10.9 1121882 Askersund 11 307 821 14 15 62 24 63 24 38 -33 -3.0 0.5 -3.4 4 933 70.9 8.01862 Degerfors 9 709 386 25 14 62 23 61 23 37 -79 -8.0 -2.8 -5.1 4 158 68.8 10.51861 Hallsberg 15 235 639 24 16 64 20 57 25 32 -32 -2.2 -0.1 -1.9 6 626 68.4 11.21863 Hällefors 7 333 996 7 13 60 27 67 22 44 -71 -9.5 -2.7 -6.7 2 950 67.1 12.71883 Karlskoga 29 742 471 63 15 62 23 62 25 37 -120 -4.0 -0.2 -3.8 12 632 68.9 10.51881 Kumla 20 214 206 98 19 64 17 57 30 27 167 8.4 7.3 1.1 8 887 69.2 9.81860 Laxå 5 786 577 10 13 61 25 63 22 41 -96 -16.0 -9.8 -6.2 2 431 68.6 10.91814 Lekeberg 7 123 467 15 18 63 19 58 28 30 12 1.7 -1.5 3.1 3 247 71.9 6.81885 Lindesberg 23 029 1 382 17 15 63 21 58 24 34 -56 -2.3 1.4 -3.8 9 906 67.9 11.61864 Ljusnarsberg 5 055 579 9 13 61 27 64 21 44 -67 -12.8 -2.3 -10.5 2 127 69.2 10.0





average

Relative, annual

average

Number of persons

employed

Empl.rate

15-64

(km²) (inh./km²) (%) (%) (%) (‰) (‰) (‰) (%) (%)

(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6)


GDP/ capita

in PPS, Index

EU27=100


migration,annual

average

Natural change,

annual average


1884 Nora 10 343 622 17 16 62 22 62 26 35 -38 -3.5 -1.1 -2.6 4 411 68.9 10.31880 Örebro 134 006 1 371 98 17 66 17 51 26 25 1 409 10.8 7.7 3.1 60 792 68.3 11.4

Västmanlands län 251 353 5 132 49 16 64 20 56 25 31 827 3.3 3.3 0.0 119 800 74.2 9.3 1081984 Arboga 13 302 324 41 16 61 23 63 26 37 -19 -1.6 2.4 -3.8 5 993 73.5 10.01982 Fagersta 12 249 271 45 15 62 23 61 24 38 2 0.3 3.6 -3.4 5 610 73.9 9.81961 Hallstahammar 15 127 171 88 16 62 22 61 26 35 18 1.2 3.1 -2.0 6 917 73.5 10.01960 Kungsör 8 116 203 40 16 63 21 60 26 33 -34 -4.2 -3.2 -1.0 3 769 74.2 9.01983 Köping 24 847 607 41 15 64 21 57 24 33 35 1.4 3.4 -2.0 11 384 72.1 11.91962 Norberg 5 730 421 14 14 63 22 58 23 35 -45 -7.5 -5.1 -2.6 2 702 74.6 8.41981 Sala 21 499 1 173 18 15 64 21 57 24 33 -10 -0.5 1.2 -1.7 10 260 74.9 8.41904 Skinnskatteberg 4 567 662 7 14 62 24 60 22 38 -52 -11.2 -6.5 -4.4 2 155 75.6 7.61907 Surahammar 9 980 345 29 16 63 21 59 26 33 -53 -5.3 -4.0 -1.3 4 690 74.7 8.61980 Västerås 135 936 956 142 17 66 18 53 25 27 986 7.4 5.5 1.9 66 320 74.4 9.0

Dalarnas län 276 454 28 193 10 15 63 21 58 24 33 85 0.3 2.3 -2.0 128 900 73.5 8.5 1172084 Avesta 21 762 615 35 14 63 23 58 22 36 -66 -3.1 1.2 -4.2 10 089 73.2 9.02081 Borlänge 48 681 586 83 17 65 18 54 26 28 339 7.1 5.5 1.6 23 021 72.6 9.52080 Falun 55 685 2 052 27 16 65 18 54 25 28 139 2.5 1.5 1.0 26 582 73.3 8.82026 Gagnef 10 071 772 13 18 62 20 60 28 32 -4 -0.4 0.6 -1.0 4 663 74.1 7.42083 Hedemora 15 195 838 18 15 63 22 58 23 34 -62 -4.1 0.1 -4.2 7 176 74.5 7.32029 Leksand 15 303 1 227 12 15 61 24 63 24 38 -39 -2.6 0.5 -3.0 7 053 75.1 6.72085 Ludvika 25 650 1 501 17 15 62 24 61 23 38 -28 -1.0 3.3 -4.4 11 824 74.4 7.62023 Malung 10 408 4 107 3 15 63 23 59 23 36 -29 -2.8 1.9 -4.7 4 816 73.8 8.42062 Mora 20 146 2 827 7 15 63 22 58 24 35 14 0.6 2.6 -1.9 9 312 73.1 9.12034 Orsa 6 934 1 744 4 15 62 23 61 24 37 -19 -2.8 1.3 -4.0 3 082 71.5 10.92031 Rättvik 10 797 1 933 6 13 59 27 69 23 46 -13 -1.2 6.9 -8.1 4 696 73.3 8.52061 Smedjebacken 10 758 953 11 14 63 22 58 23 35 -33 -3.0 1.1 -4.1 5 041 74.1 7.82082 Säter 10 900 574 19 16 64 20 56 24 32 -16 -1.5 -0.4 -1.0 5 297 75.7 5.72021 Vansbro 6 876 1 550 4 15 61 24 65 25 40 -50 -7.0 -1.8 -5.3 3 017 72.5 9.62039 Älvdalen 7 288 6 914 1 15 61 24 63 24 39 -48 -6.1 0.4 -6.9 3 232 72.4 9.9

Gävleborgs län 276 220 18 192 15 15 64 21 57 24 33 -60 -0.3 2.4 -2.6 124 000 70.4 10.1 1042183 Bollnäs 26 175 1 827 14 15 62 23 61 24 37 -15 -0.6 3.3 -3.8 11 477 70.6 9.72180 Gävle 94 352 1 604 59 16 66 18 52 24 28 462 4.9 4.5 0.5 43 719 70.3 10.32104 Hofors 9 873 411 24 15 61 24 63 24 39 -74 -7.2 -1.2 -6.2 4 283 70.7 10.02184 Hudiksvall 36 848 2 496 15 16 63 21 58 25 33 -23 -0.7 1.6 -2.3 16 644 71.3 9.12161 Ljusdal 19 077 5 295 4 15 62 23 62 24 38 -100 -5.3 0.2 -5.4 8 305 70.5 10.32132 Nordanstig 9 646 1 379 7 15 62 23 60 24 36 -45 -4.6 -0.5 -4.1 4 337 71.9 8.22101 Ockelbo 5 982 1 070 6 14 63 23 58 22 35 -13 -2.2 3.5 -5.6 2 701 71.2 8.72121 Ovanåker 11 530 1 882 6 15 62 23 61 23 37 -90 -7.7 -2.6 -5.0 5 058 70.5 9.8


2181 Sandviken 36 978 1 165 32 15 63 21 58 24 34 30 0.8 4.4 -3.6 16 334 69.9 10.62182 Söderhamn 25 759 1 062 24 14 63 23 59 22 37 -192 -7.4 -1.6 -5.8 11 142 69.0 11.8

Västernorrlands län 243 042 21 678 11 16 63 21 59 25 34 -225 -0.9 1.5 -2.4 107 000 69.9 9.0 1112280 Härnösand 24 675 1 065 23 15 62 22 60 25 36 -119 -4.8 -1.2 -3.6 10 808 70.2 8.72282 Kramfors 19 214 1 703 11 13 61 25 63 22 41 -234 -11.8 -2.7 -9.2 8 141 69.1 10.32283 Sollefteå 20 442 5 434 4 14 60 25 66 24 42 -152 -7.3 -0.7 -6.6 8 464 68.5 10.92281 Sundsvall 95 533 3 206 30 16 64 19 55 25 30 370 3.9 3.3 0.6 43 390 70.4 8.52262 Timrå 17 902 787 23 17 63 20 59 28 31 9 0.5 2.2 -1.7 7 755 68.9 10.12260 Ånge 10 148 3 065 3 14 61 25 65 24 41 -134 -12.8 -4.0 -8.8 4 274 69.5 9.52284 Örnsköldsvik 55 128 6 418 9 16 62 22 60 25 35 35 0.7 2.6 -1.9 24 167 70.2 8.6

Jämtlands län 126 666 49 443 3 15 64 21 57 24 32 -146 -1.2 0.7 -1.9 60 700 75.0 8.7 1032326 Berg 7 447 5 748 1 14 60 25 66 24 42 -67 -8.7 -2.2 -6.6 3 355 74.7 8.82305 Bräcke 6 865 3 454 2 15 61 25 65 24 40 -84 -11.8 -4.5 -7.3 3 023 72.6 11.32361 Härjedalen 10 585 11 405 1 13 61 26 65 22 43 -72 -6.8 1.4 -8.1 4 900 76.2 7.42309 Krokom 14 460 6 211 2 19 63 18 60 30 30 68 4.7 4.5 0.3 6 917 76.3 7.02303 Ragunda 5 609 2 527 2 13 59 27 68 23 46 -56 -9.9 -3.0 -6.8 2 405 72.1 12.02313 Strömsund 12 286 10 545 1 13 61 26 64 22 42 -166 -13.0 -3.9 -9.1 5 353 71.5 12.92321 Åre 10 278 7 331 1 16 67 17 50 24 25 92 9.1 9.0 0.2 5 286 77.0 6.22380 Östersund 59 136 2 222 27 15 66 18 51 23 28 138 2.3 0.7 1.7 29 461 75.4 8.4

Västerbottens län 258 548 55 401 5 16 66 19 52 24 29 348 1.3 0.4 0.9 123 300 72.7 8.1 1082403 Bjurholm 2 500 1 317 2 15 56 29 78 26 52 -18 -6.9 0.5 -7.4 1 033 73.6 6.22425 Dorotea 2 900 2 803 1 13 58 29 73 22 50 -51 -16.9 -8.2 -8.7 1 207 71.8 9.52481 Lycksele 12 427 5 639 2 15 63 22 59 24 35 -71 -5.7 -4.0 -1.6 5 684 72.7 8.12418 Malå 3 295 1 608 2 16 61 24 64 25 39 -33 -10.0 -3.3 -6.5 1 450 72.2 8.32401 Nordmaling 7 205 1 234 6 15 61 24 65 25 40 -61 -8.3 -6.2 -2.1 3 133 71.5 9.42417 Norsjö 4 361 1 753 2 15 60 25 66 25 41 -24 -5.5 -1.1 -4.3 1 866 71.0 10.12409 Robertsfors 6 880 1 298 5 16 62 22 62 26 36 -46 -6.5 -3.6 -3.0 3 080 72.3 8.42482 Skellefteå 71 770 6 838 10 16 63 21 58 25 33 -1 0.0 1.2 -1.2 32 423 71.3 9.82422 Sorsele 2 743 7 493 <0.5 13 59 28 70 23 47 -43 -15.0 -6.2 -8.8 1 169 72.4 8.12421 Storuman 6 227 7 485 1 14 59 26 69 24 45 -65 -10.2 -5.4 -4.8 2 704 73.2 7.32480 Umeå 114 075 2 317 49 16 70 14 43 23 20 945 8.4 2.9 5.6 58 836 73.6 7.12462 Vilhelmina 7 156 8 120 1 16 61 23 65 27 38 -53 -7.3 -3.0 -4.3 3 094 71.3 9.72404 Vindeln 5 519 2 648 2 14 60 25 66 24 42 -50 -9.0 -3.8 -5.1 2 418 72.7 7.82460 Vännäs 8 357 534 16 17 63 19 58 27 31 -33 -4.0 -2.8 -1.2 3 934 74.4 5.52463 Åsele 3 133 4 315 1 14 57 28 74 25 50 -48 -14.9 -4.5 -10.3 1 268 70.5 10.9

Norrbottens län 249 019 98 911 3 15 64 21 55 23 32 -711 -2.8 -1.3 -1.6 111 600 69.5 9.7 1232506 Arjeplog 3 143 12 945 <0.5 13 62 25 61 20 41 -15 -5.1 2.6 -7.5 1 360 69.8 9.42505 Arvidsjaur 6 622 5 708 1 14 60 26 66 23 42 -54 -8.1 -0.4 -7.5 2 756 69.1 10.22582 Boden 27 408 4 297 6 15 64 21 56 24 32 -174 -6.2 -3.9 -2.4 12 452 70.7 8.12523 Gällivare 18 533 16 000 1 14 64 22 56 21 35 -134 -7.1 -3.6 -3.5 8 334 70.3 8.62583 Haparanda 10 112 918 11 15 64 22 57 23 34 -17 -1.9 2.5 -4.2 4 161 64.8 16.22510 Jokkmokk 5 210 18 143 <0.5 13 63 24 59 20 38 -77 -14.4 -6.9 -7.4 2 329 71.0 7.72514 Kalix 16 926 1 799 9 15 61 24 63 24 39 -148 -8.4 -4.8 -3.7 6 940 67.0 13.12584 Kiruna 22 969 19 447 1 16 65 19 54 25 30 -56 -2.5 -2.6 0.2 10 565 71.0 7.72580 Luleå 73 950 1 807 41 15 67 17 48 23 26 275 3.8 1.2 2.5 34 853 69.9 9.42521 Pajala 6 309 7 886 1 14 56 30 79 25 55 -123 -18.6 -6.0 -12.7 2 320 65.9 14.52581 Piteå 40 860 3 086 13 16 65 19 54 24 30 8 0.1 0.5 -0.3 18 634 70.3 8.72560 Älvsbyn 8 387 1 713 5 15 61 23 63 25 38 -78 -9.0 -4.6 -4.4 3 537 68.6 10.92513 Överkalix 3 670 2 787 1 11 59 29 69 19 50 -52 -13.8 -1.9 -11.7 1 438 66.1 14.02518 Övertorneå 4 920 2 374 2 14 60 27 68 23 45 -66 -12.8 -3.8 -9.1 1 921 65.6 14.1


(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

*

Data source: National Statistics Offices, Eurostat, Nordregio Estimates.

Footnotes

For the Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland and Sweden, the population figures for 2010 refer to the population on the 31.12.2009; for Denmark, Greenland and Norway on the 1.1.2010.Denmark: total area; Finland and Sweden: land area; Norway: land area excluding Svalbard and Jan Mayen; Greenland: ice free area (the total area of Greenland is 2.2 million km²), Iceland: total area. Iceland is covered by 23 805 km² of vegetation area, of which the Reykjavík region comprises 552 km², and the other parts 23 253 km². Total age dependency ratio defined as persons aged 0-14 and aged 65 and over / persons aged 15-64 years; Young age dependency ratio defined as persons aged 0-14 / persons aged 15-64 years; Old age dependency ratio defined as persons aged 65 and over / persons aged 15-64 years.

Employment rate = employed persons at place of residence / resident population aged 15-64. Register based data on employed persons at place of residence. Greenland: persons employed between 15-62 years, living in towns

Due to changes in municipal structure during the period 2005-2011, the population change figures are based on estimations. Denmark: Aalestrup divided between Viborg, Vesthimmerland and Mariagerfjord; Brædstrup divided between Horsens and Skanderborg; Christiansfeld divided between Haderslev and Kolding; Egtved divided between Kolding and Vejle; Helle divided between Esbjerg and Varde; Langå divided between Favrskov and Randers; Mariager divided between Randers and Mariagerfjord; Nørager divided between Rebild and Mariagerfjord; Nørre Rangstrup divided between Haderslev and Tønder; Slangerup divided between Hillerød and Frederikssund; Sønderhald divided between Norddjurs and Randers; Tørring-Uldum divided between Vejle and Hedensted. Finland: Längelmäki divided between Jämsä and Orivesi.

Norway excluding offshore industries

Administrative divisions as of 1.1.2011. Regions = NUTS3 regions. In Denmark both NUTS2 regions (administrative) and NUTS3 regions (statistical) are included. In Iceland NUTS3 division is Höfuðborgarsvæði/Reykjavík region and Landsbygð/rest of the country. The Greenlandic municipality of Sermersooq is divided between between East (Ittoqqortoormiit and Tasiilaq districts) and West (Ivittuut, Nuuk and Paamiut districts). In the Faroe Islands national regions (sýsla) are included instead of municipalities included. Municipal names in Finland after language law (423/2003) adjusted to 2011 division. In bi-lingual municipalities (both Finnish and Swedish) both municipal names given (main language first). In Saami language area (in Finland and Norway) both municipal names given

Registered un- & employment figures adjusted with Eurostat Labour Force Survey (LFS) figures in order to render comparison between countries possible.

Faroes: Unemployed as % of labour force; The data is compiled from a labour force survey among residents in the Faroe Islands in the aged 15-74 years years. Greenland: unemployment registered in towns 2009.

Documents

Regional Development in the Nordic Countries 2010 · and environment. In chapter four, the importance of knowledge and the relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship in