Updated the 5th of March 2019

Youth unemployment rate, 15-24 years old, 2007-15 Regional gap in GDP per capita, 2000-15

While the youth unemployment rate in Latvia (16.3%) was below the OECD average in 2015, it varied widely across regions. With 24.1% of youths unemployed, Latgale’s youth unemployment was more than twice as high as in Riga (11.2%).

The gap in GDP per capita between the richest (Riga) and the poorest (Latgale) Latvian regions has slightly decreased. GDP per capita in Latgale has increased by 5.3% per year between 2000 and 2015, slightly surpassing the growth of GDP per capita in Riga (4.9% per year over the same period). However, Riga has more than twice the GDP per capita of Latgale. As a result, Latvia remains the country with the 3rd highest regional economic disparities among 30 OECD countries with comparable data.

Index of regional disparity in GDP per capita, 2016

Source: OECD Regional Database. Notes: (1) Figure on regional gap in GDP per capita: OECD regions refer to administrative tier of subnational government: Latvia is composed of six small regions (Territorial Level 3). (2) Figure on index of regional disparity: top (bottom) 20% regions are defined as those with the highest (lowest) GDP per capita until the equivalent of 20% of national population is reached, this indicator provides a harmonised measure to rank OECD countries, using data for small regions (Territorial Level 3) when available. (3) Productivity is measured as GDP per employee at place of work in constant prices, constant Purchasing Power Parities (reference year 2010).

OECD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2007 2012 2015

rate (% )

Lowest rateRiga

Highest rateLatgale

11.2%

24.1%

16.3%Latv ia

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

2000 2005 2010 2015

GDP per capita in USD PPP

Low est region

Latgale

Highest region

Riga

11 865 USD

37 865 USD

20 865 USD

Latv ia

1

2

3

4

Top 20 % richest over bottom 20% poorest regionsRatio

Country (number of regions considered)

Small regions(TL3)

Large regions (TL2)

2016 2000

Regions and Cities at a Glance 2018 – LATVIA http://www.oecd.org/regional

Economic trends in regions

Updated the 5th of March 2019

Relative ranking of the regions with the best and worst outcomes in the 11 well-being dimensions, with respect to all 402 OECD regions. The eleven dimensions are ordered by decreasing regional disparities in the country. Each well-being dimension is measured by the indicators in the table below.

Latvia is among the top 2% of OECD regions in secondary educational attainment. Large regional disparities are found in jobs (employment and unemployment rates), with Pieriga county faring above the OECD median and Latgale county in the bottom 10%. Latgale county is the region with the lowest score in the country and among the lowest 20% of OECD regions in civic engagement and health.

The regions with the highest well-being scores in Latvia fare better than the OECD median region in three out of eight well-being indicators for which regional data are available: employment rate, share of households with broadband access and air pollution.

Source: OECD Regional Database. Visualisation: https://www.oecdregionalwellbeing.org. Notes: (1) Latvia is composed of six small regions (Territorial Level 3); (2) Household income per capita data are based on USD constant PPP, constant prices (year 2010).

Pieriga

Riga

Riga

Kurzeme

Latvia

Riga

LatviaLatvia

Latvia

Latvia

Latvia

LatgaleLatgale

Latgale

Vidzeme

Zemgale

Latgale

Jobs CivicEngagement

Access toservices

Safety Environment Health Income Housing Education Community LifeSatisfaction

Top region Bottom region

Rankin

g of

OE

CD

re

gio

ns

(1 to 4

02)

top 2

0%

bottom

20%

mid

dle

60%

Riga Statistical regions

Top 20% Bottom 20%

Jobs

Employment rate 15 to 64 years old (%), 2017 69.1 67.7 72.1 59.3

Unemployment rate 15 to 64 years old (%), 2017 9.0 5.5 6.0 16.9

Civic engagement

Voters in last national election (%), 2017 or lastest year 59.1 70.9 69.7 49.4

Access to services

Households w ith broadband access (%), 2017 76.0 78.0 79.7 68.5

Safety

Homicide Rate (per 100 000 people), 2016 4.4 1.3 3.1 5.6

Environment

Level of air pollution in PM 2.5 (µg/m³), 2015 10.4 12.4 10.4 12.2

Health

Life Expectancy at birth (years), 2016 74.9 80.4 75.6 72.7

Age adjusted mortality rate (per 1 000 people), 2016 11.5 8.1 10.6 13.0

Income

Disposable income per capita (in USD PPP), 2016 10 434 17 695 .. ..

Housing

Rooms per person, 2016 1.2 1.8 .. ..

Education

Labour force w ith at least upper secondary education (%), 2017 91.4 81.7 .. ..

Community

Perceived social netw ork support (%), 2013 86.0 91.4 .. ..

Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction (scale from 0 to 10), 2013 5.9 6.8 .. ..

Latvian regionsCountry

Average

OECD median

region

Differences in well-being across regions

Updated the 5th of March 2019

OECD population is concentrated in cities* Percentage of population in cities, 2016

Source: OECD Metropolitan Database. Number of cities: four in Latvia and 1 138 in the OECD.

In Latvia, 64% of the population lives in cities of more than 50 000 inhabitants. The share of population in cities with more than 500 000 people is 48% compared to 55% in the OECD area.

Importance of metropolitan areas Cities above 500 000 people, 2016

Contribution of metropolitan areas to GDP growth Cities above 500 000 people, 2000-16

Riga metropolitan area accounts for 66% of national GDP and 56% of national employment. Between 2000 and 2016 it generated 69% of the national GDP growth.

Riga metropolitan area is among the bottom 30% in the OECD in terms of GDP per capita, ranking 240th out of 329 OECD metropolitan areas, an improvement of 62 positions compared to 2000.

OECD Metropolitan areas ranking Cities above 500 000 people

GDP per capita, 2016

Air pollution (PM2.5), 2017

Source: OECD Metropolitan Database. Number of metropolitan areas with a population of over 500 00: 1 in Latvia compared to 327 in the OECD.

* Note: Cities are defined here as functional urban areas, which are composed by high-density urban centres of at least 50 000 people and their areas of influence (commuting zone). For more information, see: http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/functionalurbanareasbycountry.htm.

48%

0%16%

36%

United States

people in citieswith population above 500 000

peopleoutside cities

United States

people in cities withpopulation between50 000 and 250 000

2 million people - 64% live in cities

United StatesLatvia

people in cities with population between 250 000 and 500 000

OECD average

1.2 billion people - 70%live in cities

people in citieswith population

above 500 000

people in cities withpopulation between

50 000 and 250 000

peopleoutside cities

55%

9%

30%

people in cities with populationbetween 250 000 and 500 000

6%

66%56%

48%

63%58% 55%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% of nationalGDP

% of nationalemployment

% of nationalpopulation

Latvia OECD average%

69% 68%R

iga

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2

%

All metropolitan areas Largest contributor

Latvia OECD average

32

7 m

etr

op

olit

an

are

as

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000USD PPP

Top 20% richest metropolitan areas

Bottom 20% poorest metropolitan areas

0

10

20

30

Lev el of air pollution in PM 2.5 (µg/m³)

Top 20% least polluted metropolitan areas

Bottom 20% most polluted metropolitan areas

Metropolitan areas in the national economy

Updated the 5th of March 2019

Subnational government expenditure by function As a share of total subnational government expenditure, 2016

Subnational government expenditure amounts to USD 2 427 per capita in Latvia compared to an OECD average of USD 6 817. In Latvia, this is equivalent to 25.5% of total public expenditure and to 9.5% of GDP. In comparison, across the OECD, subnational government expenditure accounts for 40.4% of total public expenditure and for 16.2% of GDP. Education and ‘Other’ functions (housing and community amenities, recreation, culture and religion; environment; public order and safety) are the two largest spending items for subnational governments in Latvia. Together, they represent 63% of subnational expenditure compared to 39% in the OECD area.

In Latvia, subnational governments carried out 28.5% of total public investment, compared to an OECD average of 56.9%.

Role of subnational governments in public investment Subnational government public investment per capita, 2016

Source: OECD Subnational Government Structure and Finance Database.

OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2018

The 2018 edition of OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance shows how regions and cities contribute to national growth and the well-being of societies. It updates its regular set of region-by-region indicators, examining a wide range of policies and trends and identifying those regions that are outperforming or lagging behind in their country.

Consult this publication on line: https://oe.cd/pub/2n9

Economic affairs 7% 14% Economic affairs

Health 9% 18% Health

General public services 9% 14% General public services

Other 22% 15% Other

Social protection 12% 14% Social protection

EducationEducation 41% 25%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Latvia OECD average

Subnational expenditure per capita: USD 2 427 USD 6 817

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

Total public investmentUSD 957 per capita3.7% of GDP

Total public investmentUSD 1 278 per capita3.0% of GDP

Subnational governmentinvestmentUSD 273 per capita28.5% of public invest.

USD per capita

Subnational government investmentUSD 727 per capita 56.9% of public invest.

OECD averageLatvia

Subnational government finance