Defining and Measuring Metropolitan Regions – OECD workDev Virdee

Office for National Statistics

United Kingdom

Background

• OECD Governance Directorate:- Territorial Policy Development Committee (TDPC)

- Public Governance Committee (PGC)

• TDPC works through:- Urban Policy Working Party (WPURB)

- Rural Policy Working Party (WPRUR)

- Territorial Indicators Working Party (WPTI)

• WPTI:- More than just “Indicators” - more later

- Chair – Dev Virdee

Focus of GOV Directorate:

3

REGIONAL COMPETITIVE

NESS

INNOVATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

FOSTERING STRATEGIES FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

CREATING GOOD GOVERNANCE FOR PUBLIC

INVESTMENT

CHANGING PRIORITIES FOR PUBLIC INVESTMENT

NEW AGENDAS AND APPROCHES FOR PUBLIC

SERVICE DELIVERY

CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

Draft Programme of Work 2009-10

4

THEME 1REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESSAND GLOBALIZATION

Adaptation of firms

Relocation trends

Financial markets and industrial conversion

Adaptation of rural and urban communities

Building natural environment as an asset

Equity across urban and rural regions

Urban rural linkages, functional areas and labour markets

Migration

THEME 2INNOVATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Innovation trends in regions

Innovation in firms of different sizes, in urban and rural areas

Agglomeration effects

Regional conditions that favour innovationPolicy instruments in use in different regions

Efficacy of policies and instruments

Innovation in public utilities and effects on public service provision

What works best to promote regional innovation

THEME 3GOVERNANCE OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT

Public investment for territorial development

Trends in OECD countries

Decentralization and multilevel governance and tools

Aspects of public investment in urban and rural development

The decision making process on public investment for territorial development

Regional investment and strategies for participation on private and public actors

Procedures used in OECD countries to evaluate public investment projects

THEME 4NEW AGENDA AND APPROACHES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY

Public services as enabling factors, their contribution to growth and development in urban and rural regions

Best practices for public service delivery in rural, urban and metropolitan regions

Equity and disparities in access for public services, among regions and social groups, decentralization effects

Potential of ICT to narrow disparities, improving local capacities for the provision of public services

THEME 5FOSTERING STRATEGIES FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Territorial development and public sector organization

Assessment of governance in a comparative perspective, at the national and sub-national levels

Reform challenges and experiences

Territorial development in public sector budgets, what ought to be considered, how it is presented

Decentralization in a comparative perspective

Rules for transparency, integrity and efficiency

TDPC main events 2009-10

•Ministerial Meeting (March 2009)•Permanent Roundtable of Mayors and Ministers

- Istanbul (2009): cities cross-border co-operation- Shanghai (2010): OECD contribution to Shanghai Expo

•China Forum (mid-2009)• Regulatory Reform Review• Rural Review

WPTI role

• WPTI supports TDPC through:Management of OECD Regional Database

Analytical work on explaining factors that determine regional performance and growth

Regional classification (TL 2 and 3)

Regional typology (Predominantly rural, Predominantly urban, intermediate)

Regular reports eg “Regions at a Glance”

Supporting work eg “Innovation in the North of England”

• Enhancing engagement with China, India, Brazil and Chile

• Regional grids - Regions in each member country are classified at two territorial levels (TLs): Territorial Level 2 (335 macro regions) and territorial Level 3 (1679 micro regions).

• For European countries this classification is largely consistent with the Eurostat NUTS2 and NUTS3 regions

• The classification is officially established (and relatively stable) in all OECD member countries and used by central governments as a framework for implementing regional policies.

• Regional typology - Regions at the TL3 level are classified into Predominantly Urban, Intermediate or Predominantly Rural according to the share of population living in rural communities.

• Metropolitan database - Definition of metropolitan regions (based on population, pop density, commuting rate); applied for policy analysis

OECD Regional Database (RDB)

OECD Regional Database (RDB)

• Provides internationally comparable quantitative information on sub-national development conditions and trends

• Includes 40 regional statistics for 30 OECD member countries on demography, regional economic accounts, labour market, social indicators.

• Topics, statistics and methods discussed within the WPTI• Data collected directly through access of NSOs, other official

institutions’ web-sites and Eurostat’s New Cronos.• Questionnaire sent to member countries annually to collect

data not accessible elsewhere.

Use of RDB

• “OECD Regions at a glance”• factors of national growth• unused regional resources to improve regional competitiveness• broader dimension of regional well-being • support regional competitiveness and improve social cohesion

• Decomposition of regional growth around six key factors• Econometric analysis on regional competitiveness• Quantitative analysis on specific issues or areas• Member Countries for comparison and benchmarking• OECD National territorial reviews• OECD Territorial Reviews of specific regions• Innovation reviews

Issues and future developments

• Adequate for assessing territorial policies, but need more:

• Improvement of the geographical unity of analysis• revised rural typology• proposed metropolitan areas definition• comparability of functional areas• use of geographical integrated systems for computing

according to the purpose of analysis eg Spatial correlation in innovative cluster

• Link to policy evaluation: include information on how territorial policies are delivered (resources, multilevel governance, mechanism)

Defining Metropolitan Regions (MR’s)

• OECD workshops and discussions since 2006• Views of experts sought• Considering ways to proceed December 2008• OECD keen to involve China• Particularly keen that National Statistical

Institutes should be involved in work

What are MRs and how can they be defined?

MRs are NOT just “Metropolitan Areas” (ie. conurbations)

MRs are NOT all “World Cities” (such as Paris)

MRs are city regions which meet additional criteria thatidentify them as having metropolitan character

MR definitions need to be fit for purpose (ie. meet OECD needs),and applicable in as many OECD countries as possible

In practice, the need is for definitions with 2 components:

definitions of city regions (where each is a coherent territory providing internally most functions associated with cities (eg. high level jobs and services)

criteria distinguishing MRs among other city regions, (probably including size of the MR or its urban area(s), but possibly also other metropolitan characteristics)

Contemporary MRs can take different forms

• The linkages making MRs into integrated “wholes” go in

many directions between city centres / edge cities / airport

parks … a metropolitan region is now a ‘space of flows’

• The definition method needs to allow for polycentric MRs –

such as Randstad (Netherlands) – as well as the more

familiar monocentric MRs (such as Paris)

• MRs of different form can meet the same essential criteria:

any MR must be self-contained enough to be a city region,

and also (perhaps) large enough to be metropolitan

What are the implications for MR definitions?

• To maximise the consistency of cross-national definitions, the method needs to be:

- very simple and readily computerised - dependent ideally on a single – widely available – dataset- transferable between many countries, in 2 senses…

* TECHNICALLY TRANSFERABLE(eg. work with hugely varying ‘building block’ areas)

* GEOGRAPHICALLY TRANSFERABLE(ie. not presuming that one particular urban form will

be present in all parts of every country)- matching both the 2 elements of the MR concept :

demarcating genuine city regions, as well as identifying those with metropolitan characteristics

The city is an economic entity

• Cities are centres of agglomeration

• They are centres of global connections• They are centres of production

• They are centres of residence• They are centres of consumption• Locus of advanced producer services

organising ‘command and control’

• The space in which advanced economic interactions take place

Cities are workplaces

Source: GLA Economics and BAK Basle, study of 35 European citiesEmployment share=proportion of population in workCity job premium =City employment share/Europe employment share-1

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

1980 1990 2000

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%Europe employment share

Cities employment share

City job premium (right scale)

Cities are centres of productivity

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

Cities

Countries

Cities are global connectors

London

New York

Paris

Los Angeles

Chicago

Hong Kong

Washington

Frankfurt

San Francisco

Miami

Singapore

Toronto

Amsterdam

Rome

Bangkok

Milan

Atlanta

Boston

Madrid

Munich

Las Vegas

Dallas

Tokyo

Taipei

Sydney

Ben Derudder & Peter Taylor (GaWC) – Porous Europe: European Cities in Global Urban Arenas

What is the economic reality of the city?

• A centre of agglomeration for production• A centre of agglomeration for residence• A centre of agglomeration for consumption• Territorial definition should

– Define the community that participates in these agglomeration externalities

– Include ‘highly dense’ morphological concentrations of jobs and residence

– Capture the population that interacts with these morphological concentrations on a daily basis

Proposal:

• A variety of definitions as a basis to identify best practice and as a tool for planners

• Core-based methodology to provide economically comparable city definitions

• TTWA method to identify urban centres• A variety of thresholds to identify continental

standards and check sensitivity

Selection of a target set of cities

• Previous work shows there is a hierarchy of cities• For comparability, cities should be at the same level

of the hierarchyNot compare eg Paris with Lyons, London with Manchester,

Milan with Perugia

• Spread of continents requiredHistorical evolution in each continent has mutually conditioned

the relation between city and transport mode

• Consistency within continentsEstablish ‘European’, ‘US’, ‘Latin American’ thresholdsDetermine where are regions in which pattern of city

development is broadly similar

Short list based on size and connectivity (final selection to be made on other criteria)

• EuropeLondon, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Istanbul

• North AmericaNew York, Toronto, Los Angeles

• Latin AmericaMexico, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Rio, Sao Paolo

• Asia PacificTokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore, Bangkok

• South AsiaMumbai, Delhi, Calcutta

Next steps

• London offer to take lead• Meeting between OECD and London

November 2008• OECD WPTI meeting December 2008• Further plans to be confirmed after December

meeting

Finally

• A flavour of the type of work done by the OECD:Urban Trends and Policy in China

Urban Trends and Policy in China

—

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Urb

an p

opul

atio

n (T

hous

ands

)

China India United States of America

Brazil Russian Federation Japan

Mexico Germany United Kingdom

France South Africa

China

India

USA

Brazil

from 1970-2010, China's urban population will have grown by 281%

168%

60%

153%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

start of nationalre-engineering and resettlement campaigns(e.g. Great Leap Forward)

Cultural Revolution

start of marketreforms under Deng Xiaoping

anomaliesin statisticalreporting

11th Five Year Plan urbanization target:

47%

projection by China Ministry of Construction:

urbanization of 60%by 2020

…urban policies have been constantly evolving during the process

Largest urbanization in human history …

…with recent strong emphasis on metropolitan regions in 2005

High proportion living in large cities…

Uneven distribution and concentrated in the eastern region…

What are Drivers of urbanization? Rural-urban migration Rapid suburbanization

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Iceland

Luxembourg

Slovakia

Norway

Poland

Germany

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Sweden

Belgium

Switzerland

Denmark

Hungary

Italy

Finland

New Zealand

Austria

Ireland

Greece

Portugal

Australia

UK

Spain

Canada

Turkey

France

Korea

OECD average

China

USA

Mexico

Japan

> 10 million 5 to 10 million 1 - 5 million 500t to 1 million Fewer Than 500t

Assessing urban economies in China:

Regional Urban systemMetropolitan regions

Urban/Rural definitionsMacro-regions for national regional policy

Two scales of functional urban regions

Assessing urban performance in China: 28 Regional Urban Systems (RUS)

Concentration in East China (but the largest RUS in the West(101 M))Largest productivity increase and income growth over 1998-2004Significant differences within the groupNot all coastal regions linked to growthCentral and western regions are more or less characterised by marginal growth or stagnation

ShandongCorridor

WYCL

XLCL

CSCR

MYCOR YDMG

LNCL

NECL

SDCORCHBCOR

BHCL

KMCR

GYCR

NNCR

LZCR

CHNCL

SXCOR

XACR

NCCR

AHCOR

EGDCL

ZJCR

FJCOR

BJTJCOR

UQCR

ZJCOR

NXCOR

EHBCOR

PRDMG

101,195,244

82,791,281

49,376,182

48,729,708

45,845,49042,408,282

38,693,518

38,319,817

36,256,312

27,187,440

25,355,834

19,753,695

19,472,322

19,202,845

18,254,182

16,435,572

16,241,348

15,894,312

15,345,777

14,166,929

13,909,601

11,610,654

9,824,696

10,607,941

8,075,238

6,017,4493,559,964

3,132,804

AHCOR: Anhui CorridorBHCL: Baotou-Hohhot ClusterBJTJCOR: Beijing-Tianjin CorridorCHBCOR: Central Hebei CorridorCHNCL: Central Henan ClusterCSCR: Changsha Centered RegionEGDCL: Eastern Guangdong ClusterEHBCL: Eastern Hebei ClusterFJCOR: Fujian CorridorGYCR: Guiyang Centered RegionKMCR: Kunming Centered RegionLNCL: Liaoning ClusterLZCR: Lanzhou Centered RegionMYCOR: Middle Yangtze Corridor

NCCR: Nanchang Centered RegionNECL: Northeast ClusterNNCR: Nanning Centered RegionNXCOR: Ningxia CorridorPRDMG: Pearl River Delta MegalopolisSDCOR: Shandong CorridorSXCOR: Shanxi CorridorUQCR: Urumqi Centered RegionWYCL: Western Yangtze ClusterXACR: XIian Centered RegionXLCL: Xulin ClusterYDMG: Yangtze Delta MegalopolisZJCOR: Zhejiang Coastal CorridorZJCR: Zhanjiang Centered Region

per capita GDP (Y), 20045000 - 1000010000 - 1500015000 - 2000020000 - 2500025000 - 30000> 30000

750 million people, 58% of total China population, 88 % of national GDP

Assessing urban performance in China: 53 Metropolitan regions

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

185 190 195 200 205 210 215 220

% of China's per capita GDP

% o

f C

hin

a's

GD

P

1998 (28.7% of China's population)

2000(29.1%)

2004(29.4%)

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

03_Anshan MR

50_Yantai MR

35_Shantou MR

49_Xuzhou MR

47_Xiamen MR

53_J inan MR

15_Fuzhou MR

24_Kunming MR

06_Changchun MR

36_Shenyang MR

45_Wuhan MR

33_Qiqihar MR

13_Datong MR

30_Nanning MR

42_Tangshan MR

26_Liuzhou MR

17_Guiyang MR

48_Xian MR

40_Taiyuan MR

01_Urumqi MR

51_Zhengzhou MR

28_Nanchang MR

38_Shijiazhuang MR

23_J ilin MR

02_Lanzhou MR

18_Handan MR

21_Hefei MR

52_Zibo MR

12_Daqing MR

10_Chongqing MR

07_Changsha MR

11_Dalian MR

41_Taizhou MR

25_Linyi MR

04_Baotou MR

44_Wenzhou MR

08_Changzhou MR

27_Luoyang MR

22_Hohhot MR

20_Harbin MR

09_Chengdu MR

29_Nanjing MR

32_Qingdao MR

14_Dongguan MR

31_Ningbo MR

46_Wuxi MR

43_Tianjin MR

19_Hangzhou MR

05_Beijing MR

39_Suzhou MR

37_Shenzhen MR

16_Guangzhou MR

34_Shanghai MR

change in share of China's GDP, 1998 - 2004 (% of GDP)

coastal northeast central western

Sharp differences among Metropolitan regions, 6 out of 13 lagging are from coastal areas

Increasing Importance in China:30% of the total population64% of the country’s GDP77% of China’s GDP’s growth (1998-2004)

Assessing urban performance in China: Comparing with OECD countries

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000

TokyoNew York

Los AngelesLondon

ParisOsakaSeoul

ChicagoRhine-Ruhr

WashingtonPhiladelphia

DallasShanghai

MilanMexico City

AichiSan Francisco

BostonRandstad-Holland

HoustonAtlantaMunich

MiamiDetroit

FrankfurtGuangzhou

OECD averageBusan

SeattleMinneapolis

MadridToronto

BeijingPhoenixSydney

HamburgSan Diego

BrusselsBarcelona

IstanbulBerlinRome

DenverMelbourne

BaltimoreSt. LouisFukuoka

MontrealTampa Bay

StuttgartWuhan

PittsburghCleveland

PortlandZurich

ViennaCopenhagen

StockholmAthens

BirminghamLisbon

ManchesterTurin

WarsawBudapestChangsha

VancouverChengduHelsinki

LilleDublin

OsloMonterrey

LeedsPrague

LyonNaples

ValenciaXian

GuadalajaraXuzhou

ChongqingAnkara

ChangzhouAuckland

IzmirDaeguPuebla

Krakow

GDP in PPPs (Billions of USD)

Distinct performance difference among Chinese metropolitan regions (GDP PPPs)

While lagging in per capita terms…

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

San FranciscoWashington

BostonSeattle

MinneapolisNew York

DenverPhiladelphia

DallasAtlanta

HoustonSan Diego

ChicagoLos Angeles

DetroitBaltimore

ParisCleveland

PortlandSt. LouisPhoenixLondonDublin

PittsburghTampa Bay

ViennaMiami

StockholmStuttgart

MilanLyon

MunichOslo

SydneyBrusselsTorontoHelsinki

FrankfurtCopenhagen

ZurichOECD Average

RomeRandstad-Holland

MelbourneVancouver

TurinAucklandHamburg

TokyoBirmingham

MontrealMadrid

AichiLeeds

ManchesterRhine-Ruhr

LisbonOsaka

BarcelonaPrague

LilleBudapest

WarsawFukuokaValencia

BusanBerlin

AthensSeoul

MonterreyNaples

ShanghaiMexico CityGuangzhouGuadalajara

PueblaDaegu

KrakowIstanbul

BeijingIzmir

AnkaraWuhan

ChangshaShantou

ChengduXian

ChongqingXuzhou

Per Capita GDP in PPPs

Assessing urban performance in China: Constraints to development of 53 Metropolitan regions

Yantai MR(A)

Xuzhou MR(A)

Xiamen MR(A)

Wuxi MR(A)

Tianjin MR(A)

Tangshan MR(A)

Suzhou MR(A)

Shenzhen MR(A)

Shanghai MR(A)

Qingdao MR(A)

Ningbo MR(A)

Linyi MR(A)

Hangzhou MR(A)

Guangzhou MR(A)

Fuzhou MR(A)

Dalian MR(A)

Changzhou MR(A)

Beijing MR(A)

Zibo MR(B)

Wenzhou MR(B)

Taizhou MR(B)

Shijiazhuang MR(B)

Shenyang MR(B)

Shantou MR(B)

Nanning MR(B)

Nanjing MR(B)Jinan MR(B)

Handan MR(B) Datong MR(B)

Anshan MR(B)

Zhengzhou MR(C)

Taiyuan MR(C)Nanchang MR(C)Luoyang MR(C) Liuzhou MR(C)

Jilin MR(C)

Hohhot MR(C)

Hefei MR(C)

Harbin MR(C)

Guiyang MR(C)

Changsha MR(C)

Changchun MR(C)

Baotou MR(C)

Xian MR(D)

Wuhan MR(D)

Qiqihar MR(D)

Kunming MR(D)

Chongqing MR(D)

Chengdu MR(D)

Lanzhou MR(D)

Urumqi MR(D)

R2 = 0.83

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

non-farming population as % of MR population

per

cap

ita

GD

P

kms to nearest coastal port(A): < 250 kms (B): 250 - 500

(C): 500 - 1000 (D): > 1000 kms

Significant positive correlation between urbanization and economic prosperityOnly 16 of 53 MRs have urbanization levels over 70%

Current trends tends to favour sprawling metro-regions

Pollution and congestion costsLimit agglomeration economies

Assessing urban performance in China: Constraints to development of 53 Metropolitan regions

Huge difference in educational attainment among Chinese cities. Concentration of human capital in advanced metro-regions (e.g. Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou), while placing further pressure on lagging metro regions (e.g. Chongqing)

Low ranking among OECD metro-regions

P erc entage of Tertiary E duc ation among population age 15+

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

S hantouC hongqing

A ns hanK unming

HarbinJ inan

Is tanbulK rakow

DalianIz mir

Hangz houS henz hen

TianjinXiamen

G uangz houP rague

L illeW ars awTaiyuan

B udapes tS hanghai

A nkaraL is bonDublin

A uc klandA thensNanjing

MelbourneS ydney

B irminghamS tuttgartV alenc ia

C levelandP ortland

L yonB eijingL eeds

R ands tad-Manc hes ter

S t.L ouisC openhagen

O E C DP aris

P itts burghTampa B ay

DetroitP hiladelphia

Hous tonDallas

B arc elonaMiami

L os A ngelesA ic hi

P hoenixF ukuokaB rus s els

S toc kholmO s lo

A tlantaC hic ago

O s akaNew Y ork

MinneapolisHels inki

S an DiegoMadridS eattleL ondonB os ton

S anDenver

W as hingtonTokyo

Key PolicyChallenges

Becoming and Staying competitive Constraints to markets and factors

mobility Institutional constraints (e.g. trade

barriers, employment restrictions) Distortions in land market as a result of

tradition (e.g. highly controlled urban core, and collective land ownership in suburb)

Limited transport access between the core city and suburban towns

Environmental challenges 420 cities out of 657 had water

shortage, 110 had severe shortage (2003)

53% monitored sections of seven key rivers had water quality at Class V or lower (2001)

Motor vehicle growth and increasing NOx emission pollution

Land consumption

Ensuring equity for vulnerable groups Basic welfare for SOEs laid offs became

burden for some municipalities, esp. in North-eastern provinces

Housing, employment, education and social welfare provisions for rural migrants

Provision of health service, social service , pensions for an cities’ aging population

Improving metropolitan governance Gaps in planning and provision of

urban services in suburban areas Individual jurisdictions invest in their

own small, inefficient infrastructure within administrative boundaries

Participation of stakeholders in monitoring and analyzing metropolitan regions

Urban Land Use in Shanghai: 1988 (black) and 2002 (red and black)

Concluding remarks: manage urbanizing China

China can learn from OECD experiences, both successful and failed ones

OECD countries need to consider the global impacts of urbanization in China and could also learn from interesting experiments

Potential areas for future research• Harmonise definition of metropolitan regions to facilitate comparative analysis

that could support the development of more efficient public policies• Indentify the main drivers of China’s metropolitan regions’ economic growth

and complementary policies to support a sustainable and inclusive path• Develop effective and realistic options for more effective metropolitan

governance

Thank you for listening

Any Questions?