DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONS OF LITHUANIA

At the beginning of 2008, Lithuania was populated by 3 million 336 thousand persons. A quarter of the population (848 thousand) were living in Vilnius county, 674 thousand – in Kaunas county (which ranked second in Lithuania in terms of the population), 379 thousand – in Klaipėda, 350 thousand – Šiauliai, 284 thousand – Panevėžys counties. The rest of the counties were much smaller: that of Marijampolė – 181 thousand, Alytus – 177 thousand, Telšiai and Utena –173 thousand in each, Tauragė – 127 thousand persons; the total number of residents of these five counties was lower than the population of Vilnius county.

Population structure by age groups, beginning of 2008

The number of persons of working age in Vilnius county was the highest in Lithuania,

while that of persons of retirement age – the lowest; the number of persons aged 0–15 was relatively low. Thus, it might be concluded that the age structure of the Vilnius county population is determined not only by the natural generational change, but also by a rather massive inflow of young persons arriving to take up residence in the county. The share of persons of retirement age is also relatively low, while that of persons of working age – high in Klaipėda county; in the said county, the share of persons aged 0–15 is somewhat higher than in Vilnius county. In 2008, the “oldest” county was that of Utena, where the share of children was the lowest, that of persons of retirement age – the highest, while that of persons of working age – lower than the national average.

2

Children aged 0–15 made up almost one-fifth of the population in Telšiai and Tauragė counties. In Telšiai county, the share of persons of working age was also slightly lower, the share of persons of retirement age – lower than the national average, which made this county one of the demographically “youngest” in Lithuania.

In 2001–2007, a negative natural population increase (i.e. the number of deaths per 1000 population was higher than that of live births) in the population was observed. In 2007, due to the negative natural population increase, the population decreased the most in Utena and Panevėžys counties, while the population of Klaipėda, Vilnius and Telšiai counties was influenced by the said factor the least. In 2005–2007, the natural population increase rate in Lithuania stabilised, while in several counties (those of Klaipėda, Telšiai and Tauragė) – even improved. In Vilnius and Kaunas counties, the natural increase rate was more favourable than the national average and remained stable; the rate was stably low in Alytus, Šiauliai and Marijampolė counties. The natural population increase rate was particularly low in Panevėžys and Utena counties, where it has been gradually decreasing. Natural population increase, 2001–2007 Natural increase per 1000 population

-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

ty

2001

2003

2005

2007

At the beginning of 2008, 66.9 % of the population was living in urban, 33.1 % – in rural

areas. In Tauragė and Marijampolė counties, more than half of the population was living in rural areas. In the rest of the counties, a larger share of the population was living in urban areas; however, the share of the urban population exceeded the national average only in the counties of the major cities. In Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus, Telšiai and Utena counties, the shares of the urban and rural population were similar – about 60 and 40 % respectively. Population, beginning of 2008 Per cent

78.355.941.1

61.549.672.671.866.9 59.0 59.0 59.0

21.744.158.938.550.4

27.428.233.1 41.041.041.0

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

ty

Rural areas

Urban areas

3

The structure of the population by sex in all the counties differed from the national indicator just slightly. The share of women was somewhat higher in smaller counties, namely in those where the rural population constituted a larger share (e.g. in Tauragė and Marijampolė counties). In the counties covering the major cities (e.g. in Vilnius, Kaunas or Klaipėda counties) the share of men exceeded the national average. These inconsiderable fluctuations can be explained by the fact that the share of women among persons of retirement age is higher; therefore, the share of women is larger in those counties which have been demographically ageing. An assumption can also be made that the sex distribution is also conditioned by different mobility of men and women – the share of women in those counties whose population is decreasing due to migration should be increasing.

Population by sex, beginning of 2008 Per cent

47.147.147.546.746.647.546.847.546.5 46.046.0

52.952.952.553.353.452.553.252.553.5 54.054.0

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

ty

Females

Males

Differences in the indicators of average life expectancy in different counties were

inconsiderable – the difference between the highest and the lowest respective indicators (those of Kaunas and Panevėžys, and Utena and Tauragė counties) made 1.7 years. The highest average life expectancy of women was in Alytus (78.1 years), that of men – in Panevėžys (66.2) counties. Meanwhile, the difference between the male and female average life expectancy indicators was much more substantial – about 12–13 years, on average, in all counties, except for Panevėžys county, where this difference was somewhat lower – 11.2 years, and Alytus and Utena counties, where it exceeded 13.5 years.

Average life expectancy, 2007

77.277.377.776.976.577.476.977.577.878.177.2

64.563.765.064.164.766.265.065.765.764.564.9

70.870.171.370.170.571.870.871.671.870.870.9

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

ty

FemalesMales

Males and females

4

In 2001, the impact of migration on the population in Lithuania and in separate counties was inconsiderable – although in all counties, except for those of Tauragė and Vilnius, net migration was negative, its impact was about four times as low as that of the negative natural increase. A considerable decrease in the population due to migration was observed in Utena county. Over 2003–2005, migration flows notably increased. In all counties, except for that of Vilnius, international and internal net migration was negative; the most serious problems were faced by Tauragė county (where as late as in 2001 net migration had still been positive), Šiauliai, Telšiai and Alytus counties, where the impact of negative net migration was higher or similar to that of the negative natural population increase. In 2007, the decrease in the population due to migration in Lithuania was not as rapid as in 2005 (however, still more rapid than in 2001); negative net migration turned into positive in Klaipėda county, halved in Kaunas county, notably decreased in Alytus, Marijampolė, Telšiai and Utena counties. The net migration rate changed just inconsiderably in Panevėžys and Tauragė counties, negative net migration increased in Šiauliai county. The largest share of the population due to negative net migration in 2007 was lost by Panevėžys, Tauragė and Šiauliai counties.

International and internal net migration per 1000 population, 2001–2007

-7-6-5-4-3-2-101234

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

ty

2001

2003

2005

2007

From 2002 to 2008, due to the negative natural increase and migration, the population of

Lithuania decreased by almost 110 thousand. The most notable decrease was observed in Utena, Alytus and Panevėžys counties; the number of residents remained almost unchanged only in Vilnius county. Migration trends from urban and rural areas in different counties are different – e.g. in Panevėžys county the urban population decreased the most, whereas the rural population was increasing much slower. In Alytus county, this difference was not as prominent – both the urban and rural population decreased considerably; a similar trend was observed in Šiauliai county. Meanwhile, in Utena county, the rural population decreased by as much as one-tenth, which to a large extent impacted on the general change in the number of county’s residents. Changes in the population of Klaipėda and partly those in the population of Kaunas county reflect the process of these cities expanding to surrounding rural territories: the rural population in Klaipėda county increased, in Kaunas county – almost did not decrease, although the urban population was decreasing in both counties. Similar processes were observed in Vilnius county, where, however, the urban population was also increasing.

5

Population in urban and rural areas, beginning of 2002–2008

2002 2004 2006 2008

Lithuania 3475586 3445857 3403284 3366357

urban areas 2326175 2297400 2268838 2250786

rural areas 1149411 1148457 1134446 1115571

Alytus county 187397 184807 180786 177040

urban areas 110843 108815 106215 104542

rural areas 76554 75992 74571 72498

Kaunas county 699314 691445 680937 673706

urban areas 508924 499058 489561 483560

rural areas 190390 192387 191376 190146

Klaipėda county 385008 383250 380612 378843

urban areas 282162 279972 277267 274978

rural areas 102846 103278 103345 103865

Marijampolė county 188298 186736 183870 181219

urban areas 93073 92158 90780 89938

rural areas 95225 94578 93090 91281

Panevėžys county 298958 295161 289628 284235

urban areas 178440 173902 170412 167723

rural areas 120518 121259 119216 116512

Šiauliai county 369192 364076 357015 349876

urban areas 226559 222489 218479 215021

rural areas 142633 141587 138536 134855

Tauragė county 134051 132729 129976 127378

urban areas 54669 54100 53146 52336

rural areas 79382 78629 76830 75042

Telšiai county 179599 178141 175488 173383

urban areas 106350 105016 103034 102258

rural areas 73249 73125 72454 71125

Utena county 184879 181113 176711 172580

urban areas 100338 98573 97045 96461

rural areas 84541 82540 79666 76119

Vilnius county 848890 848399 848261 848097

urban areas 664817 663317 662899 663969

rural areas 184073 185082 185362 184128

6

Population change in urban and rural areas, beginning of 2002–2008 Per cent

-6.7

-3.5-4.9

-1.6

-5.5 -5.0

-3.1 -3.7 -3.8-5.2

-0.1 -0.1

-3.9-4.3-5.1

-2.5

-5.0-6.0

-3.4-3.2

-5.7

-3.8-2.9

-5.5

-0.1

-5.3

1.0

-10.0

-3.3

-5.5

-2.9-4.1

0.0

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

ty

Urban and rural areasUrban areas

Rural areas

The highest educational attainment was in the major counties (those of Vilnius, Kaunas

and Klaipėda); in these counties, the share of persons with lower education was the smallest, while that with higher education – the largest. The shares of persons having higher education in Vilnius and Telšiai counties differed as much as 2.5 times.

The largest share of the country’s population – 60 % – had secondary education. The major share of such persons was in smaller counties (those of Marijampolė, Telšiai and Alytus). Tauragė and Utena counties stood out among the rest of the counties with a large share of persons having just lower education.

Population by educational attainment (by ISCED classification), 2007 Per cent

9.016.315.319.915.212.511.87.98.511.411.1

50.660.668.261.662.766.369.865.867.9

58.060.0

40.423.116.518.522.121.318.426.333.5

20.728.9

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

tyHigher educationSecondary educationLower education

7

In 2007, the unemployment rate in Lithuania made up 4.3 %. The highest unemployment rates were recorded in Panevėžys, Vilnius and Utena counties – 6.5, 4.5 and 4.4 % respectively. As compared with 2001, the unemployment rate in the country decreased 4 times; in Panevėžys county, where it had been the lowest, it decreased 2.25 times, while in Alytus county, where it had been the highest – as much as 6.8 times. In 2005–2007, the average deviation of the unemployment rate in the counties from the national average was growing – from 30.1 % in 2005 to 51.1 % in 2007; however, in 2007, not a single county was faced with a particularly high unemployment rate.

Unemployment rate, 2001– 2007 Per cent

The highest employment rate was recorded in Vilnius county, Marijampolė and Kaunas

counties (which had ranked first). The highest employment rate in 2007 was recorded in Alytus and Panevėžys counties. The most notable growth in the employment rate was observed in Marijampolė county, which in 2001 had ranked penultimate by the employment rate, while in 2007 – second, being outpaced only by Vilnius county. In Alytus county, the employment rate in 2001 was the lowest in the country, in 2007 it ranked penultimate. The poorest situation – in Panevėžys county, where the employment rate has been growing just insignificantly, which made the county fall from the second position in 2001 to the last one in 2007. The growth in the

8

employment rate was slower than the national average in Klaipėda, Šiauliai and Tauragė counties, equalled the national average – in Utena county.

Employment rate, 2007 Per cent

The absolute majority of employed persons in 8 out of 10 counties (except for those of Telšiai and Utena) were working in the service sector. In Vilnius county, two-thirds of persons employed were working in the service sector. A higher share of persons working in agriculture was in Marijampolė and Tauragė counties (the share of the value added generated in this sector was lower). The share of persons employed in industry was lower in Vilnius and Tauragė counties, while in the rest of the counties these shares differed inconsiderably. Attention should probably be drawn to the fact that in Telšiai and Utena counties the value added generated in the industrial sector falling within a relatively low number of persons employed in this sector is high.

Employment of the population in the country’s regions, their qualification, quality of life, as well as communication and participation in social life regardless of their place of residence are to a large extent related to Internet usage. The share of households having Internet access from 2005 to 2008 grew 2.3 times; each second household had Internet access. The leading counties in terms of the share of households having Internet access were those of Vilnius and Klaipėda; Telšiai county slightly lagged behind Klaipėda county. Although Telšiai county may be

9

conditionally classified under the peripheral ones, and despite the fact that quite a number of its residents live in rural areas, this county outpaced those of Kaunas and Šiauliai. The lowest share of households having Internet access – just about one-third – was in Utena and Alytus counties. Although there are still counties lagging behind the rest of the country in terms of Internet usage, territorial disparities have been rapidly decreasing. As late as in 2005, the share of households having Internet access in Vilnius county was almost three times as high as that in Alytus county, while in 2008 this difference was much smaller – 66 %. In less-developed counties, this indicator since 2005 grew about 3.5–4, in the leading ones – 2–3 times.

Share of households with Internet access, beginning of 2005 and 2008 Per cent

58.2

33.6

49.5

42.1

43.5

39.8

39.6

51.5

44.8

35.0

47.1

19.3

7.5

12.7

9.1

13.4

10.9

9.2

17.0

15.9

6.8

14.4

Vilnius county

Utena county

Telšiai county

Tauragė county

Šiauliai county

Panevėžys county

Marijampolė county

Klaipėda county

Kaunas county

Alytus county

Lithuania2005

2008

Most social and demographic processes observed in the country’s regions are conditioned

by their economic development – economically stronger counties become more attractive for living, migration flows are changing. The economic situation is also related to changes in the birth rate and generational changes. On the other hand, the structure of the population by age, locality of residence or education, social situation and quality of life impact on development conditions of certain branches of economy.

One of the key indicators reflecting economic development of the regions is gross domestic product per capita (GDP per capita). The GDP per capita in 2007 made LTL 29.1 thousand, and was exceeded only in Klaipėda (LTL 29.8 thousand) and Vilnius (LTL 45 thousand) counties. The GDP per capita in Vilnius county was 3.3 times higher than that in the poorest – Tauragė – county (LTL 13.7 thousand). Although the GDP per capita growth rate was rather high, its growth rates in different counties were very uneven. Since 2001, the disparity between the per capita GDP in the counties and the national GDP per capita has been growing: in 2001, it made up 20.7 %, in 2005 – 24.2 %, in 2007 – 28.4 %. The unevenness of economic development between Vilnius and other country’s regions is substantial, and no decrease in the disparity has been observed.

10

Gross domestic product per capita, 2001–2007 LTL thousand

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Lith

uani

a

Aly

tus

coun

ty

Kau

nas

coun

ty

Kla

ipėd

aco

unty

Mar

ijam

polė

coun

ty

Pane

vėžy

sco

unty

Šiau

liai

coun

ty

Taur

agė

coun

ty

Telši

aico

unty

Ute

naco

unty

Viln

ius

coun

ty

2001

2003

2005

2007

The largest share of the value added in the country was created by the service sector of the

economically strongest counties (those of Vilnius, Klaipėda and Kaunas), where the share of the value added generated in the trade, hotels, restaurants, transport and other service sectors was relatively higher than in the regions with a slower economic growth. An exceptionally large share of gross value added in Vilnius county was generated by the financial intermediation sector. Industry dominated in Utena county (with Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant located in it), as well as in Telšiai county (public company Mažeikių nafta – oil refinery). A larger share of agriculture, as compared with other counties, in the gross value added was in the economically weaker Tauragė and Marijampolė counties. Šiauliai, Panevėžys and Alytus counties could be characterised by the share of industry and construction in the gross value added being close to the national indicator, as well as a less-developed service sector (except for public and communal services).

11

Gross domestic product per capita compared with the national average and structure of gross value added by economic sector, 2007* Per cent

A low per capita GDP level in less-developed regions is conditioned by the lack of investment in human resources, innovation, technological progress. At the beginning of 2008, foreign direct investment per capita (per capita FDI) in Lithuania made LTL 10 547. The highest per capita FDI was in Telšiai (mostly due to investment in public company Mažeikių nafta) and Vilnius counties, while the lowest – in Tauragė, Marijampolė and Šiauliai counties. The per capita FDI indicators in Tauragė and Marijampolė counties were almost 20 times lower than the national indicator. A low level of foreign investment in some counties could be partially explained by the fact that in those counties, in contradistinction to Vilnius and Telšiai counties, domestic capital enterprises predominated; however, the per capita FDI indicator also reflects the fact that the investment environment in those counties and their major towns is unfavourable.

12

Foreign direct investment per capita, beginning of 2006 and 2008 LTL

The level of entrepreneurship of the population of economically weaker counties is also

lower. Although the number of operating economic entities in the country has been gradually increasing, the number of such enterprises per 1000 population in Tauragė, Utena and Marijampolė counties was almost twice as low as in Vilnius county. The number of operating economic entities per 1000 population was close to the national average only in Kaunas and Klaipėda counties. Vilnius county was the obvious leader. The growth rates in the indicator in question differed markedly as well – in Vilnius county from the beginning of 2002 it grew by 43 %, in Panevėžys county – by 21 %, in Kaunas and Klaipėda counties – by 16 % in each, in Alytus county – by 13 %. In the rest of the counties, it grew by just 4–10 %. Territorial disparities of the distribution of operating economic entities have been rapidly increasing.

13

Number of operating economic entities per 1000 population, beginning of 2002–2008

The amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere in 2001–2007 was decreasing; it

slightly increased only in Tauragė and Šiauliai counties. The lowest amount of pollutants was emitted into the atmosphere in Alytus and Utena county (despite the fact that these counties are characterised by well-developed industry). The highest amount of pollutants was emitted into the atmosphere in Kaunas, Klaipėda and Telšiai (namely in Mažeikiai) counties.

14

Emission of pollutants into the atmosphere, 2001–2007 kg/km²

Although the growth of the Lithuanian economy in 2001–2007 was rapid, and its impact on

the environment was not high, substantial unevenness in the economic growth, poor level of entrepreneurship of the population in many country’s regions became prominent. However, recently, a decline in unemployment and growth in employment in economically weaker counties have been observed. Presumptively, the improving social situation of the country’s regions will bring about conditions for the improvement of their economic indicators in the future.