37
2, XIX, 2016
Economics
DOI: 10.15240/ ul/001/2016-2-003
In oduc ion
Une en egional de elopmen is gene ally
unde s ood as a p oblem o g owing impo ance.
Leade s o he Eu opean Union (EU) aim
o ac i ely add ess his issue, which can be
mani es ed, o example, by he ac ha one o
he pi o al long- e m and ongoing goals o EU
egional policy is o comba egional dispa i ies,
which is di ec ly based on A icle 174 o he
consolida ed T ea y on he Func ioning o he
Eu opean Union (EU, 2010). In 2004 he EU
ex ended eas wa ds, which u he enhanced
he impo ance o EU egional policy. Regions
o he newly in eg a ed and ans o med o me
Eas e n bloc coun ies had been less de eloped
when compa ed o he exis ing EU 15 egions
(wi h he excep ion o he capi al ci y egions
o B a isla a, Budapes and P ague). In e ms
o GDP pe capi a, as an indica o o economic
pe o mance, many o hem ha e been on he
same le el as he leas de eloped egions
ac oss he EU (Applo á, 2014; Eu os a , 2015).
These egions ha e no only become eligible
ecipien s o unding om he Eu opean
s uc u al unds and om he Cohesion und,
bu also he de ac o pla o m o e iewing
he e ec i eness o edis ibu ion mechanisms
in e ms o ul i lling he objec i es o cohesion
policy and pa ly also he e i ciency o he en i e
Eu opean in eg a ion p ojec . This ac has been
documen ed by nume ous ecen s udies ha
ha e ocused on he p og ess o less de eloped
coun ies and egions, as well as hei inclusion
in he EU (Dob insky & Ha lik, 2014; Cua esma,
Obe ho e , & Vincele e, 2014; Fo gó & Je čák,
2015; Zd ažil, 2014).
This pape ocuses on he Viseg ad G oup
coun ies ( he Czech Republic, Hunga y,
Poland, and Slo akia) ha belong among he
ans o med economies o he o me Eas e n
Bloc and whose egions can be gene ally
ega ded as less de eloped when compa ed
wi h he egions o he adi ional EU coun ies
(EU 15). The aim o his pape is o assess he
de elopmen o dispa i ies in he economic
pe o mance among egions o he Viseg ad
G oup coun ies, o iden i y he way in which
economic g ow h ac o s de e mine hese
dispa i ies, and pa ly o assess whe he he
in eg a ion o Viseg ad G oup coun ies in o he
Eu opean Union has a ec ed he de elopmen
o egional dispa i ies in hese coun ies.
1. A B ie Re iew o Li e a u e
O cou se, he economic heo y says ha
he e ec s o economic in eg a ion a e e y
ambiguous (Baldwin & Wyplosz, 2006;
Jo ano ich, 2005; K ugman & Venables,
1990). Howe e , mos au ho s do ag ee ha
he libe aliza ion o he economic en i onmen ,
in connec ion wi h in eg a ion, does a leas
de elop he ma ke , and inc ease p essu e o
achie e e i ciency and highe li ing s anda ds.
Thanks o his i can gene ally be ega ded
as a bene i cial phenomenon (Balassa, 1961;
Fá ek & K a , 2006; Machlup, 1977). Acco ding
o some s udies he e ec s esul ing om his
in eg a ion a e so unequi ocally posi i e o he
pa icipa ing egions ha he ac is indispu able
(Olo sdo e & To s ensson, 1998).
On he basis o he s anda d neoclassical
model (Solow, 1956; Solow, 1957) and
economic in eg a ion heo y (Balassa, 1961),
ela i ely less de eloped coun ies joining
mo e ad anced communi y should esul in he
accele a ion o he less de eloped coun ies‘
g ow h and hus hei con e gence wi h he
mo e de eloped coun ies. The a gumen in
a ou o con e gence has been de i ed om
neoclassical assump ions, s a ing ha he
libe aliza ion o ade and mobili y o p oduc ion
ac o s assumes ha he balancing mechanism
o p ice le els and income, o he con e gence
o (na ional o egional) economies will be
GROWTH DISPARITIES AMONG REGIONS
OF THE VISEGRAD GROUP COUNTRIES: AN
EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXTENT AND NATURE
Pa el Zd ažil, Pe a Applo á
EM_2_2016.indd 37EM_2_2016.indd 37 3.6.2016 11:47:453.6.2016 11:47:45
38 2016, XIX, 2
Ekonomie
ac i a ed (Ma ín Velázquez & Funck, 2001),
bo h o in e ms o nominal and eal con e gence.
I is he e o e essen ially a classic con e gence
hypo hesis, on he basis o which no ional
g ouping (con e gence clubs) a ise among
egions, wi hin which he e is a signi i can
con e gence achie ed in e ms o p oduc i i y,
and wi h ha li ing s anda ds (Baumol, Nelson,
& Wol , 1994). One can he e o e expec ha
he in eg a ion o less de eloped coun ies in o
he EU should be bene i cial o hese coun ies
and hei egions as i o e s he po en ial
o accele a e g ow h and o c ea e posi i e
condi ions o hei de elopmen (Capello,
2007), based no only on heo e ical p inciples,
bu also h ough in e en ions in he o m o
edis ibu ion mechanism wi hin egional policy.
On he o he hand i mus be said ha economic
in eg a ion can be accompanied by some eally
nega i e ac o s, especially when i in ol es
ela i ely less de eloped egions. Mos no ably
hese include he so-called “b ain-d ain” in
less de eloped egions (Lucas, 1988), sec o
concen a ion ha can lead o a p oli e a ion
o monopolis ic and oligopolis ic s uc u es
(Pe oux, 1969), o a gumen s a ising om
he New economic geog aphy – especially
spa ial concen a ion, which leads o signi i can
dispa i ies (K ugman, 1991; O a iano & Puga,
1998; Fuji a & K ugman, 2004).
The e is la ge li e a u e on g ow h
p ocesses and wi h he hea y ocus on
dispa i y issue ac oss he Eu opean s a es. In
his pape we ollow especially he li e a u e
whe e he Viseg ad G oup s a es ha e been
examined. We ollow bo h he classical s udies
(Ga dine , Ma in, & Tyle , 2004; Ba o &
Sala-i-Ma in, 2004; A ms ong, 1995; Ben-
Da id, 1999; S igli z, 1999; Fische , Sahay, &
Vegh, 1998) and he ecen s udies (Mon o ,
2008; Dob insky & Ha lik, 2014; Cua esma
e al, 2014; T doň, Tuleja, & Ve ne , 2012;
Ma zino o, 2012; Fo gó & Je čák, 2015; Zd ažil
& K a o á 2012; Cua esma, Obe ho e , Smi s
& Vincele e, 2012; Vin o á & Žďá ek, 2007;
Geppe , Happich & S ephan, 2008; T doň,
2010; Ba ca, 2009). The li e a u e p o ides
mixed esul s on he s udy o g ow h dispa i ies
– hei ex en and na u e; based on di e en
app oaches and i s main objec i es. The key
poin s and conclusions o he abo e-men ioned
s udies a e discussed in he ollowing ex .
2. Me hodological De i ni ion o he
Resea ch
As a e e ence poin o he analysis we chose
egions a he NUTS II le el, since NUTS II is
he de aul le el a which EU egional policy is
implemen ed (Eu opean Commission, 2015).
Wi hin he Viseg ad G oup coun ies we a e
he e o e wo king wi h a sample o 35 NUTS II
egions, 8 o which a e Czech, 7 Hunga ian,
16 Polish, and 4 Slo ak. The de elopmen o
dispa i ies is iewed in e ms o he con en ional
concep o acking coe i cien o a ia ion
ac oss he moni o ed sample o egions (1);
he e o e, i is a s anda d way o measu ing he
eal dispa i ies h ough σ-con e gence (sigma-
con e gence) (Ba o & Sala-i-Ma in, 2004;
Quah, 1996).
, (1)
whe e coe i cien o a ia ion (CV) is de i ned as
he a io o s anda d de ia ion (σ) o he mean (μ).
As he main indica o o he de elopmen o
economic dispa i ies we chose g oss domes ic
p oduc pe capi a (GDP pe capi a), which is,
being a measu e o economic ac i i y, a key
indica o o changes in economic pe o mance
(O ganisa ion o Economic Co-ope a ion and
De elopmen [OECD], 2015b). Pe o mance
o economy, i.e. he economic g ow h, belongs
o he main issues o economic heo y and
p ac ice, and i is sys ema ically emphasized
by na ional go e nmen s as well as he EU
s a egies o de elopmen (K a o á, Ma ěja,
& P ášilo á, 2011). D awing on he neo-
classical g ow h model (Solow, 1956; Solow,
1957) we conside ha economic g ow h is, in
all i s o ms, de i ed om a pai o elemen a y
ac o s o p oduc ion – capi al and labou –
and om he le el o echnology. In his s udy
we ocus mainly on he labou ac o and he
impac o i s changes on he de elopmen o
egional dispa i ies. We ha e eso ed o his
pa ially es ic ing s ep because o a lack o
a ailable da a ha would ha e allowed us o
explo e in mo e de ail, a a egional le el o he
Viseg ad G oup coun ies, he e ec o changes
esul ing om he de elopmen o capi al and
i s s uc u es as well as changes a ising om
he ad ancemen o echnology.
In his pape , he GDP pe capi a g ow h
is b oken in o wo pa s: “P oduc i i y” and
EM_2_2016.indd 38EM_2_2016.indd 38 3.6.2016 11:47:453.6.2016 11:47:45
39
2, XIX, 2016
Economics
“Employmen ”, which can basically be
desc ibed as he basic a ibu es o egional
compe i i eness (Skokan, 2004). When
moni o ing changes in P oduc i i y we use he
app oach o OECD (2015b), while moni o ing
changes in e ms o “Labou p oduc i i y” (GDP
pe hou wo ked) and “Labou u iliza ion” (hou s
wo ked). Also in e ms o Employmen we see
he indica o s in line wi h he de i ni ion o he
OECD (2015a), when moni o ing changes in
he “Employmen a e” (employed pe sons
di ided by he o al wo king-age popula ion) and
“Labou o ce pa icipa ion a e” ( o al wo king-
age popula ion di ided by he o al popula ion)
indica o s. The mul iplica i e b eakdown o
he GDP pe capi a indica o , based on he
abo e desc ibed key is shown in he ollowing
equa ion (2).
(2)
Based on he s udies o o he au ho s we
can p ospec i ely assume ha p oduc i i y
will be he dominan de e minan o g ow h
in moni o ed egions (Cua esma e al, 2012;
Baumol, 1986; Ga dine e al, 2004; Ba o
& Sala-i-Ma in, 2004). Fo his eason we
ha e chosen a less de ailed b eakdown o
he Employmen pa ; con e sely, we ha e
been qui e awa e o he desi abili y o classi y
he P oduc i i y pa in de ail because, as
ap ly desc ibed by Paul K ugman (1997):
“P oduc i i y isn’ e e y hing, bu in he long
un i is almos e e y hing”. Howe e , due o
he abo e indica ed una ailabili y o da a on he
s ock o he egional capi al we can p oceed o
a mo e de ailed b eakdown o he P oduc i i y
pa in o p oduc i i y esul ing om labou ,
capi al, o esidual ac o s, o in o mul i- ac o
p oduc i i y. Fo hese easons we will moni o
dispa i ies in he economic pe o mance o
egions only wi hin he “limi ed” con ex o he
abo e ou lined b eakdown (2).
We ha e chosen he yea 2000 o be he
ini ial yea o ou analysis as we do no conside
i app op ia e o dis o he analysis by including
he e y dynamic pe iod o he 1990s, du ing
which he Viseg ad G oup coun ies aced
undamen al poli ical, social, and economic
changes. The pe iod o ans o ma ion o he
na ional economies om a cen ally planned
sys em o a ma ke sys em was, among o he
hings, coupled wi h high l uc ua ions in he
olume o p oduc ion and co e changes in i s
s uc u e and in employmen , as well as wi h
uns able p ice le els, undamen al changes in
he owne ship s uc u e, he de elopmen o
legisla i e amewo k, e c. (Fische e al, 1998;
S igli z, 1999). The e o e, he analysis has been
p epa ed o he pe iod 2000–2013, and gi en
he objec i e o his a icle, we ha e paid special
a en ion o he sub-pe iod 2004–2013, i.e. a e
he en y o he Viseg ad G oup coun ies in o
he EU.
3. De elopmen o Regional
Dispa i ies in he Viseg ad G oup
Coun ies
Be o e emba king on he analysis o he
de elopmen o dispa i ies in egional economic
pe o mance, and he sou ces o hese
dispa i ies, i is app op ia e o b ie l y ou line
he de elopmen o egions wi hin he Viseg ad
G oup coun ies in ela ion o he EU a e age
alues. Whe he in e ms o he de elopmen
o he egions he e is a endency owa ds
ul i lling he objec i es o cohesion policy by
balancing he economic dispa i ies, o whe he
in eali y he objec i es a e no me . A simpli i ed
illus a ion o he endencies in he de elopmen
o he GDP pe capi a dispa i ies be ween
egions o he Viseg ad G oup coun ies and
he cu en EU a e age (EU 28) o he pe iod
2000–2013 and also o he sho ened pe iod
2004–2013, which ep esen s he in eg a ion
pe iod o he Viseg ad G oup coun ies wi hin
he EU, is cap u ed in Tab. 1. The endencies
in he de elopmen o dispa i ies a e cap u ed
h ough he absolu e alue o he di e ence
be ween he a io o GDP pe capi a o he
egion and he GDP pe capi a o he EU 28
a e age a he in e al bo de s. I is he e o e
a e y ough and a he en a i e illus a ion
ha , based on annual compa ison, shows by
how many pe cen he egions ha e con e ged
owa ds he EU 28 a e age alue du ing a gi en
pe iod o ha e di e ged om i .
Based on he esul s cap u ed in Tab. 1 we
can say ha du ing he 2004–2013 pe iod only
7 egions did no con e ge owa ds he EU 28
a e age alue (CZ01 – P ague, CZ02 – Cen al
Bohemia, CZ03 – Sou hwes , CZ04 – No hwes ,
EM_2_2016.indd 39EM_2_2016.indd 39 3.6.2016 11:47:453.6.2016 11:47:45
40 2016, XIX, 2
Ekonomie
HU10 – Cen al Hunga y, HU31 – No he n
Hunga y and SK01 – B a isla a Region). The
i ndings con i m p e ailing con e gence o
he EU 28 a e age and can be desc ibed as
o ally compa ible wi h he i ndings o many
o he s udies ha deal wi h he de elopmen o
dispa i ies in ans o med economies (Dob insky
& Ha lik, 2014; Cua esma e al., 2012; Fo gó
& Je čák, 2015). Excluding capi al egions
(CZ01, HU10 and SK01), whe e he measu ed
de ia ion om he a e age alue was posi i e,
he measu ed nega i e de ia ion in CZ02,
CZ03, CZ04, and HU31 egions was ela i ely
low – in all cases wi hin 3 pe cen age poin s. I
is also in e es ing ha dispa i ies – whe he in
a posi i e o nega i e di ec ion – a e connec ed
o ou Czech egions, o o hal o all Czech
egions. In con as , in o he coun ies, he
esul ing di e gence endencies we e e y a e
and mos ly ela ed o he capi al egion, whe e
a posi i e de ia ion ep esen di e gence due o
highe economic pe o mance, which basically
co esponds wi h he easoning p esen ed by he
economis s o he New Economic Geog aphy
mo emen , who s a ed ha economic ac i i ies
a e concen a ed in he cen al agglome a ions
(K ugman, 1991; Fuji a & K ugman, 2004;
O a iano & Puga, 1998). Al hough in he case
o me opoli an egions his phenomenon goes
di ec ly agains he con e gence hypo hesis,
i ce ainly canno be aken as an indica ion o
an undesi able de elopmen because hese
egions a e impo an cen es o de elopmen
wi h a signi i can in l uence on he de elopmen
o o he egions wi hin he coun y, and a
he same ime hey a e some o he mos
economically powe ul egions ac oss he EU
(Eu os a , 2015).
egion end change
(in %)
end change
(in %)
egion end change
(in %)
end change
(in %)
2000–2013 2004–2013 2000–2013 2004–2013
CZ01 D 31.1 D 6.1 PL22 C 19.9 C 14.8
CZ02 C 0.9 D -2.9 PL31 C 13.7 C 12.4
CZ03 C 5.1 D -0.6 PL32 C 13.6 C 11.9
CZ04 C 2.3 D -2.1 PL33 C 12.5 C 10.2
CZ05 C 2.9 C 1.3 PL34 C 14.2 C 12.5
CZ06 C 14.2 C 8.4 PL41 C 22.6 C 19.6
CZ07 C 8.4 C 4.7 PL42 C 10.3 C 12.4
CZ08 C 13.6 C 5.5 PL43 C 14.6 C 12.4
HU10 C 25.2 D 8.8 PL51 C 27.1 C 25.8
HU21 C 7.6 C 0.4 PL52 C 15.2 C 12.4
HU22 C 7.6 C 3.2 PL61 C 13.3 C 12.1
HU23 C 4.9 C 1.2 PL62 C 12.3 C 11.3
HU31 C 5.3 D -0.9 PL63 C 18.6 C 16.6
HU32 C 7.3 C 2.1 SK01 D 77.1 D 56.4
HU33 C 4.9 C 1.2 SK02 C 24.2 C 17.3
PL11 C 20.9 C 17.5 SK03 C 19.0 C 13.6
PL12 C 35.2 C 32.7 SK04 C 14.6 C 10.2
PL21 C 17.1 C 15.9
No es: C s ands o con e gence; D ep esen s di e gence; nega i e alues indica e ha he egion a i s con e ged
owa ds he a e age alue om he “ op” and a e eaching i , di e ged “downwa ds”.
Sou ce: au ho s’ own wo k based on Eu os a (2015)
Tab. 1: De elopmen o dispa i ies in e ms o GDP pe capi a be ween Viseg ad G oup
egions and he EU 28 a e age (2000–2013; 2004–2013)
EM_2_2016.indd 40EM_2_2016.indd 40 3.6.2016 11:47:453.6.2016 11:47:45
41
2, XIX, 2016
Economics
The accession o he Czech Republic o
he Eu opean in eg a ion p ojec in he con ex
o gene al g ow h end and he associa ed
con e gence o egions o o he Viseg ad G oup
coun ies o he EU 28 a e age looks he leas
posi i e (jus because he ac ual g ow h does no
ma ch he a e o o he Eu opean egions and
he e o e, in e ms o dispa i ies de elopmen ,
does no con ibu e o he con e gence, i
p obably would no be app op ia e, a his
s age, o ma k he de elopmen o Czech
egions as ou igh nega i e). The i ndings
ha a subs an ial numbe o Czech egions
did no de elop in a e y posi i e way du ing
hei in eg a ion in o he EU akes on a u he
dimension when we ake in o accoun he
ela i ely sho pe iod be o e he coun y
joined he EU (2000–2004). Tab. 1 clea ly
shows ha du ing he pe iod 2004–2013 he
con e gence end was conside ably weake
when compa ed o he pe iod 2000–2013. I
is qui e logical o measu e lowe di e ences
o sub-pe iods when conside ing a ela i ely
s eady de elopmen , bu he ac ually eco ded
changes a e o mos egions signi i can ly lowe
and p opo ionally hey do no co espond
o he ex en o he sho ening o he pe iod.
Vi ually iden ical conclusions can be d awn
o he de elopmen o dispa i ies among
Hunga ian egions, whe e he measu ed
con e gence end in he pe iod 2004–2013
was also signi i can ly weake when compa ed
wi h he pe iod 2000–2013. Con e sely, in
he case o Polish and Slo ak egions he
conclusions ega ding a signi i can slowdown
in con e gence a e he coun ies joining he
EU do no apply. Based on measu emen s we
can conclude ha o a numbe o Slo ak and
Polish egions he con e gence end owa ds
he EU 28 a e age has been a he e en; in
he case o some Polish egions i e en seems
ha he pace o he con e gence p ocess in
he pe iod 2004–2013 sligh ly accele a ed. The
de ec ed exis ence o analogies in he ends
o egional dispa i y de elopmen o he wo
pai s o coun ies Czech Republic-Hunga y and
Poland-Slo akia is con i med by he i ndings o
ano he s udy by Zd ažil and K a o á (2012),
who mo eo e belie e, based on he analysis
o he pe iod 1999–2008, ha he NUTS II
egions o he men ioned pai s di e ged om
each o he , especially in he pe iod be o e
joining he EU. Al hough he abo e iew o he
de elopmen o egional economic dispa i ies
o he Viseg ad G oup coun ies is somewha
limi ed, he conclusions appea o be e y
p oblema ic in e ms o ul i lling he EU cohesion
policy objec i es. Al hough he e has been qui e
an ob ious con e gence o mos egions o he
EU 28 a e age, he ques ion is o wha ex en
has his con e gence been caused by he
in eg a ion, and o wha ex en would his ha e
happened spon aneously.
3.1 De elopmen o Dispa i ies
in Te ms o σ-con e gence
Based on esul s o he empi ical measu emen s
cap u ed in Fig. 1, we can say ha he ex en
o dispa i ies in he economic pe o mance
among egions o he Viseg ad G oup coun ies
a e hei accession o he EU (2004) g ew up
o 2007, al hough he end had been he e
since he beginning o he analyzed pe iod
(2000). Subsequen ly, we can say ha he
end changed o con e gence, and al hough in
2011 he ex en o dispa i ies among Viseg ad
G oup’s egions was compa able wi h 2004,
i was educed in subsequen yea s. This is
somewha con i med by he i ndings o some
ea lie s udies ha de end he hypo hesis
o con e gence among Eu opean egions
(Mon o , 2008; A ms ong, 1995; Geppe e
al, 2008), especially among he ans o med
egions o he Cen al and Eas e n Eu opean
coun ies, o he Viseg ad G oup (Vin o á &
Žďá ek, 2007; T doň, 2010). A he same ime,
he i ndings showing ha he con e gence
ends only s a ed in he pe iod a e he
Viseg ad G oup coun ies had joined he EU,
a e la gely compa ible wi h he conclusions o
he Ben-Da id (1999) s udy ha showed ha
libe aliza ion o he economic en i onmen
oge he wi h in eg a ion a e he ac o s ha
signi i can ly con ibu es o he con e gence.
The e o e, he accession o he EU can be
seen as an impulse ha g ea ly encou aged he
p ocess o con e gence in he en i onmen o
he o me Eas e n bloc coun ies (Dob insky &
Ha lik, 2014).
The economic c isis and he ex en o i s
in l uence on he pe o mance o indi idual
economies ce ainly had a signi i can e ec on
he obse ed con e gence o Viseg ad G oup
egions. Fo example T doň e al (2012) show
in his con ex ha wi hin he Viseg ad G oup
coun ies he de elopmen o he economic
pe o mance o Poland was clea ly he leas
a ec ed by he economic c isis. Conside ing
EM_2_2016.indd 41EM_2_2016.indd 41 3.6.2016 11:47:463.6.2016 11:47:46

42 2016, XIX, 2
Ekonomie
ha Polish egions accoun o almos hal o
he sample and a e gene ally conside ed less
de eloped, he ac ual con ibu ion o in eg a ion
o con e gence, which has been appa en since
he beginning o he economic c isis, is la gely
dispu able.
Howe e , looking a he de elopmen
o egional dispa i ies in indi idual Viseg ad
G oup coun ies, i seems ha in he pe iod
ollowing he accession o he coun ies o he
EU, om he na ional poin o iew, he egional
dispa i ies s eadily g ew. This g owing end
only s a ed o u n in 2009 o he Czech,
Hunga ian, and Slo ak egions, while he Polish
egions emained unchanged wi h he inc ease
in dispa i ies con inuing. Wi hin he moni o ed
sub-pe iod be o e he accession o he Viseg ad
G oup coun ies o he EU (2000–2004) i
can also be a gued ha he de elopmen o
egional dispa i ies in he Czech Republic,
Hunga y, and Slo akia was p e y simila – i.e.
g owing; howe e , among Polish egions he e
was no inc ease in dispa i ies. In acco dance
wi h he abo e desc ibed si ua ion, in e ms o
egions ac oss he Viseg ad G oup, his i nding
seems somewha illogical; howe e , i is ully
compa ible wi h he i ndings o some ecen
s udies on he e ec i eness o he Eu opean
cohesion policy ha ag ee on he ac ha
al hough ac oss he EU bo h coun ies and
egions a he con e ge, in e nally o many
coun ies di e gence is mo e common (Ba ca,
2009; Geppe e al, 2008; Ma zino o, 2012).
4. Na u es o Regional Dispa i ies
in he Viseg ad G oup Coun ies
Wha e e he ends ega ding he de elopmen
o egions wi hin he Viseg ad G oup coun ies, i
is en i ely app op ia e o ask he ques ion: wha
is hei na u e? Fo only wi h his knowledge
is i hen possible o make an e o o ac i ely
in l uence he de elopmen o dispa i ies h ough
he applica ion o egional policy ins umen s.
The e o e, in he ollowing subsec ions we
analysed he economic g ow h in egions o
he Viseg ad G oup coun ies in o de o y
and disco e he di e ences in he componen s
o g ow h in he indi idual coun ies, how hey
de e mine he economic de elopmen , and
o wha deg ee hey a e esponsible o he
di e ences in he de elopmen o dispa i ies as
demons a ed by Fig. 1 abo e.
The analysis is di ided in o ou pa s,
one o each coun y in he sample, ollowed
by a b ie summa y o he main i ndings.
Fig. 1: σ-con e gence o GDP pe capi a, he Viseg ad G oup and i s coun ies
(2000–2013)
Sou ce: au ho s’ own wo k based on Eu os a (2015)
EM_2_2016.indd 42EM_2_2016.indd 42 3.6.2016 11:47:463.6.2016 11:47:46
43
2, XIX, 2016
Economics
Ou mo i a ion o p esen ing he esul s o
indi idual coun ies s ems om he ac ha
he e a e la ge di e ences in g ow h be ween
he egions ac oss he Viseg ad G oup s a es
while he inne -coun y di e ences a e much
mo e simila (see Tab. 1 abo e). We guess i
can be due o he di e ences in egional policy
p inciples applied in indi idual coun ies as
well as he esul o une en le els o GDP pe
capi a and i s g ow h componen s in egions
o indi idual coun ies. E en hough we a e
awa e o desi abili y o e ealing he o igins o
g ow h dispa i ies wi hin he componen s ha
we ha e examined, we guess his issue is a
behind he pu pose o his pape which is a he
answe he uly c ucial ques ion on: How a e
he dispa i ies caused by i s main componen s?
Answe ing his ini ial ques ion enables one o
s a in en ionally aimed analysis ha should
b ing ele an i ndings and ecommenda ions
o indi idual coun ies and help o shape he
mos app op ia e egional policy objec i es.
4.1 Czech Regions
As shown clea ly in Tab. 2 he dispa i ies in he
de elopmen o he GDP pe capi a indica o
among he Czech NUTS II egions can ha dly
be conside ed dynamic du ing 2004–2013. This
pe iod can be di ided in o wo hal es, in he i s
hal (2004–2008) he ex en o he measu ed
dispa i ies g ew slowly, while in he second hal
(2009–2013) i g adually declined. When we
ake in o accoun he de elopmen o dispa i ies
be o e he Czech Republic joined he EU, we
can see ha a g adual inc ease in dispa i ies
had al eady occu ed in his pe iod, i.e. om
he s a ing poin o he analysis – om he
yea 2000. The e o e, i can be concluded ha
dispa i ies in he economic pe o mance among
he Czech egions had ( ela i ely) g own o e
he long e m, and his end con inued e en
a e he Czech Republic’s en y in o he EU.
Howe e , a p esen (o in he las epo ing
pe iod), egional dispa i ies in e ms o GDP pe
capi a ha e eached a compa able le el wi h
ha o when he Czech Republic joined he EU.
The e o e, i can be specula ed ha he end
in he de elopmen o economic dispa i ies
has changed and a new phase o a g adual
dec ease o dispa i ies has s a ed. Dob insky
and Ha lik (2014) conside he ela i e high
le el o de elopmen o he Czech egions o be
he cause o hei con e gence; his is e l ec ed
in a lowe a e o GDP g ow h, especially when
compa ed o Poland and Slo akia. A he same
ime i can be a gued ha , al hough he ex en
o dispa i ies among egions o he Czech
Republic is lowe in compa ison wi h o he
coun ies o he Viseg ad G oup (see Fig. 1
abo e), he ends o he obse ed subsample
(Czech egions) a e e y simila o he ends
o he whole sample (Viseg ad G oup egions).
When looking a he b eakdown o he
GDP pe capi a, i is clea ha he dominan
componen s p ima ily esponsible o he
dispa i ies in he economic pe o mance o
egions a e he dispa i ies in p oduc i i y.
When b eaking down he o e all p oduc i i y
in acco dance wi h he p ocedu e de i ned
abo e (2), i is ob ious ha Labou p oduc i i y
– GDP pe hou wo ked – can wi hou a doub
be conside ed he cen al de e minan o
dispa i ies. The sha e o Labou p oduc i i y
dispa i ies wi hin he GDP pe capi a
dispa i ies g ew du ing he moni o ed pe iod
in he Czech egions. In e ms o absolu e
con ibu ion o dispa i ies i can be a gued
ha he de elopmen o Labou p oduc i i y
dispa i ies la gely ollows he de elopmen o
he GDP pe capi a dispa i ies. This simila i y
is na u ally comple ely logical conside ing he
men ioned de e minis ic ela ionship be ween
he wo indica o s. Al hough, in absolu e e ms,
he highes dispa i y in Labou p oduc i i y was
measu ed in 2008, he same as wi h GDP pe
capi a; he e was no dec ease in he dispa i ies
in Labou p oduc i i y o he le el o 2004 by he
end o he epo ing pe iod.
In ela i e e ms, an inc ease in he
con ibu ion o Labou p oduc i i y o he
o e all dispa i ies in GDP pe capi a wi hin he
Czech egions can be clea ly concluded. To he
con a y, o he economic pe o mance ac o s
– Labou u iliza ion and Employmen a e –
displayed con e gence ends. The con ibu ion
o hese wo ac o s o he dispa i ies in economic
pe o mance is indeed e y low; he e o e, he
e ec o hese ac o s on he con e gence o
Czech egions, compa ed wi h he o al ex en o
dispa i ies in GDP pe capi a, can be ega ded
as insigni i can bu s ill exis ing. Rega ding he
Labou pa icipa ion a e wi hin he pe iod o
2004–2013 we can speak o a ela i ely s able
de elopmen o dispa i ies wi h a de ia ion
be ween 2009 and 2010. I we include he sub-
pe iod be o e he Czech Republic joined o he
EU, i.e he o al pe iod since 2000, hen we
could alk om an o e all pe spec i e abou e y
EM_2_2016.indd 43EM_2_2016.indd 43 3.6.2016 11:47:463.6.2016 11:47:46
44 2016, XIX, 2
Ekonomie
mild con e gence ends; howe e , his end is
no en i ely clea . In summa y i can p obably
be said ha he high con ibu ion o Labou
p oduc i i y dispa i ies o he dispa i ies in he
economic pe o mance o he Czech egions
has no only been due o he de elopmen o
he Labou p oduc i i y dispa i ies, bu also
pa ly due o he de elopmen endencies –
mainly con e gence – o o he ac o s ha ha e
been o a g ea e o lesse ex en esponsible
o he dispa i ies in GDP pe capi a.
4.2 Hunga ian Regions
In e ms o he de elopmen o dispa i ies in
economic pe o mance, he Hunga ian egions
exhibi pa ially analogous endencies wi h he
Czech egions, and conside ing he abo e,
e en wi h he en i e sample o Viseg ad G oup
egions. Thus, a i s , he e was a g adual
inc ease in dispa i ies om he s a ing poin
o he analysis (2000) ha las ed e en a e
Hunga y joined he EU (2004), hen he
highes le el o dispa i ies was eached in
2009 – i.e. wi h some delay compa ed wi h he
Viseg ad G oup and he Czech Republic – and
consequen ly since hen he dispa i ies in he
egional economic pe o mance ha e been
dec easing (see Tab. 3). Howe e , besides
he ac ha he dispa i ies among Hunga ian
egions ha e been lowe in compa ison wi h he
Czech egions, he dec ease in dispa i ies a
he end o he moni o ed pe iod was no such
ha hey d opped o he le el a which hey
we e when Hunga y joined he EU.
When measu ing he sou ces o dispa i ies
in GDP pe capi a among Hunga ian egions,
we ound ha Labou p oduc i i y was again
a signi i can de e mining componen and ha
i s signi i cance s eadily g ew o e ime. And,
al hough he con ibu ion o Labou p oduc i i y
o he dispa i ies in GDP pe capi a is ela i ely
high, i is no ha dominan in compa ison wi h
he Czech egions. Fu he mo e, he e is highe
con ibu ion o Labou pa icipa ion a e appa en
in Tab. 3, which means a con e gence o exis ing
dispa i ies among Hunga ian egions, and a
he same ime a educ ion in he con ibu ion o
he o al dispa i ies in economic pe o mance;
howe e , compa ed wi h he con ibu ion o his
ac o o he dispa i ies among Czech egions
he le el o con ibu ion he e was ini ially almos
h ee old, and a he end o he 2000–2013
pe iod app oxima ely wice as high. In e ms
o Labou u iliza ion we can con i m a e y
low ange o egional dispa i ies ( he lowes
wi hin he Viseg ad G oup coun ies), which
is associa ed wi h con e gence, h oughou
he 2000–2013 pe iod. The con ibu ion o
Labou u iliza ion dispa i ies o he dispa i ies
in GDP pe capi a g adually los i s impo ance.
The de elopmen o he Employmen a e
dispa i ies du ing he 2000–2006 pe iod was
cha ac e ized by oscilla ions o a alue a ound
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
GDP pe capi a .364 .384 .396 .413 .412 .422 .424 .439 .442 .433 .436 .418 .410 .416
P oduc i i y changes
Labou p oduc i i y .266 .284 .305 .322 .324 .334 .334 .362 .369 .354 .359 .353 .342 .353
in % 73.0 74.0 77.1 78.0 78.7 79.3 78.7 82.3 83.6 81.8 82.4 84.6 83.5 84.9
Labou u iliza ion .024 .024 .018 .019 .018 .015 .021 .019 .020 .016 .012 .013 .010 .010
in % 6.6 6.2 4.6 4.7 4.4 3.6 4.8 4.3 4.6 3.8 2.9 3.0 2.4 2.4
Employmen changes
Employmen a e .042 .040 .034 .035 .038 .041 .037 .026 .022 .026 .027 .021 .026 .025
in % 11.5 10.3 8.7 8.5 9.2 9.8 8.7 5.8 4.9 6.1 6.1 5.1 6.4 5.9
Labou pa i-cipa ion
a e .032 .036 .038 .036 .032 .031 .033 .033 .030 .036 .038 .031 .031 .028
in % 8.8 9.5 9.6 8.8 7.7 7.3 7.8 7.5 6.9 8.3 8.7 7.3 7.6 6.8
Sou ce: au ho s’ own wo k based on Eu os a (2015)
Tab. 2: Czech egions – σ-con e gence o GDP pe capi a and i s b eakdown
(2000–2013)
EM_2_2016.indd 44EM_2_2016.indd 44 3.6.2016 11:47:463.6.2016 11:47:46
45
2, XIX, 2016
Economics
0.20, hen he e was a sudden inc ease coupled
wi h oscilla ions o a ound 0.30. The alue
measu ed in he las yea o he analysis (2013)
sugges s a educ ion in he ex en o dispa i ies,
bu he ques ion is whe he his is he beginning
o a new end o me ely a empo a y de ia ion.
Gene ally, he de elopmen o Employmen a e
dispa i ies can be desc ibed as a he g owing
and he e o e con ibu ing o he inc ease in he
dispa i ies in GDP pe capi a among Hunga ian
egions, which is also e iden when looking
a he de elopmen in e ms o absolu e and
ela i e con ibu ions (see Tab. 3).
4.3 Polish Regions
The de elopmen o dispa i ies ha a e
e l ec ed in Tab. 4 clea ly shows ha he ex en
o dispa i ies in GDP pe capi a among he
Polish egions is de i ni ely he lowes wi hin
he Viseg ad G oup. A he same ime he
de elopmen o hese dispa i ies s ands ou
he mos in compa ison wi h he o he Viseg ad
G oup coun ies ( his ac is well demons a ed
by Fig. 1 abo e). In o he wo ds, egional
dispa i ies wi hin Czech, Hunga ian, and
Slo ak egions had g own s eadily be o e and
a e 2004 (and wi h g ea e in ensi y han was
he case in Polish egions) and only since 2009
can we alk abou hei s abiliza ion, o pe haps
e en a change o end and a g adual educ ion
o dispa i ies among egions. In con as , in he
case o he Polish egions we can alk abou
a ela i ely s able de elopmen o dispa i ies
un il 2004, ollowed by a pe iod o inc eased
di e gence. We also canno claim, based on
he measu emen s cap u ed in Tab. 4 ha in he
case o Polish egions he e was a peak and
a subsequen s abiliza ion, o e en a e e sal in
he end, o a s a ing con e gence.
Rega ding he causes o he dispa i ies,
i is e iden looking a Tab. 4 ha e en in he
case o Polish egions he dispa i ies in Labou
p oduc i i y pe uni o ime, i.e. in GDP pe hou
wo ked, a e p ima ily esponsible o he ex en
o dispa i ies in GDP pe capi a. Howe e , bo h
in absolu e e ms and in ela i e e ms, he
con ibu ion o his componen o he dispa i ies
in GDP pe capi a is clea ly he lowes wi hin
he Viseg ad G oup coun ies – abou wo-
hi ds in ela ion o he Hunga ian dispa i ies,
abou a hal in ela ion o he Czech, and a hi d
in ela ion o he Slo ak egional dispa i ies.
F om his pe spec i e Polish egions can be
ma ked as he leas a ied wi hin he Viseg ad
G oup. In e ms o an absolu e con ibu ion
o he dispa i ies in economic pe o mance
o Polish egions he de elopmen o Labou
p oduc i i y dispa i ies la gely co ela es wi h
he de elopmen o dispa i ies in GDP pe
capi a – a ela i ely s able de elopmen du ing
he pe iod p eceding he coun y joining he
EU is ollowed by a change in he end and
g owing dispa i ies in he ollowing yea s.
Howe e , in ela i e e ms he de elopmen o
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
GDP pe capi a .330 .332 .367 .352 .354 .364 .383 .393 .392 .403 .399 .381 .385 .380
P oduc i i y changes
Labou p oduc i i y .210 .229 .254 .247 .245 .253 .277 .284 .286 .307 .317 .291 .289 .296
in % 63.7 69.1 69.2 70.0 69.2 69.3 72.2 72.3 72.9 76.1 79.4 76.2 75.1 78.0
Labou u iliza ion .011 .009 .010 .010 .009 .007 .008 .006 .007 .006 .007 .009 .006 .005
in % 3.4 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.8 2.3 1.7 1.3
Employmen changes
Employmen a e .022 .018 .018 .020 .018 .020 .024 .031 .035 .031 .028 .033 .029 .023
in % 6.7 5.6 5.0 5.7 5.0 5.4 6.3 7.9 9.0 7.8 7.0 8.6 7.6 6.2
Labou pa i-cipa ion
a e .086 .076 .085 .076 .082 .085 .074 .072 .065 .059 .047 .049 .060 .055
in % 26.2 22.7 23.1 21.6 23.2 23.3 19.3 18.3 16.5 14.6 11.8 12.9 15.7 14.5
Sou ce: au ho s’ own wo k based on Eu os a (2015)
Tab. 3: Hunga ian egions – σ-con e gence o GDP pe capi a and i s b eakdown
(2000–2013)
EM_2_2016.indd 45EM_2_2016.indd 45 3.6.2016 11:47:463.6.2016 11:47:46
52 2016, XIX, 2
Ekonomie
Pa dubice. Se ies D, Facul y o Economics and
Adminis a ion, 16(1), 316-328.
T doň, M., Tuleja, P., & Ve ne , T.
(2012). Ekonomická ýkonnos a h p áce
kon ex u ekonomické k ize: zkušenos i ze
zemí Viseg adské č yřky. E&M Ekonomie
a Managemen , 15(3), 16-30.
Vin o á, R., & Žďá ek, V. (2007). Vz ah
eálné a nominální kon e gence ČR a no ých
členských zemích EU (Wo kingPape CES
VŠEM 8/2007). P aha: CES VŠEM.
Zd ažil, P. (2014). The In l uence o
Inno a ion Po en ial on Li ing Condi ions
De elopmen o Cen al and Eas e n Eu opean
Coun ies Popula ion. In V. Klimo a, & V.
Zi ek (Eds.), 17 h In e na ional Colloquium on
Regional Sciences. Con e ence P oceedings
(pp. 209-216). B no: Masa yko a uni e zi a.
doi:10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-6840-2014-25.
Zd ažil, P., & K a o á, I. (2012). Do he
V4 Regions Con e ge?. 15 h In e na ional
Colloquium on Regional Sciences. Con e ence
P oceedings (pp. 48-58). B no: Masa yko a
uni e zi a.
Ing. Pa el Zd ažil, Ph.D.
Uni e si y o Pa dubice
Facul y o Economics and Adminis a ion
Ins i u e o Regional and Secu i y Sciences
[email p o ec ed]
Ing. Pe a Applo á
Uni e si y o Pa dubice
Facul y o Economics and Adminis a ion
Ins i u e o Regional and Secu i y Sciences
[email p o ec ed]
EM_2_2016.indd 52EM_2_2016.indd 52 3.6.2016 11:47:473.6.2016 11:47:47

53
2, XIX, 2016
Economics
Appendix 1: σ-con e gence o g ow h componen s, he Viseg ad G oup
and i s coun ies (2000–2013)
EM_2_2016.indd 53EM_2_2016.indd 53 3.6.2016 11:47:473.6.2016 11:47:47
54 2016, XIX, 2
Ekonomie
Abs ac
GROWTH DISPARITIES AMONG REGIONS OF THE VISEGRAD GROUP
COUNTRIES: AN EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXTENT AND NATURE
Pa el Zd ažil, Pe a Applo á
The deepening o egional dispa i ies is an issue o inc easing impo ance ha has been
sys ema ically emphasized in he EU policy, especially since he p ocess o “Eas e n In eg a ion”
has s a ed. The pape ocuses on he Viseg ad G oup coun ies whose egions a e less de eloped
in he EU con ex . The aim o he esea ch is o assess he de elopmen o dispa i ies in egional
economic pe o mance o he Viseg ad G oup coun ies, o iden i y how he ac o s o economic
g ow h de e mine hese dispa i ies, and pa ly o assess whe he he in eg a ion o he Viseg ad
G oup coun ies in o he EU in l uenced he de elopmen o egional dispa i ies in hese coun ies.
Fo he analysis o dispa i ies du ing 2000–2013 we selec ed an app oach o measu ing eal
con e gence (sigma-con e gence). Dispa i ies we e measu ed in he con ex o a b eakdown o
he GDP pe capi a in o sub-componen s, e l ec ing on he de elopmen o dispa i ies in p oduc i i y
and employmen .
The esul s show ha , al hough egions o he Viseg ad G oup coun ies con e ged owa ds
he EU a e age and also in e ms o he Viseg ad G oup as a whole, egional dispa i ies wi hin
coun ies a he inc eased. This led o a pa adox whe e, al hough he objec i e o educing egional
dispa i ies ac oss he EU was sa is i ed, om a na ional pe spec i e dispa i ies inc eased. The
Labou p oduc i i y ac o , wi h i s dominan ye s eadily g owing con ibu ion, is he main de e minan
o dispa i ies in he pe o mance o he Viseg ad G oup egions. O he sou ces o dispa i ies a e
cha ac e ized by a s able de elopmen o con e gence. Only Polish egions de ia ed om he
gene al conclusions, since he ex en o dispa i ies among hem g ew cons an ly, and he na u e o
dispa i ies was he Labou pa icipa ion a e. In e ms o he impac caused by accession in o he
EU, he measu ed changes we e a he mino and he iden i i ed ends had mos ly been in place
be o e he Viseg ad G oup coun ies en e ed he EU.
Key Wo ds: Viseg ad G oup, Cen al Eu ope, egional dispa i ies, p oduc i i y, g ow h, EU
enla gemen .
JEL Classi i ca ion: R11, O47.
DOI: 10.15240/ ul/001/2016-2-003
EM_2_2016.indd 54EM_2_2016.indd 54 3.6.2016 11:47:483.6.2016 11:47:48