GROWTH DISPARITIES AMONG REGIONS OF THE VISEGRAD GROUP COUNTRIES: AN EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXTENT AND NATURE
Abstract
The deepening of regional disparities is an issue of increasing importance that has been systematically emphasized in the EU policy, especially since the process of “Eastern Integration” has started. The paper focuses on the Visegrad Group countries whose regions are less developed in the EU context. The aim of the research is to assess the development of disparities in regional economic performance of the Visegrad Group countries, to identify how the factors of economic growth determine these disparities, and partly to assess whether the integration of the Visegrad Group countries into the EU infl uenced the development of regional disparities in these countries. For the analysis of disparities during 2000–2013 we selected an approach of measuring real convergence (sigma-convergence). Disparities were measured in the context of a breakdown of the GDP per capita into sub-components, refl ecting on the development of disparities in productivity and employment. The results show that, although regions of the Visegrad Group countries converged towards the EU average and also in terms of the Visegrad Group as a whole, regional disparities within countries rather increased. This led to a paradox where, although the objective of reducing regional disparities across the EU was satisfi ed, from a national perspective disparities increased. The Labour productivity factor, with its dominant yet steadily growing contribution, is the main determinant of disparities in the performance of the Visegrad Group regions. Other sources of disparities are characterized by a stable development or convergence. Only Polish regions deviated from the general conclusions, since the extent of disparities among them grew constantly, and the nature of disparities was the Labour participation rate. In terms of the impact caused by accession into the EU, the measured changes were rather minor and the identifi ed trends had mostly been in place before the Visegrad Group countries entered the EU.
Full text
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