Where next for Europe’s “left-behind places”?

Despite economic convergence between European countries over the past few decades, inequalities within countries have remained stubbornly high.

Many regions have struggled to turn around industrial decline and population shrinkage, fueling political polarisation and discontent. Yet while the term “left-behind places” highlights these common features, such places can be very different – and require very different solutions.

“Left-behind places” across space and time

As part of an international research project, we examined the characteristics of NUTS3 regions from the 1990s until 2018, and identified different regional trajectories of growth and decline from the 1980s until 2017. We highlighted three main groups of “left-behind places”:

• Post-industrial regions that experienced a dramatic decline of industrial activities during the second half of the 20^th century. These regions are mostly urban in nature, including well-known examples such as the German Ruhr and large parts of northern England.
• Long-term lagging regions that, compared to their country overall, have had relatively low levels of economic development for many decades. This group is largely composed of rural territories, including key ‘left behind’ areas such as the ‘empty diagonal’ (“diagonale du vide”) in France and the “Mezzogiorno” in southern Italy, as well as peripheral parts of Scandinavia, the UK, Austria, Spain, Portugal and Greece.
• Regions at risk of falling behind, which only begun to show signs of trouble since the 2008 financial crisis (Perugia in Italy, Brugge in Belgium or Suffolk in the UK). Several of these may now be at risk of falling into an economic “development trap”, alongside other issues like slowing population growth and out-migration of younger age groups.

Three types of regions of concern

Source: Author’s analysis using ARDECO and ESPON data. National and NUTS boundaries are from EuroGeographics. Population percentages refer to 2018 population.

Different futures?

These regions have not just followed different trajectories, they also face different challenges and have different potential for future development.

Following periods of shrinkage, for example, many post-industrial cities and regions have in recent decades returned to population growth through coordinated and ongoing support from local and national public actors, among other factors.

In cities like Birmingham in the UK and Torino in Italy, recent demographic and economic growth have helped to stem or reverse the tide of urban decline.

The economic opportunities in these regions are still often skewed towards lower-skilled sectors. There is a need, therefore, to restructure local employment towards a more balanced mix of entry-level, middle-skilled and higher-skilled jobs. Here regions can learn from cities like Barcelona, which during the 1990s and early 2000s strengthened its industrial base and improved productivity, but without increasing inequality.

Regions in the second group typically have not experienced the same level of economic disruption and decline. However, a significant proportion of these regions are experiencing ongoing population decline, threatening the viability of communities.

Economic development in these regions is made more challenging due to shrinking workforces and the out-migration of younger people, leading to ageing populations. In response, the concept of active ageing is attracting growing interest from international institutions, involving more than simply extending retirement ages to include measures such as age management practices in the workforce, tailored transport services to meet health and social needs, or training to promote digital inclusion of the elderly.

Regions in the third group have received less policy attention so far, possibly in part because some of these regions exhibited growth during the 1980s and 1990s. For example, after a period of higher-than-average per capita GDP growth from the 1990s to the late 2000s, resulting in catch-up with national levels, Brugge has experienced a slowdown of GDP growth in more recent years, while population growth has recently also been slower than the national rate.

This demographic and economic slowdown testifies to the fragility of this group’s catch-up, emphasising the need for increased policy attention. These regions need to formulate a long-term economic vision that capitalises on sectoral strengths and capabilities.

No longer left behind

These different kinds of “left-behind places” have very different challenges to overcome. The increasing emphasis in EU cohesion policy on integrated place-based approaches, adapted to the needs and opportunities of particular territories, is therefore welcome. But this needs to go further in creating incentives to build local capacity and better decentralise powers and resources to ensure that policies can be effectively tailored to local challenges. Such a strengthened place-based approach will support these regions to realise their aspirations of no longer being left behind.

Acknowledgement

The research underpinning this blog is funded by the Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC), grant reference ES/V013696/1, in conjunction with L’Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) and DFG Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

PrintFriendly