WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 19 | 20 || 22 | 23 |

At the same time, European Union has itsown regional policy, which is detailed in six major problematic objectives:

  1. Assistance in development and structural leveling granted toeconomically backward regions;
  2. Reform of the regions, border districts and parts of regions whichseriously suffered from an economic slump;
  3. Struggle against stagnant unemployment and assistance in enteringinto the labor market for young people and those who are threatened to becrowded out the labor market;
  4. Assistance to employees in their adjustment to changes in industryand production systems;
  5. Assistance to agricultural sector development by way of: 5a:accelerated leveling of agricultural structures in the framework of generalagricultural policy reform; 5b: stimulation of development and structuralleveling of agricultural regions;
  6. Stimulation of structural leveling of certain northern (Arctic)regions where the population density is especially low.

In order to achieve program objectives 1,2,5b and 6, selection of regions, which receive assistance, is taken place. Thistake place on the basis of a>

Choice of supported regions in EC countriestakes place on the basis of administrative regions NUTS. Funding for theimplementation of the program task 1 is granted to regions which correspondlevel II of NUTS. Per capita GDP is taken as a criterion. Regionalclassification is done by per capita GDP indices for the last three years.Region which receive assistance are those which have an indictor below 75% ofaverage indices across EC.

For the purposes of program task 2 regionsare selected on the basis of>

  • Unemployment level surpasses an average one in EC;
  • Employment level in industry is above the average one in EC;
  • Recession in this employment category.

In addition to these major criteria, thereare many additional criteria, which are difficult or impossible to determinequantitatively. Choice of regions for assistance according to theseadditional criteria is not linked with need to correspond major criteria.Commission takes into account how the situation in an individual country inrelation to unemployment level, industrialization and industrial recessioncorrelates with average indices in EC. Country member of EC also can use as areference point real factors influencing the level of real economic activity orthe level of unemployment. At the same time, additional criteria limiting thenumber of regions, which can join the group eligible for assistance accordingto program task 2 is the fact that their aggregate population should notsurpass 15 percent of the overall EC population.

Regarding task 5b the rules determinegeneral criterion: low level of economic development. In addition to this,there are three basic criteria. Regions must meet two of them so that regionalconditions fall under the program tasks:

  • High level of employment in the agricultural sector (this levelcan increase);
  • Low income level in agriculture;
  • Low population density and/or a clear tendency towards decrease ofthe population number.

Indicators are not compared with theaverage ones in EC for the program task 5b. The rule quotes secondary criteriawhich permit increase the number of regions covered by the program in casethere is a substantiated request submitted by a country-participant (forexample, in case of peripheral nature), mountainous regions or regions withunattractive economic conditions, which unfavorably react to reforms of generalagricultural policy or experiencing negative outcome from reform of the fishingsector.

Program task 6 refers only to Finland andSweden and covers only 0,4 percent of the population of the EC countries. Thisprogram was provided by an Agreement of new member-countries. It refers to theregions with the population density below eight persons per square kilometer.

Real results of >

Regions attributable to program task 1include the whole territory of Greece, Ireland and Portugal, as well as themajor part of Spain, Italy, all lands of Eastern Germany, as well as part ofwealthy countries, i.e. Belgium (Hainaut) and Netherlands (Flevoland). Regionsattributable to program task 2 include territories of all EC countries exceptGreece, Ireland and Portugal.

Regions attributable to program task 5bless than one tenth of the EC population reside (8.8 percent). This typeincludes parts of territories of all countries except three which in toto areattributable to the program task 1. As was already mentioned above, the programtask 6 includes only parts of Finland and Sweden.

25. A typology of regions ofSlovenia*

25

Slovenia till now preserves zoning whichexisted prior to 1990. At the same time, Hungary adopted a new approach in the90-s. In 1993 legislation four categories of zones for regional development isdetermined:

  • backward settlements from the point of view of socio-economicindicators;
  • settlements located in backward regions (on the basis ofsocio-economic indicators) but not being underdeveloped;
  • settlements with the level of unemployment above the averagecountry level by at least 1.5 times;
  • settlements requiring development parting from the combination ofabove-named criteria.

In Slovenia indicators of migration,population growth and age structure are used for identification ofdemographically problematic regions, which at present cover about one fourthof the population of the country (and 55 percent of its continental part).According to a draft low On assistance to regional development, three newregional categories are to be determined:

  • underdeveloped regions – two types: (a) regions with percapita personal income tax below 75 percent of the average national level and(b) border regions with negative demographic tendencies. Foe example, negativepopulation indices posted for the period 1981-91;
  • problematic industrial regions – on the basis of indicators whichdescribe industrial structure, industrial production recession and unemploymentlevel;
  • other problematic regions – national parks and other regionswith a reduced development potential.

26. >

In Australia in 1998 National Institute of Economic and Industrial Research(NIEIR)*

26 drafted a paper on the situation in 55 national regions (morefractional division than the states). This research provides>

27. >

27

Classification according to the level ofsocioeconomic development was constructed on the basis of factor analysis of 48indicators of living standard, population’s health, health-care andenvironment, education and social conditions of education. On the basis offinal >

In the Council on distribution ofproductive forces and economic cooperation using the data for the periodbetween 1995-1996 calculations on comparative evaluation of economic and socialdevelopment of regions were done (B. .Shtulberg*

28*). At thesame time, the following indicators were used: general level of economicdevelopment, the level and dynamics of development of major branches ofmaterial production, current financial situation of the regions, the level,dynamics and differentiation of personal incomes, employment and the state oflabor market, investment activity in the regions, evaluation of environment.For example, according to employmentcriterion the group of depressed territoriesincludes: Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Pskov, Leningrad, Bryansk, Vladimir, Ivanovo,Kostroma, Yaroslavl, Kirov, Tambov, Astrakhan, Penza, Kurgan, Perm, Chita, andAmur regions, the Khabarovsk Territory, the Republics of Karelia, Mariy El,Mordovskaya, Chuvash, Kalmyk, Dagestan, Karachaevo-Cherkesk, Udmurt, Tyva andAltai.

According to criteria of real personalincome, the group of depressed regions include:Pskov, Vladimir, Ivanovo, Ryazan, Astrakhan, Penza, Saratov, Kurgan, Orenburg,Chita, and Kaliningrad regions, all the republics of Northern Caucasus, theRepublics of Mordovia, Chuvashia, Tyva and Altai.

The above mentioned list of regions to aconsiderable extent coincides with a corresponding list of regions>

28. >

29

There is a serious correlation relating tothe results of regional >

Ranking of regions by different indicators

Subjects of RF

Per capita GRP (1996)

Level of general unemployment end of 1997

Monthly per capita money income (1997)


ThousandRb

Rank

% ofeconomically active population

Rank

ThousandRb

Rank

Ingush Republic

2785

1

52

1

291

1

Republic ofDagestan

2903

2

22

5

322

2

Republic ofKalmykia

4019

3

22

4

431

3

Republic ofTyva

4620

4

19

9



Republic of North Osetia -Alania

4786

5

23

3



Republic ofAdygea

5380

6



473

6

Republic of Kabardino -Balkaria

5584

7

17

12

479

7

Karach-CherkesianRepublic

5639

8

19

10

440

5

Republic of MariyEl

5818

9



437

4

Republic ofAltai

5964

10

18

11



Tambov oblast

6555

11





Ivanovo oblast

6774

12

17

13



Yevreyskaya AO

6972

13

25

2



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 19 | 20 || 22 | 23 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .