INTERNATIONAL COMMUTING BETWEEN BORDER REGIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS, GERMANY AND BELGIUM

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL COMMUTING BETWEEN BORDER REGIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS, GERMANY AND BELGIUM Keynote lecture prepared for the GfR Summer Conference 2018 Borders and Development organized by the German speaking Section (GfR) in cooperation with the Hungarian, the Polish and the Slovak Section of the European Science Association (ERSA) in Berlin (Berlin-Adlershof), Germany, September 6th, Jouke van Dijk (presenting), joint work with Lourens Broersma & Arjen Edzes University of Groningen, Department of Economic Geography, Groningen, The Netherlands Motivation for studying cross-border commuting 1. Cross-border issues (economy, safety, labour market, migration, governance, InterReg, Brexit) are a big theme in Europe 2. Cross-border commuting can stimulate cross-border regional economic development (better matching, economies of scale, agglomeration effects) and solve discrepancies on cross-border labour markets. Specifically for the Dutch border regions: crossborder issues of population decline and local financial burden of financing part of unemployed benefits (exporting unemployed) 3. Now lack of insight in actual flows but also lack of insight in drivers and impact of cross-border commuting and policy 4. This paper: explanatory analysis of commuter flows from Netherlands to and from Germany and and the relation with personal and regional characteristics 3 4 September But now Brexit and more to come? 1

2 Many Cross-border cooperation projects 7 8 MORO-project: descriptive study about German border regions (2017) Borders as Barriers Accessibility Cultural Language differences 9 Share inhabitants that visited neighbourhood country Share inhabitants that has trust in persons in neighbourhood country 10 Institutional differences Social & Economic differences Small Big Differences in Urbanisation Rate at the border Differences in Population Development at the border CASE STUDYINTERNATIONAL COMMUTING BETWEENBORDERREGIONSIN THE NETHERLANDS, GERMANY AND BELGIUM 2

3 13 Many Cross-border cooperation projects The Netherlands in Europe The Netherlands borders Germany and. One region borders both countries. Data on commuting flows are scarce, limited and inconsistent NL initiated many crossborder policy initiatives Netherlands Germany Population density 2012 Urban-rural typology Unemployment in The Netherlands, Germany and : 16 Germany Netherlands Netherlands Germany Difference in Unemployment Rate Change in Unemployment Rate Many Dutch policy initiatives to export unemployed 18 Source: DvhN, 3 december 2016 Project Werken in Duitsland : december 2016: before summer 400 unemployed will be employed in Germany! 3

4 Half a year later in June 2017: Project Werken in Duitsland failed completely: zero unemployed founbd a job in Germany! 19 (Longterm) Unemployment %, NUTS 2 regions, 2014 Unemployment % Share of long-term (> 1 year) unemployed 20 Bron: DvhN, 29 juni Labour market opportunities: vacancies (Online) Open vacancies, April-sept 2015 as % of employed labour force Source: Jobfeed / Eurostat Number of cross-border commuters 2006, 2011, Cross-border commuting 2012 Data at the country level Source: European Labour Force Survey. 23 Number of cross-border commuters between Germany and the Netherlands

5 Cross-border commuting by education and distance border Niedersachsen NL NL Niedersachsen Nordrhein-Westfalen NL NL Nordrhein-Westfalen 25 Low Medium High Commuting flows by nationality The Netherlands Germany: employees commute to The Netherlands of which have the Dutch Nationality and are German Dutch live and work in Germany Weterings, A. & G. van Gessel-Dabekaussen (2015) Arbeidsmarkt zonder grenzen. PBL/CBS Cross-border commuting to NL by nationality: job opportunities versus housing prices, and tax facilities Shares of incoming commuters, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Germany Total Rest Dutch na onality German na onality Belgian na onality 27 Empirical analysis: explanatory model 1. Commuting Data Statistics Netherlands and Eurostat We use data for all NUTS 2 border regions on both sides of the border of The Netherlands, and Germany. 3. Limitation: we only know the NUTS 2 region of residence and the commuting flows to ALL other regions in or Germany. So, a person living in a German border region can also work in nonborderregions in the Netherlands, e.g. in Amsterdam and person living in a Dutch border region can work in Berlin So, NO information about flows BETWEEN border regions!! 28 Commuting flows from Dutch and German border regions Most commuters live in border regions 5

6 Commuting flows from Dutch and border regions After 2009: More outflow from NL, less incoming Note: Data are flows from a border regions to ALL other regions in the other country; So, NO information about flows BETWEEN border regions!! Male Female Low Interm High. Empirical model: Commuting = Wage + Road Density + Unemployment flows Estimation results: Intercept (4.05) (2.25) (-3.06) (-1.61) (1.71) (0.84) (3.04) (3.08) Competitivenes (- s index (-2.69) 1.62) (1.84) (0.81) (3.57) (0.50) (2.30) (2.07) (-1.28) (-0.68) (-2.79) (-0.10) (-1.50) (-1.54) ( (1.17) 0.09) (1.78) (0.09) (1.46) (0.86) (1.47) (4.11) (1.73) (0.91) (1.51) (3.37) ( ( ( ( (- (2.73) 0.15) 3.35) 0.90) 2.42) 2.31) + Common + Region Language + Competitiveness index D common language (4.40) (4.09) (2.31) (2.37) (3.71) (2.10) (3.99) (4.27) D Antwerp (2.16) (0.67) (0.94) (-0.60) (1.37) (1.29) (1.11) (0.43) D (B) (2.19) (0.46) (1.01) (-0.10) (1.59) (0.51) (1.19) (0.29) D East-Flanders (-0.39) (-1.97) (-0.46) (-1.48) (-0.53) (-1.02) (-1.22) (-1.40) D West-Flanders (1.13) (-3.40) (-2.47) (-1.75) (-2.19) (-3.11) (-3.78) (-3.04) D Liege (-3.96) (-4.00) (-2.97) (-3.00) (-4.08) (-2.14) (-3.74) (-3.81) D Münster (2.88) (1.38) (1.52) (0.13) (3.04) (0.05) (1.39) (1.85) D Düsseldorf Estimation results (1) main explanatory variables: Intercept Wage Road access Unemploy ment Competiti veness Common language 23.0 (4.05) (-3.06) 1.07 (1.71) 0.50 (3.04) (-2.69) 0.40 (4.40) 14.6 (2.25) (-1.61) 0.60 (0.84) 0.57 (3.08) (-1.62) 0.42 (4.09) 18.8 (1.84) (-1.28) 1.22 (1.17) 0.41 (1.47) (2.73) 0.34 (2.31) 9.75 (0.81) (-0.68) (-0.09) 1.33 (4.11) (-0.15) 0.37 (2.37) 30.4 (3.57) (-2.79) 1.67 (1.78) 0.42 (1.73) (-3.35) 0.50 (3.71) 3.77 (0.50) (-0.10) 0.07 (0.09) 0.20 (0.91) (-0.90) 0.24 (2.10) 14.9 (2.30) (-1.50) 1.04 (1.46) 0.29 (1.51) (-2.42) 0.40 (3.99) 16.8 (2.07) (-1.54) 0.75 (0.86) 0.78 (3.37) (-2.31) 0.54 (4.27) Estimation results (2) Belgian regional : Antwerp (B) East- Flanders West- Flanders Liege 0.49 (2.16) 0.58 (2.19) (-0.39) 0.30 (1.13) (-3.96) 0.17 (0.67) 0.14 (0.46) (-1.97) (-3.40) (-4.00) 0.39 (0.94) (-0.60) 0.48 (1.01) (-0.10) (-0.46) (-1.48) (-2.47) (-2.97) (-1.75) (-3.00) 0.47 (1.37) 0.62 (1.59) (-0.53) (-2.19) (-4.08) 0.39 (1.29) 0.18 (0.51) (-1.02) (-3.11) (-2.14) 0.29 (1.11) 0.36 (1.19) (-1.22) (-3.78) (-3.74) 014 (0.43) 0.11 (0.29) (-1.40) (-3.04) (-3.81) 6

7 Estimation results (4) Dutch - German regional : Estimation results (3) German regional : Weser- Ems Münster Köln Reference 0.49 (2.88) 0.72 (3.14) 0.80 (5.10) 0.27 (1.38) 0.59 (2.26) 0.58 (3.28) 0.47 (1.52) 0.79 (3.22) 0.47 (1.52) 0.05 (0.13) 0.55 (1.11) 0.21 (0.62) 0.77 (3.04) 0.99 (2.87) 1.25 (5.37) 0.01 (0.05) 0.50 (1.68) 0.51 (2.42) 0.28 (1.39) 0.71 (2.76) 0.80 (4.64) 0.45 (1.85) 0.65 (2.00) 0.87 (3.86) Groningen Drenthe (-10.2) (-15.6) Overijssel (-2.10) Gelderland (N)-Germ (-8.75) (-14.6) (-2.56) Reference 0.17 (1.72) 0.18 (1.65) (-5.21) (-7.99) (-1.17) 0.26 (1.58) (-5.22) (-5.45) (-1.67) 0.23 (1.24) (-6.95) (-11.9) (-1.18) 0.19 (1.31) (-6.24) (-11.1) (-3.26) 0.12 (0.97) (-6.43) (-15.9) (-1.06) 0.00 (0.02) (-7.14) (-12.1) (-3.51) 0.38 (2.79) Estimation results (5) Dutch - Belgian regional : Düsseldorf Zeeland (-5.16) (-5.16) (-3.23) (-2.36) (-3.62) (-5.94) (-4.54) (-5.05) Noord- Reference Brabant (N) (-8.12) (-6.97) (-5.45) (-4.26) (-6.16) (-6.37) (-7.31) (-6.24) Adj. R Obs. N Conclusions Cross-border commuting flows are very small; data are very limited. Potential gains: more economic activity and lower unemployment Empirical results: higher wages and competitiveness lower commuting, higher unemployment and better accessibility increase commuting, but the effects differ by gender, education and age. Common language increases commuting; regional show country clustering, indicating that institutional differences play an important role. Many Dutch policy initiatives to stimulate cross-border commuting with low success rates; wrong perceptions about existing flows (much more in- than out-flows!) and job opportunities for Dutch unemployment. Residential migration + return commuting might be more important than commuting for job opportunities. Risk: Policy may stimulate the commuting of the wrong type of people that we want to keep. 40 Thank you for your attention 41 7