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

Transcription

1 INTERNATIONAL COMMUTING BETWEEN BORDER REGIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS, GERMANY AND BELGIUM Presentation prepared for the 65th Annual Meeting of the North American Science Association International San Antonio, Texas, USA November 9, Jouke van Dijk (presenting), joint work with Lourens Broersma & Arjen Edzes University of Groningen, Department of Economic Geography, Groningen, 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. 3. Specifically for the Dutch border regions: policy initiatives stimulate cross-border commuting: exporting unemployed. 4. Now lack of insight in actual flows but also lack of insight in drivers and impact of cross-border commuting and policy 5. This paper: explanatory analysis of commuter flows from to and from and and the relation with personal and regional characteristics 3 4 Many Cross-border cooperation projects in Europe But now Brexit and more to come? September CASE STUDY INTERNATIONAL COMMUTING BETWEEN BORDER REGIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS, GERMANY AND BELGIUM borders and. One region borders both countries. Data on commuting flows are scarce, limited and inconsistent NL initiated many crossborder policy initiatives 1

2 Unemployment in, and : 7 Difference in Unemployment Rate Change in Unemployment Rate Many Dutch policy initiatives to export unemployed Source: DvhN, 3 december 2016 Project Werken in Duitsland : december 2016: before summer 400 unemployed will be employed in! 9 Half a year later in June 2017: Project Werken in Duitsland failed completely: zero unemployed founbd a job in! 10 Bron: DvhN, 29 juni 2017 (Longterm) Unemployment %, NUTS 2 regions, Labour market opportunities: vacancies (Online) Open vacancies, April-sept 2015 as % of employed labour force Source: Jobfeed / Eurostat 12 Unemployment % Share of long-term (> 1 year) unemployed. 2

3 14 13 Cross-border commuting 2012 Data at the country level Number of cross-border commuters 2006, 2011, 2016 Source: European Labour Force Survey. 15 Cross-border commuting by education and distance border Commuting flows by nationality : Niedersachsen NL Nordrhein-Westfalen NL NL Niedersachsen NL Nordrhein-Westfalen Low Medium High employees commute to The of which have the Dutch Nationality and are German Dutch live and work in Weterings, A. & G. van Gessel-Dabekaussen (2015) Arbeidsmarkt zonder grenzen. PBL/CBS 17 Shares of incoming commuters, 2012 Cross-border commuting to NL by nationality: job opportunities versus housing prices, and tax facilities 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Rest 50% Dutch na onality German na onality 40% Belgian na onality 30% 20% 18 Empirical analysis: explanatory model 1. Commuting Data Statistics and Eurostat We use data for all NUTS 2 border regions on both sides of the border of, and. 3. Limitation: we only know the NUTS 2 region of residence and the commuting flows to ALL other regions in or. So, a person living in a German border region can also work in nonborderregions in the, e.g. in Amsterdam and person living in a Dutch border region can work in Berlin So, NO information about flows BETWEEN border regions!! 10% 0% Total 3

4 Commuting flows from Dutch and German border regions Most commuters live in border regions 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 Low Interm Female High Empirical model: Commuting = Wage + Road Density + Unemployment flows + Common + Region Language + Competitiveness index Estimation results: Intercept (4.00) (2.43) (1.21) (1.18) (3.22) (0.25) (2.46) (2.12) ( ( ( ( (-3.43) 2.05) (-1.01) 1.14) (-2.87) 0.08) 1.92) (-) ( (1.00) (1.08) 0.04) () (0.08) (1.65) (0.99) (3.52) (3.68) (1.17) (4.46) (0.80) (2.13) (3.78) Competitiveness ( ( ( index 1.94) 2.23) (0.72) (-1.81) 3.09) (0.10) (-2.04) (-1.75) Common language dummy (5.52) (5.44) (1.94) (3.61) (3.09) (3.35) (3.84) (4.25) D Antwerpen (3.24) (1.25) (-0.50) (2.65) (1.66) (2.04) (1.24) D (B) ( (3.14) (0.99) (2.32) 0.15) (3.07) (0.92) (2.11) (1.27) D Oost-Vlaanderen ( ( ( ( (- (0.72) 1.39) (0.58) 1.44) (0.90) 0.63) 0.23) 0.49) D West-Vlaanderen ( ( ( ( ( ( (- (2.18) 2.77) 0.85) 1.97) 0.09) 2.60) 2.54) 1.84) D Liège ( (2.09) (0.81) (0.96) 0.93) (0.82) (1.78) (0.30) (_ D Weser-Ems (11.7) (9.25) (7.66) (3.20) (9.90) (7.08) (8.04) (8.33) D Münster (11.8) (9.11) (6.18) (4.59) (9.31) (5.14) (6.98) (7.98) D Düsseldorf (5.87) (4.96) (3.20) (2.97) (4.29) (3.58) (4.31) (4.04) D Köln (8.76) (7.19) (4.44) (3.69) (6.65) (4.93) (6.56) (6.37) D Drenthe ( ( ( (1.17) 0.14) (0.51) (2.02) (0.39) 2.19) 3.63) (0.20) D O erijssel

5 Estimation results (1) main explanatory variables: Intercept Wage Road access Unemploy ment Competiti veness Common language 23.5 (4.00) (-3.43) 0.59 (3.52) (-1.94) 1.47 (5.52) 16.1 (2.43) (-2.05) 0.71 (1.00) (3.68) (-2.23) 1.66 (5.44) 13.4 (1.21) (-1.01) 1.13 (1.08) 0.35 (1.17) 4.09 (0.72) 0.88 (1.94) 15.0 (1.18) (-1.14) (-0.04) 1.46 (4.46) (-1.81) 1.98 (3.61) 28.8 (3.22) (-2.87) 1.71 () (-3.09) 1.26 (3.09) 1.98 (0.25) (-0.08) 0.06 (0.08) 0.19 (0.80) 0.45 (0.10) 1.21 (3.35) 16.3 (2.46) (-1.92) (1.65) 0.42 (2.13) (-2.04) 1.17 (3.84) Bold: significant 17.7 (2.12) (-) 0.86 (0.99) 0.91 (3.78) (-1.75) 1.58 (4.25) Estimation results (2) Belgian NL regional : Antwerp (B) East- Flanders West- Flanders Liege (3.24) 0.94 (3.14) 0.17 (0.72) (2.18) (2.09) 0.31 (1.25) 0.34 (0.99) (-1.39) (-2.77) 0.21 (0.81) (-0.50) 1.23 (2.32) (-0.15) (0.58) (-1.44) (-0.85) 0.39 (0.96) (-1.97) (-0.93) 0.87 (2.65) 1.40 (3.07) 0.32 (0.90) (-0.09) 0.28 (0.82) (1.66) 0.37 (0.92) (-0.63) (-2.60) 0.55 (1.78) 0.50 (2.04) 0.72 (2.11) (-0.23) (-2.54) 0.08 (0.30) 0.38 (1.24) 0.54 (1.27) (-0.49) (-1.84) 0.16 () Estimation results (4) Dutch German regional : Estimation results (3) German NL regional : Weser- Ems Münster Köln 1.53 (11.7) 1.88 (11.8) 1.95 (5.87) 1.99 (8.76) 1.38 (9.25) 1.64 (9.11) (4.96) (7.19) 1.95 (7.66) (6.18) (3.20) 1.80 (4.44) 1.06 (3.20) 1.50 (4.59) 2.07 (2.97) (3.69) 2.00 (9.90) 2.30 (9.31) 2.17 (4.29) 2.32 (6.65) 1.31 (7.08) 1.18 (5.14) 1.59 (3.58) 1.57 (4.93) 1.19 (8.04) 1.36 (6.98) 1.62 (4.31) 1.70 (6.56) 1.58 (8.33) (7.98) 1.88 (4.04) 2.07 (6.37) Groningen Not enough valid observations Drenthe 0.11 (1.17) Overijssel 0.99 (11.4) Gelderland 1.14 (5.58) (N)-Germ 1.31 (5.34) (-0.14) 0.93 (9.03) 1.26 (5.34) 1.43 (5.08) 0.10 (0.51) 0.79 (4.65) 0.76 (2.15) 1.06 (2.54) 0.35 (2.02) 1.03 (6.58) 1.53 (3.66) 1.74 (3.46) 0.06 (0.39) 1.00 (7.25) 0.95 (3.02) 1.17 (3.11) (-2.19) 0.54 (3.95) 1.02 (3.63) (3.49) (-3.63) 0.80 (7.39) 0.83 (3.52) 0.83 (2.96) 0.03 (0.20) 0.63 (4.81) 1.13 (3.91) 1.51 (4.38) Estimation results (5) Dutch Belgian regional : Düsseldorf Zeeland (-1.95) (-2.63) (-0.32) (-1.68) (-0.42) (-3.02) (-1.74) (-2.09) Noord- Brabant Reference region (N) (-7.29) (-6.91) (-3.51) (-5.07) (-4.40) (-5.61) (-6.68) (-5.53) 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, institutional differences play an important role in favouring commuting in one direction. Most: 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. 5