Capital Flows Across an Internal EU Border Crossing: The Location and Recruitment Decisions of French Businesses in the English County of Kent

Capital Flows Across an Internal EU Border Crossing: The Location and Recruitment Decisions of French Businesses in the English County of Kent William Collier & Roger Vickerman Centre for European, Regional and Transport Economics University of Kent at Canterbury December 2001 Keywords: Regional Markets, Border Regions Acknowledgements: Financial support from the European Regional Development Fund INTERREG II Community Initiative and the ESRC One Europe or Several Programme (Project No. L213252042) is gratefully acknowledged. Correspondence Address: Professor Roger Vickerman, Centre for European, Regional and Transport Economics, Keynes College, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, UK; Tel: +44 (0)1227 823495; Fax: +44 (0)1227 827784; email: R.W.Vickerman@ukc.ac.uk

Introduction The mobility of capital and labour across European borders is an emergent issue. Factor mobility is considered a necessity both to further European integration and a sustainable Economic Union. The mobility of factors plays a vital role in the economic process. It permits capital and labour to be allocated to their highest valued uses and ensures that economic performance transcends regional and national constraints. To date, most of the available evidence suggests that intra-eu mobility remains low. Thus, the issue of factor mobility is likely to remain a discerning one. Factor mobility between EU border regions epitomises many of the concerns and challenges that face the process of integration. The principle of the free movement of capital and labour within the European Single Market implies that any disequilibrium in the regions either side of a border may be more efficiently reduced than in other regions. The removal of physical, legal and institutional barriers to cross-border movements should have removed many of the obvious constraints to the free movement of capital and labour. Nonetheless, evidence for the Anglo-French border of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais is not convincing. Despite the removal of many of the official impediments to cross-border movement and a substantial reduction in the physical barrier as a result of the Channel Tunnel construction, there is little sign of regional convergence or economic smoothing between the two regions (Collier & Vickerman, 2001b). Labour mobility between the regions, whether it concerns permanent migrants or more shortterm flows such as cross-border commuters, would also appear to remain rather small (Collier & Vickerman, 2001c). The lack of integration between the Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais border regions is somewhat surprising. The relative performance of the two economies in recent years suggests that increased factor mobility could help to integrate levels of regional economic activity thereby improving economic performance and observed socioeconomic disparities. Regional comparisons indicate that there is considerable scope for cross-border interaction to achieve a more efficient resource allocation (Vickerman, 2000b). Such interaction appears, however, not to be occurring. The absence of wider economic integration suggests the need for a much more detailed look at the nature of the movement that is recognised to take place. Only once the determinants of recognised factor movements are identified, can the potential impact of factor mobility as an equilibrating device between regions be better understood. This paper builds on the above premise and investigates more closely the nature of observed capital movements from France into the English County of Kent. Capital investment between the UK and France has increased considerably in recent years. flows of capital between the border regions of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais remain, however, rather modest (Collier & Vickerman, 2001d). The magnitude and distribution of this investment is an additional worry. French businesses in the County are heavily concentrated to the west of Ashford. This pattern of investment suggests that significant barriers to mobility may still persist. It also suggests the existence of a number of internal factors within the county that are constraining the process of integration. 2

In this paper we explore the location decisions of French businesses identified in the Kent border region and evaluate the extent to which recognised labour flows into the County may have occurred as a direct consequence of related capital activity. The paper is based on a regional survey of French businesses identified in the County by the region s inward investment agency (Locate in Kent) in the 3 rd quarter of 2000. The principle focus of the survey was to identify the extent to which firms making the crossborder move were doing so for broadly structural locational reasons (accessibility) or competitive locational reasons (incentives, factor costs etc). The latter is of particular interest in that it encompasses moves that are perhaps motivated by labour market reasons (skill availability, labour market flexibility, differences in social on-costs of employment etc). Identifying the motives for location is important in that is allows us to assess the extent to which observed capital flows are substitutes or complements to labour flows. In the latter case, firms might simply be exploiting differences in prices, incentives, or exchange rates across a border for a limited period with the intention of moving again if such situations change. If this situation, the capital move might be regarded as a sort of enclave economy move with little or no positive economic impact on the receiving region. Identifying the true nature of movements is thus of particular concern both for the continued development of inward investment into border regions and the wider process of further economic integration. Border Regions and Capital Investment Low levels of factor mobility have become a major priority for the European Union, especially in the context of perceived pressures from enlargement (European Commission, 2001). The movement of labour and the generation of a flexible European labour market is the principle attraction in this regard, and is recently illustrated by the Commission of the European Communities decision to identify the opening up of European labour markets as one of ten key areas for EU policy action. The contribution of the labour market to economic integration is not, however, derived solely through the movement of workers. Integration also involves capital mobility since firms may seek to relocate in order to take advantage of labour market opportunities and additional regional incentives. Capital mobility can be either a substitute or a complement for the mobility of labour. It is likely to be a substitute in the presence of geographical labour mobility, that is, where firms are unable to satisfy their demand for labour locally despite a surplus of qualified labour at another location. By contrast, it is likely to be a complement where there are distinct cost advantages through incentives or less cumbersome regulations, but specific skill shortages at the final destination lead the firm to migrate both capital and workers together. Regional theories typically assume that the removal of barriers to mobility and trade will result in an influx of capital into border regions. The premise of these theories is that the influx of foreign owned capital raises capital spending thereby improving regional economic development and economic performance (Rauch, 1991). This assumption is not without criticism. Capital movements across borders depend on the profitability of investment locations that may be prospected on either side. The removal of formal borders and the expansion of market areas may serve to encourage capital into a border region. Other barriers within border regions are, however, likely to remain. 3

Borders naturally affect the economic performance of border regions: They provide breaks in the economic landscape and generate barriers that raise the costs of crossborder movement and restrict flows of communication. Whilst legal and physical barriers to cross-border movements may have been removed by the creation of a Single European Market, significant implicit barriers are, however, likely to remain. Most implicit barriers to mobility can be categorised into what are termed hard and soft factors. Hard factors consist of transport infrastructure, administrative procedure, and fiscal incentives to firms. Soft factors, in contrast, consist of social, psychological and cultural differences (van der Velde, 1999; Vickerman, 1998, 2000b). The degree of transcooperation and transport infrastructure as a facilitator of movement between regions has long been recognised (Vickerman, 2000a). Preferences and attitudes to location formed prior to the removal of the border frontier must, however, also be considered. Social and psychological barrier effects are also important (de Gijsel et al, 1999; van Houtem, 1999). This is particularly evident for border regions that share a linguistic divide. Linguistic differences entail additional costs to cross-border movements. They preserve the psychological and sociological perception of borders, and embody the cultural and historical precedents that define the extent of transcooperation and attitudes of border populations. The Anglo-French border of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais is of particular interest in this regard. The two regions are well situated within the heartland of the European Capitals Region between London, Paris and Brussels. Both regions continue, however, to underperform at both the national and EU level (Collier & Vickerman, 2000b). The completion of the Single European Market, the Channel Tunnel, and associated road and rail infrastructure between the two regions should have done much to improve the attractiveness of the regions as a location for development. Regional competitiveness should also improve following future enlargement, since this will further reduce barriers to both business and trade. However, the evidence from other internal borders is not good. Testimony from the Dutch-German border indicates that cross-border movements are not large even where the barriers to movement are very small (de Gijsel and Janssen, 1999; van der Velde, 1999). The mental and distance effects of border crossings are integral to this lack of movement (van der Velde, 1999; van Houtem, 1999). Such forces appear to be considerable even where the proximity of border populations is high. The presence of a significant physical sea border as in the case of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais is thus likely to be a far greater concern. Investment, Location and Recruitment As mentioned, the principle focus of this paper is to investigate the location and recruitment decisions of French businesses identified in the Anglo-French border region of Kent. This area is of particular interest because most of the French investment is relatively recent suggesting that it is easier to assess the reasons for the location decision. The analysis is based on a survey questionnaire that explores both the background activity of the firms in question and the respective determinants underlying their observed location and recruitment decisions. The study adopts broadly the same structure of questionnaire as a comparable study that investigates the extent and nature 4

of the location and recruitment decisions of Belgian firms located in the Dunkerque labour market area (basin d emploi). 1 A comparative evaluation of labour and capital flows between the Anglo-French border of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais, and the Franco-Belgian border between both Vlaanderen and Wallonie and Nord-Pas de Calais is available in a related paper (Collier & Vickerman, 2001f). The inward investment agency (Locate in Kent) was able to identify a stock of 39 French businesses in Kent in the 3 rd quarter of 2000. This figure is significantly less than the 241 British firms located in Nord-Pas de Calais, and is nowhere near the scale of that purported by both the national and regional UK media. French investment in Kent is the joint second largest national grouping (with Germany). The US is the single largest investor in the County accounting for almost 30 per cent of the stock of foreign owned companies and some 46 per cent of the employment in such firms. There were 85 US firms operating in Kent in the 3 rd quarter of 2000 employing more than 12,500 workers. By contrast, the 39 French firms employed around 3,100 workers, although the total employment effect is nearer 1500 when Eurotunnel, a bi-national Anglo-French company, is excluded (Collier & Vickerman, 2001d). Survey Response and Descriptive Statistics The 39 firms identified by Locate in Kent provide the sample utilised to further investigate the location and recruitment decisions of French Businesses in Kent. The survey adopted a telephone questionnaire format and was undertaken during the 3 rd and 4 th quarters of 2001. Table 1 reveals the distribution of French businesses in Kent, their impact on employment within each region, and the associated response rate to our survey. The table reveals a clearly uneven pattern of French investment. The number of French businesses operating in the North of the County and the unitary authority of Medway is relatively low relative to those operating in Ashford and further West of the County (Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, and Tunbridge Wells). By contrast, French investment in the Northern district of Gravesham and the Eastern districts of Canterbury and Thanet appears to be non-existent. This pattern of investment is of concern in that it indicates that associated income and employment effects of capital relocation have had little impact on the more deprived areas of East and North Kent. The observed pattern of investment may reflect a lack of intra-regional transport: Eastwest and north-south accessibility within the county is poor. Stigma effects associated with the low levels of economic growth and pockets of social deprivation could, however, also be responsible. 1 This analysis was carried out by our partners in the INTERREG 2 funded project, Laboratoire Redéploiment Industriel et Innovation, Université du Littoral Côte d Opale (Boutillier et al, 2001). 5

Table 1 French Businesses in Kent District No. of French Survey Respondents % of Respondents to Businesses Identified Total Businesses Ashford 8 6 24 Canterbury - - - Dartford 3 2 8 Dover 1 0 0 Gravesham - - - Maidstone 3 2 8 Medway 3 1 4 Sevenoaks 3 2 8 Shepway 3 3 12 Swale 3 3 12 Thanet - - - Tonbridge & Malling 8 3 12 Tunbridge Wells 3 2 8 Kent* 1 1 4 Total 39 25 100% Note: identified at July 2000. identified Q3 2001. * indicates multiple sites across the County. Source: Locate in Kent Of the 39 French businesses identified at July 2000, 25 firms responded to the questionnaire providing the survey with a 64 per cent response rate. Of these 25 firms, 2 had public limited company status (plc), the remaining 23 (92%) were private limited companies (ltd). Non-respondents were evenly distributed both in terms of geographical location and firm size (measured by employees). 11 of the 14 non-respondents were small firms employing less than 50 people. 9 of these 11 firms employed less than 10 workers. The remaining 3 non-respondent firms were all large firms employing in excess of 100 workers. Table 2 provides a breakdown of respondent firms by year of entry into the County. Almost all of the 25 firms (88%) surveyed had located in Kent in the past fifteen years. 16 firms (64%) arrived from 1994 onwards while 1994 saw the single largest inflow of French investment with 4 new businesses commencing operations over the same period. French Investment in Kent by Year of Start-up Table 2 Year of Entry No. of Firms Pre-1989 3 1989 2 1990 1 1991 0 1992 1 1992 2 1994 4 1995 1 1996 3 1997 3 1998 2 1999 2 2000 1 Total = 25 6

Figure 1 provides a breakdown of the survey respondents by industrial activity using the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). The survey revealed 9 firms (36%) operating in the manufacturing sector, a sector that incorporates metal goods, engineering and vehicle industries, and other manufacturing industries. This proportion of manufacturing activity is higher than the proportion of manufacturing industry in the county as a whole (approx 25%). A further 9 firms (36%) were involved in distribution, hotels and catering, whilst 3 firms (12%) were active in banking, finance, insurance and other business services. Remaining firms were classified to energy and water, Transport, and other services. Figure 1 Industrial Activity of French Businesses Energy & Water 12% 8% 4% Manufacturing 4% 36% Distribution, Hotels & Catering Transport & Communication 36% Banking, Finance & Other Business Services Other Services The main customers of surveyed firms were predominantly confined to English shores. 24 businesses indicated their main customer base to be in the UK. One half of these (12 firms) stated that their customers were distributed nationally. The remaining 50 per cent claimed the majority of their customers were located in Kent and the rest of the Southeast. One customer stated their main customers were distributed across the EU. Investment and Location Sixteen firms (64%) had been established as a branch of a French parent company. A further 6 businesses (24%) were acquisitions. All but 2 of the 25 firms were exclusively French owned in terms of their capital. Nineteen of the 22 parent companies were based in France, mostly in Paris. Two parent companies had headquarters elsewhere in Kent, whilst one bi-national company had headquarters in both France and the UK. Eighteen of the 25 firms stated that the controlling owners of the business were not involved in the daily running of the establishment. Of the 7 remaining firms that did have daily involvement, 6 were subsidiaries to a French parent. 7

11 firms had established themselves as a relocation from elsewhere. All of these firms were subsidiaries of a French parent company. Six of the 11 firms (55%) had relocated from elsewhere in Kent, 3 had relocated from the rest of the Southeast, 1 from elsewhere in the UK, and 1 from Paris, France. Only 6 firms had links with Kent based organisations prior to their decision to locate in the county. Four of these firms had contact with the inward investment agency Locate in Kent. One firm had contact with local chambers of commerce. Another had prior contact with local government officials. Figure 2 illustrates the major reasons behind firms decisions to locate both in Kent and across respective parts of the County. Five firms (20%) emphasised land constraints in the County as a major factor in the location decision with a further 5 firms stating the availability of skills in the local labour force. Eight firms (32%) advocated proximity to their main customers. By contrast, only 4 (16%) firms stated proximity to suppliers as a major reason. Seventeen firms (68%) emphasised the importance of transportation links. Six firms (24%) cited other reasons. Most of these latter reasons were historical by nature and reflected acquisition behaviour. Figure 2 Determinants of Business Location Decisions 25 20 No. of Firms 15 10 5 0 Government assisitance Proximity to education providers Availability of labour skills Proximity to main customers Proximity to major suppliers Proximity to Continental Europe Industrial activity in Kent Transport infrastructure UK tax / legal System Low wage costs Land constraints Other reasons The distribution of those factors considered important in the location decisions of firms is not unsurprising. Transport, accessibility, labour skills, and proximity to markets often tend to dominate responses concerning location in surveys of this kind. The importance of transport is, however, rather more complex than may initially appear. The role of transport infrastructure as a facilitator of capital movements has long been recognised. However, whilst transport is typically high on firms wish lists (it is typically associated with accessibility), the relative importance of transport where other 8

factors may also be of importance is unclear. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 3 which reveals the single most important factor considered by French businesses in their decision to locate in the County. Whilst 17 firms indicated that transport was an issue for location, only 3 firms cited it as the most important factor. Historical reasons (relating to acquisitions) and proximity to Continental Europe were the most important reasons cited accounting for just over one half (52%) of all responses. Seven firms indicated proximity to Continental Europe as the principle factor affecting the firm s business location. Six of these firms were located within easy access of the Ashford International Passenger Station. Principle Factor Affecting Business Location Figure 3 24% Proximity to Continental Europe 4% 12% 28% Proximity to main customers Land constraints Transport Tax / legal system 16% 16% Other Employment & Recruitment Table 3 reveals the geographical distribution of employment provided by French Businesses in Kent along with the observed total employment effect. The first thing to note is that the total employment effect of the 25 firms is larger than the total estimated employment effect for the 39 firms identified by the inward investment agency at July 2000. The survey identified 3,113 workers. Of these workers, 2,886 (93%) were fulltime employees. The largest firm employed 1,497 employees, just under one half (48%) of the total employment for French owned companies. The next 4 largest firms accounted for a further 1133 employees (36%). Thus, the five largest five companies accounted for some 84% of the total observed employment. This employment growth suggests many of the French businesses to have been relatively dynamic in recent years. This dynamism in many ways reflects growing economic activity within the county and the strong relative performance of the UK economy in recent years (Collier & Vickerman, 2001b). It is difficult to discern from such growth whether the relative employment effects of French investment in the County are any larger than that observed for other foreign investments. The non-response of 2 medium (25-99 employees) and 3 large (100+ employees) firms might suggest a more important employment effect than that previously identified. However, further analysis of the data reveals that much of the employment increase can be attributed to the success of one firm that has won substantial waste management contracts available through competitive public tender. 9

Table 3 Employment Effect of French Businesses in Kent at 3 rd Quarter 2001 District Survey Respondents Total Employment Of Respondents Total Employed Full-Time Ashford 6 107 105 Canterbury - - - Dartford 2 58 53 Dover 0 0 0 Gravesham - 0 - Maidstone 2 37 33 Medway 1 42 40 Sevenoaks 2 39 37 Shepway 3 1617 1462 Swale 3 313 289 Thanet - - - Tonbridge & Malling 3 63 60 Tunbridge Wells 2 37 37 Kent* 1 800 770 Total 25 3113 2,886 Figure 4 provides an additional breakdown of employment by size of firm measured by total number of employees. Eight firms (32%) employed less than 10 workers, while 3 firms (12%) employed 100 workers or more. The distribution of these workers by gender was variable across both the size of firm and industrial activity. The smallest firms employing fewer than 10 workers had the lowest proportions of men relative to total employees (between 20% and 50%). This contrasts with 32 per cent to 85 per cent in medium size firms, and 30 per cent to 92 per cent in large companies employing more than 100 workers. Men accounted for more than 60 per cent of the total workforce in 14 firms. Five of these firms were involved in manufacturing whilst 3 operated in distribution. Energy and water, transport and waste services each accounted for 1 firm. Remaining firms were involved in business services. Figure 4 Size of Business by Recorded Total of Employees No. of Businesses 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <10 11-24 25-49 50-99 100+ Firm Size (Employees) 10

Twelve firms (48%) indicated that employment levels had increased over the last 5 years. A further 9 firms (36%) revealed that total employment had remained about the same. When asked about future employment levels, 9 firms (36%) expressed an expectation that employment would rise in the next 12 months. Thirteen firms (52%) thought that employment levels would remain unchanged. Of the 9 firms indicating an increase in future employment, just under one half had experienced employment gains in the past five years. By contrast, of the 13 firms expecting employment to remain unchanged in the next 12 months, 8 firms (62%) had witnessed recent employment growth. Seventeen firms (68%) indicated that they had experienced difficulty in filling vacancies in the past 2 years. Thirteen of these firms (76%) also indicated that recruitment was a long-standing issue for their company. Figure 5 reveals the types of vacancies with which French businesses experienced difficulty. Managerial, professional and technical occupations proved the most difficult vacancies to fill. Plant and machine operatives (which include drivers of road goods vehicles) and sales related occupations also proved difficult. Figure 5 Difficult to fill Vacancies by Standard Occupational Classification (SIC) Managers & professionals 9% 14% 18% 9% Associate professionals & technical Clerical & secretarial Craft & related 9% 18% Sales & sales related 23% Plant & manchine operatives Other Sixteen firms (64%) expressed that difficulties in filling vacancies were predominantly due a lack of appropriate applicants. Many of these firms cited a lack of the correct skills by applicants. Eight firms (32%) claimed the regional proximity to London had a detrimental effect. Many of these firms stated that they were unable to match the job packages offered by London firms. Other firms that felt they could afford such packages stated that the general attractiveness of London as an opportunity for employment remained a major obstacle. The practices used to overcome recruitment difficulties were varied. Indeed, most firms utilised a combination of techniques to overcome their specific recruitment problems. Ten firms indicated that they were training existing staff to fill vacancies. Many of these expressed concern in bearing the costs of training given that this typically generated additional problems in the turnover of newly qualified staff. Six firms indicated that they utilised specialist recruitment agencies to fill vacant positions whilst 4 firms stated 11

that they provided more flexible working conditions. Three firms emphasised the use pf other practices. These included the use of industry contacts, partnerships with local education and training providers, and the utilisation of the European Employment Service (EURES). Significantly, 8 firms (47%) revealed that they recruited outside of Kent when difficulties were experienced. Three of these firms recruited from elsewhere in the UK. Five firms, however, stated that they specifically recruited from France. All five of these firms were subsidiaries of French owned parent organisations located in France. To check whether recruitment from abroad was a more widespread consideration of firms trying to fill vacant positions, the survey additionally asked firms to indicate their intentions concerning recruitment from abroad. It also asked if firms currently employed non-uk workers. None of the firms reported knowledge of any constraints that they might face in the employment of non-uk workers. However, only 11 of the 25 firms (44%) indicated that they were likely to recruit from abroad in the future. Thirteen of the 25 French firms reported that they currently employed non-uk workers. For all but one of these firms, the nationality of these workers was French. The total number of French nationals employed across all firms in the survey was 161, approximately 5% of the total employment effect (3,113). For 8 of the 12 firms (67%) employing French nationals the proportion of these workers was less than 10 per cent. For 3 firms the proportion was greater than 50 per cent; 2 of these 3 firms employed less than 10 workers, the other firm employed 30 workers in total. Six of the 12 firms (50%) employing French nationals indicated that these workers were employed as a direct consequence of the firm s recruitment policy. Two of the 12 firms stated that it was beneficial to the firm s start-up. Another 2 firms cited the absence of skills locally, whilst a further 2 cited language constraints as the predominant motive. All 12 firms employing French nationals in Kent were subsidiaries of larger parent organisations. Ten of these firms employed these workers on permanent contracts. Most French nationals occupied senior management positions. Ten of the 12 firms (83%) stated that the workers were employed in professional and managerial positions. Three of these firms also recruited into technical and scientific occupations whilst 1 firm further extended the occupation categories to include both clerical and sales related occupations. Three firms employed workers solely outside of senior management positions. One of these firms employed staff purely in technical positions, the other 2 were evenly distributed between sales and clerical vocations. Assessment The purpose of this paper has been to examine the location and recruitment decisions of French businesses identified in the Anglo-French border region of Kent. There has been considerable growth in the importance of capital investment between the UK and France in recent years. The magnitude and distribution of this investment around the county does suggest, however, that significant barriers to capital mobility continue to remain. The cost of the border stills remains relatively high and internal factors within regions do appear to continue to play a significant role. 12

The paper identified that there are around 39 French businesses operating in the Kent border regions. We were able to successfully survey 25 of these firms. The survey revealed that much of the French investment into the border region of Kent has been a relatively recent phenomenon. Only 3 of the firms surveyed had been established before 1989, the remainder represented a fairly steady inflow during the 1990s. Two-thirds of the firms surveyed were established as branches of a French parent company and a further quarter were acquisitions. The major factor determining location was cited as transport infrastructure coupled with proximity to continental Europe and to customers, followed by the availability of labour skills. Financial assistance, wage costs and the UK tax and legal system were given much less importance. Analysis of the single most important factor revealed that accessibility to continental Europe and proximity to customers were the most important. Transport was far less important confirming the view that firms are less influenced by transport than is often claimed. The total observed employment effect of those firms surveyed was 3113 employees, larger than the total level of employment estimated for all 39 companies a year prior to the survey. Much of this appears to reflect the strong growth of several of these companies in recent years. Around one half of the firms had grown in the past 5 years and over one third expected to grow in the 12 months. More than two thirds of the firms had experienced recruitment difficulties in the preceding 2 years, and three quarters of these indicated that this was a long-standing issue. Many firms had recruited outside the Kent labour market to tackle this problem and over one half of these firms had recruited specifically from France. Over half of the firms also employed non-uk workers, mostly from France. About 5 per cent of total employment covered by the survey was composed of French nationals. The majority of these were employed in managerial, professional and technical positions. The overall conclusion of the survey is that there is no clear pattern of linkage between capital and labour flows in the Kent border region. Whilst many of the French owned firms employ French nationals, with a few exceptions, most of these workers form a low proportion of total employees and have been specifically recruited to tackle difficulties encountered in the recruitment of senior management and technical occupations. The factors behind firms decisions to locate in Kent suggest that a number of significant internal barriers within the region do remain. The availability of skills is one such factor. Greater transparency of labour market information, for both workers and potential employers, thus seems to be a major pre-requisite for any greater mobility. 13

References Boutillier, S., Coppin, O., Laperche, B. and Mudard, N. (2001) Les migrations transfrontalier entre la Belgique et le bassin dunkerquois des origines du capitalisme à la fin du XXème siècle, Rapport intermédiaire, Laboratoire Redéploiment Industriel et Innovation, Université du Littoral-Côte d Opale, Dunkerque, September. Collier, W. and Vickerman, R.W. (2001b) Labour Markets in EU Border Regions: the case of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais, Working Paper, CERTE, University of Kent at Canterbury (available at http://www.ukc.ac.uk/economics/research/interreg- WPS.html). Collier, W. and Vickerman, R.W. (2001c) Labour Flows in EU Border Regions: the case of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais, Working Paper, CERTE, University of Kent at Canterbury (available at http://www.ukc.ac.uk/economics/research/interreg-wps.html). Collier, W. and Vickerman, R.W. (2001d) Capital Flows in EU Border Regions: the case of Kent and Nord-Pas de Calais, Working Paper, CERTE, University of Kent at Canterbury (available at http://www.ukc.ac.uk/economics/ research/interreg-wps.html). Collier, W. and Vickerman, R.W. (2001f) Cross-Border Activity in the Kent - Nord-Pas de Calais - Belgium Euroregion: Some Comparative Evidence, Working Paper, CERTE, University of Kent at Canterbury. (available at http://www.ukc.ac.uk/economics/ research/interreg-wps.html). de Gijsel, P. and Janssen, M. (1999), Perceived Obstacles and Willingness to Enter Dutch-German Cross-border Labour Markets: The Case of Highly Educated Workers in Border Regions, 38 th Annual Meeting of the Western Regional Science Association, Ojai, California, February. de Gijsel, P., Janssen, M., Wenzel, H-J. and Woltering, M. (1999), Concepts and Issues in European Cross-border Economics: An Introduction, in P. de Gijsel & M.Janssen (Eds) Understanding European Cross-border Labour Markets: Issues in Cross-border Relations, Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg. European Commission (2001) Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory: Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. van der Velde, M. (1999), Searching for Jobs in a Border Area: The Influence of Borders in a Dutch Euregion, in P. de Gijsel & M.Janssen (Eds) Understanding European Cross-border Labour Markets: Issues in Cross-border Relations, Metropolis- Verlag, Marburg. 14

van Houtem, H. (1999), What is the Influence of Borders on Economic Internationalisations?, in P. de Gijsel & M.Janssen (Eds) Understanding European Cross-border Labour Markets: Issues in Cross-border Relations, Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg. Vickerman, R.W. (1998), Language and Location. An Analysis of Inward Investment and Regional Development in Europe, Paper for the 45 th North American Meetings, Regional Science Association, November 1998. Vickerman, R.W. (2000a), Economic Growth Effects of Transport Infrastructure, jahrfuch für Regionalwissenschaft, 20, pp. 99-115. Vickerman, R.W. (2000b) But they all speak English don t they? An analysis of investment and regional development with particular reference to the Franco-British border, in W Rothengatter and J Kowalski (Eds) Soft Factors in Spatial Dynamics, Karlsruer Beiträge zur Wirtschaftspolitischen Forschung, Band 7, Nomos, Baden- Baden. 15