fiscal flows, this study has not been paralleled
until today. See report in Zimmermann 2011 , p. 664. Table 2 therefore shows the results of that earlier study, which took the Land of Rheinland-Pfalz as an example of differences between rich and poor regions and cities. Trier and its surroundings were at the time an example of relatively poor German areas, whereas Ludwigshafen, dominated by a large chemical complex, was and is among the rich regions. This can be seen by the difference in GDPpercapita at that time, which was more than 1 to 2.
-level, which refers to the states as a whole, the statistical units range from Germany with more than 82 million inhabitants to Luxembourg with less than half a million. The same is true for the regional units: The NUTS3-level subsumes regions with a population size between about 20 000 and 5 million. Because of these differences the empirical findings on national and regional disparities should be handled with care and interpreted thoroughly.
Regarding the national differences in GDPpercapita the gap between the rich and the poor member states of the EU15 has clearly
regional features which apparently strengthen the region's resilience.
2 Macroeconomic Constraints of Regional Development in Poland
The crisis triggered by the 'dot-com bubble' in the years 2000–2002 caused a larger decrease in the gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate of the relatively weak Polish economy than in other EU countries. The current crisis (first wave) has had a smaller impact on the Polish economy
( Fig. 1 ). GDPpercapita was constantly increasing at the beginning of the 21st century, on average by approximately 2.3%. During the period 2004
the requirements for having a low GDPpercapita. Many Flevoland residents commute to other areas (mainly to Amsterdam) for work and, in the eyes of the EU, this means that economic production in the province is comparatively low’. The criterion of GDPpercapita to determine eligibility for EU structural funding is criticised regularly for ignoring the spatial-economic interrelations between people working and living in neighbouring regions. As van Ravesteyn and Evers (2004 : 42) point out, it ‘flies in the face of common knowledge’ that according to these
Will EU Cohesion Policy Deliver on the Lisbon Strategy?
John Bachtler and Irene McMaster
33 percent. There was an apparent partial relationship between levels of regional prosperity and levels of spending on Lisbon; for some of the more undeveloped regions, Lisbon-type interventions were considered less important than spending on basic infrastructure.
Structural Funds allocations relevant to Lisbon objectives
Share of funding relevant for Lisbon objectives, in %
GDPpercapita In PPS, 2001, EU15 = 100
Finland – Satakunta
France – Aquitaine
Denmark – Bornholm
Benny Geys, Friedrich Heinemann and Alexander Kalb
,000 inhabitants are deemed most efficient (details available upon request). One key driving force behind this relative inefficiency of especially the smallest municipalities appears to be their greater inability to exploit economies of scale in the provision of public goods. Indeed, smaller municipalities in Baden-Württemberg operate under conditions where the cost of public provisions increases significantly more slowly than one-to-one with population size increases. In other words, costs percapita would reduce by increasing the average scale of production. As also shown in