IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cjrecs/v17y2024i1p137-162..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Left-behind places in central and eastern Europe—labour productivity aspect

Author

Listed:
  • Pawel Dobrzanski
  • Sebastian Bobowski
  • Karenjit Clare

Abstract

In the 21st century, there have already been a series of economic downturns, particularly the Subprime Crisis 2007–2009 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. All those events triggered changes in productivity, economic performance and structure. The main objective of this study is to identify the regions left behind in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries and to analyse the structural and productivity changes taking place within them. In our analysis, we aim to verify the research hypothesis that all left-behind regions in CEE have similar economic structures with a high share of agriculture. The research period covers the years from 2010 until 2020 using data from the Eurostat database. In the first phase of our analysis, we analysed employment, Gross Value Added (GVA) and productivity data for 11 CEE countries. Then, we analysed the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics at level 3 (NUTS3) regions, and Poland, which is a NUTS2 region. Left-behind regions are defined as those with low productivity and low growth rates. We provide a detailed analysis of the best and worst performing regions in terms of productivity for each country using productivity data and shift-share decomposition of productivity growth rate. Left-behind regions for each CEE country have been identified, and these are BG333, BG342, CZ080, EE004, HR023, HU332, LT027, LV005, PL72, RO216, RO312, SI032, SI035, SI038 and SK032. In our analysis, our hypothesis analysing the relationship between agriculture share in total employment and the productivity level of the region was not confirmed.

Suggested Citation

  • Pawel Dobrzanski & Sebastian Bobowski & Karenjit Clare, 2024. "Left-behind places in central and eastern Europe—labour productivity aspect," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 17(1), pages 137-162.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cjrecs:v:17:y:2024:i:1:p:137-162.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cjres/rsae001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cjrecs:v:17:y:2024:i:1:p:137-162.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cjres .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.