Adam Pathy (p), Janos Rechnitzer

Our paper is aiming at the conceptualization and operationalization of the development of the regional centers of Central and Eastern Europe in the framework of the concept of territorial capital.

According to our basic hypothesis, territorial capital is the unique combination of socio-economic and cultural-intellectual capital generated in cities over time and varies from one spatial entity to another. The stock of territorial capital, and the points of emphasis of factors influencing it are in permanent evolution in a similar way to urban development processes and the interactions between the various components are constantly being reshaped. In the background of these shifts we can primarily detect the diverse economic, social, administrative-management, regional functions of cities and their realignment.

In our research programme, we conduct a longitudinal analysis of 95 cities in 10 Central and Eastern European countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia), identifying the main factors behind socio-economic development. Our objective is to provide a description and evaluation of the innovative milieux and their evolution in the respectve cities, presuming that as a product of the temporal evolution of territorial capital these milieux are subjects to change. We presume that cities dispose of diverse components of territorial capital may vary in its conditions, structure and forms of manifestation. The research seeks to detect the development paths of the examined cities determined by the various capital types and the innovative milieux constructed on their basis, and to identify the groups of CEE regional centers characterized by identical development patterns.

Our project is in the stage of elaboration of the framework of empirical analysis, so this paper concentrates on the identification ond measurement of elements and types of territorial capital.

João Romão (p)

This work constitutes a first attempt to assess the role of tourism within smart specialization strategies in European regions. By integrating into the model different strategic options regarding the role of tourism and its relatedeness with other economic activities, the results suggest which options can offer higher benefits for the regional economies. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of tourism dynamics on regional economic growth. Although a broad range of studies seemed to confirm the so‐called “Tourism‐Led Growth” hypothesis, revealing positive effects of tourism boosting economic growth, other international comparative analyses have shown ambiguous results, whereas recent studies suggest that the impact of tourism tends to decrease over time, as the mobilization of resources for tourism development transforms regional economic structures. In this work, the potential impacts of tourism on growth are analyzed during a long period (2004-2017), comprising phases of growth, recession and recovery, which allows to assess the ability of each region to recover from an external shock (regional resilience). Moreover, information related to the role of tourism and its relatedness with other economic activities within the sectorial priorities defined by each region for their smart specialization strategies is added to the model, in order to identify potential differences in regional economic performance. The work includes a literature review focused on the concepts of Tourism-Led Growth, Smart Specialization and Resilience, preceding the presentation of a panel data econometric model. The results of this work-in-progress will be presented and discussed, synthetizing the main contributions and limitations of the analysis, while opening new research opportunities. The main expected result of this analysis is the identification of the different impacts that diverse strategic options related to the priority of the tourism sector and its different relatedness with other economic activities within regional innovation strategies generate on growth, development and regional resilience. By taking into account the pre‐existing levels of economic development, the results may also reveal to which extent a process of convergence between European regions is occurring.

Mario Polèse (p)

The paper revisits the role of agglomeration in long-term economic growth, taking a historical and international perspective. To date, the literature has failed to produce robust evidence for the existence of dynamic agglomeration economies. Agglomeration (as measured by initial urbanization levels, city size or other indicators) is not a good predictor of subsequent income growth, whether for nations or cities. Our own analysis for some 90 nations (for 1960-2005 and 1990-2015) equally fails to find a significant relationship between initial levels of urban agglomeration and subsequent income growth.
How are we to reconcile this with the vast literature on agglomeration economies and knowledge-spillovers? The evidence for agglomeration economies is irrefutable, their microeconomic foundations well understood. However, as I shall argue, there are two basic reasons for the absence of a systematic positive relationship between agglomeration and growth, elaborating on arguments in my forthcoming book, The Wealth and Poverty of Cities: Why Nations Matter (Oxford University Press, 2019). New data and national examples are also presented.
First, agglomeration economies are essentially static, their contribution to economic growth primarily allocational. Their potential for bolstering per capita GDP) largely depends on a nation’s position in the development process, the grand era of urbanization (exodus from agriculture) now past in rich nations. The shift to knowledge-rich industries may bolster the economic value of larger cities for growing industries, but the reality of Gibrat’s Law means that city size remains an unsatisfactory predictor of growth. Certain urban configurations may be more conducive to growth, but they are not fundamental drivers.
Second, the fundamental drivers of economic growth are social and political, forged at the national level, what cultural anthropologists call “institutions”. Here, I differ with many urban theorists, notably Jane Jacobs. In well-governed, educated, societies with functioning markets and the proper incentives (to innovate “productively”), urban agglomerations will naturally spring forth as incomes rise, if only because of Engel’s Law. Workers and entrepreneurs will naturally sort to locations where they are most productive. But agglomeration will be of little succor where institutions fail. If the nation doesn’t work, nor will its cities.