DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE AND QUESTIONNAIRE
Country : Germany
Gaby Umbach
Contents
Part A: General information on cohesion
1 Literature review
2 Regional profiles
Part B: Specific policies and their effect on cohesion
1 Macroeconomic policy
2 Public expenditure
3 Territorial policies
4 Public sector transfers
5 State aid
6 Employment policies
7 Technology policies
8 Inward direct investment
1
Part A: General information on cohesion
1 Literature review
Ackermann, Michael B.E. (1998): „Die optimale Angleichung der neuen Bundesländer und
die Lebensverhältnisse in Westdeutschland“, Frankfurt et al.
Based on different economic models (Cobb-Douglas, Slow-Swan) the author analysis the optimal
allocation of resources fort he different regions and their effect on the alignment of living
conditions in the Eastern German Länder.
Accordino, John/Elsner, Wolfram (2000): Conversion Planning in Two Military Shipbuilding
Regions: Hampton Roads, Virginia, and Bremen, Germany, in: International Regional
Science Review; Jan2000, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p48.
Analysis of the responses of Bremen and Hampton Roads to cutbacks in military spending
illustrates how conversion planning--and economic development planning generally-are embedded
within a sociopolitical context. This context is largely determined by the regions' industrial
structure, but it is strongly influenced by the structure and power of local government and the
region's social cohesion. National and international economic conversion policies should be flexible
enough not only to rapidly respond to severe regional adjustment problems to maintain qualified
technological and human potentials, but also to be useful to regions with diverse sociopolitical
structures.
Biewen, Martin (2002): The Covariance Structure of East and West German Incomes and its
Implications for the Persistence of Poverty and Inequality, Berlin, DIW Discussion papers
292.
Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel the paper analyses the dynamics of equal
income in Germany. Special attention is given to the separation of permanent and transitory
components, the persistence of transitory shocks and their implications for the persistence of
poverty and income inequality.
Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven ArbeitsmarktPolitik. Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse des Forschungsprojekts "Die aktive
Arbeitsmarktpolitik der Bundesländer. Chancen und Restriktionen einer Arbeitsmarkt- und
Strukturpolitik im Föderalismus", Tübingen.
The book describes and analyses the active labour market measures of the German Länder.
Bruneau, Catherine / De Bandt, Olivier (2003): Monetary and fiscal policy in the transition to
EMU: what do SVAR models tell us? In: Economic Modelling; Sep2003, Vol. 20 Issue 5, p959,
27p
On the basis of SVAR models of monetary and fiscal policy in France, Germany and the euro area
for the period 1979:1–2000:2, it appears that, during these two decades, monetary shocks exhibit
significant correlation while fiscal shocks—which are closely linked to standard measures of
structural deficits—are uncorrelated between France and Germany. At the same time, euro area
fiscal shocks, especially in the 1990s, are largely impulsed by Germany. It is difficult, however, to
conclude that the latter shocks reflect purely idiosyncratic shocks, as they often reveal differences in
the timing of fiscal adjustments. The macroeconomic effects of monetary and fiscal policy are
shown to be consistent with the ISLM model, but, from a statistical point of view, they are usually
more significant for monetary policy than for fiscal policy shocks. [Copyright 2003 Elsevier]
Breyer, Friedrich and Kifmann, Mathias (2003): The German Retirement Benefit Formula:
Drawbacks and Alternatives, Berlin, DIW Discussion papers 326.
2
In this paper a number of objectionable features of the German retirement benefit formula are
identified. The authors show that groups of insured with higher than average life expectancy, in
particular high-income groups, are subsidized by the rest of the membership because the formula
neglects differences in group-specific life expectancy. Furthermore, the current formula leads to
undesirable long-run effects if the earnings ceilings are raised, mandatory membership is extended,
life expectancy rises or the rate of population growth declines. The authors present two alter-native
formulas which take group-specific life expectancy into account. In particular, a return-rate formula
which rewards each Euro of contributions with the internal rate of return of the pay-as-you-go
pension system proves to be superior to the current formula.
Dohse, Dirk (2001): Deutsche Technologiepolitik auf neuen Pfaden: einige Anmerkungen zur
regionenorientierten Innovationspolitik der Bundesregierung = German technology policy
strikes new paths, in: Raumforschung und Raumordnung : RuR. - Koeln. - Berlin. - Bonn. Muenchen. - Heidelberg : Heymann, Bd. 59 (2001), 5/6, S. 446-455
Dohse, Dirk (2000): Regionen als Innovationsmotoren: zur Neuorientierung in der deutschen
Technologiepolitik, Kiel.
The author analyses the German R+D policy as well as the technology policy and focuses on the
new apporaches coming up in these policy areas.
Dohse, Dirk (2000): Technology policy and the regions - the case of the BioRegio contest, in:
Research Policy, Dec 2000 Vol 29 No 9, pp. 1111-1134.
The paper explicates the German government's BioRegio contest (BRC), created in 1995 to support
biotechnological development at regional level through intraregional organizations co-operating, to
yield consequential national benefits as to biotechnology capability and technological innovation
through region-promoted diffusion and knowledge creation. Discusses 'regional innovation systems'
and outlines main aspects associated with the BRC i.e. regional funding for winners, jury judgement
of presentations, regions participating and winning (first contest), and place in German technical
policy. Lists a 'model' region's biotech credentials, and compares the German biotech industry preand post-BRC. The article identifies clustering of biotech industries as support for BRC going in the
right direction. Notes other positive factors, but counters these with why the BRC might go wrong,
e.g. lagging regions, criteria factors, and economic distortions. It concludes with an e-mail survey of
100 firms in the 17 BRC regions as to obstacles to German biotech innovation, problems,
advantages and overall assessment of the BRC.
Eickelpasch, Alexander/ Kauffeld; Martina/ Pfeiffer, Ingo (2002): Das InnoRegio-Programm :
Umsetzung der Foerderung und Entwicklung der Netzwerke, in: Wochenbericht : Wirtschaft,
Politik, Wissenschaft / DIW Berlin / Deutsches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung (Berlin),
Bd. 69 (2002), 21, S. 329-338.
Eltges, Markus (2000): Foerderpolitik fuer die neuen Laender, in: Bundesamt fuer Bauwesen
und Raumordnung (Ed.): Regionale Aspekte des wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Wandels in
den neuen Ländern, Bonn, pp. 67-80.
The article focuses on regional policy as well as on infrastructural change and the influence of the
German financial equalisation system on the support of the economic development of the new
Länder.
Falkenkötter, Thomas (2001): Die Auswirkungen der Kohäsionspolitik der Europäischen
Gemeinschaft
auf
die
Gemeinschaftsaufgabe
"Verbesserung
der
regionalen
Wirtschaftsstruktur" nach Art. 91a Abs. 1 Nr. 2 GG, München.
3
The author investigates on the impact of European regional funding and state aid control on the
common tasks of the GA of the development of the regional economic structure (‘Verbesserung der
regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’). The analysis includes:




Analysis of the interrelatedness of to systems of support
Legal provisions for national financial support
Legal limits for European structural support
Impact of European state aid control on national economic development and support
instruments.
Fic, Tatiana (2003): Identifying Determinants of German Inflation: An Eclectic Approach,
Berlin, DIW Discussion papers 334.
The paper applies an equilibrium correction model to discuss impacts of monetary, labour and
external factors on the German inflation. The approach presented is of eclectic character and allows
for examination which variables representative for various inflation theories matter empirically
when analysing inflation processes in Germany. The results obtained suggest that inflation in
Germany is determined by adjustment processes on the market of production factors, external
shocks embodied in import prices, level of capacity utilisation and monetary policy actions.
Fritsche, Ulrich / Logeay, Camille (2002): Structural Unemployment and the Output Gap in
Germany: Evidence from an SVAR Analysis within a Hysteresis Framework, DIW Discussion
papers 312.
The German unemployment rate shows strong signs if non-stationarity over the course of the
previous decades. This is in line with an insider-outsider model under full hysteresis. We applied a
"theory-guided view" to the data using the structural VAR model as developed by Balmaseda,
Dolado and López-Salido (2000) allowing for full hysteresis on the labour market. Our
identification of the model implies long-lasting output gaps for Germany – especially for the
disinflation period of the 1980s.
Geishecker, Ingo (2002): Outsourcing and the Demand for Low-skilled Labour in German
Manufacturing: New Evidence, DIW Discussion papers 313.
This paper analyses how international outsourcing has affected the relative demand for low skilled
workers in Germany during the 1990s. In contrast to previous empirical work, the single elements
of the input-output-matrix are used to disentangle international outsourcing and trade in final goods
more accurately. The main finding is that during the 1990s international outsourcing had a
significant negative impact on the relative demand for low-skilled workers, explaining between
19% and 24% of the overall decline in the relative demand for low-skilled labour.
Goertz, Henning (2001): Eignung von sektoral und regional orientierter Technologiepolitik
zur Entwicklung strukturschwacher Regionen in Ostdeutschland, Aachen.
The book analyses the regional economic development in German and the interrelatedness of
German regional and technology policy.
Grande, E. (2001): The erosion of state capacity and the European innovation policy
dilemma: a comparison of German and EU information technology policies, in: Research
Policy, Jun 2001 Vol 30 No 6, pp. 905-922
Draws from neo-institutionalist research to link the ability of a nation state to achieve its strategic
aims, i.e. 'state capacity', to three variables - political and administrative structure and resources,
societal sub-sectors' organization, and state-society relationships. Examines state capacity in
Germany and Europe in respect to information technology (IT) to determine the effects on
Germany's state capacity of that of a supranational, i.e. the European Union (EU). Discusses
political factors influencing Germany's technology policy, i.e. fragmentation through federation,
highly differentiated R&D, large public research infrastructure, high degree of science and
4
economic autonomy. Notes many of Germany's IT goals failed because policies were either
inadequate or too complex to be operationalized effectively. The article identifies erosion of
Germany's state capacity in IT from globalization, and 'Europeanization' of IT policy. It considers
the EU's IT technology policy performance to be poor also through lack of a proper multilevel
framework of governance and co-operation. Recommends improving that via forecasting exercises,
proper framework creation, policy activation, mediation by intermediary organizations and
networks, and R&D financing.
Haake, S. (2002): National business systems and industry-specific competitiveness, in:
Organization Studies, 2002 Vol 23 No 5, pp. 711-737.
Discusses the way that countries are only more or less competitive with regard to specific
industries; examines the industrial profiles of the USA, UK, Germany and Japan; outlines their
focus on particular industrial sectors; relates the differences observed, in these four countries, to
their adoption of different 'models of capitalism'. Extends on the relevant studies on this issue by
proposing the existence of a relationship based on a distinction between communitarian and
individualistic business systems, and explores the link between these and developing an industryspecific competitive advantage. Presents a literature review that provides a number of theoretical
contributions relating to this concept; contrasts communitarian business systems (closer, long-term
relationships) with individualistic business systems (fixed short term relationships). It draws out the
implications that these two different types of business system has for knowledge accumulation
(high organizational-specificity of knowledge versus low organization-specificity of knowledge).
Furthermore the article puts forward that industrial competitiveness arises out of a fit between
patterns of national business systems and patterns of industrial task environments.
Harding, R. (2002): Competition and collaboration in German technology transfer, in:
European Management Journal, Oct 2002 Vol 20 No 5, pp. 470-486
Examines Germany's national innovation and technology transfer system, contends that the system
remains effective despite recent decline in national R&D expenditure, and assesses policy changes
supporting high-technology sectors. Describes and illustrates the German R&D system, emphasizes
the range of funding sources, the rigid, though inter-related funding system, and reveals the
existence of a research cartel. Recounts criticism of the cascade system, maintains that the system is
resilient, and points out that the system is market-based, distributes risk, is collaborative, and is
networked through the Steinbeis Foundation, arguing that these factors support adaptability. Details
the role of the Fraunhofer Society, explains that the Society is a network of 48 technology transfer
institutes, graphs the Society's funding structure, and illustrates operation of the Fraunhofer system
by case study of three institutes, one concerned with systems and innovation research, the second
with production and automation, the third with technology development.
Jungnickel, Rolf (2003): Foreign-Owned Firms. Are They Different? Palgrave.
Foreign-owned firms (FoFs) can have significant implications in terms of employment, income and
technology for the national economies involved. This book compares the efficiency of domestic and
FoFs, and also looks at the performance of FoFs in several different countries. Contributors take a
broad variety of research approaches with a focus on the use of firm-specific data from France,
Germany, Austria, and Sweden. They conclude that foreign ownership matters but the real
difference is not between FoFs and national firms but between multinational and domestic firms.
Klaphake, Axel (2000): Europaeische und nationale Regionalpolitik fuer Ostdeutschland:
neuere regionaloekonomische Theorien und praktische Erfahrungen, Wiesbaden.
Karl, H./Ranné, O. (2001): Regional policy and the environment - the case of Germany, in:
European Environment, Mar-Apr 2001 Vol 11 No 2, pp. 103-112.
5
The article points out that environmental requirements in regional planning policy do not include
financial incentives. Looks at Germany's 'Improvement of Regional Economic Structures' (GRW)
initiative, maintains that this initiative often conflicts with environmental aims. Highlights a lack of
co-ordination procedures within GRW for aligning economic and environmental goals, criticizes
GRW for focusing on negative external effects, and suggests reform of GRW by including
modulated grant award rates in funding approval. It contends that environmental gain should be
incorporated within regional development programmes with the objective of achieving an
economic/environmental win/win situation. Asks how this can be achieved, quotes prior research
that reported product and price-offsets that can potentially give a region's industry 'early mover'
advantage and increase their competitiveness. Finally it discusses development of new technologies,
change of environmental measures, e.g. upgrade of sewage plants, and human resource measures
such as environmental training.
Kooi, J. (2001) German tax reform paves way for restructuring, in: The Treasurer, Mar 2001,
pp. 60-63.
The paper outlines the main points of the new tax rules in Germany from 1 January 2002: (1)
abolition of dual rates; (2) domestic dividend participation exemption; (3) tax consolidation
opportunities; and (4) limitations in the safe harbour rules. Explains that the system will be closer to
other countries' systems, but warns that costs related to dividends cannot be deducted. Welcomes
the consolidation and simplification brought by the new rules, and expects greater numbers of firms
to become multinationals, as they sell domestic subsidiaries and buy foreign ones. It concludes that
German companies will be increasingly holding companies.
Kuhlmann, Stefan (2003): Evaluation of research and innovation policies: a discussion of
trends with examples from German, in: International Journal of Technology Management;
2003, Vol. 26 Issue 2-4, p131, 19p.
Recent changes in the field of evaluation refer to new demands by politics, economies and society
to extend the subject of evaluation processes to cross-sectoral research promotion programs and
research institutions, and new developments within the research of evaluation itself. The paper
presents an overview of these trends and consequences for the function and methods of evaluation
of research and innovation policies against the background of recent German experiences.
Lammers, Konrad (2001): Eine neue Förderpolitik für Ostdeutschland. In: Wirtschaftsdienst,
Bd. 81 (2001), 3, S. 130-131.
Lechner, M, (2000): An evaluation of public-sector-sponsored continuous vocational training
programmes in east Germany, in: Journal of Human Resources, Spring 2000 Vol 35 No 2, pp.
347-376.
The paper examines the effectiveness of the continuous vocational training programmes introduced
in east Germany in the 1990s, after reunification. Describes the east German labour market after
reunification and the training programmes set up to counter unemployment. It uses a balanced
sample of individuals younger than 53, taken from the German Socio-Economic Panel, to identify
those who took part in the training programmes and to analyse the effectiveness of the training. It
finds, in general, that there were no positive earnings or employment effects arising from the
continuous vocational training and retraining programmes. Finally it suggests that the programmes
may have been a waste of money.
Lenk, Thomas (2001): Aspekte des Länderfinanzausgleichs.
The author describes and analyses the current German financial equalisation system and presents
criteria and reform proposal. He integrates the financial power of the districts and also the funds
‘German unification’ into his analysis. Inspired by the 1999 constitutional court ruling on the
financial equalisation system he analyses the advantages and disadvantages of this joint system.
6
Niedersaechsisches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung (2002): Entwicklungsprobleme und perspektiven
der
ehemaligen
innerdeutschen
Grenzregionen:
Analysen,
Handlungsnotwendigkeiten, wirtschaftspolitische Konsequenzen, NIW-Workshop 2001,
Hannover.
Parikh, A./van Leuvensteijn, M. (2003): Inter-regional labour mobility, inequality and wage
convergence, in: Applied Economics, (UK), 20 May 2003 Vol 35 No 8, p. 931-942.
The article identifies a U-shaped relationship between white collar workers' wage differentials
between region of origin and host region (between East and West Germany) and migration.
Furthermore it contrasts this with an inverse-U for blue collar workers. Takes 720 observations of
flows into 16 immigrating regions between 1992 and 1995, and quantifies a model of migration,
house ownership and status, as well as wages and unemployment differences. Regresses the
variables, and includes inequality variables. Finds that wage inequality is lower in the East, so white
collar workers will emigrate to regions with high wage inequality, but blue collar workers will not.
It concludes that where wages are converging rapidly between East and West immigrants tend to
wait because the opportunity cost of migration rises.
Jan Priewe (2002): Zwischen Abkopplung und Aufholen : das schwache ostdeutsche
Wachstumspotenzia, in: lWSI-Mitteilungen : Monatszeitschrift des Wirtschafts- und
Sozialwissenschaftlichen Instituts in der Hans-Boeckler-Stiftung / Wirtschafts- und
Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut (Duesseldorf), Bd. 55 (2002), 12, S. 706-713.
Ragnitz,/Dreger/Komar/Müller (2000): „Simulationsrechnungen zu den Auswirkungen einer
Kürzung von Transferleistungen für die neuen Bundesländer“, Halle (Saale).
In the framework of a simulation game the authors test the impact of different options of the
reduction of infrastructure investments on the economic development and performance in the East
German Länder. From their results they come to the conclusion, that the support of investments had
a general positive impact n the investments carried out by companies and firms in the East German
Länder.
Roehl, Klaus-Heiner (2002): Regionalfoerderung in Deutschland: was hat der Ostdeutsche
Mittelstand davon? in: IW-Trends : Quartalshefte zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung /
Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft, d. 29 (2002), 3, S. 34-40.
Rosenfeld, Martin/Heimpold, Gerhard (2002) Gefaelle zwischen vergleichbaren Regionen in
Ost und West: Ostdeutsche Ballungsraeume haben es schwer! / in: Wirtschaft im Wandel. Halle, Bd. 8 (2002), 15, S. 480-489.
Scherf, Wolfgang (2000): Der Länderfinanzausgleich in Deutschland (Gutachten im Auftrag
der hessischen Landesregierung)
The author presents an in depth analysis of the German financial equalisation system and critically
evaluates the system as well as reform proposals.
Solga, H./Diewald, M. (2001): The East German labour market after German unification: a
study of structural change and occupational matching, in: Work Employment & Society, Mar
2001 Vol 15 No 1, pp. 95-127.
The paper points out that the interplay between the economy and the political structure of a country
is such that political change will change economic structures and, consequently, employment
structures. Examines how employment structures in East Germany changed after unification and the
shift to a market economy, focusing on the way that intergenerational occupational mobility
supported this structural change. Within this analysis, discusses the role of educational and
7
vocational training credentials in structuring this intergenerational mobility. It furthermore
describes the changes that took place in the East German employment structure after 1989 and
assesses the role of vocational qualifications in structuring the labour market by enabling skills to
be matched to jobs. Uses data on the employment and training of East German men and women,
collected in the longitudinal study, the German Life History Study, looking at educational
qualifications, vocational certificates and employment status to assess levels of status and skills
mismatch. Also looks at the determinants of unemployment. The article concludes that vocational
certificates determined occupational careers of East Germans before 1989 and continue to do so. It
argues that this indicates that the German restructuring was not a chaotic process but based on
occupational credentials, with job matches based on these occupational credentials being one of the
underlying principles that regulated the change.
Wagner, J. (2001): The full Monti (German savings banks), in: The Banker, (UK), Sep 2001
Vol 151 No 907, pp. 109.111.
The article explains the regulatory problems surrounding the 12 German Landesbanken, or stateowned regional banks, rather than the 562 Sparkassen, or savings banks. Reports the removal of
their state guarantee under EU competition law and their loss of triple A ratings in 2005. It notes the
ambition of private banks to take over the Sparkassen, and the growing threat from co-operative
banks, while asserting that customer loyalty is intense both from individual savers and from small
businesses. Points out that Landesbanken will suffer from having to pay more for capital, and that
they are beginning to split to create private law holding companies. The paper thus focuses on the
debt problems of Bankgeselschaft Berlin, which incorporates a Landesbank, a Sparbank and a
mortgage bank.
Wilson, D./Souitaris, V. (2002): Do Germany's federal and land governments (still) coordinate their innovation policies?, in: Research Policy, Sep 2002 Vol 31 No 7, pp. 1123-1141.
The article whether the assumption that Germany's Federal and Länder co-ordinate their innovation
policies is true via an empirical study undertaken in 2000 comprising 20 interviews with academics,
public officials, and others, and two case studies (establishment of the Dresden Infineon
semiconductor plant, and federal inception of the InnoRegio competitions). It overviews related
Länder research, and development of the German innovation system. It tables various Länder
interactions identified by participants and elicits views as to their effectiveness. Identifies coordination present within interactions regarding innovation infrastructure and individual projects,
but is uncertain regarding promotional programmes. Comments, inter alia, that: a trend towards
network-related mechanisms is emerging; there is more voluntary collaboration; effectiveness
depends on harnessing national, federal, and regional innovation systems' resources/expertise; and,
experimental federalism operates (Sabel, 1996). It concludes with arising implications.
Zablowsky, Udo (2003): Strukturpolitik. Neue Perspektiven für die regionalen Förderinstitute
im öffentlichen Auftrag. Sparkasse, März 2003, Nr. 03, S. 118
Scarce public budgets and new economic targets have force the German Länder in recent years to
change the room for manoeuvre for their financial support instruments. The book thus presents an
overview over new support instruments at the Länder level.
8
2 Regional profiles
Baden-Württemberg
NUTS 1: DE1 BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG
NUTS 2 DE11
DE12
DE13
DE14
STUTTGART
KARLSRUHE
FREIBURG
TUEBINGEN
GDP per head (2000)
DE1 Baden-Württemberg1: 28.083 (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin:
26.637 €)2
Germany3: 24.700
EU-15 = 100, DE1 = 122,04
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE1 Baden-Württemberg5 (mio €): 294.667
Germany6 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-157(mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
Persons in gainful employment (Erwerbstätige)
74%8 (German average = 68,8%)
DE1 BadenWürttemberg
DE11
DE12
DE13
DE14
20029:: 5.359.000
200010:: 5.286.800
STUTTGART
KARLSRUHE
FREIBURG
TUEBINGEN
April 200211: 1.900.200
April 200212: 1.251.800
April 200213: 1.015.600
April 200214: 850.900
Unemployment rate (2002)
DE1 BadenWürttemberg15:
DE11 STUTTGART 17
DE12 KARLSRUHE 18
Average numbers per year
294.905 persons (5,4%)16
(German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
99.992 persons
79.604 persons
1
pre capita at current prices; Source: http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
3 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
4 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
5 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
6 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
7
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
8 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
9 http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
10 http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
11 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ArbeitsmErwerb/Landesdaten/MZregbev.asp
12 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ArbeitsmErwerb/Landesdaten/MZregbev.asp
13 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ArbeitsmErwerb/Landesdaten/MZregbev.asp
14 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ArbeitsmErwerb/Landesdaten/MZregbev.asp
15 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ArbeitsmErwerb/Landesdaten/LRt0511.asp
16 Bundesanstalt für Arbeit: Arbeitsmarkt in Zahlen 2002, Aktuelle Daten und Jahreszahlen 2002 und Zeitreihen
http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (all civil persons in gainful employment)
17 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=02&U=02&R=RB2
18 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=02&U=02&R=RB2
2
9
DE13 FREIBURG 19
DE14 TUEBINGEN 20
57.476 persons
42.818 persons
Technological standing (5 point scale): 4
Strengths21
The economy is far from being mono-structured. Nearly the half net product is produced in the
areas of mechanical engineering, car manufacturing and electrical and electronic engineering. Every
second employee is working in this area. Textile, wood and synthetic material industry holds the
place. The service sector is comparably weak developed. Agriculture is only of minor economic
importance. 22
With an area of 35.752 km² and a population of 10,63 Mio.(2002), Baden-Württemberg is the thirdlargest state within the Federal Republic.
Main features of the economy are innovation, research and development. The state lists the second
highest number of applications for patents in Germany after Bavaria. It has a strong research and
development infrastructure focusing on information and communications technologies,
environmental technology and biotechnology. 3,7% of GDP is invested in research and
development. Baden-Württemberg is the state with the highest number of universities and colleges
(69) (e.g. universities: 10; colleges of education: 6; colleges of art: 8; higher education institutions:
34, private universities: 7; training academies: 8) and about 100 non-university research institutions.
21,03% of all employees work in the high-technology industry. The Stuttgart region, for example, is
leading a list of 15 European regions with the highest percentage of high-technology workplaces.
The highly export-oriented industrial sector (1,5% of all international exports) is dominated by
production industry, software development, mechanical engineering, car manufacturing and
electrical and electronic engineering. The industrial structure is rather decentralised. Moreover,
tourism is a strong economic area, which make the state second German holiday destination. Its
newspaper landscape is rather fragmented with 17 journalistic units and 64 newspaper publishers.
Baden-Württemberg does not have a ‘state-wide’ published newspaper, such as the Süddeutsche
Zeitung in Bavaria. It is furthermore the state with the most specialist publications and most book
production in Germany (data of 1999).
In 1999 the state held rank 3 in investment per employee in the processing industry. 23
Companies: ABB, Audi, Bosch, Citizen, DaimlerChrysler, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Porsche, Zeiss
Weaknesses24 [short description]
Few natural resources and energy resources; high export orientation
Evolution in last decade25 [short description]
19
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=02&U=02&R=RB2
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=02&U=02&R=RB2
21 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-in-Deutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender.5571.htm and Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik,
Stuttgart, 1999, p. 10.
22 Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999. p10
23 Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
24 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-in-Deutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender.5571.htm and Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik,
Stuttgart, 1999, p. 10.
25 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-in-Deutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender.5571.htm and Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik,
Stuttgart, 1999, p.10.
20
10
Employment has been slightly growing (1992: 5.132.000, 2002: 5.359.100) and the same holds true
for the GDP/per capita (1992: 23.757 €, 2002:28.920€).26
Stronger emphasis on software development, new technologies, et. With a view to its labour market,
Baden-Württemberg is a frontrunner in the reduction of unemployment. From 1997 until 1999 the
unemployment rate was sank around 15% (Western German average: -8,8%).
Further indicators:
Public revenue and spending (€)
DE1 Baden-Württemberg (mio. €) 27
1999
2000
Revenue
28.569.500 29.559.600
Spending
28.619.800 30.264.000
2001
28.911.100
31.557.900
2002
28.132.300
30.779.600
DE11 STUTTGART (in thousand €)28
Revenue
Spending
1999
2000
10.930.411 10.822.485
10.939.746 10.746.142
DE12 KARLSRUHE (in thousand €)29
1999
2000
Revenue
6.929.921 6.999.901
Spending
6.888.710 6.957.482
DE13 FREIBURG (in thousand €)30
1999
2000
Revenue
4.722.847 4.810.026
Spending
4.665.940 4.784.967
DE14 TUEBINGEN (in thousand €)31
1999
2000
Revenue 4.038.377
4.222.219
Spending 4.027.819
4.226.452
Employment per sector
Agriculture
DE1 BadenWürttemberg33
DE11
STUTTGART34
DE12
KARLSRUHE35
1999: 27.409
2000: 28.592
2001: 27.500
1999: 10.912
2000: 11.294
2001: 10.876
1999: 5.464
2000: 5.868
2001: 5.662
Industry
(without
building and
construction
trade)
1999: 1.413.316
2000: 1.426.307
2001 1.445.886
1999: 598.728
2000: 605.212
2001: 615.304
1999: 326.946
2000: 330.822
2001: 332.000
Building and
construction
trade
1999: 254.061
2000: 251.685
2001: 239.452
1999: 95.647
2000: 93.747
2001: 89.920
1999: 61.531
2000: 61.007
2001: 57.840
Trade, tourism,
transportation
1999: 759.216
2000: 782.802
2001: 793.171
1999: 288.586
2000: 297.739
2001: 301.637
1999: 204.220
2000: 209.515
2001: 211.423
Public and
private
services32:
1999: 669.484
2000: 707.883
2001: 731.269
1999: 481.009
2000: 503.060
2001: 514.436
1999: 358.088
2000: 372.899
2001: 383.324
26
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
27 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/FinSteuern/Landesdaten/Ausgaben01.asp
28 http://www.statistik-bw.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=FinSteuern&U=01&R=RB3
29 http://www.statistik-bw.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=FinSteuern&U=01&R=RB3
30 http://www.statistik-bw.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=FinSteuern&U=01&R=RB3
31 http://www.statistik-bw.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=FinSteuern&U=01&R=RB3
32 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
33 Employees, Source: http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ArbeitsmErwerb/Landesdaten/LRt0512.asp
34 Employees, Source: http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=2&U=01&R=RB4
35 Employees, Source: http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=2&U=01&R=RB4
11
DE13
FREIBURG36
DE14
TUEBINGEN37
1999: 5.695
2000: 6.001
2001: 5.847
1999: 5.338
2000: 5.429
2001: 5.115
1999: 265.378
2000: 267.824
2001: 271.967
1999: 229.453
2000: 230.639
2001: 233.447
1999: 51.099
2000: 51.587
2001: 48.768
1999: 45.784
2000: 45.344
2001: 42.924
1999: 105.144
2000: 155.518
2001: 158.868
1999: 116.272
2000: 120.026
2001: 121.243
1999: 224.474
2000: 233.487
2001: 239.238
1999: 189.030
2000: 195.990
2001: 200.322
Industrial Structure38:
Branches of industry (processing industry)
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Branch
Food and tobacco
Textile
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical
equipment,…
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys,
recycling
Mining
Processing industry
Total industry
Employment figures
1995
2000
61.130
64.277
55.344
40.978
24.956
20.838
80.971
81.177
60.439
59.783
60.323
63.145
30.201
26.501
135.755
145.891
275.070
267.473
214.759
207.131
2002
62.182
35.994
18.444
78.152
58.421
59.790
23.705
145.263
272.648
202.836
194.311
53.821
225.693
46.663
235.578
42.089
4.729
1.259.813
1.264.542
4.392
1.254.521
1.258.913
4.307
1.239.596
1.243.903
Investments39
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
1995
438.797.000
176.247.000
126.301.000
573.038.000
483.444.000
365.639.000
272.095.000
677.936.000
1.109.366.000
983.410.000
Investments(€)
2000
431.246.000
159.585.000
117.838.000
686.277.000
716.295.000
442.325.000
239.581.000
998.218.000
1.493.611.000
1.438.677.000
2001
467.266.000
158.889.000
118.922.000
611.731.000
648.958.000
417.232.000
245.156.000
1.138.222.000
1.507.200.000
1.676.123.000
1.524.690.000
175.955.000
1.961.346.000
195.824.000
2.608.920.000
173.944.000
80.604.000
6.951.784.000
7.032.388.000
76.929.000
8.927.059.000
9.003.989.000
72.176.000
9.840.690.000
9.912.866.000
Branch
Food and tobacco
Textile
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT techniques,
optical equipment,…
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports
equipment, toys, recycling
Mining
Processing industry
Total industry
36
Employees, Source: http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=2&U=01&R=RB4
Employees, Source: http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=2&U=01&R=RB4
38
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ProdGew/Landesdaten/kenngrWZ932002.asp,
http://www.statistik.badenwuerttemberg.de/ProdGew/Landesdaten/kenngrWZ932000.asp
,
http://www.statistik.badenwuerttemberg.de/ProdGew/Landesdaten/kenngrWZ931995.asp
39
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ProdGew/Landesdaten/investWZ932001.asp,
http://www.statistik.badenwuerttemberg.de/ProdGew/Landesdaten/
investWz932000.asp, http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/ProdGew/Landesdaten/investWz931995.asp
37
12
Research base
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Employment in Education, research and university clinics40
1999: 171.235
2000: 147.530
2001: 150.270
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Public expenditure on science and research (€)41
1999: 3.409.000.000
2000: 3.510.000.000
2001: 3.563.000.000
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Students at universities42
Semester
Beginners
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
32.442
36.275
-
Total number
of students
187.453
194.000
204.530
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Computer equipment in public schools 2001/0243
Number
Total number of schools
Schools with internet access
Special rooms for computer pools
Special rooms for computer pools
with internet access
Computers to be used for lessons
Number of
pupils
3.964
3.783
(95,4%)
4.841
(1,2 per
school)
4.272
1.295.537
110.330
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Internet access and mobile phones in private households (2002)44
Total
SingleCouples
Couples
households person
without
with (still
households children
minor)
children
Mobile 63%
37%
66%
87%
phones
Internet 61%
40%
52%
86%
access
40
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/FinSteuern/Landesdaten/LRt1806.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/FinSteuern/Landesdaten/LRt1803.asp
42 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/BildungKultur/Landesdaten/LRt0304.asp
43 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/BildungKultur/Landesdaten/computerausstattung.asp
44 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Pressemitt/2003031.asp
41
13
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Telephone equipment of private households (January 2001)45
Households
…without
…mobile …mobile … fixedwith…
telephone
phone only phone and line
fixed-line telephones
telephones
2%
52%
43%
3%
Support infrastructure
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Infrastructure (categories of streets)46
Category
Motorway
(Autobahn)
Federal road
(Bundesstraße)
Provincial
road
District road
(Kreisstraße)
Total
1999: 12.048
2000: 12.065
2001: 12.056
1999: 27.467
2000: 27.463
2001: 27.455
(Landesstraße)
Kilometres
1999: 1.021
2000: 1.025
2001: 1.029
1999: 4.448
2000: 4.435
2001: 4.433
1999: 9.950
2000: 9.938
2001: 9.937
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Vehicles47
1998
1999
2000
6.693.704
6.836.002
6.963.988
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Doctors and dentists (2000)48
Doctors
37.606
Dentists
7.769
45
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/Pressemitt/208.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/UmweltVerkehr/Landesdaten/LRt1501.asp
47 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/UmweltVerkehr/Landesdaten/LRt1503.asp
48 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
46
14
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,3
2,3
0 (negative)
2,2
4,5
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Baden-Württemberg49
BW
43.212
43.911
43.801
46.402
48.972
50.581
47.787
103.0
102.9
103.0
103.5
103.7
104.0
104.2
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
-2.803
-2.521
-2.410
-3.477
-3.426
-3.873
-4.170
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen and
Saarland
109.7
108.8
108.7
111.3
111.0
112.0
113.3
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
46.016
46.432
46.211
49.879
52.398
54.453
51.958
Contribution
Fiscal
/ assignment
resources
within SHES after SHES
(in Mio. DM) (in Mio. DM)
Compensations for
special burdens
(east Germany)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensations for
special political
costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
43.212
43.911
43.801
46.402
48.972
50.581
47.787
103.0
102.9
103.0
103.5
103.7
104.0
104.2
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
49
15
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
2,7
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
BadenWürttemberg
1160.366
EU
contribution
97.769
EU
contribution
97.769
ESF
%
100%
EAGGF
EU
contribution
-
%
EU
contribution
-
-
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3,5
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years50
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
1991
22.944
9.899.200
5.081.900
159.318
1996
25.185
10.345.100
5.010.100
353.920
2001
28.565
10.560.800
5.367.400
264.213
3,7
8,0
5,5
1995
9302
R+D expenditure (mio
€)51
1997
10045
1999
10997
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
50
51
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
16
Bayern (Bavaria)
NUTS 1:
DE2 Bayern
NUTS 2:
DE21 Oberbayern
DE22 Niederbayern
DE23 Oberpfalz
DE24 Oberfranken
DE25 Mittelfranken
DE26 Niederfranken
DE27 Schwaben
GDP per capita (2000)
DE2 Bayern52: 28.933 € (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)53
DE21 Oberbayern54: 35.745 €
DE22 Niederbayern55: 22.521 €
DE23 Oberpfalz56: 24.973 €
DE24 Oberfranken57: 23.990 €
DE25 Mittelfranken58: 29.251 €
DE26 Niederfranken59: 24.013 €
DE27 Schwaben60: 24.905 €
Germany61: 24.700 €
EU-15= 100, DE2 = 124,0, DE21 = 154,4, DE22 = 97,3, DE23 = 107,8, DE24 =103,6, DE25 =
126,3, DE26 = 103,7, DE27 = 107,6 62
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE2 Bayern63 (mio €): 352.620
Germany64 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-1565 (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)66
6.229.300 (74,8%67) (German average = 68,8%)
DE21 Oberbayern 2.243.10068
DE22 Niederbayern 556.70069
DE23 Oberpfalz 532.00070
52
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp.
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
54 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/leistungsdat04.htm
55 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/leistungsdat04.htm
56 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/leistungsdat04.htm
57 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/leistungsdat04.htm
58 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/leistungsdat04.htm
59 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/leistungsdat04.htm
60 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/leistungsdat04.htm
61 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
62 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
63 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp.
64 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
65
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
66 http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
67 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
68 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
69 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
53
17
DE24 Oberfranken 547.00071
DE25 Mittelfranken 879.00072
DE26 Niederfranken 641.80073
DE27 Schwaben 840.900074
Unemployment rate (2002)75
(March 2002)
DE2 Bayern 7,3 % (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
DE21 Oberbayern 5,7 %
DE22 Niederbayern 8,4 %
DE23 Oberpfalz 8,4 %
DE24 Oberfranken 10,3 %
DE25 Mittelfranken 8,4 %
DE26 Niederfranken 7,3 %
DE27 Schwaben 6,5 %
Technological standing (5 point scale): 4
Strengths76 [short description]
Covering an area of 70.548 km², Bayern is the largest of the German states. In respect of its
population (12.230.000 in 2002), it takes second rank right after Nordrhein-Westfalen. In 2001 it
produced 17,3% of the German GDP (after allowing for inflation).
Bayern is the state with the largest agricultural sector in Germany. At the same time, it is also one
of the strongest economic growth centres in Europe as far as the high-tech and services-oriented
business is concerned. It has an excellent reputation in practically all new technologies, information
and communications, biotechnology and genetic engineering, energy and environmental technology
International companies such as Siemens, BMW, Audi, EADS, adidas-salomon and MAN can be
found. In 2001 Bayerns high-tech companies earn 53.6%of their sales outside Germany
(manufacturing sector: 41.5%; Germany’s comparative figures as a whole: 51.9% and 37.0 %
respectively). The economy is highly export oriented. Bayern has the largest share of self-employed
persons in Germany (11,7% in 2002). It has a large share of small and medium-sized companies and
businesses of the skilled trades and a dynamic service industry, (number one in the insurance sector
in Germany, number two in banking). The trading sector makes up some 10%of the real total gross
value added. Furthermore it has a well-developed transport, telecommunications and energy
infrastructures Bayern has a high standard of education and vocational training and an broad
funding of research and technology (2.9% of GDP in 2001). 11 universities, 17 polytechnical
colleges, 3 major research facilities, 11 Max-Planck institutes and 7 Fraunhofer installations are
located here. Special areas for the extension of the university landscape are the areas information
technology, electronic engineering, and natural sciences. Especially the number of students in
natural sciences is far above the national average. The state of Bayern has the lowest unemployment
70
Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
71 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
72 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
73 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
74 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
75 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/arbeitslose1_5.htm
76 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-in-Deutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender.5571.htm
and
http://www.invest-inbavaria.com/RegionsCounties/index.html?PHPSESSID=3b714f65db477e78afa1e7f7ed8ec2af&flash=true.
18
rates in Germany. Its newspaper landscape is characterised by a magnitude of newspapers and
journals. About 90 newspaper publishing houses (e.g. Burda, Süddeutscher Verlag, Bertelsmann)
produce 27 newspapers. Furthermore, the country is very advanced in view of its movie, tv and
radio productions with an enormous density of tv channels. 27.6 % of all applications received by
Germany ’s Office of Patents and Trademarks were submitted by Bavaria-based inventors (number
1 in Germany). Moreover, tourism is a strong economic area, which make the state first German
holiday destination.
In 1999 the state held rank 7 in investment per employee in the processing industry. 77
Weaknesses [short description]78: Lower degree of investments in the producing industry
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been growing (1992: 6.042.600, 2002: 6.280.200) and the same holds true for the
GDP/per capita (1992: 23.435 €, 2002:29.858 €).79
Development from a predominantly agricultural economy towards a place for high-tech industry
and a centre of the new economy since the 1960ies. Parallel to the extension of the infrastructure
and energy network. The increase of the self-employed persons’ rate was a major political aim over
the past decade. Bayern’s economic policy is not that much characterised by the ‘night watch role’
of the state. The state should thus create more framework conditions instead of concrete targets. By
the privatisation of public properties, the state has create room for financial manoeuvre and for
investment in e.g. education and research.
The fight against unemployment is supported by the tripartite ‘employment pact Bavaria’
(‘Beschäftigungspakt Bayern’) of 1996 (state budget of 2 Mrd. DM).
NUTS 2 Level:80
DE21 Oberbayern (Upper Bavaria)
The region has the 6. highest GDP in Europe ranking next to the regions Île de France, Lombardy,
and Darmstadt and Duesseldorf. Upper Bavaria’s GDP per capita comes up to 180 % of the EU
average.
The economic structure is dominated by the service sector. About 65% of the employees work in
the service sector. Munich is the central economic area and the 2. largest employment area in
Germany and one of Germany’s leading high-tech and media location. Munich is a insurance and
finance centre and Germany’s media capital. About 100 000 students are registered in Munich
based universities and colleges.
The region is Central Europe’s gateway to Italy and to the south-eastern European countries and has
an important motorway network connection. Munich airport is one of the 10 largest in Europe. A
second-largest airport in Germany it contributes to Bavaria's industry and economy. Munich is also
one of Germany’s most significant exhibition and fair locations. The economic structure of the
region benefits from modern services, the communications and industrial society and international
companies, innovative medium-sized and small business companies and skilled craft trades. Major
industrial sectors are mechanical and automotive engineering, chemical industry, electrical and
77
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
78 Blancke, Susanne / Lindlohr, Andrea / Schmid, Josef (2001): Wer führt? Ein Benchmarking der Bundesländer nach Arbeitsmarktund Wirtschaftsindikatoren, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 14, Tübingen, p. 7.
79
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
80 http://www.invest-in-bavaria.com/RegionsCounties/index.html?PHPSESSID=3b714f65db477e78afa1e7f7ed8ec2af&flash=true.
19
precision engineering, optics and the food industry. Moreover, tourism is a strong economic branch.
The region generates 42% of Bavaria‘s GDP.
Companies: BMW, Siemens, Allianz or Muenchner Rueck (insurance business). Audi, WackerChemie.
DE22 Niederbayern (Lower Bavaria)
The economic structure provides widely diversified industry sectors and is characterised by the
mechanical engineering, metal product manufacturing, food industry, automobile manufacturing
industry and its many automobile supplier companies. The region has a lower wage level compared
the highly urbanized regions. The development from an agricultural to an industrial and high-tech
location is particularly visible. For a very long time it dominated by agriculture alone; now 36 % of
the workforce are employed in the manufacturing industry and 57 % in the service sector. Moreover
it has a huge substantial tourism sector.
The city of Straubing has set up a Center of Excellence for Biotechnology for the renewable
materials industry. The University of Passau established an international Center for Information
Systems and Software Technology as well as a campus for IT services. The Technical College of
Landshut developed into a Center for Microsytems Technology and Light Industry Technology.
Thus, the region is attractive for research and development work. Moreover, many national call
center organizations have settled here. The transportation infrastructure is well developed. The
motorways ensure a fast connection to the industrial areas of Munich and Nuremberg/Frankfurt
with connecting harbours in Kelheim, Straubing, Deggendorf and Passau and provide a gateway
and easy access to Eastern Europe.
Companies: BMW (25,000 employees), bus company Neoplan , Knaus Wohnwagenwerke
(recreational vehicle company), ZF Passau GmbH, Vogt Elektronik AG, Communigate and the
Association for Communication Services (GKS - Gesellschaft für Kommunikationsservice), Völkl
(sporting good manufacturer), Rodenstock (eyeglasses), Eterna.
DE23 Oberpfalz (Upper Palatinate)
In the north of Upper Palatinate, there is a centre of the glass and porcelain industry. Once being a
centre of mining, primary industry and the iron and steel producing industry the centre has
undergone structural changes resulting in a location for I&T (ranked 3rd in Germany) and a modern
mix of products (steam rollers, x-ray machines, automobiles, machinery, electrical devices, highlyprecise plastic parts, large-scale bridge construction, medical devices, innovative wood
construction, steel and metal construction, mobile-phone towers, building machinery, specialized
machinery, office furniture, software, chemical products). It is also an important centre for trade
with huge shopping centres. Moreover, tourism is a significant economic area. Traffic routes are
well developed (e.g. ‘golden road’ from Paris to Prague). The Main-Danube Channel connects the
Black Sea with the North Sea.
DE24 Oberfranken (Upper Franconia)
Upper Franconia is the 3 most concentrated industrial areas in Europe. Its economic structure is
characterised by an innovative trade sector, fast-growing modern service and logistics companies,
globally operating medium-sized companies (automotive supplier industry, mechanical engineering,
electrical engineering, furniture and toy industries, textile and porcelain industries plus the plastics
and food industry). As Europe's number 3 industrial region, it has 4 universities and the largest
number of breweries in the world.
With its motorway network Upper Franconia is a central heart for major trans-European routes. The
major cities have airports.
20
Conditions for research and development are very good. Universities are located in Bamberg and
Bayreuth, technical colleges in Coburg and Hof. Also the virtual university of Bavaria is ‘located’
here. Moreover, research institutions, such as the Advanced Materials Center of Excellence in
Bayreuth complete the educational landscape.Companies: ABM Greiffenberger, Scherdel GmbH,
Robert Bosch GmbH, Brose Auto Parts, BI-LOG AG, GHP Holding GmbH, Rosenthal AG, HUK
(insurance company), BAUR Versand, Siemens AG Medical Solutions, Loewe AG.
DE25 Mittelfranken (Middle Franconia)
The regions is among Germany's top ten economic regions. It is characterised by energy and
electrical engineering / electronics industries (top position nationwide), mechanical engineering
industry. Areas like information and communications, transportation and automation technology,
medical technology, the chemical/plastics industries, printing, sports articles or food and beverages
become increasingly important. Over the past decades many innovative service companies,
providers of financial services, software, tax and business consultancy services or market research
benefit, call centres and facility management have developed.
Per capita purchasing power is 10 % above the average in Germany. The region of Nuremberg has
"a leading role among the German technology regions" (Financial Times Germany). The economic
structure is characterised by a mix of industry and services, trade and transport. The region has an
above-average export share of 41 %in 2001 (national average 37 %). The Nuremberg Trade Fair
influences this economic dynamism with more than 100 events pre year (among the TOP 15
European locations for trade fairs and exhibitions). The Nuremberg region is good accessible. Its
international airport connects Nuremberg to the rest of Europe. Middle Franconia has five
technological areas of excellence in the areas of transportation and logistics, communications and
multimedia, medicine and pharmaceuticals, energy and the environment as well as new materials.
Thus, regional networks have emerged, in which companies, research establishments, universities
and users exchange know-how and work on joint projects. Middle Franconia is a central area for
university education. The region has 6 universities and 8 polytechnics and user centres of microelectronics, laser, automation, new materials, energy and environmental technology.
Companies: DATEV, Dorfner, GfK, Karstadt Quelle Group, Nürnberger Versicherungsgruppe,
Rödl & Partner, Sellbytel, Nürnberger Presse publishing company, adidas-Salomon, AEG
Hausgeräte, Alcatel SEL, Bosch, Diehl, Framatome, Geobra Brandstätter, INA Schaeffler-Gruppe,
Leoni, Lucent Technologies, MAN Nutzfahrzeuge, maul+Co Chr. Belser, N-Ergie, Schlott
Sebaldus, Schöller, Schwan-Stabilo, Staedtler , Siemens.
DE26 Niederfranken (Lower Franconia)
Also Lower Franconia is a high-tech region. It ranks sixth among the leading high-tech regions of
Europe (EUROSTAT) and offers the full spectrum of location facilities ranging from in-cubators
and industrial parks to developed industrial areas. The region is dominated by a SME structure and
automotive component suppliers, mechanical engineering, paper and chemical fiber plants
characterise the economic structure. At Würzburg the incubator and innovation centre "Biomed", to
ZMK (center for modern communications technologies), and to the high-tech and incubation centre
TGZ are located. The ZENTEC technology (start-up and cooperation centre) has been set up in
Aschaffenburg-Grosswallstadt and the Rhön-Saale-Gründer- und Innovationszentrum (RSG) is in
Bad Kissingen. In Schweinfurt the GRIBS start-up, innovation and consultation centre and the Main
valley centre of excellence (Chancencenter Maintal) are located, while in Karlstadt the MainSpessart service network for start-ups. The federal motorways provide access to cities throughout
Germany. The Frankfurt-Rhein-Main airport and the Nuremberg airport are both easily accessible.
Moreover, the Main river connects the regions to the restof the world. The region has three
polytechnical institutions at the Julius-Maximilans University, in Würzburg-Schweinfurt and
Aschaffenburg and a huge number of research institutes and centres of competence.
21
Companies: ASE - Angewandte Solarenergie GmbH in Alzenau, Takata-Petri AG in
Aschaffenburg, Reis GmbH & Co Maschinenfabrik in Obernburg, Koenig & Bauer AG in
Würzburg, Bosch Rexroth AG in Lohr am Main, F.S. Fehrer Automotive Systems GmbH in
Kitzingen, FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schäfer AG in Schweinfurt, Unipor Machinery&Technology
Systems in Hassfurt, Preh Werke GmbH & Co KG in Bad Neustadt an der Saale, and TEMCO
Textilmaschinenkomponenten GmbH in Hammelburg.
DE27 Schwaben (Swabia) no data available
Further indicators:
Public revenue and spending (€)
DE2 Bayern81
Revenue
Spending
2001
33 537.000
33.227.000
Employment per sector82
DE2 Bayern
Agriculture:
Industry (without
building and
construction
trade):
Building and
Trade, tourism,
construction trade: transportation:
Public and private
83
services :
2000: 33.100
2001: 32.300
2000: 1.436.700
2001: 1.449.500
2000: 318.700
2001: 302.000
2000: 1.567.600
2001: 1.617.200
2000: 1.009.000
2001: 1.028.000
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry (processing industry)84
Branch
Building and construction
trade
Energy industry
Processing industry,
mining, working of stone
and earth
Employment figures
2000
2001
2002
174.157 163.572 151.542
29.079
30.467
30.250
1.207.000 1.219.000 1.186.000
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research85
2001/02
173.601
Public expenditure on science and research in 200086
10,49 Mrd. €
Students at universities87
81
http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab58.htm
http://www.statistik.bayern.de/daten/ZahlenspiegelPDF/zzalle.pdf
83 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
84 http://www.statistik.bayern.de/daten/ZahlenspiegelPDF/zzalle.pdf
85
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
86 http://www.statistik.bayern.de/daten/bayerndaten/d13.htm
82
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
22
1980
1990
1999
152.857
257.453
210.774
Support infrastructure
DE2 Bayern
Infrastructure (categories of streets)88
Road
network
Motorway
41.707
km
2.283 km
Vehicles89
2002
8.865.295
Doctors and dentists (2000)90
Doctors
47.265
Dentists
9.789
87
http://www.statistik.bayern.de/daten/bayerndaten/d04.htm
http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/index.php?redirect=http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/states/index.php?id_state=17
89 http://www.regierung.niederbayern.bayern.de/niederbay/strassenverk1.htm
90 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
88
23
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,5
2,8
0 (negative)
2,8
4,4
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Rehabilitational grants
Bremen and Saarland
SFH total
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
Fiscal
Divergence
resources from national
after SHES
average
and Gap(balance
filling
measurement
grants
)
(= 100)
52.432
53.786
53.936
56.368
59.699
107.7
108.6
109.4
108.6
109.1
-2.532
-2.862
-3.102
-2.907
-3.188
49.901
50.925
50.834
53.461
56.511
102.5
102.8
103.1
103.0
103.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49.901
50.925
50.834
53.461
56.511
102.5
102.8
103.1
103.0
103.3
62.219
110.4
-3.749
58.470
103.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
58.470
103.7
59.946
112.3
-4.495
55.451
104.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
55.451
104.1
Gapfillin
g
grant
s
Compensations for special
burdens
(east Germany)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
*
2000
*
2001
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Compensations for special
political costs
Bayern91
BY
Fiscal
Divergence Contributio
Fiscal
Divergence
resources from national
n/
resources from national
before
average
assignment after SHES
average
SHES (in
(balance
within
(in Mio.
(balance
Mio. DM) measurement
SHES
DM)
measurement
)
(in Mio.
)
(= 100)
DM)
(= 100)
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
91
24
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
3,3
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
ESF
Total
Objective 2
Bavaria
2200.882
EU
contribution
536.638
EU
contribution
475.804
%
88.66%
EU
contribution
60.834
EAGGF
%
11.34%
EU
contribution
-
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3,7
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years92
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
R+D expenditure (mio
€)93
1991
22.178
11.526.400
5.976.600
214.780
1996
25.402
12.015.800
5.925.600
401.991
2001
29.379
12.280.400
6.295.200
332.417
4,4
7,9
6,0
1995
8.240
1997
8.527
1999
9.629
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector
transfer
Employment
policy
Technology policy
92
93
Slightly
positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
25
Berlin
NUTS 1:
DE3 BERLIN
Berlin appears at several NUTS levels but
only one code is assigned “DE3 Berlin
(NUTS 1, NUTS 2)”
GDP per head (2000)
DE 3 Berlin94: 22.383 € (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €/
average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin: 16.216 €)95
Germany96: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100, DE3 = 95,697
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE 3 Berlin98 (mio €): 75.749
Germany99 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15100(mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)101
1.561.900 (63,4%102) (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002) 103
Unemployed persons: 288.319 (16,9 %) (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3
Strengths104 [short description]
The city-state Berlin – German capital and at a population of 3.382.000 inhabitants (2002) the
largest city – covers a surface area of 892 km².
Enlargement of the European Union has restored the location of the city in the centre of Europe at
the heart of a major regional market and central Europe. Following the reunification of Germany
and the instalment of the German government in Berlin, it has become one of the prime locations
for new business sectors, high technology and modern services companies. Besides electrical
engineering, pharmaceutics and mechanical engineering, high-tech industries like biotechnology,
environmental technology, transport systems technology, information and communications
technology, laser and medical technology are gaining in importance. Dominating sectors are the
media, information and communication, transport engineering, biotechnology, medical technology
and (financial) services. The tertiary sector generates 81% of Berlin's real net output, and the
financial, rental and corporate services sector shows the strongest growth in employment, at 5%, i.e.
14,600 new jobs (2000). Furthermore, Berlin has a great research and scientific potential three
94
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
96: http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm, http://www.destatis.de/indicators/d/vgr110ad.htm
97 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
98 http://www.statistik-berlin.de/framesets/berl1.htm
99: http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
100:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
101 http://www.statistik-berlin.de/shop/D-Mikrozensus/mz.pdf (Denominator is total population, not working age population)
102 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
103 http://www.arbeitsamt.de/laa_bb/statistik/alozeitreihe.pdf
104:
http://www.invest-in-germany.com,
http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm
and
http://www.berlin.de/WirtschaftsfoerderungBerlinGmbH/e/BerlinBusinessNews/index.html
95
26
universities, 14 public institutes of higher education and more than 250 public and private research
institutes. Also culture is an economically very important area, as the city houses 17 state museums,
a multitude of theatres and operas as well as numerous libraries, cinemas, choirs and collections.
With a view to the development of the media landscape. the TV station N24 (news channel) set up
its news headquarters in Berlin, Universal Music and the newspaper Welt am Sonntag established
headquarters in Berlin.
Companies: Alcatel, Bally Wulf, Berlin Chemie, BMW Motorrad, Bombardier, DaimlerChrysler,
Delphi, DETEWE, Deutsche Bahn, Dussmann, DWA, Ford, Gedas, GHH Borsig Turbomaschinen,
Gillette, Herlitz AG, IBM, Krone, Orenstein und Koppel, Osram, Otis, Mercedes Benz, Motorola,
Samsung, Schering AG, Schindler, Siemens, Sony, Axel Springer Verlag, Ullstein Verlag,
Universal. (Gedas is building a software production plant and Gillette is investing in new Berlin
based production facilities and in 2003 Delphi has opened a new vehicle safety centre and Corning
Cable set up a new commercial centre in Berlin. Furthermore, Boeing announced in April 2003 to
be coming to Berlin.)
Weaknesses [short description]
The city has a huge public debt (about 50 bn €), which is based on missing revenue from the
processing industry. After WW II the economy and the budget of West-Berlin was strongly
subsidised by federal grants covering more than 50% of the spending. Most of the person working
in the service sector were public employees (Late 1980ies: 20% of all employees in the service
sector; double of the west average). East Berlin was characterised by huge monopoly combines,
which did not prove to be competitive after unification. The end of the planned economy in the East
and the diminishment of federal grants in the west let to the reduction and breakdown of the
processing industry. Berlin’s economic structure is still in a phase of fundamental structural change,
which is expected to last until 2010, and nearly no producing industry got established in the
surrounding countryside. With a view to its GDP development the city ranked penultimate state in
1999.
Additionally the city faces a still divided situation: East: cheaper rents; West: better job situation.
Like Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, and Thüringen Berlin
(East) still belongs to the "priority 1" regions (regions with maximum subsidization possibilities)
supported by the EU structural funds.
Evolution in last decade [short description]105
Employment has been decreasing (1992: 1.639.300, 2002: 1.533.000) while at the same time the
GDP/per capita (1992: 19.674€, 2002:22.756€) was growing.106
Berlin has largely overcome the repercussions of the division of Europe. Since the unification and
with the transfer of the Federal Government it is increasingly becoming an international economic
region, the principal place of business for many leading companies as well as industrial and
commercial organisations. The service sector is becoming the most important economic sector with
high growth rates, as Berlin is the seat of government, embassies, associations and lobbyists.
Furthermore Berlin provides for good opportunities of contact with political and administrative
Federal decision-makers. More and more companies were moving to Berlin over the past decade. In
2003 also the American Chamber of Commerce opened an office in Berlin. With its mixture of high
technologies and modernised traditional industry, Berlin provides for a wide scale of business
opportunities. A differentiated infrastructure and well-priced real are measures to promote
investment in the city.
105
http://www.blc.berlin.de/en/div/frame1.html
106
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
27
Further indicators
DE3 Berlin
Public revenue and spending (mio €)107
1998
Revenue108
Spending109
1999
12.091
21.364
12.767
21.305
Employment per sector110
Agriculture:
Industry
(without
building and
construction
trade):
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and
private
services111:
2000: 5.900
2001: 5.600
2000: 156.075
2001: 153.650
2000: 88.400
2001: 74.000
2000: 259.950
2001: 259.150
2000: 632.390
2001: 638.225
Industrial Structure
The Manufacturing Sector in Berlin in September 2001: Economic Divisions and Workforce Size
(Companies with ... employees)112
Economic
Divisions
Total
Number
of
Compan
ies
1 – 49
50 – 199
200 – 499
500 – 999 1 000 and
more
Coal mining, peat
productiong
1
-
1
-
-
-
Stone and earth, other
extractive industry
4
4
-
-
-
-
222
168
39
11
4
-
4
-
2
-
1
1
Textiles
68
63
5
-
-
-
Clothing
96
88
8
-
-
Leather
6
6
-
-
-
-
Wood
46
41
5
-
-
-
Paper
44
34
7
2
-
1
1 009
955
45
4
3
2
103
78
19
4
Food
Tobacco processing
Publishing, printing
and duplication
Chemicals
2
107
http://www.statistik-berlin.de/statistiken/oefffinanzen/ausgaben.htm, http://www.statistikberlin.de/statistiken/oefffinanzen/einnahmen.htm
108 Excluding payments from the public sphere (taxes,…)
109 Including education and special budgets
110http://www.statistik-berlin.de/framesets/daba.htm.
111 Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
112 http://www.blc.berlin.de/en/div/frame1.html
28
Rubber and plastics
production
101
83
14
3
1
-
Glass and ceramics,
stone and earth
processing
79
69
6
4
-
-
Prime metal
production and
processing
27
11
9
1
-
-
Metal products
261
221
32
7
-
1
Mechanical
engineering
206
164
31
5
4
2
25
22
3
-
-
-
Equipment for
electricity generation,
distribution etc
122
85
23
11
-
3
Radio, TV and
communications
technology
103
77
12
10
2
-
Medical technology,
measurement and
quality assurance
technology, optics
175
146
25
1
3
-
Motor vehicles and
components
16
4
7
2
2
1
Other vehicles
28
16
6
5
-
1
146
141
5
-
-
-
29
26
3
-
-
-
2 921
2 508
309
70
20
14
Office equipment,
EDP equipment and
installations
Furniture, jewellery,
musical instruments,
sport equipment, toys
and other products
Recycling
Total
(Source: Statistisches Landesamt Berlin [Berlin Statistics Office] 2002)
The Manufacturing Sector in Berlin: A Profile of the Key Groups in April 2002113
Key Groups
Company
Number of
Total
Workers
Workforce
Employed
Completed
Workers’
Working
Hours
in 1, 000s
Turnover
in million
EUR
Absolute Figures
Upstream industry
producers
380
41 805
24 752
3 165
518,1
Capital goods producers
281
29 512
15 713
2 016
320,8
113
http://www.blc.berlin.de/en/div/frame1.html
29
Consumer durables
producers
21
5 039
3 958
500
121,1
Consumer disposables
producers
219
32 850
14 289
1 898
1 513,6
Total
901
109 206
58 712
7 580
2 473,6
Upstream industry
producers
1,3
-2,5
-4,6
-0,8
-5,0
Capital goods producers
1,4
-3,6
-5,7
1,5
5,1
-19,2
-11,3
-10,0
3,3
-20,0
Consumer disposables
producers
-2,2
-0,3
-1,1
5,2
4,0
Total
-0,1
-2,6
-4,5
1,5
0,7
1999
127.690.000
2.503.000
2.483.000
1.632.000
22.594.000
100.658.000
65.863.000
37.765.000
18.408.000
10.043.000
145.055.000
67.110.000
3.434.000
Investments (€)
2000
124.086.000
34.723.000
2.485.000
1.349.000
1.737.000
19.813.000
99.950.000
84.146.000
62.148.000
20.594.000
6.239.000
90.873.000
74.563.000
2.042.000
2001
75.257.000
9.866.000
939.000
2.113.000
11.819.000
116.391.000
100.948.000
46.942.000
13.364.000
14.707.000
107.370.000
70.904.000
1.731.000
74.799.000
36.031.000
17.961.000
110.016.000
54.367.000
20.061.000
96.838.000
92.449.000
20.872.000
61.606.000
51.201.000
5.368.000
46.611.000
61.394.000
7.005.000
61.801.000
78.184.000
4.835.000
2.594.000
934.222.000
925.425.000
5.016.000
952.961.000
Changes vis-à-vis same
month previous year in
%
Consumer durables
producers
Investments114
Branches of industry (processing industry)
Branch
Food
Tobacco
Textile
Clothing
Timber
Paper
Printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Production of hardware
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical
equipment,…
Production of electricity producing appliances
Radio, TV, news technique
Medical and optical techniques, measurement technology, control
engineering
Vehicles and supplying products
Other vehicle engineering
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys,
recycling
Recycling
Total
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research115
2001/02
73.658
114
http://www.statistik-berlin.de/statistiken/VerarbeitendesGewerbe/1113.htm
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
115
30
Spending on universities (€)116
1998
1999
2000
2.107.113.000
2.181.296.000
2.145.808.000
Students at universities117
Semester
Beginners
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
Total number
of students
4.840
5.011
5.169
133.124
132.406
138.394
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure 2001 (categories of streets)118
Road network
Motorway
182,8 km
68,6 km
Vehicles119
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
1.372.292
1.374.925
1.384.202
1.425.278
1.440.174
1.438.345
Doctors and dentists (2000)120
Doctors
17.481
Dentists
3.783
116
http://www.statistik-berlin.de/statistiken/oefffinanzen/H_Schul.htm
http://www.statistik-berlin.de/statistiken/hochschulen/Stud-ZR.htm, http://www.statistik-berlin.de/statistiken/hochschulen/ErstZR.htm
118 http://www.statistik-berlin.de/statistiken/Verkehr/1408.htm
119 http://www.statistik-berlin.de/statistiken/Verkehr/1404.htm
120 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
117
31
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4,3
4
5
3,8
4,2
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Berlin121
BE
4.222
4.336
4.432
4.891
5.316
5.521
5.191
17.914
18.123
17.861
18.628
19.408
19.902
18.637
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
849
858
846
882
919
943
883
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
72.6
72.3
71.4
70.1
69.0
68.6
68.5
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
13.692
13.787
13.429
13.737
14.092
14.381
13.446
Contribution
Fiscal
/ assignment
resources
within SHES after SHES
(in Mio. DM) (in Mio. DM)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
18.763
18.982
18.707
19.510
20.327
20.845
19.520
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
3.730
3.739
3.727
3.763
3.800
3.824
3.764
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
121
grants
(SFG),
Sources:
1995-2000:
32
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
4,3
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
Objetive 1
Western part of
Berlin
Eastern part of
Berlin
1179.189
EU
contribution
384.449
EU
contribution
244.125
2120.302
687.558
517.858
ESF
%
63.50%
EU
contribution
140.324
75.32%
162.663
EAGGF
%
%
36.50%
EU
contribution
-
23.66%
7.037
1.02%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 6,4
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years122
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
R+D expenditure (mio
€)123
1991
17.851
3.438.800
1.662.700
179.953
1996
21.991
3.466.500
1.581.900
235.999
2001
22.507
3.385.100
1.556.200
272.307
10,6
15,2
17,9
1995
2.417
1997
2.588
1999
2.778
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
122
123
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
33
Brandenburg
NUTS 1:
DE4 BRANDENBURG
GDP per head (2000)
DE4 Brandenburg124;16.535 € (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin:
16.216 €)125
Germany126: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE 4= 69,4127
GDP at current prices/in million €
Brandenburg128 (mio €): 43 000
Germany129 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15130 (mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
Employed persons: 1.045.000 131
Working age population: 1.847.393 132
Employment rate (2000): 56,3 %133 (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002)134
237.831 persons (all civil persons in gainful employment: 17,5%; civil employees: 19,1%))
(German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 2,5
Strengths135 [short description]
Brandenburg is the region surrounding the German capital city of Berlin. The surface area is 29.477
km², inhabited by a population of 2.583.457 (in 2002).
Traditionally Brandenburg is characterised by a huge agricultural sector. One third of the surface
(over 1 mio. hectare) is used for agricultural purposes. Alongside other traditional sectors such as
vehicle manufacturing, timber, energy and chemicals, industries as biotechnology, the media,
telecommunications and aerospace are gaining in importance. Biotechnologies have become a
growth sector in recent years so that about 800 persons are employed in this field. Moreover, 50
medical technology companies have settled in Brandenburg.
124
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
126 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
127 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
128 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=16017&topic_id=51536&nav=51536
129 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
130 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
131 http://www.zab-brandenburg.de/erwerbstaetige.html
132 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=14953&topic_id=51525&nav=51525,
http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=14948&topic_id=51525&nav=51525
133 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
134 http://www.arbeitsamt.de/laa_bb/statistik/alozeitreihe.pdf
135 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.zab-brandenburg.de/engl/invest/investment_incentives.html,
http://www.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php?id=11417&_siteid=42, Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.):
Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.10.
and http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-in-Deutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm
125
34
The state is becoming attractive to the economy because of it modern transport and communications
infrastructure and the closeness to Eastern European markets. Since 1990 circa 280 foreign
companies set up business in Brandenburg. Moreover, Brandenburg offers investors investment
incentives such as Capital Investment Grants, Federal tax allowances, Location Investment Grants,
Technology & Innovation Grants (technology and innovation grant: research and development;
introduction of new technology: up to € 204.000 per project; reduction techniques and renewable
energy source grants: up to 20 percent of the project's cost), Infrastructure Grants, Interest Payment
Grants, Loan guarantee program (for up to 80% of the contracted loan), Venture Capital (for hightech start-ups or SME with solid growth potential). SME are eligible for grants of up to 50 percent
of the total capital investment. Moreover, companies will receive a one-time grant of up to 35
percent for the development, set up, extension, conversion purchase of plants in Brandenburg.
Projects related to the economic infrastructure (business-parks, tourism or job retrainment) are
eligible for a one-time grant of 25-80 percent (dependent on the development location).
Potsdam-Babelsberg is a central location for movie and film production in Germany. Over 120
companies established offices here and investment in the location grew in the last years. 3
universities, 5 public institutes of higher education, , 15 technology centres, 3 Max-Planck institutes
and 3 Fraunhofer installations are located here.
In 1999 the state held rank 8 in investment per employee in the processing industry. 136
Companies: e.g. Altana, BASF, Bombardier, Daimler-Chrysler, Deutsche Bahn AG, Eberswalder
Fleischwarenfabrik, Kronotex, Kunz Holding GmbH, Lufthansa Technik, Märkische Faser, MTU,
Pneumant, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Scannery Holztechnik N.V, Siemens, Spreewaldhof, Trevira,
Tuffi, Werder Ketchup, ZF Friedrichshafen.
Weaknesses137 [short description]
Low density of population (88 inhabitants per km2; federal average: 230 inhabitants per km2). From
1989/90 to 1994 strongly affected by migration from the land. Since 1995 the only East German
state with increase in population. Concentration in the Berlin-Brandenburg area. High
unemployment (esp. in formerly agriculturally characterised areas). Like MecklenburgVorpommern, Berlin (East), Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, and Thüringen the state still belongs to the
"priority 1" regions (regions with maximum subsidization possibilities) supported by the EU
structural funds. High number of insolvencies.
Evolution in last decade [short description]138
Employment has been decreasing (1992: 1.053.300, 2002: 1.023.300) while at the same time the
GDP/per capita was growing significantly (1992: 9.426€, 2002:17.054€).139
Since 1995 the economy is characterised by constant growth and since 1998 the state has the largest
GDP growth (+3,2%) of all new Länder. Nevertheless, this growth is not mirrored by the
employment situation. Growth in employment can only be witnessed in the service sector. The
processing industry is currently further expanding (+3,8%; federal average: -0,5%). On the other
hand, tourisms constantly gained in importance. Growth sectors are mainly timber industry,
136
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
137 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.zab-brandenburg.de/engl/invest/investment_incentives.html,
http://www.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php?id=11417&_siteid=42, Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.):
Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.10, Blancke, Susanne / Lindlohr, Andrea / Schmid, Josef (2001): Wer
führt? Ein Benchmarking der Bundesländer nach Arbeitsmarkt- und Wirtschaftsindikatoren, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 14, Tübingen,
p. 9.
and http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-in-Deutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm
138 http://www.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php?id=20645, http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.zabbrandenburg.de/engl/invest/investment_incentives.html, http://www.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php?id=11417&_siteid=42,
Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.10.
and http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-in-Deutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm
139 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
35
engineering and vehicle production, Rubber and synthetic material, chemical industry, food and
paper sectors.
The shift within the economic structure from the dominance of agriculture (big factories; rye,
linseed, flax seed production) towards processing industry (engineering, vehicle manufacturing,
timber, energy and chemicals, industries as biotechnology, the media, telecommunications and
aerospace) was accompanied and hindered by negative factors such as outdated production
capacities, low productivity and a missing infrastructure. Areas, which were predominantly
characterised by agriculture (northern part of the state) now show highest unemployment figures.
Since 1993 the decrease was stopped and employment figures are stabilised. The mining sector
(1991: 25% of the non agricultural production) and the building and construction trade were subject
to structural change and constant decrease in economic relevance with a large number of closing
down of companies).
Further indicators
Public revenue and spending (mill €)140
1999
9.177,8
9.834,0
Revenue
Spending
2000
9.244,2
9.699,5
2001
9.353,4
9.915,9
2002
8.508,0
10.163,1
Employment per sector141
Agriculture:
Industry
(without
building and
construction
trade):
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and
private
services142:
2002: 37.200
2002: 135.400
2002: 104.300
2002: 223.200
2002: 414.800
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry 143
Branch
Processing industry including
mining and working of stone and
earth
Building and construction trade
Trade and craft
Total industry
Employment figures
2002
135.400
104.300
223.200
462.900
Investments144
Branch
Processing industry including mining and working of stone and earth
Production of goods of preliminary work (Vorleistungsgüter)
Production of items of capital expenditure
Production of consumer items (consumer and utility goods)
Production of consumer goods
Total processing industry
Investments in mill. €
2000
2001
2002
1.045
1.128
1.138
734
705
709
194
288
259
16
37
25
101
98
149
2.090
2.256
3.415
140
http://www.brandenburg.de/media/1379/eckdaten_der_haushalte_seit_1991.pdf
http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/s_erwerb_d.htm
142 Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
143 http://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/s_erwerb_d.htm
144 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=17062&topic_id=51895&nav=51895
141
36
Research base
Employment in Education and, research145
1999
2000
2001
33.845
33.971
33.688
Public expenditure on science and research (€)146
1999
342.983.000
2000
327.690.000
2001
343.666.000
Students at universities 147
Wintersemester
Beginners
1999/2000
2000: 4 812
2000/2001
2001: 5 310
2001/2002
2002: 5 254
2002/2003
-
Total number of
19.896
21.649
22.721
25 086
Total number of public schools148
1999/2000
1.154
2000/2001
1.122
2001/2002
1.085
Computer equipment in private households (%)149
2000
2001
2002
38,6
44,0
51,1
Internet access or online services (%)150
2000
2001
2002
12,4
21,8
34,5
Telephone equipment of private households (%)151
2000
2001
ISDN
4,7
5,7
Mobil
31,6
54,7
Answering
36,1
39,2
machines
Fax/PC fax cart
10,2
10,0
2002
(8,5)
70,4
44,1
(12,4)
145
http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=15005&topic_id=51531&nav=51531
http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=15000&topic_id=51531&nav=51531
147 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=15646&topic_id=51894&nav=51894
148 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=15579&topic_id=51891&nav=51891
149 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=49888&template=daten_detail_tab_l&nav=51520&topic_id=51520
150 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=49888&template=daten_detail_tab_l&nav=51520&topic_id=51520
151 http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=49888&template=daten_detail_tab_l&nav=51520&topic_id=51520
146
37
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets) 152
Category
Motorway
Federal road
(Autobahn)
(Bundesstraße)
Kilometres
1999: 766
1999: 2.774
Provincial road
(Landesstraße)
1999: 5.801
District road
(Kreisstraße)
1999: 15.768
Total
1999:
25.109
Vehicles153
2001 1.615.564
1.639.823
2002
2003 1.653.624
Doctors and dentists (2000)154
Doctors
Dentists
7.252
1.831
152
http://www.brandenburg.de/land/mswv/ministerium/kurzbilanz.html
http://www.lds-bb.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=16958&topic_id=51542&nav=51542
154 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
153
38
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4,2
4,3
4,7
4
3,5
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
86.6
85.1
85.5
85.6
85.2
84.5
86.3
864
1.035
986
1.044
1.147
1.263
977
9.787
9.942
9.921
10.518
11.084
11.426
10.701
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
464
471
470
498
525
541
507
Gapfilling
grants
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
8.923
8.907
8.935
9.474
9.937
10.163
9.723
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
Brandenburg155
BB
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
2.613
2.620
2.619
2.647
2.674
2.690
2.656
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
10.250
10.413
10.391
11.016
11.609
11.967
11.208
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
155
39
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
6,5
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objetive 1
Brandenburg
6733.047
EU
contribution
3090.223
EU
contribution
1639.26
ESF
%
53.05%
EU
contribution
730.66
EAGGF
%
EU
contribution
720.302
23.64%
%
23.31%
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 6,3
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years156
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
1991
7.451
256200
1186900
141.172
1996
15.081
2547500
1066700
187.051
2001
16.787
2596200
1044900
233.588
10,3
16,2
18,8
1995
507
R+D expenditure (mio
€)157
1997
584
1999
672
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive:
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
156
157
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
40
Bremen
DE5 Bremen
GDP per head (2000)
DE5 Bremen: 33.112 € 158 (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637
€)159
Germany160: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE5 = 142,9161
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE5 Bremen162: 21 887
Germany163 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15164(mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
388.000 persons in gainful employment165 = 85,1%166 (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002)
40.532 persons: 12,6 % 167 (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,7
Strengths168 [short description]
With a surface area of 404 km² and a population of 660.000 (in 2002) Bremen is (after Hamburg)
the second-busiest port of Germany and trade centre for all kind of goods (rank 8 worldwide).
Every third workplace is actually linked to the port, which is planned to be extended by a port of
transshipment for cars. In addition to the Bremen ports, the state supports a mix of trade,
shipbuilding, fishing and other industries such as vehicle construction, aerospace, mobile
technologies, life science, logistics and tourism. Especially the food and semi-luxury foods and
tobacco producing industry are major sectors of the economy. Beer, coffee, and Mercedes cars have
made Bremen famous. The second-largest DaimlerChysler plant in Europe (workforce: 16,385
employees) is located here as well as EADS and Astrium (more than 5,000 employees), which
make the city one of the German aerospace industry centres for the production of Airbus wings, the
158
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
160: http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm, http://www.destatis.de/indicators/d/vgr110ad.htm
161 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
162 http://www.bremen.de/info/statistik/statistiken/12a.htm
163: http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
164: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
165 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab15.asp
166 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
167 Bundesanstalt für Arbeit: Arbeitsmarkt in Zahlen 2002, Aktuelle Daten und Jahreszahlen 2002 und Zeitreihen
http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (all civil persons in gainful employment)
168 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.bigbremen.de/main.jsp?show=df_wichtige&rub=wirtschaft , http://www.bigbremen.de/main.jsp?show=df_wirtschaftsstandort&rub=wirtschaft
159
41
Space Lab and the Columbus Space Laboratory. Furthermore, Bremen and Bremerhaven hold a
leading position in the food industry.
Companies: Astrium, Atlanta AG, Atlas Elektronik, BakeMark, Beck & Co., BLG Logistics Group,
Brewing STN, DaimlerChysler, EADS, Eduscho, Frosta, Hachez, Kelloggs, Klöckner, Könecke,
Kraft Foods, Nordsee, Philips, Siemens, Stahlwerke Bremen GmbH, Vitakraft.
1 university, 4 public institutes of higher education, 1 Max-Planck institute and 1 Fraunhofer
installation are located here.
Weaknesses [short description]
Strong dependency on the harbour (33% of the GDP), long-term establishing of companies was
often not very successful
Evolution in last decade [short description]169
Employment has been decreasing (1992: 409.300, 2002: 389.500) while at the same time the
GDP/per capita (1992: 27.237€, 2002:34.753€) was growing.170
Unemployment is constantly decreasing (1997 16,8%, 2001: 13,6%) as well as the tax revenue
(1997: 5.021.562 (thousand €); 2001: 4.640.343 (thousand €)). The turnover in proceeding industry
has increased over the years (1997: 16.472 (mio. €), 2001: 20.799 (mio €)).
In the early 1950ies the harbours released after the end of the post-war dismantling. The 1978
settlement of Mercedes Benz at Bremen stimulated the economy and created new jobs. The same
holds true for the Airbus production sites. The 1983 break down of Großwerft AG Weser instead
supported the need for restructuring the economy. Thus, Bremen underwent structural changes from
a typical shipbuilding centre and port to a forward-looking business location boasting high levels of
technological expertise, with the support of economic sectors such as aerospace, modern car production, mirco
electronic and high-tech environmental technologies and life sciences. The strengthening of the education and research sector moreover
Alfred Wegener Institute Foundation for Polar and
Marine Research, Bremerhaven, the BIAS - Bremer Institut für Angewandte Strahltechnik GmbH or
the Centre of European Law and Politics at the University of Bremen.
promoted the establishment of research institutes such as the
Further indicators:
Public revenue and spending (mill €)171
Revenue
Spending
1999
3.323
3.927
2000
3.023
3.931
2001
3.033
4.002
Employment per sector172
Agriculture:
Industry (without
Building and
building and
construction trade:
construction trade):
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and private
services:173
1999: 966
2000: 929
1999: 66.732
2000: 66.679
1999: 81.399
2000: 82.266
1999: 110.109
2000: 114.373
1999: 17.307
2000: 17.121
169
Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999,
p.41, http://www.handelskammerbremen.de/servicemarken/ihk_aktuell/Versteckte%20Dateien/Statistischer%20Jahresbbericht%202001.pdf
170 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
171 http://www.handelskammer-bremen.de/produktmarken/standortpolitik/Versteckte%20Dateien/Seite%
20Steuern%20und%20Finanzen.pdf
172 http://www.bremen.de/info/statistik/biz/08-beschaeftigte.htm
173 Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
42
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry174
Branch
Employment figures
2000
2001
14.870
14.891
33.136
33.655
1.033
1.056
15.762
15.528
1.392
1.380
2.198
2.175
3.009
3.100
1.967
1.835
5.352
5.557
3.293
3.558
24.382
24.747
Production of goods of preliminary work (Vorleistungsgüter)
Production of items of capital expenditure
Production of consumer items (consumer and utility goods)
Production of consumer goods
Food and tobacco
Paper, printing, publishing
Fish processing
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of equipment for the production of electricity
Vehicle production
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research175
2001/02 11.162
Public expenditure on science and research (€)176
2002
732.513.840
2003
740.756.780
Students at universities 177
Wintersemester
Beginners
1995/1996
3 390
2000/2001
4 228
2001/2002
5 026
Total number of
26 369
26 538
28 220
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)178
Category Motorway
Road
Total
(Autobahn) network
Kilometres
59
98
157
Vehicles179
2000 331 392
337 252
2001
Doctors and dentists (2000)180
Doctors
3.155
Dentists
528
174
http://www.bremen.de/info/statistik/biz/10-prod_gewerbe.htm, http://www.bremen.de/info/statistik/biz/08-beschaeftigte.htm
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
176 http://www.bremen.de/finanzsenator/Kap3/pdf-haushalt/NH_Land2002.pdf, http://www.bremen.de/finanzsenator/Kap3/pdfhaushalt/NH_Land2003.pdf
177 http://www.bremen.de/info/statistik/statistiken/09a.htm
178http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/index.php?redirect=http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/states/index.php?id_state=17
179 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
180 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
175
43
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,4
2,6
4,8
3,3
2,9
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement
)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
80.9
79.2
86.4
71.8
79.3
73.9
74.9
562
635
350
912
665
872
787
3.510
3.552
3.494
3.636
3.801
3.862
3.618
96.3
96.4
96.0
95.8
96.1
95.5
95.8
121
120
130
142
139
164
144
Gapfillin
g
grant
s
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
72
64
56
48
40
32
1.800
1.800
1.800
1.800
1.800
1.600
1.400
SFH total
Contributio
n/
assignment
within
SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen and
Saarland
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
1995 2.948
1996 2.917
1997 3.144
1998 2.724
1999* 3.136
2000* 2.990
2001 2.830
*) preliminary
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement
)
(= 100)
Compensations for
special burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations for
special political
costs
Bremen181
HB
Fiscal
resources
before
SHES (in
Mio. DM)
2.127
2.118
2.120
2.124
2.113
1.930
1.702
Fiscal
resources
after
SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
3.631
3.672
3.624
3.778
3.940
4.026
3.761
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement
)
(= 100)
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.5
99.6
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
181
44
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
3,8
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Objective 2
Bremen
ESF
EAGGF
Total
EU
contribution
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
354.659
113.034
113.034
100%
-
-
-
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 5
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years182
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
R+D expenditure (mio
€)183
1991
26.191
682.500
405.300
31.629
1996
29.107
678.800
383.100
44.374
2001
33.996
660.300
391.000
39.851
10,7
15,6
13,6
1995
583
1997
427
1999
452
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
182
183
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
45
Hamburg
DE6 Hamburg
GDP per head (2000)
DE6 Hamburg184: 42.068 € (the highest in Germany) (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and
excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)185
Germany186: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE6 = 181,5187
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE6 Hamburg (mio €): 71.947 188
Germany189 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15190 (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)
Employment rate: 66,1 %191192 (86,2%193) (German average = 68,8%)
People employed: 1.042.100194
Unemployment rate (2002)
9 % 195 (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
People unemployed: 76.518196
Technological standing (5 point scale): 4,3
Strengths197 [short description]
The Hanseatic City-state of Hamburg is the second largest German city. Located on the river Elbe,
about 100 km from the North Sea, it covers a surface area of 755 km² and has a population of
1.715.000 inhabitants (in 2002).
Hamburg is one of the most important economic and foreign trade centres in Germany and Europe
as it has become the leading foreign-trade centre for Northern Europe and a key crossing point for
the Baltic countries' overseas trade (92 mio. tonnes of cargo (incl. 4.7 mio. TEU of containerised
goods in 2001). The city is thus a centre of internal and global trading links with a logistics sector
based on a state-of-the-art infrastructure (network of regular block-train services; direct train links
to the port of Lübeck).
The civil aviation and the shipbuilding industry play major roles in Hamburg’s economy, even if
Hamburg's economic structure is also strongly characterised by the service sector (ca. 75% of the
184
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
186 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
187 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
188 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
189 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
190 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
191 http://www.hamburg.de/fhh/behoerden/behoerde_fuer_inneres/statistisches_landesamt/zeit/zeit3Tab1.htm
192 http://www.hamburg.de/fhh/behoerden/behoerde_fuer_inneres/statistisches_landesamt/zeit/zeit3Tab3.htm
193 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
194 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab15.asp
195 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf
196 http://www.hamburg.de/fhh/behoerden/behoerde_fuer_inneres/statistisches_landesamt/zeit/zeit10Tab3.htm
197 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.hamburg-economy.de/
185
46
work force employed here). Moreover, trade (23%) and transport (18%) are traditionally significant.
Overseas trade via Germany’s largest seaport has made it Germany’s major doorway to foreign
markets in Northern and Eastern Europe. Key areas of the economy are media and advertising (9%),
publishing houses, consultancies, software suppliers, hotel and catering, food and consumeroriented trades, the banking and insurance sector (14%) (with the Hamburg's Stock Exchange
founded in 1588; 1. in Germany), micro-electronics as well as information, telecommunication
(70,000 employees; annual turnover: €10 bn), medical, pharmaceutical, environmental and biotechnologies (Hamburg's Innovative Medical Technology Center (imtc): interface to R&D). Print
media form the backbone of the city's media landscape (over half of the newspapers and magazines
sold in Germany are produced by Hamburg-based publishing companies; the majority of the 20
best-selling magazines are produced here). The city's publishing industry consists of about 1.000
companies with over 700 printing firms aside. This large media sector has made Hamburg become
one of Germany’s leading media hubs with constant growth rates over the past years (over 10.000
firms; increase of over 50% since 1995; more than 60.000 employees; annual turnover in excess of
€ 25 bn). Thus the media industry (including also music (700 companies) and film production) in
Hamburg is the 3. biggest industry sector in terms of annual turnover and the 4. biggest employer.
Moreover, the multimedia sector is important. Outside Hamburg the Channel Harburg is one of
Germany’s modern high-tech centres including IT, microelectronics and telecommunications
industries.
Nevertheless, Hamburg is still an industrial location. It is one of the centres of Europe’s civil
aviation industry - based on aircraft construction and MRO maintenance/repair/overhaul.
Companies: Airbus, Beiersdorf, Blohm & Voss shipyard, D'Arcy Group, EADS Airbus, Eppendorf,
Fork Unstable, Hapag Lloyd, Helm, Hermes-Kreditversicherungs AG, IBM (first E-Business
Innovation Center outside the USA), KNSK, Legas Delany,Lowe Lintas, Lufthansa Technik AG
(Airbus production), Medienwerft, Mindworks Media Services, Montblanc, MMB, Norddeutsche
Affinerie, Olympus, Otto Versand, Panasonic, Philips Medical Systems, SAP, Scholz & Friends,
Slagmans, Spotmedia, Springer & Jacoby, Tchibo, Thyssen Group, Winter & Ibe., Young &
Rubicum.
With a view to the education sector 1 public university, 1 university of economy and politics, 1
university of the German Federal Armed Forces, 1 technical university, 5 public institutes of higher
education, about 250 research and education institutes (among them the Bernhard Nocht Institute
for Tropical Medicine) and 2 Max-Planck institutes are located here.
Weaknesses [short description]: No special weaknesses
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been slightly growing (1992: 1.039.900, 2002: 1.045.700). The same holds true
for the GDP/per capita (1992: 34.336 €, 2002:43.556€).198
Hamburg. like Bremen, underwent structural changes from a ship industry and row material
dominated economy towards a modern ‘mixed’ economy with a huge service sector. Companies
such as the Blohm & Voss shipyard (Thyssen Group) successfully managed this structural change
and became a modernized company for repairing and modifying ships and building specialist
vessels (frigates or cruise liners). With a view to other results of the restructuring, today nearly half
of service-sector workers are employed in the media, consultancy firms, software suppliers (in 1999
Hamburg has been awarded "Digital City Europe at the International Emma Awards for Interactive
Media; with over 18.000 employees Hamburg is one of Germany's leading multimedia centres),
hotel and catering and consumer-oriented skilled trades. Banking and insurance is another key
198
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
47
sector. Future growth in the multimedia industry is projected in the fields programming, consulting,
in project management and system administration. Moreover, since the move of the German
government from Bonn to Berlin, the situation of Hamburg has changed insofar as the politicoeconomic interests have shifted to the north-east of the republic.
Further Indicators
Public revenue and spending (mio €)199
2001
7.797,8
9.366,7
Revenue
Spending
2002
8.256,3
9.471,4
Employment (at workplace) per sector200
Agriculture:
Industry (without
building and
construction trade):
Building and
construction trade:
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and private
services:201
2000: 5.500
2001: 5.400
2002: 5.500
2000: 133.700
2001: 135.600
2002: 133.500
2000: 45.900
2001: 42.700
2002: 40.100
2000: 314.900
2001: 315.000
2002: 313.600
2000: 542.800
2001: 554.000
2002: 553.000
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research202
2001/02
34.712
Public expenditure on science and research (mio €)203
2001
846,5
2002
822,9
Students at universities204
Wintersemester
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
Total number of
65 115
64 084
66 514
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)205
Category Motorway
Road
Total
(Autobahn) network
Kilometres
59
98
157
Vehicles206
2003
947.472
199
http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt/Aktuell/behoerden/finanzbehoerde/haushalt/haushalt-2002/finanzbericht-2002,property=source.pdf ,
http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt/Aktuell/behoerden/finanzbehoerde/haushalt/haushalt-2003/finanzbericht-2003,property=source.pdf
200 http://www.hamburg.de/fhh/behoerden/behoerde_fuer_inneres/statistisches_landesamt/zeit/zeit12Tab6.htm
201 Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
202 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
203 http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt/Aktuell/behoerden/finanzbehoerde/haushalt/haushalt-2002/finanzbericht-2002,property=source.pdf
204 http://www.hamburg.de/fhh/behoerden/behoerde_fuer_inneres/statistisches_landesamt/zeit/zeit5Tab6.htm
205 http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/index.php?redirect=http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/states/index.php?id_state=17
206http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
48
Doctors and dentists (2000)207
Doctors
9.046
Dentists
1.725
207
http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
49
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 1,8
1,8
0 (negative)
3
2,5
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Hamburg208
HH
-117
-482
-273
-615
-665
-1.099
-520
9.453
9.618
9.480
10.054
10.577
11.079
10.322
102.2
102.8
102.3
103.5
103.7
105.5
104.1
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
103.5
107.9
105.2
109.8
110.2
116.0
109.3
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
9.553
10.099
9.753
10.669
11.242
12.178
10.843
Contribution
Fiscal
/ assignment
resources
within SHES after SHES
(in Mio. DM) (in Mio. DM)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
9.453
9.618
9.480
10.054
10.577
11.079
10.322
102.2
102.8
102.3
103.5
103.7
105.5
104.1
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
208
50
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
3
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
Hamburg
12.384
EU
contribution
6.192
EU
contribution
6.192
ESF
%
100%
EAGGF
EU
contribution
-
%
EU
contribution
-
-
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years209
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
R+D expenditure (mio
€)210
1991
33.057
1.660.700
1.024.400
63.013
1996
37.903
1.708.400
1.009.800
83.942
2001
42.749
1.721.000
1.052.600
70.648
8,7
11,7
9,3
1995
1.233
1997
1.309
1999
1.263
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
209
210
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
51
Hessen
NUTS 1: DE7 Hessen
NUTS 2: DE71 DARMSTADT
DE72 GIEßEN
DE73 KASSEL
GDP per head (2000)
DE7 Hessen211: 30.347 € (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637
€)212
Germany213: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE7 = 129,4, DE71 = 148,8, DE72 = 95,0, DE 73 = 101,3214
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE7 Hessen215 (mio €): 183.055 €
Germany216 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15217 (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)
DE7 Hessen: 72,5%218 (2.992.800 persons employed219) (German average = 68,8%)
DE71 Darmstadt 1.946.500220
DE72 Gießen 453.600221
DE73 Kassel 588.300222
Unemployment rate (2002)
DE7 Hessen 7,8223 (6,9 % 224) (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
DE71 Darmstadt 7,0 %225
DE72 Gießen 8,1 %226
DE73 Kassel 9,9 %227
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,5 (2-3 in the north; 5 in the south)
Strengths228 [short description]
With a surface area of 21.114 km² and a population of 6.068.000 (in 2002), the State of Hessen is
economically rather strong and has the highest GDP per employee among the German states in
2000 (over 60,000 €, a total GNP of about 185 bn € and a GNP per Capita of 30,347 €, GDP growth
211
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
213 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
214 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
215 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
216 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
217 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
218 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
219 http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
220 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
221 ibid.
222 ibid.
223 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/arbeitsmarkt/arbeitslose_jahr.htm (civil employees)
224 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (all persons in gainful civil employment)
225 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/kreiszahlen/hkr_Arbeitslose.htm (civil employees)
226 ibid.
227 ibid.
228http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.invest-in-hessen.de/she/index_js.htm
212
52
rate 1,5%). Almost a quarter (25,4%) of all foreign direct investments in Germany are made in
Hessen. Behind Nordrhein-Westfalen with 30,6% of all foreign direct investments Hessen holds
rank 2. Among foreign investors, the USA hold rank 1. Moreover, about 500 US companies have
set up business sites here.
The four major industrial branches are chemical industry (rank 1 by turnover, 64,000 employees,
high share of pharmaceutical companies), car manufacturing (rank 2, 68,000 employees),
mechanical engineering (paper and printing equipment manufacturers as most important subsectors) (rank 3, 64,000 employees) and electronics/electrical engineering (expertise in precision
measurement, control and information technology, aerospace technology, household appliances)
(rank 4) (70% of the exports). Other sectors with relevance for the economic structure of Hessen are
advanced transport engineering (ICE, Transrapid, ICEMUS (innovation centre for mobility and rail
technology) in Kassel), biotechnology (chemical and pharmaceutical industry with 96,000
employees; Hessen is the most important location of the manufacturing biotechnology in Germany;
over 330 biotechnology companies employ around 15,000 people), call centres (30,000 jobs (mostly
parttime; recruitment largely among unemployed) have been created in - financial services telecommunications - insurance companies - airlines and travel organizations - mail order business
and tele shopping - technical services), environmental technology, media (33% of German’s
economically strongest advertising agencies have headquarters or offices in the Frankfurt area, 400
book publishers, 60 newspaper publishers, 250 magazine publishers in Hessen, film and TV such as
Hessischer Rundfunk, CNN, Bloomberg TV, n-tv Film), medical technology, software and IT
(3.500 IT, software, electronic data processing, consulting and services companies, 3 of the 5
biggest German software companies (Software AG, Computer Associates, CSC Ploenzke);
Frankfurt University: first chair for e-commerce in Germany).
Moreover, the service sector is strong (76% of the GDP) with financial services, insurances,
business services and new media as lead sub-sectors. Moreover, besides London, New York and
Tokyo, Frankfurt is one of the world's major financial markets (European Central Bank, Deutsche
Bundesbank, Deutsche Boerse (German stock exchange with over 90% of the total turnover of
German stock exchanges), over 400 banks). Over 75,000 employees work in Hessen’s financial
service sector. Since the introduction of the EURO in 1999, the European monetary policy is agree
on by the ECB from Frankfurt. The city, which is also Europe‘s second city of ‘internet traffic’
behind London (85% of German internet traffic; 35% of European internet traffic are channeled via
Frankfurt). 200 telecommunication service firms have set up sites here (Deutsche Telekom, Arcor,
Colt, BT Ignite and Worldcom).
The economic structure is characterised by a large number of SME (90% of all companies.
Frankfurt, Hessen’s largest city, is furthermore an international centre of air, road and rail transport
and holds a leading position in Europe. The city hosts also the world's largest consumer-goods trade
fairs "Premiere" and "Ambiente" and the international book fair or the IAA international motor
show. The Frankfurt Airport (60.000 employees) is one of the most important in the world (ca.
350,000 passengers per day, ca. 45 mio. passengers per year; nearly 160.000 connections to about
220 destinations). Frankfurt's main train station is Europe's largest. The "Frankfurter Kreuz" is
Europe’s busiest motorway intersection.
The Rhine-Main region is furthermore the heart of the economic activities (leading financial centre,
dense transport network, high GDP) and both rivers link Hessen to the North Sea and other major
European ports. Due to its location, Hessen is a ideal location for logistic centres in Germany.
Particularly in the Frankfurt Region, firms take advantage of Europe´s largest cargo airport and the
up-to-date facilities in the CargoCity (over 80 airlines, over 100 shipping agencies and express
services such as FedEx, UPS and Schenker). The north (Kassel and Bad Hersfeld) has good access
to the federal motorway system so e.g. amazon.de, the German subsidiary of amazon.com or RS
Components (UK headquartered distributor of electronic, electrical and mechanical components European distribution centre), chose Bad Hersfeld for their central distribution facilities in
Germany.
53
In Hessen many universities, polytechnics and research facilities have been set up. 5 universities, 2
art institutes, 5 universities of applied sciences (focus on practical training for engineers), 10 private
institutions of higher education, 5 Max-Planck institutes and 6 Fraunhofer installations (e.g.
Fraunhofer Institute for Graphic Data Processing (IGD)), 4 institutes of the Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibnitz Scientific Community, 1 institute of the Helmholtz Community: heavy ion research centre,
3 federal institutes with research assignment and 5 further research institutions (e.g. GMD Research
Institute for Information Technology, Darmstadt, Institute for Solar Power Kassel, Institute for
Socio-ecological Research ISOE Frankfurt, Space Control Center of the European Space Agency
ESA Darmstadt) are located here.
In 1999 the state held rank 2 in investment per employee in the processing industry. 229
Companies: e.g. ABB, Abbott, Aventis, Biotest, Bombardier, Braun Melsungen,, Canon, Claraint,
Commerzbank, Daewoo, Daimler-Chrysler, Danzas, Degussa, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Lufthansa
AG, Dresdner Bank, Dunlop, Emery Worldwide, Federal Mogul, Ferrero, Fraport, Fresenius,
General Electric, General Motors Opel Division, German Post, German Parcel, Goldwell, Heraeus,
Hoechst AG, Honda, Honeywell, ICI, ITT, Kühne & Nagel, Leybold Systems, Linde, Mannesmann,
Merck, B. Motorola, Panalpina, Pepsi Cola, Philips, Pirelli, Proctor & Gamble, REWE, Röhm,
Schenck, Siemens, Sirona, System Plus, Tenovis, Tyco, Volkswagen, Wella.
Weaknesses [short description] 230
More insolvencies than Bayern and Baden-Württemberg. Northern Hessen is the ‘looser’ of the
structural changes concerning the economy. Migration has thus influenced this region especially.
Today, the density of population is half lower than the state average. Concentration of financial
sector activities in the Rhine-Main area, concentration of biotechnologies in the south and in the
middle of Hessen (Frankfurt/Darmstadt and Marburg/Giessen: 3/4 of the companies are located
here) and thus structural discrepancy. Call centres are concentrated in the Frankfurt area and in the
north of Hessen (Kassel).
Evolution in last decade [short description] 231
Evolution:
Employment has been growing (1992: 2.925.500, 2002:3.009.200) and the same holds true for the
GDP/per capita (1992: 25.201 €, 2002: 31.496 €).232
The automotive industry underwent strong structural changes towards R&D. Moreover, one of the
fastest growing industries in Hessen is the environmental technology sector (ca. 1,500 companies)
with the development of techniques and plants for environmental and energy technology by
Thyssen-Henschel, for catalyst technology by Degussa and Leybold and the centre for
Environmental Technology and Recycling in Borken, the Institute for Solar Energy Supply
Technology (ISET) in Kassel or the Institute for development methodology and production
technologies for environmentally friendly products in Herborn-Seelbach.
229
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
230http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.invest-in-hessen.de/she/index_js.htm,
Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.52,
Blancke, Susanne / Lindlohr, Andrea / Schmid, Josef (2001): Wer führt? Ein Benchmarking der Bundesländer nach Arbeitsmarktund Wirtschaftsindikatoren, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 14, Tübingen,p.8.
231http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.invest-in-hessen.de/she/index_js.htm
232 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
54
Further indicators:
Public revenue and spending (mio €)233
1999
14.343
17.930
Tax Revenue
Spending
DE7 Hessen
Employment per sector234
Agriculture:
Industry
(without
building and
construction
trade):
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and
private
services:235
1999: 47.500
2000: 47.700
2001: 48.000
1999: 792.500
2000: 787.200
2001: 780.200
1999: 64.329
2000: 62.714
2001: 59.116
1999: 770.300
2000: 794.400
2001: 802.800
1999: 1.315.500
2000: 1.363.600
2001: 1.391.700
DE71 DARMSTADT236
Total employment
Employment per
sector 2001
1,0%
Agriculture
1.975.700
22,9%
Proceeding Industry
(including building
and construction
trade)
76,0%
Public and private
services:237
DE72 GIEßEN238
Employment per sector
Total employment
Employment per
sector 2001
2,3%
Agriculture
457.100
32,1%
Proceeding Industry
(including building
and construction
trade)
65,5%
Public and private
services:239
DE73 KASSEL240
Employment per sector241
Total employment
Employment per
sector 2001
2,9%
Agriculture
590.000
30,5%
Proceeding Industry
(including building
and construction
trade)
66,5%
Public and private
services:242
233
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-6/oeff_haushalte/oef_hh03.htm
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/arbeitsmarkt/sv_besch_wz.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abt-4/prod_gewerbe/verarb01.htm,
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-4/prod_gewerbe/bau01.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/vgr/vgrETGZ.htm
235 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
236 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/kreiszahlen/hkr_erwerbstaetige_2001.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abtp/kreiszahlen/hkr_Sozialversicherungspflichtig%20.htm
237 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
238 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/kreiszahlen/hkr_erwerbstaetige_2001.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abtp/kreiszahlen/hkr_Sozialversicherungspflichtig%20.htm
239 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
240 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/kreiszahlen/hkr_erwerbstaetige_2001.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abtp/kreiszahlen/hkr_Sozialversicherungspflichtig%20.htm
241 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/arbeitsmarkt/sv_besch_wz.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abt-4/prod_gewerbe/verarb01.htm,
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-4/prod_gewerbe/bau01.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abt-p/vgr/vgrETGZ.htm, http://www.hsl.de/Abtp/kreiszahlen/hkr_Sozialversicherungspflichtig%20.htm
242 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
234
55
Industrial Structure
DE7 Hessen
Branches of industry243
Branch
1999
Employment figures
2000
2001
2002
(average of IV. quarter)
Food and tobacco
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT techniques,
optical equipment,…
Vehicle production
34.873
30.438
65.927
35.535
51.844
64.009
63.667
35.216
31.166
63.899
35.858
51.253
63.109
63.896
34.789
31.844
64.246
36.148
51.904
62.582
64.930
34.726
29.204
62.903
34.925
50.705
60.533
62.186
72.003
70.647
69.766
67.207
DE7 Hessen
Investments244
Branch
Investments (1000€)
2000
2001
Food and tobacco
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,…
Vehicle production
277.510
229.495
862.362
277.173
360.970
275.637
337.388
705.408
239.511
176.311
926.161
279.567
347.505
259.344
391.866
867.767
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research245
2001/02
92.963
Public expenditure on science and research (mio €)246
1999
4.437
DE7 Hessen
Students at universities247
Wintersemester
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
Beginners
18.039
19.549
21.971
Total number of
149.046
150.868
156.414
DE7 Hessen
Computer equipment per 100 private household s248
1993
24,6
1998
44,3
243
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-4/prod_gewerbe/verarb05.htm
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-4/prod_gewerbe/invest01.htm
245 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
246 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-6/oeff_haushalte/oef_hh03.htm
247 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-3/Hochschulen/stud_zeit.htm
248 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-2/verbrauch/verbra01.htm
244
56
DE7 Hessen
Internet access or online services per 100 private households249
1993
-
1998
8,5
DE7 Hessen
Telephone equipment per 100 private households250
ISDN
Telefons
Mobil
Answering machines
Fax/PC fax cart
1993
97,5
-
1998
6,6
98,0
11,9
37,9
17,9
Support infrastructure
DE7 Hessen
Infrastructure (categories of streets)251
Category
Motorway
(Autobahn)
Federal road
(Bundesstraße)
Provincial
road
District road
(Kreisstraße)
Total
(Landesstraße)
Kilometres
1998: 950
1999: 956
2000: 957
1998: 3.387
1999: 3.403
2000: 3.419
1998: 7.219
1999: 7.231
2000: 7.229
1998: 5.083
1999: 5.056
2000: 5.048
1998: 16.639
1999: 16.646
2000:16.652
Vehicles
1998252
1999253
2000254
2003255
3.919.120
3.970.485
4.095.245
4.198.953
Doctors and dentists (2000)256
Doctors
Dentists
22.509
4.838
249
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-2/verbrauch/verbra01.htm
http://www.hsl.de/Abt-2/verbrauch/verbra01.htm
251 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-5/verkehr/verkeh01.htm
252 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-5/verkehr/verkeh03.htm
253 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-5/verkehr/verkeh03.htm
254 http://www.hsl.de/Abt-5/verkehr/verkeh03.htm
255 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
256 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
250
57
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 1,8
2
0 (negative)
2,3
2,8
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Hessen257
Fiscal
HE
25.292
25.883
25.749
27.150
28.877
29.901
28.137
103.4
104.1
104.2
104.3
105.6
106.3
106.4
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
-2.153
-3.240
-3.148
-3.439
-4.744
-5.354
-5.129
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
112.2
117.2
116.9
117.6
123.0
125.3
125.7
Contribution
Fiscal
/ assignment
resources
within SHES after SHES
(in Mio. DM) (in Mio. DM)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
1995
27.444
1996
29.122
1997
28.897
1998
30.589
1999*
33.621
2000*
35.254
2001
33.266
*) preliminary
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
Divergence from
national average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
25.292
25.883
25.749
27.150
28.877
29.901
28.137
103.4
104.1
104.2
104.3
105.6
106.3
106.4
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
257
58
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
3
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
Hesse
542.379
EU
contribution
183.519
EU
contribution
183.519
ESF
%
100%
EAGGF
EU
contribution
-
%
-
EU
contribution
-
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years258
1991
1996
2001
24.055
27.326
30.966
GDP/capita (€)
5.795.700
6.017.900
6.072.900
Population
2.890.800
2.870.900
3.022.800
Employment (persons)
123.264
254.050
200.533
Unemployment
(persons)
5,1
9,3
7,4
Unemployment rate
1995
3631
R+D expenditure (mio
€)259
1997
3755
1999
4482
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive:
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
258
259
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
59
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg-West Pomerania)
NUTS 1: DE8 MECKLENBURGVORPOMMERN
GDP per head (2000) in €
DE8 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern260: 16.240€ (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and
excl. Berlin: 16.216 €)261
Germany262: 24.700€
EU-15 = 100; DE8 = 69,4263
GDP at current prices/in Million €
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern264 (mio €): 28.643
Germany265 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15266(mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
59,7%267 (753.700 persons268) (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002)
18,6 %269 (169.747 persons270) (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3-3,5
Strengths271 [short description]
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is located in the north-eastern part of Germany. The longest coastline of
all the German states accounts for its maritime character. Surface area is 23.173 km², with a
population of 1.776.000 inhabitants (in 2002). Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is one of the former
GDR states. With 1.712 km coastline the state has a strong maritime character with access to the
Baltic Sea (Rostock). 8 ports, 5 airports, 5 commercial landing strips and 4 special purpose landing
strips provide for traffic and transport opportunities. Combined with the motorway network and the
freight traffic centre in Rostock the state has a well developed infrastructure and connection to
Hamburg’s seaport. In its current political form the state has only been established with the German
unification in 1990 (merger of the former GDR-districts Rostock, Schwerin and Neubrandenburg).
The state’s economic structure traditionally is characterised by agriculture, food industry and
shipbuilding.
260
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
262 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
263 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
264 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-22.pdf (1.22.2)
265 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
266 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
267 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
268 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab15.asp
269 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf
270 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf
271 http://www.invest-in-germany.com, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.gfw-mv.de/, http://www.investguide-mv.de/,
Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.59.
261
60
The restructuring of the shipbuilding sector and the establishment of new high-tech shipyards are to
be seen as examples of modernisation of the maritime industry (container-, passenger-, tanker,
special purpose vessels, military shipbuilding, fishing trawlers, ship repairs and refitting). This
sector plays a traditional key role in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’s industry. Additionally the states
has in the past years modernised its Baltic seaports. Other important industrial sectors are
agriculture (pig and cattle breeding, chicken farming, grain, rape, sugar beets and potatoes), the
food-processing and the tourism industry, which were growing over the years. Especially the
tourism industry made the state second (behind Bavaria) of the most popular holiday destination for
Germans. Nearly 42% of the total area of the state is arable land with a special agricultural belt
from the northwest to the southeast corner of the state. The state is a traditional centre for the
manufacturing industry (wood doors, wooden windows, furniture and furniture pieces for the
upholstery industry) and wood industry, which is mainly composed by SME. Moreover, the Airbus
A 3 XX and the Transrapid are built here.
More recently, a telecommunications infrastructure has been established in the course of economic
reconstruction in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. This has created about 6.000 jobs in tele-working (33
major call-centres with over 6000 telephone agents) in the region. Also high-tech companies were
set up in the last years, particularly in ICT, bio-tech and life-sciences. In the region GreifswaldRostock more than 70 bio-tech companies started business in the past years. More than 308
companies (2.000 employees) in different technology centres and the three specialised institutions
have started business in medical technology, biomedicine, environment technology, maritime
technology, electronics, communications technology, and food technology.
The state hosts 2 universities (the oldest university in northern Europe; Rostock 1419) and many
research and development enterprises (Technologie- und Gewerbezentrum Schwerin, Technologieund Gewerbezentrum Wismar, Rostocker Innovations- und Gründerzentrum, Technologiezentrum
Warnemünde, Technologiezentrum Vorpommern Greifswald,Technologie-, Innovations- und
Gründerzentrum Neubrandenburg) focussing on high technology, biotechnology and medical
technology. Moreover, 4 public institutes of higher education, 1 Max-Planck institute, 2 Fraunhofer
installations, 4 public institutes of higher education, over 80 vocational schools and advanced
training programs are located here. Due to cost reasons plans for closing certain faculties at both
universities for not offering the same range of studies were discussed recently.
Companies: Aker MTW Wismar, A.P. Möller Group, CITRICO, Darguner Brauerei, Carl Kühne,
Greifen-Fleisch, Kinderkost Nestlé, Kvaerner Warnow Werft, Meckl. Kartoffel, Meyer Shipyard,
Neptune Shipyard, Peene-Shipyard, Stolle, Volkswerft, Warnow Werft.
In 1999 the state held rank 12 in investment per employee in the processing industry.272
Weaknesses273 [short description]
Very high unemployment rates, high numbers of insolvencies. Like Brandenburg, Berlin (East),
Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, and Thüringen the state still belongs to the "priority 1" regions (regions
with maximum subsidization possibilities) supported by the EU structural funds.
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment sinking (1992: 757.800 , 2002: 723.800), while the GDP/per capita been growing
(1992: 9.180 €, 2002: 16.891 €).274
The economic focus of the region, which in 1990 became Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, was
traditionally on agriculture, food industry and shipbuilding. The sort of ‘monoculture’ still today
272
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
273 Blancke/Hedrich/Schmid (2002): Bundesländer-Benchmarking, in: Wirtschaft und Politik, 19/2002
274 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
61
characterises the economy of this state causing the region’s economy being rather crisis-prone than
stable.4 out of 6 shipyards have been privatised, restructured and modernised successfully since
1990. By this modernisation the remaining shipyards became the most modern and competitive in
Europe. Nevertheless, since 1990 employment figure sank in this sector due to modernisation.
Regardless of its access to the Baltic Sea in Rostock, the state has lost relevance for overseas traffic,
which is mainly dealt with in Hamburg or Bremen. The trade and traffic between the East coast
states could not compensate the losses in this area.
More recently, the region has been modernised in view of the establishment of a modern
telecommunications infrastructures. Nevertheless, these efforts could not break the economic
monoculture and could not be established extensively. An independent upturn is not to be seen over
the whole state area.
Further indicators
Public revenue and spending (mio €) 275
1999
6.734
7.236
Revenue
Spending
2000
6.479
7.118
2001
6.508
7.058
Employment per sector276 (in 1000)
Agriculture:
1999
2000
2001
38,3
35,9
32,5
Industry (without
building and
construction trade):
85,8
84,7
84,1
Building and
construction trade:
103,7
96,5
84,0
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Private and
Public services277
196,8
196,4
191,5
336,7
338,7
338,8
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry278
Branch
Food and tobacco
Textile, clothing, leather
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, processing of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,…
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys,
recycling
Employment figures
2000
2001
(June 2000)
16.813
14.714
1.093
263
(only textile)
2.924
2.412
3.839
3.139
950
1.712
1.371
3.888
2.623
11.741
11.626
6.584
2.707
6.370
4.359
7.461
7.446
7.522
3.969
Investments279
Branch
Food and tobacco
Investments (1000€) in 2000
Business
Enterprises
(Betrieb) (Unternehmen)
91.718
90.026
275
http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-18.pdf (1.18.2.1), p.305
http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-9.pdf (1.9.2), p. 138.
277 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
278 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-12.pdf, p. 210, http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-9.pdf, p. 146.
279 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-12.pdf, p. 219.
276
62
Textile, clothing, leather
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, processing of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,…
Production of equipment for the production of electricity
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys,
recycling
994
(only textile)
234.980
35.471
10.281
10.174
26.702
87.861
22.158
29.879
16.554
26.808
14.704
234.209
40.233
5.421
10.429
17.076
58.206
22.900
20.781
10.662
41.758
28.832
Employment in education, higher education and research280
2001/02 28.813
Public expenditure on science and research (1.000 €)281
2000
188.412
Students at universities282
Semester
Beginners
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
5.521
5.782
5.467
Total number of
students
25.830
27.171
28.104
Computer equipment in private households (no. per 100 households)283
1998
30,4
Internet access or online services (no. per 100 households)284
1998
(3,8)
Telephone equipment of private households (no. per 100 households)285
1998
ISDN
Telefons
Mobil
Answering
machines
Fax/PC fax cart
(2,3)
94,1
11,3
29,0
7,5
280
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
281 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-18.pdf (1.18.2.1), p.308
282 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-5.pdf, (1.5.5)
283 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-21.pdf, p. 342
284 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-21.pdf, p. 342
285 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-21.pdf, p. 342
63
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets), in kilometres286
1999
2000
2001
Motorway
(Autobahn)
262
336
354
Federal road
(Bundesstraße)
2.072
2.077
2.081
Provincial road
(Landesstraße)
3.239
3.242
3.246
District road
(Kreisstraße)
4.130
4.123
4.124
Total
9.703
9.778
9.805
Vehicles287
2000
2001
2002
1.006.878
1.041.001
1.051.961
Doctors and dentists288
Total
dentists
1 doctor per .... inhabitants
1 dentist per ... inhabitants
1999
5.982
1.533
300
1.170
2000
6.024
1.524
296
1.171
2001
6.031
1.522
292
1.156
286
http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-15.pdf, (1.15.8)
http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-15.pdf, (1.15.9), p. 274
288 http://www.statistik-mv.de/doku/1-4.pdf
(1.4.2)
287
64
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,7
3,7
4,7
3,5
3
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern289
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
6.291
6.260
6.195
6.476
6.757
6.879
6.446
84.6
83.6
83.6
83.7
83.6
83.1
83.9
771
856
843
877
921
983
853
7.062
7.116
7.038
7.353
7.678
7.862
7.299
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
335
337
333
348
364
372
346
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
1.479
1.479
1.479
1.479
1.479
1.479
1.479
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen and
Saarland
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensations for
special burdens
(east Germany)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Compensations for
special political
costs
MV
1.978
1.980
1.976
1.991
2.007
2.015
1.989
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
7.397
7.453
7.371
7.701
8.042
8.234
7.645
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
289
65
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
6,6
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objetive 1
MecklenburgWestern
Pomerania
5493.088
EU
contribution
2455.750
EU
contribution
1100.19
ESF
%
44.80%
EU
contribution
613.47
EAGGF
%
EU
contribution
742.09
24.98%
%
30.22%
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 5
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years290
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
1991
7.334
1.907.700
845.600
128.303
1996
14.888
1.820.300
773.600
171.106
2001
16.500
1.767.800
734.600
167.938
12,5
18,0
19,6
1995
249
R+D expenditure (mio
€)291
1997
268
1999
291
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
290
291
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
66
Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony)
NUTS 1: DE9 Niedersachsen
NUTS 2
DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG
DE92 HANNOVER
DE93 LÜNEBURG
DE94 WESER-EMS
GDP per head (2000)
DE9 Niedersachsen292: 22.320 € (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637
€)293
Germany294: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE9 = 96,0; DE91 = 106,1; DE92 = 108,2; DE93 = 78,5; DE94 = 90,1295
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DE9 Niedersachsen296: 176.579
Germany297: 2.030.000
EU-15298: 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
DE9 Niedersachsen 3.479.900 persons299 (65,6%)300 (German average = 68,8%)
DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG: 752.000301
DE92 HANNOVER: 1.023.100302
DE93 LÜNEBURG: 629.300303
DE94 WESER-EMS: 1.081.400304
Unemployment rate (2002)
DE9 Niedersachsen: 355.334 persons = 9,2%305 (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG: 86.073 persons
DE92 HANNOVER: 101.983 persons
DE93 LÜNEBURG: 67.353 persons
DE94 WESER-EMS: 99.925 persons
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,7
292
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
294: http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm, http://www.destatis.de/indicators/d/vgr110ad.htm
295 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
296 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
297: http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
298: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
299 http://www.nls.niedersachsen.de/Tabellen/Wertschoepfung/Erwerb.html (all gainfully employed)
300 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
301 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
302 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
303 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
304 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
305 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf
293
67
Strengths [short description] 306
With a surface area of 47.616 km², Niedersachsen is the second-largest of the German states. In
2002, the region was inhabited by 7.926.000 people (4. most densely populated region). The state
has many natural resources (Oil, natural gas (one fifth of German consumption), potash and salt,
plaster, gravel and sand, peat and brown coal) and offers also good conditions for logistics
companies as it hosts the international airport of Hanover, 9 seaports, and extensive road, rail and
waterway networks, many freight centres. Furthermore, Niedersachsen already possesses seven
locations for intermodal transshipment between rail, road and water. The international airport in
Hanover Airport has developed into a leading air freight transshipment point and a major logistical
competence center for northern Germany. Besides, Niedersachsen has a number of seaports and
shipyards on the German North Sea coast, adding to the dense infrastructure network covering
motorways, aviation, water- and railways. Real estate prices are about 20% below the average of the
states of former West Germany (less than €5 to €150 per square meter for sites). In some regions of
the state wage levels are below the national average. Moreover, generally wages and salaries in
Niedersachsen are about 5% lower than the average for the former West Germany.
The telecommunications infrastructure is well developed. Hannover benefits from high-speed
networks, based on ISDN, ATM and in 1999 A-DSL, of Deutsche Telekom. Furthermore,
Hannover is the focus of companies such as Mannesmann Arcor, o.tel.o, Viag Interkom and
Worldcom. Vebacom, o.tel.o’s network provider, which hold headquarters here. Recently, the
American Chamber of Commerce in Germany opened up a Hannover/Lower Saxony Chapter in
Hannover.
From food industry to computer production the state offers broad variety of economic sectors, even
if it is very concentrated on the automotive industry. In recent years, branches like the automotive
industry, telecommunications, medial technology and biotechnology (Bio-RegioN) have gained in
importance. The largest car manufacturer in Europe (VW), significant computer and industrial trade
fairs in the world, and a shipyard where luxury cruise liners are constructed have set companies in
Niedersachsen. The trade-fair site Hanover is the location for many important international fairs
such as the EXPO 2000 exhibition, CeBIT (world’s largest fair for information and communications
technology) Hannover Fair (world’s biggest exhibition of industrial innovation), EMO (metal
processing industry), Euro-Blech, DOMOTEX and IAA Commercial Vehicles.
The automotive and automotive supplies industry is the sector, which employs most people in
Niedersachsen (twice as many as the German average) and which is the most important sector of the
economy. Production sites are located in Emden, Hannover, Osnabrück and Wolfsburg.
Additionally, many domestic and foreign component suppliers have production facilities in
Niedersachsen. Agriculture and food industry is the second largest and important economic sector
in Niedersachsen (fruit production; cow-, pig- and chicken-breeding) followed by electrical
engineering (3.rank with a large consumer electronics sector and Europe’s largest factory for CD
production); mechanical engineering (4. rank with the Transrapid tested in the Emsland); rubber and
plastics industry (5. rank); chemical (including biotechnology) industry (6. rank); medical
technology, measurement technology, control engineering and optical industry (7.rank). Also the
service sector is strongly developed with more than 66% of all persons in gainful employment
working here. 80% of all business start up is in this sector. Furthermore the tourism industry
employs 8% of all gainfully employed persons. Niedersachsen ranks fourth of the holiday regions
for Germans.
A broad research base (foci: environmental research, energy research) is supported by 80 nonuniversity research institutions. Niedersachsen has 11 universities and 13 public institutes of higher
education, 6 Max-Planck institutes and 3 Fraunhofer installations as well as 120 non-university
research institutions. Many are located in the Hannover-Braunschweig-Göttingen research triangle.
306
http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.ipa-niedersachsen.de/english_new/nieder_e/short_e.htm, http://www.ipaniedersachsen.de/english_new/kontakte/infoma.htm#fact, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm,
http://www.niedersachsen.de/master/0,,C429832_N15224_L20_D0_I198,00.html
68
Cooperation between industry and research is very close in the state (e.g. at the research airport
Braunschweig). The newspaper sector is characterized by a broad variety of ca. 130 different papers
(esp. at the local level) - with a circulation of about 2 mio. - like in nearly no other German state. 56
publishing house operate in the state.
Companies: Alcatel Kabel AG & Co., AMAZONENWERKE, H. Dreyer GmbH &Co KG,
BABCOCK Materials Handling Divisions GmbH, Bahlsen KG, Berentzen-Gruppe AG, Blaupunkt
Werke GmbH, Robert Bosch Elektronik GmbH, Conti Tech Holding GmbH, Continental AG, DetaAkkumulatorenwerk GmbH, Faurecia GmbH &Co. KG, Haarmann und Reimer, Fritz Homann
Lebensmittelwerke, Wilhelm Karmann GmbH, Lemförder Fahrwerktechnik AG & Co, Lohmann
&Co.AG, MAN, Piepenbrock, Rockwell, Sealed Power Europe GmbH, Siemens AG, Solvay
Automotive GmbH, Otis GmbH, H. C. Starck GmbH & Co. KG, Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co.KG,
Stöver Produktion GmbH & Co. KG, TUI, TRW Deutschland, Varta Batterie AG, Volkswagen AG,
WABCO Fahrzeugbremsen, Wendeln GmbH & CO. KG,
In 1999 the state held rank 4 in investment per employee in the processing industry.307
Weaknesses [short description]
For a long period the unemployment rate was above the German average with high unemployment
levels in costal cities such as Emden and Wilhelmshaven and in the eastern part (former border
area) of the state.
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been slightly growing (1992: 3.337.500, 2002: 3.485.800) as also the GDP/per
capita (1992: 19.412 €, 2002: 22.977 €).308
The (geopolitical and thus also economic) situation of Niedersachsen has been enhanced by the
unification of Germany. Previously, the state had the longest border area to East Germany of any
West German states, and today it has good access to the markets in the new eastern German states
and of Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, the cancellation of the special funding as a border area created
also demands for restructuring. The economic structure generally underwent a shift from a strongly
agricultural focus towards an industrial focus with a strong high-tech/computer sector and important
fairs (e.g. CeBIT) and at the same time from processing industry towards the service sector. The
relevance of agriculture has thus been decreasing over the years. Moreover, the shipyards sector
became modernized into a high-tech area.
Further Indicators
Public revenue and spending (mio €)309
Revenue
Spending
2001
43.342.660.771,84 DM
45.229.079.111,55 DM
2002
18.195.700.000 €
21.685..000.000 €
307
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
308 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
309 http://www.mf.niedersachsen.de/master/0,,C1538389_N1537929_L20_D0_I617,00.html,
http://www.mf.niedersachsen.de/master/0,,C159738_N10430_L20_D0_I617,00.html,
http://www.mf.niedersachsen.de/functions/downloadObject/0,,c1657388_s20,00.pdf
69
Employment (at workplace) per sector
Agriculture
(including meat
processing
industry)
DE9 Niedersachsen311
DE91
BRAUNSCHWEIG337
DE92 HANNOVER 338
DE93 LÜNEBURG: 339
DE94 WESER-EMS: 340
Industry (without
building and
construction
trade)
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and private
services:310
1999: 123.300312
2000: 123.500313
2001: 124.000314
1999: 1.410.000317
2000: 1.419.600318
2001: 1.419.000319
1999: 231.600322
2000: 230.500323
2001: 216.500324
1999: 916.100327
2000: 936.800328
2001: 935.700329
1999: 1.417.900332
2000: 1.463.200333
2001: 1.482.900334
2000: 31.111315
06/2001: 35.572316
2000: 678.521320
06/2001: 674.007321
2000: 189.647325
06/2001: 186.630326
2000: 589.445330
06/2001: 583.301331
2000: 1.409.196335
06/2001: 1.403.934336
06/2001: 5.147
06/2001: 197.954
06/2001: 33.037
06/2001: 109.348
06/2001: 319.087
06/2001: 6.363
06/2001: 9.617
06/2001: 14.445
06/2001: 119.931
06/2001: 90.942
06/2001: 207.100
06/2001:46.728
06/2001:41.615
06/2001:65.250
06/2001:182.769
06/2001: 113.532
06/2001: 177.652
06/2001: 451.245
06/2001: 236.071
06/2001: 397.531
Industrial Structure
DE9 Niedersachsen
Branches of industry341
Branch
Mining, stones, coal, ore
Food and tobacco
Textile, clothing, leather
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Mineral oil processing industry
Employment figures 06/2000
DE9
DE91
DE92
DE93
Niedersachsen BRAUNSCH HANNOVER LÜNEBURG
342
(03/2003)
WEIG
8.133
2.738
3.846
1.916
75.264
11.988
16.098
23.275
10.284
1.982
2.565
2.085
7.592
2.859
2.303
1.768
38.030
10.447
15.139
5.665
1.770
115
DE94
WESEREMS:
4.769
37.273
6.698
4.915
15.300
1.291
310
Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
http://www.nls.niedersachsen.de/Tabellen/Wertschoepfung/Erwerbstaetigkeit/K7023214001.html
312 Persons gainfully employed
313 Persons gainfully employed
314 Persons gainfully employed
315 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
316 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
317 Persons gainfully employed
318 Persons gainfully employed
319 Persons gainfully employed
320 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
321 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
322 Persons gainfully employed
323 Persons gainfully employed
324 Persons gainfully employed
325 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
326 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
327 Persons gainfully employed
328 Persons gainfully employed
329 Persons gainfully employed
330 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
331 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
332 Persons gainfully employed
333 Persons gainfully employed
334 Persons gainfully employed
335 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
336 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
337 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
338 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
339 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
340 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence
341 http://www.nls.niedersachsen.de/Tabellen/Erwerbstaetigkeit/K7023214001.html
342 http://www.nls.niedersachsen.de/Tabellen/Prod_Gewerbe/Inter1.html
311
70
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, processing of stones
and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of office machines, ICT
techniques, optical equipment,…
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical
instruments, sports equipment, toys,
recycling
27.833
42.185
19.081
5.698
11.324
4.384
10.472
15.964
9.154
7.394
7.142
2.680
5.500
14.396
6.813
53.566
50.580
54.403
23.686
10.388
24..836
15.253
19.680
26.237
9.337
12.182
5.704
28.703
22.861
12.030
138.636
12.599
79.124
3.737
24.841
7.647
3.662
4.026
31.117
10.116
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research343
2001/02 58.798
Public expenditure on science and research344
2001 11.674.467.720,82 DM
2003 6.032,8 mio €
Students at universities345
Wintersemester
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
Total number of
143.307
143.559
150.104
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)346
Category
Kilometres
Motorway
(Autobahn)
1.352
Road
network
26.722
Total
28.074
Vehicles
2001347 DE9 Niedersachsen: 4.940.598
DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG: 1.030.390
2003348
DE92 HANNOVER: 1.350.072
DE93 LÜNEBURG: 1.090.102
DE94 WESER-EMS: 1.470.034
DE9 Niedersachsen: 5.328.738
Doctors and dentists (2000)349
Doctors
Dentists
24.331
5.639
343
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
344 http://www.niedersachsen.de/master/0,,C1538389_N1537929_I617_L20_D0,00.html,
http://www.mf.niedersachsen.de/master/0,,C159793_N10431_L20_D0_I617,00.html
345 http://www.mwk.niedersachsen.de/functions/downloadObject/0,,c357769_s20,00.pdf
346 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab36.htm
347 http://www.nls.niedersachsen.de/Tabellen/Verkehr/K760011101.html
348http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
349 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
71
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,1
3,5
2,3
3
3,5
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Niedersachsen350
NI
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
30.413
30.739
30.312
31.772
32.889
33.793
30.972
96.2
95.4
94.4
93.8
92.2
92.0
89.6
0.452
0.553
0.672
0.788
1.037
1.113
1.864
30.866
31.292
30.984
32.560
33.926
34.906
32.837
97.6
97.1
96.5
96.1
95.2
95.0
95.0
678
830
1.008
1.182
1.556
1.637
1.556
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
507
456
406
355
304
253
203
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitation
al grants
Bremen and
Saarland
Transitional
grants
(west
Germany)
Compensatio
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
ns for special
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensatio
burdens
ns for special
political costs
(east
Germany)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
1.185
1.286
1.414
1.537
1.860
1.890
1.759
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
31.544
32.121
31.992
33.742
35.482
36.543
34.393
99.8
99.7
99.6
99.6
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
350
72
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
3,3
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
Lower Saxony
1492.457
EU
contribution
733.953
EU
contribution
682.254
ESF
%
92.96%
EU
contribution
51.699
EAGGF
%
7.04%
EU
contribution
-
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3,8
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years351
1991
1996
2001
18.573
20.471
22.725
GDP/capita (€)
7.426.700
7.795.700
7.939.600
Population
3.294.900
3.330.600
3.483.900
Employment (persons)
244.283
386.244
350.110
Unemployment
(persons)
8,1
12,1
10,0
Unemployment rate
1995
2772
R+D expenditure (mio
€)352
1997
2859
1999
3962
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive:
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
351
352
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
73
Regional profile: Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westfalia)
DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen
DEA1 DUESSELDORF
DEA2 KOELN
DEA3 MUENSTER
DEA4 DETMOLD
DEA5 ARNSBERG
GDP per head (2000)
DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen: 25.008 €353 (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl.
Berlin: 26.637 €)354
Germany355: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEA = 108,6 DEA1 =121,2; DEA2 = 115,5; DEA3 = 87,7; DEA = 105,5; DEA=
99,7356
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen357: 450.137
Germany358 : 2.030.000
EU-15359: 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen: 8.194.000 persons = 68,5%360 (15-64 years) (German average = 68,8%)
DEA1 DÜSSELDORF: 2.502.200361
DEA2 KÖLN: 2.028.800362
DEA3 MÜNSTER: 1.118.000363
DEA4 DETMOLD: 986.500364
DEA5 ARNSBERG: 1.686.200365
Unemployment rate (2002, as of 30.06.)
DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen: 9,9 %366 (Nordrhein-Westfalen: 9,2 %)367 (German average: 9,8%;
West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
353
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
355: http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm, http://www.destatis.de/indicators/d/vgr110ad.htm
356 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
357 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
358: http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
359: http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
360 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
361 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
362 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
363 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
364 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
365 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
366http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+start
en
367 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (all employees)
354
74
DEA1 DÜSSELDORF: 10,0 %368
DEA2 KÖLN: 9,2 %369
DEA3 MÜNSTER: 9,8 %370
DEA4 DETMOLD: 9,7 %371
DEA5 ARNSBERG: 10,6 %372
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,5-4
Strengths [short description]373
With a population of 18.010.000 inhabitants and in terms of economic output, Nordrhein-Westfalen
(NRW) is Germany’s largest state. The state is the largest conurbation in Europe (ca. 40 % of the
EU population live in a 500 km radius around Düsseldorf). 22.3% of the German GDP is generated
in NRW. A GDP of 459.6 billion € (2001) places NRW 14 on international comparison (in front of
Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden or Belgium). In 2001, 23 % of all available income
in Germany is generated in Nordrhein-Westfalen and 21 % of all Germany's gainfully employed
work here. The surface area adds up to 34.081 km². The infrastructure is well developed. It includes
6 international airports (Düsseldorf (Germany’s third-largest passenger airport), Mönchengladbach,
Cologne/Bonn (Germany's number two airfreight centres behind Frankfurt), Dortmund,
Münster/Osnabrück and Paderborn) and dense network (30.000 km) of expressways, roads and
railroads. The rail network (6.100 km) is also well developed (incl. ICE) (830 mio. passengers per
year) with about 678 railroad stations or stops. Europe's largest inland port in located at Duisburg
and the state has 700 km waterways.
NRW is Germany's strongest export state. 18 % of goods exported from Germany are "Made in
NRW". NRW’s economic structure is a well-balanced mix of 'classic' and future-oriented sectors.
The represented sectors range from advertising to yarn production, the range of products from
abrasives to zoom lenses. The biggest sector is the manufacturing industry (23% of German
industry generate 22% of German industrial sales and about 2.220 companies in NRW specialise in
finished metal goods) and the biggest employers in NRW are the chemical industry and the
mechanical engineering sector, followed by the electrical engineering and electronics industry, the
metal products industry, and the food industry:

‘Ruhr’ region:

‘Rhineline’:
financial and



hard coal, iron and steel industry, automotive industry, electrical
engineering, installation construction, environmental technology and
recycling
chemical industry, automotive industry, administrative centre,
insurance services, media industry, logistics
Aachen-Düren region: brown coal, paper industry, electronics
West Lower Rhine:
textile and clothing, food industry
Bergisch-Märkisch region:
high-specialised iron industry
368http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=051000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche
+starten
369http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=053000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche
+starten
370http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=055000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche
+starten
371http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=057000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche
+starten
372http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche
+starten
373 http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.gfw-nrw.de/gfw/GfW.nsf/contentByKey/BARN5B8CAY-EN-p, http://www.german-economics.de/
75


‘Siegerland’:
rolling mills mechanical engineering
‘Ostwestfalen-Lippe’ region: Clothing industry, furniture and printing industry
As to the relevance of the chemical and the plastics and rubber industry in NRW 2001 about one-infour of Germany's plastics or rubber processing machines were produced on assembly lines in
NRW. NRW has gained international importance in this sector due to global players like Bayer,
Degussa and Continental. Some 20 companies in NRW also specialise in plastic and rubber
recycling. Düsseldorf's International Trade Fair for Plastics and Rubber Products - the "K" - is an
important meeting point for the industry.
Another major sector of NRW industry is the automotive industry. Companies like Ford and Opel
have sites here. Others have important distribution centres, such as Toyota, Renault, Chrysler, and
Volvo. The American company Alcoa Automotive Structures & Technology manufactures its
aluminium chassis for Audi in Soest. Ford has established its European Research Centres here, and
Toyota established its Formula 1 centre in Cologne in 2000. Also the clothing industry with its
high-end products and Düsseldorf as a recognised fashion design centre is a relevant business
sector. Moreover, the printing and publishing industry is strong in NRW. Five of Germany's Top
Ten book shops are in NRW. In Alsdorf, Warner Music manufactures hundreds of thousands of CD,
CD-ROMS and DVD's for worldwide distribution. NRW is home to the Bertelsmann company. The
"Handelsblatt" produced in Düsseldorf is the world's biggest economic and financial newspaper in
German.
The variety of businesses in the service and manufacturing sector, international trade exhibitions
(‘Popkomm’, "CPD" (fashion), "photokina", "boot" or "drupa" (print)), and the transportation
infrastructure are very well developed. 6 international airports and a dense network of motorways,
roads and railroads as well as Europe's largest inland port in Duisburg add up to this infrastructure.
22 of Germany's 50 largest companies have their headquarters in the state. Leading companies in
NRW are e.on (energy), RWE (energy), Metro (trade), Deutsche Telekom (telecommunications)
and ThyssenKrupp (steel, machinery). Over the last few years, NRW's share of foreign direct
investment has risen consistently to more than 45 %. NRW is one of the leading German media
locations with centres of the TV and radio sector (e.g. WDR, RTL, VIVA and VOW located at
Cologne), (business) newspapers and the art scene. The multimedia Bertelsmann Group has it’s
headquarter in Gütersloh. With the Deutsche Telekom’s headquarters as well as all German
operators of cellular phone networks the state is also home to the telecommunication industry. The
region is a major centre for the insurance industry, for finance, and for retail and trade.
Europe’s highest concentration of research and higher education institutes can be found here since
the early 1970ies. 5 of Germany's 10 largest universities are located here, among them Germany's
largest university, the University of Cologne. About 500.000 students registered at the 16
universities, 37 public institutes of higher education in NRW. Moreover 11 Max-Planck institutes,
13 Fraunhofer installations, 8 Leibniz-institutes (formerly blue-list-institutes), 23 state-sponsored
research institutes, 62 special fields of research, 69 technology centres and 31 technology transfer
institutions are located here. Thus, there is also a wide range of research disciplines and subjects of
research. Micro-technologies here and new technologies are developed here. NRW has meanwhile
attained a leading role in the areas of life science and biotechnology.
In 1999 the state held rank 6 in investment per employee in the processing industry. 374
Companies: Aldi Einkauf GmbH, Babcock Borsig Power GmbH, Bayer AG, BASF Coatings
Aktiengesellschaft, Bertelsmann Aktiengesellschaft, Bertelsmann Arvato Aktiengesellschaft,
Bertelsmann Lexikothek Verlag für Bildungssysteme GmbH, Coca-Cola GmbH, DAEWOO,
Degussa AG, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Deutsche Post AG, Deutsche Telekom AG, M. DuMont
Schauberg Expedition der Kölnischen Zeitung GmbH & Co. KG, EMI Electrola GmbH, e.on AG,
Ericsson GmbH, ExxonMobil Chemical Central Europe GmbH, FALKE-FASHION, Ford-Werke
374
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
76
AG, Fuji Photo Film, General Motors, Hanjin Shipping, HARIBO GmbH & Co. KG, Henkel KgaA,
Hewlett-Packard, Hochtief, Humana Milchunion eG, Huvis, KarstadtQuelle AG, Klöckner-Werke
Aktiengesellschaft, Lekkerland-Tobaccoland, LG Electronics, LG Technology Central Europe,
Metro AG, Miele & Cie. GmbH & Co., Mitsubishi Electric, NIXDORF GmbH & Co. KG ,Nokia
GmbH, Reinhard Mohn GmbH, Dr. August Oetker KG, PEACOCK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
Procter & Gamble, RAG AG, Rewe-Gruppe, Ruhrgas AG, RWE AG, Sammi Steel, Seidensticker
GmbH, Sony, Stinnes AG, Klaus Steilmann GmbH & Co. KG, STOLLWERCK
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Tengelmann, ThyssenKrupp AG, Toshiba, Verlagsgruppe
Handelsblatt GmbH, Vorwerk Co. KG, Warner Music Manufacturing Europe GmbH, Warsteiner
Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitungsverlagsgesellschaft E.
Brost & J. Funke mbH & Co., WINCOR.
Weaknesses [short description]
For a long period the relatively high level of unemployment was above the German average. The
modernisation of the economic sector is not yet completed, even if investment rose in recent year.
In the university landscape the trend to run to a deficit in the spatial and personnel view is still not
broken. Financially the sector is chronically underdeveloped.
Evolution in last decade [short description]
In the last 10 years alone, the gross added value of the service sector grew by 44%, while that of
company-related services rose by 57%. Employment has been growing (1992: 8.030.600,
2002:8.344.100) and the same holds true for the GDP/per capita (1992: 21.648 €, 2002: 25.690
€).375
The successful (and sometimes painful) economic transformation (from resources related industry/
energy producing industry to services) changed the entire economic structure of the state. Thus, the
contribution of the secondary sector (industry) to gross added value was almost 56% in 1970. By
2001, the secondary sector in NRW fell to 29%, while the tertiary sector rose from 42% (1970) to
70% (services) and the contribution of the primary sector meanwhile became less than 1%. The
relationship between industry and services was therefore reversed and also the relevance of future
oriented industries increased and the transfer between research and industry is gaining in
importance for the structural change.
Mining – once the backbone of NRW's economy – is constantly declining in importance and today
only ranks 14th economic sector. Traditionally, the largest sectors in terms of employment are
mechanical engineering (225.000 employees) followed by the metal processing industry (194,000)
and the electrical engineering/electronics sector (159.000). In the past also a centre of coal and steel,
NRW is now largely influenced by its media and service sector that make up two thirds of the gross
value added. Companies such as Bayer, Deutsche Telekom, ThyssenKrupp and the media giant
Bertelsmann are based in NRW. Nevertheless, the state economy is still characterised by SME and
of young and innovative companies. Especially biological engineering and medical technology as
well as logistics have experienced a real start-up boom.
Further Indicators
Public revenue and spending (mio €)376
Revenue
Spending
2001
49.160,8
54.929,5
2002
48.558,4
54.551,8
375
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
376 http://fm.fin-nrw.de/info/fachinformationen/haushalt/havinfo/hh2002.ges/doku/eaa/uebers.pdf ,
http://www.presseservice.nrw.de/pub/docs/reden/download/einbringungsrede.pdf
77
Employment (at workplace) per sector
Agriculture
DEA NordrheinWestfalen378
DEA1
DUESSELDORF379
DEA2 KOELN380
DEA3
MUENSTER381
DEA4 DETMOLD382
DEA5
ARNSBERG383
Industry
1999: 123.000
2000: 122.900
2001: 123.000
1999: 27.300
2000: 27.700
2001: 28.100
1999: 2.425.500
2000: 2.413.300
2001: 2.367.600
1999: 688.00
2000: 678.300
2001: 664.400
Trade, tourism,
transportation
1999: 2.139.500
2000: 2.206.700
2001: 2.231.700
1999: 685.100
2000: 699.900
2001: 707.400
1999: 22.800
2000: 22.800
2001: 22.600
1999: 28.800
2000: 29.000
2001: 29.500
1999: 22.900
2000: 22.600
2001: 22.200
1999: 21.200
2000: 20.700
2001: 20.600
1999: 495.100
2000: 496.500
2001: 490.100
1999: 330.700
2000: 327.700
2001: 318.800
1999: 343.00
2000: 345.400
2001: 341.400
1999: 568.700
2000: 565.400
2001: 553.000
1999: 514.000
2000: 534.300
2001: 542.200
1999: 286.300
2000: 297.400
2001: 300.800
1999: 241.600
2000: 248.000
2001: 250.100
1999: 412.600
2000: 427.000
2001: 431.100
Public and private
services377
1999: 3.434.600
2000: 3.598.700
2001: 3.674.700
1999: 1.060.900
2000: 1.103.100
2001: 1.127.000
1999: 926.900
2000: 973.100
2001: 996.700
1999: 450.800
2000: 470.000
2001: 477.100
1999: 357.100
2000: 371.900
2001: 379.200
1999: 648.900
2000: 680.500
2001: 694.700
377
Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten, http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=
5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten, http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST
(DWWZEIT)'?P%23J=01, http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWZEIT)'?P%23J=00,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWZEIT)'?P%23J=99
379 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=051000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
380 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=053000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
381 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=055000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
382 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
383 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten.
378
78
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry384
Branch
DEA
NordrheinWestfalen385
2000
2001
DEA1
DUESSELDORF386
2000
2001
Employment figures
DEA2
DEA3
KOELN387
MUENSTER388
2000
2001
2000
2001
DEA4
DETMOLD389
2000
DEA5
ARNSBERG390
2001
2000
2001
Food and tobacco
116.536
114.320
29.752
28.588
24.106
23.994
21.516
21.386
21.307
21.240
19.856
19.112
Textile, clothing,
leather
Timber
53.875
51.626
13.917
14.585
6.767
6.035
16.011
16.202
9.429
9.097
5.319
4.838
25.060
23.454
2.247
2.200
1.701
1.424
5.623
5.296
11.108
10.023
4.381
4.510
Paper, printing,
publishing
Mineral oil
processing
industry
Chemical industry
90.288
91.607
24.969
25.074
27.236
27.771
7.781
8.166
17.104
17.020
13.198
13.574
5.501
4.978
-
568
694
-
-
3.474
-
-
-
-
134.098
131.813
47.919
46.945
55.345
53.619
15.985
16.363
5.421
5.412
9.429
9-474
71.504
72.763
11.068
11.035
22.178
22.769
10.901
10.942
12.600
12.920
14.757
15.097
44.251
43.046
10.498
9.703
12.600
12.521
9.336
9.073
5.513
5.240
6.304
6.510
315.472
314.828
110.927
109.409
31.815
30.793
19.987
19.626
26.288
26.943
136.456
128.058
228.314
25.295
59.936
58.318
36.734
36.813
31.250
29.709
41.379
42.234
59.016
58.221
158.104
159.879
37.222
37.910
28.452
29.499
11.247
11.153
23.709
25.038
57.474
56.280
102.750
102.384
25.541
25.036
34.761
35.028
6.204
6.486
9.843
9.998
26.401
25.836
Rubber and
synthetic material
Glas, ceramic,
working of stone
and earth
Metal (production,
working, ..)
Mechanical
engineering
Production of
equipment for the
production of
electricity, office
machines, ICT
techniques, optical
equipment tv,…
Vehicle
production
384
Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June
385http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Rec
herche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Reche
rche+starten
386 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=051000000&SUCH=
&FORT3=Recherche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=051000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
387 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=053000000&SUCH=
&FORT3=Recherche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=053000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
388 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=055000000&SUCH=
&FORT3=Recherche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=055000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
389 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=057000000&SUCH=
&FORT3=Recherche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=057000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
390 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=059000000&SUCH=&
FORT3=Recherche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
79
Furniture,
jewellery, musical
instruments, sports
equipment, toys
Recycling
58.991
57.417
5.2115
4.016
4.540
4.507
8.540
8.745
30.854
30.365
9.843
9.784
779
775
335
289
195
214
132
148
-
-
117
-
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research391
2001/02
264.433
Public expenditure on science and research (mio. €)392
12.807,5
2002
Students at universities393
Wintersemester
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
Total number of
492.772
492.701
504.687
Computer equipment in private households (%)394
1999
2000
45,3
47,4
Internet access or online services (%)395
1999
2000
Ca. 12,5
Ca. 20
Telephone equipment of private households (%)396
1999
2000
ISDN
Telefons
Mobil
Ca. 12,5
Ca. 33,3
Answering
45
machines
Fax/PC fax cart
18
391
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
392 http://fm.fin-nrw.de/info/fachinformationen/haushalt/havinfo/hh2002.ges/doku/eaa/quer.pdf, http://www.fm.nrw.de/cgibin/fm/lib/all/lob/return_download.cgi/Eckdaten_HHPl_2002.xls?ticket=guest&bid=577&no_mime_type=0
393 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Reche
rche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=99&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Reche
rche+starten,
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=98&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Reche
rche+starten,
394 http://www.lds.nrw.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2000/pres_191.html
395 http://www.lds.nrw.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2000/pres_191.html
396 http://www.lds.nrw.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2000/pres_191.html
80
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)397
Category
Kilometres
Vehicles
1999398
2000399
2001400
2003401
Motorway
(Autobahn)
2.180
Road
network
27.448
Total
29.628
10.606.152
10.741.517
10.969.936
11.255.936
Doctors and dentists (2000)402
Doctors
Dentists
62.944
12.473
397
http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab36.htm
http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
399 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
400 http://www.ldb.lds.nrw.de/QKS/DO=EXEC+'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=
Recherche+starten
401http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
402 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
398
81
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,3
3,5
0 (negative)
3,3
4,3
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Nordrhein-Westfalen403
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
107.0
106.4
106.4
106.3
105.3
104.6
101.7
-3.449
-3.125
-3.059
-3.096
-2.578
-2.201
-0.525
74.999
76.128
75.795
79.835
83.664
85.871
79.876
102.3
102.2
102.3
102.3
102.1
101.9
101.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78.448
79.253
78.854
82.931
86.242
88.071
80.402
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Transitional
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
grants
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensations
for special
burdens
Germany)
(west
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
NRW Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
74.999
76.128
75.795
79.835
83.664
85.871
79.876
102.3
102.2
102.3
102.3
102.1
101.9
101.1
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
403
82
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
3,3
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
North RhineWestphalia
3598.623
EU
contribution
970.361
EU
contribution
823.62
ESF
%
84.88%
EU
contribution
146.741
EAGGF
%
15.12%
EU
contribution
-
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 4,9
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years404
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
R+D expenditure (mio
€)405
1991
20.774
17.426.200
7.970.800
561.331
1996
22.964
17.913.700
7.801.800
826.959
2001
25.411
1.702.700
8.397.000
766.277
7,9
11,4
9,6
1995
6729
1997
7101
1999
7792
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive:
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
404
405
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
83
Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate)
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz
DEB1 KOBLENZ
DEB2 TRIER
DEB3 RHEINHESSEN-PFALZ
GDP per head (2000)
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz: 22.188 €406 (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin:
26.637)407
Germany408 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEB = 96,7; DEB1 = 89,5; DEB2 = 85,4; DEB3 = 105,0409
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz410: 89.427
Germany411: 2.030.000
EU-15412: 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)413
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz: 1.722.000 persons in gainful employment = 63,9% (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002) 414
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz: 8,0 %415 (all persons in gainful employment) (Rheinland-Pfalz: 7,2 % 416 (all
civil employees)) (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 4
Strengths [short description]417
Rheinland-Pfalz, situated in the centre-west of Germany, covers an area of 19.847 km² and had a
population of 4.035.000 inhabitants in 2002. The infrastructure is well developed with a motorway
network and efficient railway links to the rest of the Republic. 2 airports connect the state to
international traffic and transport. Additionally the waterways Rhine and Mosel are important in
this context.
Rheinland-Pfalz’s export quota is 41%, ranking it first among the German territorial states.
Important industrial sectors are the chemical and pharmaceutical industry (BASF), automotive
industry, timber processing industry and viniculture (largest wine-growing region in Germany).
Moreover, mechanical engineering, high technology companies (the state rank 4th in the top ten
European regions with the highest numbers of employees in advanced technology; every eighth
406
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
408 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
409 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
410 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
411 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
412 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
413 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
414 http://www.statistik.rlp.de/erwerbstaetigkeit/erwarbeitslose.html
415 http://www.statistik.rlp.de/erwerbstaetigkeit/erwarbeitslose.html
416 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (alle abhängigen EPs)
417 http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.isb.rlp.de/fakten_rheinland-pfalz.html?id=14,
http://www.isb.rlp.de/branchen_rheinland-pfalz.html?id=1, http://www.mwvlw.rlp.de/start/jframes.asp
407
84
employee works in high-tech sector, which includes companies with high R&D budgets) and the
predominance of SME characterise the economic structure of the state. According to Eurostat, the
state ranks No. 1 among European regions in terms of the number of employees in state-of-the-art
technologies. The infrastructure is enhanced by efficient waterways like the rivers Rhine and Mosel.
Freight terminals at Koblenz, Trier, Ludwigshafen/Germersheim, Wörth and Mainz-Bingen support
transshipment between road, rail and waterway carriers.
The chemical industry is the largest sector as far as sales in manufacturing (40%) and employment
(25% of the workforce in manufacturing, 75.000 employees in 2001) are concerned (plastics
production and processing is the largest chemical manufacturing sector). It is – like the mechanical
engineering sector - characterised by a 90%-SME-structure. The automotive industry is the second
largest industry (50.000 employees) after chemicals. It includes companies such as GM's Opel
(Kaiserslautern) and DaimlerChrysler as well as about 120 automotive suppliers. The metals and
electrical industry holds more than 41% of all industrial employment (122.000 employees). In 2000
sales in this sector made up 37% of total industry sales in the state, even if companies in this sector
are smaller compared to other German states.
Geographically, the automotive industry is concentrated in the southern part of the Palatinate,
around Kaiserslautern and in Koblenz-Neuwied, the mechanical engineering companies and
automotive industry suppliers in the Ludwigshafen-Frankenthal are, the electrical engineering and
IT companies in Rheinhessen, suppliers of automotive components, steel fabricators, hardware
manufacturers as well as builders of steel and light metal structures in Westerwald, Hunsrueck,
Eifel and Trier. Biotechnology is a growing sector of the state’s economy thanks also to the
biotechnological know-how of universities and research institutes. Also the media sector increased
in Rheinland-Pfalz with the ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), Europe's largest TV network, the
SAT1 management and SWR (SüdWest Rundfunk), the state-wide network (both Mainz), the RPR
radio (Ludwigshafen), Tecmath AG (Kaiserslautern), RZ-online (Koblenz), SER (Neustadt/Wied),
1&1 Internet AG (Montabaur). Several state sponsored programmes furthermore support the
development of the multimedia sector.
Moreover, the service sector is the fastest growing industry in the state and tourism is also an
important sector of the state’s economy with 130.000 employees (every 12th workplace is directly or
indirectly guaranteed by this sector). With a view to agriculture 43% of the state’s land (of which
1.67 million hectares are dedicated to agriculture and forestry) sustains nearly 40.000
enterprises/farms and a certain agricultural diversity, (meadowlands, harvests of cereals, primarily
wheat and barley, wines, vegetables and tobacco). With 6.000 hectares the state ranks third in
German fruit production. Nearly 200.000 people (ca. 5 % of the state's population; 85.000 as fulltime employees) work in the agricultural sector. Moreover, Rheinland-Pfalz is the biggest wineproducing region in Germany (over 20.000 wine-growers produce around 70% of the total German
vintage in six of the 13 German wine-growing regions, 100.000 employees).
The ranking in relevance of the economic sectors in terms of their share of gross value-added in
2001 is manufacturing industries (28,2 mio €), public and private services (20,2 mio €); finance,
real estate leasing and corporate services (21 mio €); trade, tourism and transportation (e.g.
‘German wine route’, 14,8 mio €) and agriculture, forestry, fishery (1,2 mio €). In terms of
employment the chemical industry ranks first, metal production second, mechanical engineering
third, automotive industry fourth and the food and tobacco industry fifth in 2001.
4 universities, 7 public institutes of higher education, 2 Max-Planck institutes, 2 Fraunhofer
installations, 20 application and industry-oriented transfer centres, technology agencies associated
with chambers of commerce are located here.
In 1999 the state held rank 10 in investment per employee in the processing industry.418
418
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
85
Companies: BASF AG, Bitburger Brewery, Boehringer, Joh. A. Bensicker GmbH, DaimlerChrysler
AG, IBM, Keiper GmbH & Co., Adam Opel AG, Pfaff, Schott Glas, IBM, SGE Deutsche Holding,
TRW, Michelin Reifenwerke KgaA, Rasselstein Hoesch GmbH
Weaknesses [short description]
Few natural resources
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been (slightly) growing (1992: 1.684.200, 2002: 1.761.700) and the same holds
true for the GDP/per capita (1992: 19.403 €, 2002: 23.038 €).419
Rehinland-Pfalz was traditionally characterised by agriculture and was among the economically
weakest German Länder. The structural transformation of the economy has created a rather
balanced mix of different economic sectors. Nevertheless, agriculture is still predominant n rural
areas.
The move of the Adam Opel AG into the south of the state had a great impact on the development
of the entire region as the company is now one of the largest employers in the Pfalz. The
transformation of the state into a service oriented economy is well underway. While other
businesses were downsizing, the service sector created 64.000 jobs from 1997 to 1999. Moreover,
the predominance of SME has contributed to the stable economic development of the state.
Due to the rapid development of new and high-technologies sector the challenges confronting
companies, especially manual crafts, in the state have changed significantly in the past years. IT
continues to play an ever-growing role.
With former allied forces and German armed forces withdrawing from their previous quarters in the
state, circa 500 properties became available for civilian use, but also problems for the economic
structure in areas affected by this withdrawing were created with the loss of about 100.000 civil and
military posts. Many companies have already exploited the option of acquisition of new properties
(e.g. at the former military airports in Hahn, Zweibrücken and Bitburg; at the Ökom Park in
Birkenfeld; in the information and communications-oriented PRE-Park in Kaiserslautern). In some
of these restructured sites, jobs are being created particularly in the new media sector.
Biotechnology, genetic engineering and ICT are prospering sectors as well.
Moreover, after NATO withdrew from Frankfurt-Hahn, its facilities were transformed into the first
international airport in Rheinland-Pfalz. Hahn has already become one of Germany’s largest air
cargo hubs. Ryanair carrier as well as charter lines provide service to European destinations through
its newly-created European hub at Hahn.
Further indicators
Public revenue and spending (mio €)420
Revenue
Spending
2000
10.598,0
11.075,7
2001
10.624,6
11.277,1
2002 (draft)
10.530,9
11.379,5
2003 (draft)
10.817,5
11.598,7
419
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
420 http://www.fm.rlp.de/index2.htm?/050haushalt/haushaltsrede/Anlage1.htm, http://www.fm.rlp.de/050haushalt/finanzplan/Seite3642.pdf, http://www.fm.rlp.de/index2.htm?/050haushalt/haushaltsrede/Anlage1.htm,
http://www.fm.rlp.de/index2.htm?/050haushalt/haushaltsrede/Anlage1.htm,
http://www.fm.rlp.de/index2.htm?/050haushalt/haushaltsrede/Anlage1.htm,
http://www.fm.rlp.de/index2.htm?/050haushalt/haushaltsrede/Anlage1.htm,
http://www.fm.rlp.de/index2.htm?/050haushalt/haushaltsrede/Anlage1.htm
86
Employment (at workplace) per sector
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz 421
Agriculture:
Industry (without Building and
building and
construction
construction
trade:
trade):
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and
private
services:422
2000: 52.800
2001: 53.800
2002: 54.100
2000: 396.700
2001: 393.000
2002: 385.600
2000: 891.000
2001: 902.600
2002: 908.000
2000: 1.089.600
2001: 1.098.800
2002: 1.110.100
2000: 116.200
2001: 115.400
2002: 110.500
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry423
Branch
Food and tobacco
Textile, clothing, leather
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Mineral oil processing industry
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of equipment for the production of electricity, office
machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment tv,…
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys,
recycling
Employment figures
2002
24.958
9.339
7.932
17.787
332
60.017
23.400
19.281
37.862
36.130
19.183
29.425
9.588
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research424
2001/02 55.669
Public expenditure on science and research)425
2000
5.744,9 mio DM
Students at universities426
Wintersemester
1996/97
2001/2002
Total number of
81.227
85.881
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)427
Category
Kilometres
Motorway
(Autobahn)
839
Road
network
17.649
Total
18.488
421
http://www.statistik.rlp.de/erwerbstaetigkeit/erwerbstaetige.html
Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
423 http://www.statistik.rlp.de/prodgewerbe/verarbgewerbe01.html, http://www.statistik.rlp.de/erwerbstaetigkeit/erwerbstaetige.html
424 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.statistik.rlp.de/prodgewerbe/baugewerbe01.html, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
425 http://www.fm.rlp.de/050haushalt/landeshaushalt/010HPL0203/10_GP/201_00_Frame.htm
426 http://www.statistik.rlp.de/bildung/bilstudierende.html, http://www.statistik.rlp.de/bildung/fachhochschulen.html
427 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab36.htm
422
87
Vehicles
2002428 2.861.809
2003429 2.885.533
Doctors and dentists (2000)430
Doctors
Dentists
428
10.751
2.023
http://www.statistik.rlp.de/verkehr/verkehrkfzbestand.html
429http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
430
http://www.statistik.rlp.de/gesundheit/gesaerzte.html
88
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,5
2,5
2,8
2
2,5
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Fiscal
resources
after
SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from
national
average
(balance
measuremen
t)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
96.2
96.3
95.2
93.4
94.5
90.8
93.2
229
231
296
429
379
780
451
15.773
16.056
15.924
16.598
17.578
17.782
16.828
97.6
97.7
97.0
95.9
96.5
95.0
95.7
343
347
444
644
568
842
676
Gapfillin
g
grant
s
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
451
406
361
316
271
226
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contributio
n/
assignment
within
SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen and
Saarland
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
1995 15.545
1996 15.824
1997 15.628
1998 16.169
1999* 17.199
2000* 17.002
2001 16.377
*) preliminary
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement
)
(= 100)
Compensations for
special burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations for
special political
costs
Rheinland-Pfalz431
RP
Fiscal
resources
before
SHES (in
Mio. DM)
1.013
972
1.024
1.179
1.058
1.287
1.075
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement
)
(= 100)
16.116
16.403
16.368
17.242
18.146
18.624
17.504
99.8
99.8
99.7
99.6
99.7
99.5
99.6
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
431
89
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
2,8
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
RhinelandPalatinate
1402.927
EU
contribution
170.677
ESF
EAGGF
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
158.877
93.09%
11.8
6.91%
-
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3,7
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years432
1991
1996
2001
18.887
20.507
22.529
GDP/capita (€)
3.788.700
3.985.800
4.041.200
Population
1.675.300
1.667.400
1.761.800
Employment (persons)
82.334
149.782
134.801
Unemployment
(persons)
5,4
9,4
7,6
Unemployment rate
1995
1457
R+D expenditure (mio
€)433
1997
1766
1999
1948
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive:
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
432
433
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
90
Regional profile: Saarland
DEC Saarland
GDP per head (2000)
DEC Saarland: 22.668 €434 (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637
€)435
Germany436 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEC = 96,8437
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DEC Saarland438: 24.248
Germany439: 2.030.000
EU-15440: 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)441
450.200 person in gainful employment = 68,6% (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002)
DEC Saarland: 10,8 % 442 (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,3
Strengths [short description]443
The Saarland is, at 2.570 km², the smallest German (non-city) state with regard to surface area.
Located in the centre-west, the region is populated by 1.065.082 (in 2002) inhabitants. Regarding its
infrastructure the state benefits from its railroad network (rapid rail lines along with the new
generation of fast trains) and the direct connection with the French railway system in Saarbrücken.
The state has one airport (incl. air freight services) and a dense motorway and road network.
Additionally, the river Saar provides for waterway traffic and transport.
The state is often referred to as a bridge to other European states such as France and Luxembourg
and for trans-European business in general. Thus, a large percentage of the workforce is employed
in trans-border activities. 87% of the employees (for which social insurance contributions are paid)
live in the state. Over 25.000 persons from other German States (esp. Rhineland-Palatinate), come
to work in Saarland each day. Also 21.000 commuters from abroad, especially France, are working
in the state. With a view to its commuters´ balance there is still a surplus of commuters into
Saarland (more than 23.000 jobs to people from neighbouring regions).
434
http://www.statistik-baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
436 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
437 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
438 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
439 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
440 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
441 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_ET01(1).pdf, http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf,
http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
442 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_AMARKT1.htm
443 http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.gwsaar.com/
435
91
Besides traditionally important branches like logistics or the automotive industry (Ford AG), the
Saarland pays particular attention to emerging high-technology sectors like pharmaceuticals and
biotechnology. Given Saarland´s special cultural and tourist attractions, also the tourism sector is a
relevant business area. The largest economic sector in terms of employment is the service sector,
followed by production, processing industry, trade and commerce, production of motor vehicles and
components, regional corporations and social insurances, the building sector, communications and
ICT, metal production and –processing as well as mechanical engineering. Saarland’s industrial
area follows the river Saar, while the more rural northern part of Saarland is covered by wood and
forests. This area serves as a short-distance leisure zone of the densely populated industrial zones.
Its centrality as well as the low cost structure, the financial assistance and technology transfer
strengthens the economic development of the state. Moreover, it supported the development of
"European skills", which additionally facilitate trans-border business activities. Especially the SaarLor-Lux region is a good example in this context (agriculture: 2%; commerce and communications:
20%; production: 31%; services: 47%).
The trend towards the establishment of trans-border co-operation between universities and research
institutions in the Saar-Lor-Lux region is increasing. Thus, over 5.000 scientists are integrated in
such co-operations. The French-German University, 5 public institutions of higher education
(University of the Saarland, University of the Saarland/Medical School, Polytechnic College,
Conservatory of Music, and Academy of Arts College of Social Work), 1 Max-Planck institute and
2 Fraunhofer installations are located here. In 1974, the Saarland University started the enlargement
of application-oriented fields of research. Out of this an attractive environment for the relocation of
numerous research institutes close to the university has developed.
In 1999 the state held rank 13 in investment per employee in the processing industry.444
Companies: AlliedSignal, AOL, Chamberlain, DePuy, FiberTechGroup, Ford, Intermet, Johnson
Controls, Lands’ End, Scott, Whirlpool.
Weaknesses [short description]445
Small size; high dependence on commuters from other regions; relatively high unemployment rate,
low employment rate; low degree of investments
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been slightly growing with constant ups and downs during this period (1992:
482.300, 2002: 505.600) and the same holds true for the GDP/per capita (1992: 19.539 €, 2002:
23.878 €).446
The structural changes initiated during the 1980ies concentrated on the creation of sectors like
Energy technology, food industry, automotive industry, ICT and tourism. Employment decreased
significantly in the mining as well as in the iron and steel processing industry. Meanwhile two third
of all workplaces in the Saarland belong to the service sector. Especially the economy of the
SAAR-LOR-LUX region, but also the rest of the state, is characterised by a structural change from
a region formerly dominated by coal and steel towards a service-oriented economy. Especially the
relevance of the steel producing sector decreased. During the 1990ies the Völklinger Saarstahl AG
(a large employer) went bankrupt. The Saarstahl AG (originating in the bankrupt) went into state
property to secure the further existence of the steel industry. In view of the mining sector (esp. hard
coal) production circumstances changed a lot due to the ‘Artikelgesetz’ (article law) and the coal
compromise (successive decrease of state subventions for coal form ca. 5 bio. € to ca. 2.7 bio. € in
444
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
445 Blancke, Susanne / Lindlohr, Andrea / Schmid, Josef (2001): Wer führt? Ein Benchmarking der Bundesländer nach Arbeitsmarktund Wirtschaftsindikatoren, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 14, Tübingen, p. 9.
446 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
92
2005) in 1997. These instruments will cause the loss of about 6.000 workplaces. To compensate
these losses the state is subsidised by the Federal government (ca. 1.4 bio €) until 2005.
A structural university reform has been finalised in 2000 closing down some not very prominent
areas, concentrating on interdisciplinary fields and strengthening the cooperation with neighbouring
universities.
Further indicators
Public revenue and spending (€)447
2001
3.193.407.200
3.356.084.200
Revenue
Spending
2002
3.146.288.500
3.364.793.100
2003
3.004.060.500
3.382.473.200
Employment (at workplace) per sector448
Agriculture:
Industry (without Building and
building and
construction
construction
trade:
trade):
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and
private
services:449
2002: 77.186
2002: 137.973
2002: 115.314
2002: 1.564
2002: 21.390
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry450
Branch
Food and tobacco
Textile
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of equipment for the production of
electricity
Production of office machines, ICT techniques,
optical equipment tv,…
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments,
sports equipment, toys, recycling
Recycling
Employment
figures 2002
8.100
398
774
2.241
794
5.486
4.246
43.932
12.925
3.463
3.065
225.007
1.155
134
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research451
2001/02 17.679
447
http://www.finanzen.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/hhpl/04-uebers.pdf, http://www.finanzen.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/hhpl/05finkre.pdf, http://www.finanzen.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/haushaltsplan_2003/Start.pdf
448 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_ETWIBER(1).pdf,
http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_SOZVERSW(1).pdf
449 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
450 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_TAB3.pdf, http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_TAB1.pdf
451 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
93
Public expenditure on science and research (mio. €)452
2001
826,6
2002
847,2
2003
876,8
Students at universities453
Beginners (included in
total number)
3.004
307
3.270
355
Wintersemester 2000/01
Summersemester 2002
Wintersemester 2001/02
Summersemester 2002
Total number of
19.970
18.857
20.150
18.954
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)454
Category
Kilometres
Vehicles
1999455
2000456
2001457
2001458
2003459
Motorway
(Autobahn)
236
Road
network
1.795
Total
2.031
690.338
701.288
728.338
741.922
746.185
Doctors and dentists (2000)460
Doctors
4.020
Dentists
658
452
http://www.finanzen.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/hhpl/10-quer.pdf, http://www.finanzen.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/hhpl/09funkt.pdf, http://www.finanzen.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/haushaltsplan_2003/Start.pdf
453 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_STUD0102.pdf,
http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/stala_STUSS02.pdf
454 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab36.htm
455 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/KFZ.PDF
456 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/KFZ.PDF
457 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/KFZ.PDF
458 http://www.statistik.saarland.de/medien/inhalt/KFZ.PDF
459http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
460 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
94
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,5
2,5
2,5
3
2
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Saarland461
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
4.019
4.017
4.010
4.185
4.315
4.402
4.134
90.9
89.8
90.4
90.1
88.9
88.4
88.9
180
234
204
228
294
329
286
4.199
4.251
4.214
4.413
4.609
4.731
4.420
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
199
201
200
209
218
224
209
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
72
64
56
48
40
32
1.600
1.600
1.600
1.600
1.200
1.050
900
SFH total
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Compensations
for special
burdens
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
SL
2.032
2.026
2.017
2.018
1.619
1.467
1.294
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
4.398
4.452
4.414
4.622
4.827
4.955
4.629
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
461
95
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
2,9
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
Saarland
981.785
EU
contribution
171.089
EU
contribution
130.841
ESF
%
76.48%
EU
contribution
40.248
EAGGF
%
23.52%
EU
contribution
-
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3,7
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years462
1991
1996
2001
18.965
20.532
23.218
GDP/capita (€)
1.074.700
1.083.500
1.067.300
Population
481.100
477.200
511.500
Employment (persons)
35.981
52.065
44.906
Unemployment
(persons)
8,6
12,4
9,8
Unemployment rate
1995
204
R+D expenditure (mio
€)463
1997
219
1999
227
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
462
463
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
96
Sachsen (Saxony)
NUTS 1:
DED SACHSEN
NUTS 2:
DED 1 Chemnitz464
DED 2 Dresden465
DED 3 Leipzig466
GDP per head (2000)
DED SACHSEN467: 16.283€ (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin: 16.216
€)468
Germany469 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEC =70,4; DEC1 = 65,9; DEC2 = 71,6; DEC3 = 75,0470
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DED SACHSEN471: 72.340
Germany472 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15473 (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)474
DED SACHSEN 64,7 % (German average = 68,8%)
DED 1 Chemnitz 63,9 %
DED 2 Dresden 65,4 %
DED 3 Leipzig 64,7 %
Unemployment rate (2002)
DED SACHSEN: 17,8 %475 (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
DED 1 Chemnitz: 148.900 persons
DED 2 Dresden: 169.900 persons
DED 3 Leipzig: 112.500 persons
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,3
Strengths [short description]476
464
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=1999&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2001&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14100000
465 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=1999&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2001&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14200000
466 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=1999&Ags=14300000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14300000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2001&Ags=14300000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14300000
467 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
468 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
469 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
470 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
471 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
472 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
473 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
474 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Index/22kreis/unterseite22.htm, own calculations.
475 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (alle abhängigen EPs)
97
Sachsen, one of the “new” German territorial states, has a population of 4.426.000 (in 2002)
inhabitants and covers an area of 18.413 km². It has three completely modernised inland ports in
Dresden, Riesa and Torgau, which increased their trans-shipment between 1992 and 1998 (from
884.233 t to 1.865.629 t). Moreover, the Dresden airport, the Leipzig-Halle international airport
(connected with the logistics centre of Leipzig), and 17 other regional airstrips provide air services
and transportation opportunities. A new terminal with an integrated railway station (incl. Inter-CityExpress connection) as well as a new motorway approach is to be built.
Saxony’s economic structure is strongly influenced by mechanical engineering (average annual
growth rates since 1996: turnover: 9%; exports: 19%; productivity: 9%). Besides traditional sectors
like the electronics and automotive industries, also new high-technologies, including
microelectronics, telematics, biotechnology, new materials, and processing engineering are relevant
business sectors. Nevertheless, also the tertiary sector (financial and business services, trade, hotels
and restaurants, transport, public and private services) is growing. Another traditional sector is the
textile industry.
Like before the existence of the GDR, the region occupies a leading position in the automobile
industry (380 companies; 1991: 19.000 EUR/employee, 2001: 381.000 EUR/employee; annual
turnover rose: 1991: 0.4 bill. €; 2001: 7 bill. €). The sites of Volkswagen (Zwickau (Golf, Passat),
Chemnitz (engines), Dresden (Phaeton)), Porsche and BMW are supplied by some 500 small and
medium-sized firms within Saxony. The processing industry is another core industry (contributing
16% to the state’s domestic gross output). The building and construction sector is twice higher than
the German average in terms of its contribution to the domestic gross output. Even the contribution
by mining, energy, and water supply is 1% point higher than the German average.
The financial and business services sector became the first in the state’s service sector (since 1992
real growth in this sector has always been above Saxony’s real growth of GDP). The service sector
has kept up with the German average (Saxony: 67.9 % contribution to the gross output; Germany:
68.9), while tourism, trade and transportation have lost in importance.
Saxony’s telecommunication network ranks next to worldwide developments. The Schkeuditz
teleport (one of Europe’s largest network nodes) was established in 1997. ISDN and DSL are
standard and available throughout the state as well as GSM-technology, covering the whole Saxon
area. Almost 700 access lines link the state’s universities and research centres with the newly
launched science network “Internet 2” (2.5 gigabit). In July 2000, the most modern television
broadcasting station in Europe (completely digitalised image and sound equipment) was established
at Leipzig.
International companies like AMD, Infineon and DuPont have turned Saxony into a spot for
microelectronics, the second important industrial branch of the state. Other new flourishing
branches include also biotechnology (biomedicine, molecular biotechnology, bio-material science
and environmental biotechnology). Currently, bio-innovation centres are set up in Dresden and
Leipzig with financial assistance from the state. The Dresden University of Technology hosts 16
biotechnological faculties (research from foodstuff biotechnology to medical technology). 20
research institutions are dealing with environmental biotechnology and 18 research institutions with
medical biotechnology. Also the fluid dynamics and material research by method of
electromagnetic forces is a prominent sector. The Dresden University of Technology and at the
Chemnitz University of Technology high-performance training and research institutions are
established. 20 research institutions throughout the state provide for product, process and material
research.
As to the energy industry the first German power exchange, Leipzig Power Exchange (LPX) has
been established in Saxony and according to Saxony’s government is the most successful in Europe.
476
http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.sachsen.de/en/wu/smwa/economy/index.html,
http://www.sachsen.de/de/wu/wirtschaftsfoerderung/investoreninfo/download/InvestinSaxony.pdf,
http://www.sachsen.de/en/wu/wirtschaftsfoerderung/investoreninfo/erfolgsstories/index.html
98
It will join with the Frankfurt European Energy Exchange (EEX), to set up a common energy
exchange with headquarters in Leipzig.
According to Saxony’s government the rate of absenteeism from the workplace is below the
German average. Also overtime, shift-work and timekeeping were never an issue.
4 universities, 16 public institutes of higher education (senior technical colleges; art academies), 22
research institutes, over 50 non-university research facilities, 1 Helmholtz Center for Environmental
Research, 6 Max-Planck institutes, 7 Leibniz institutes and 10 Fraunhofer installations are located
here. Dresden University of Technology and / other institutes are engaged in training IT-specialists.
In 1999 the state held rank 5 in investment per employee in the processing industry.477
Companies: AMD, BMW, Freiberger Compound Materials, Gläserne Manufaktur, Görlitz Fleece,
Gruppo Antolin, Infineon Technologies AG, Johnson Controls, Malden Mills Industries, Neoplan,
Porsche, Southwall Technologies Inc., TAKATA, Tower Automotive, Toyota, UNION
Werkzeugmaschinen GmbH Chemnitz, VW, Wacker Siltronic AG Freiberg
Weaknesses [short description]
Like Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Berlin (East), Sachsen-Anhalt, and Thüringen the
state still belongs to the "priority 1" regions (regions with maximum subsidization possibilities)
supported by the EU structural funds (over 4.8 billion € are at the disposal of the Free State for the
subsidization period from 2000 to 2006. Together with public and private resources this makes a
total of 11.2 billion €).
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been decreasing (1992: 1.950.200, 2002: 1.925.100) while the GDP/per capita
increased (1992: 9.399 €, 2002: 17.358 €).478 The economic growth of 11% in 1994 decreased over
the past years to 2% in 1997. This severely hinders the economic catch-up process of the eastern
Länder and of the state itself. Unemployment – like in all eastern Länder - is one of the biggest
problems for the economic upturn, even if the rate in Sachsen was slightly below the new Länder
average.
The capacity for entrepreneurship quickly recovered in Saxony after the socialist period with a
growing relevance of SME. The number of companies rose from 1990 to 1996 around 216.500
(incl. 50.000 craft firms). Due to its location, Saxony became an important location for trans-border
business with Poland and the Czech Republic. This will increase after their access to the EU and
once the state will realise its infrastructure programme in 2012 (extension of the traffic and
telecommunication network throughout the state).
Saxony has a growing industrial structure with the manufacturing sector as a motor of growth. The
gross value added in this sector 2001 increased by 7.8 % over 2000. Turnover in industry grew by
10.1 %. Also, the research potential of the industry and service sector has increased by 5% per year
since 1994 and the high-tech as well as the service sector is becoming more relevant.
Further indicators
477
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
478 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
99
Public revenue and spending (€)479
2001
15.395.600
15.908.991,20
Revenue
Spending
2002
15.902.000
16.081.046,60
2003
17.586.500
17.977.671,9
Employment (at workplace) per sector
Agriculture,
forestry, fishery:
DED Sachsen481
DED 1 Chemnitz482
DED 2 Dresden483
DED 3 Leipzig484
2000: 55.300
2001: 52.600
2002: 49.700
2000: 20.900
2000: 22.400
2000: 11.300
Industry
(including
processing
industry without
building and
construction
trade):
2000: 353.800
2001: 357.000
2002: 363.400
2000: 152.000
2000: 135.300
2000: 64.000
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism,
transportation:
Public and
private
services:480
2000: 260.700
2001: 229.500
2002: 204.800
2000: 98.300
2000: 97.500
2000: 64.800
2000: 460.600
2001: 460.400
2002: 457.000
2000: 162.900
2000: 178.100
2000: 117.900
2000: 842.800
2001: 847.400
2002: 850.300
2000: 269.800
2000: 341.200
2000: 233.900
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry
Branch
Mining
Intermediate goods industry
Capital goods industry
Persons employed 2000485
DED 1 Chemnitz: 98.348
DED 2 Dresden: 82.212
DED 3 Leipzig: 38.417
DED 1 Chemnitz: 40.931
DED 2 Dresden: 36.558
DED 3 Leipzig: 16.859
DED 1 Chemnitz: 36.228
DED 2 Dresden: 25.189
DED 3 Leipzig: 12.831
Persons employed 2001486
DED 1 Chemnitz: 101.626
DED 2 Dresden: 84.003
DED 3 Leipzig: 39.062
DED 1 Chemnitz: 43.426
DED 2 Dresden: 38.945
DED 3 Leipzig: 16.947
DED 1 Chemnitz: 36.856
DED 2 Dresden: 25.306
DED 3 Leipzig: 182
479
http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/staatsregierung/ministerien/smf/haushalt/uebersichten/einnahmen_ausgaben/euro/
einnahmen_2001_ist/index.html, http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/staatsregierung/ministerien/smf/haushalt/uebersichten/
einnahmen_ausgaben/euro/einnahmen_2002_soll/index.html, http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/staatsregierung/ministerien/smf/haushalt/
uebersichten/einnahmen_ausgaben/euro/einnahmen_2003_soll/index.html,
http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/staatsregierung/ministerien/smf/haushalt/haushaltsplaene/haushaltsplan_2001_2002/files/gesamtplan_2
001_2002.pdf,
http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/staatsregierung/ministerien/smf/haushalt/haushaltsplaene/haushaltsplan_2003_2004/files/gesamtplan_2
003_2004.pdf
480 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
481http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Index/44fachstat/unterseite44.htm?main=http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Inhalt/44fachstat/erwerbs
taetigkeit/Erwerb_2001.htm
482 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2001&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14100000
483 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2001&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14200000
484 Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June, ,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14300000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2001&Ags=14300000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14300000
485 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14300000,
486 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14300000
100
Durable goods industry
DED 1 Chemnitz: 3.495
DED 2 Dresden: 2.863
DED 3 Leipzig: 689
DED 1 Chemnitz: 17.693
DED 2 Dresden: 17.603
DED 3 Leipzig. 8.038
Non-durable goods industry
DED 1 Chemnitz: 4.061
DED 2 Dresden: 3.078
DED 3 Leipzig: 695
DED 1 Chemnitz: 17.282
DED 2 Dresden: 16.774
DED 3 Leipzig: 8.219
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research487
2001/02
69.911
Public expenditure on science and research (mio. €)488
2001
2002
2003
4.119,6
4.325,9
4.333,0
Students at universities489
Year
Beginners (included in total
number)
16.985
18.013
19.158
1999
2000
2001
Total number of
80.171
84.516
90.162
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure 2001 (categories of streets) 490
Category Motorway
(Autobahn)
Kilometres
452 km
Federal
Road
network
2.421 km
State Road
network
County
Roads
Total
4.731 km
5.946 km
13.550 km
Vehicles DED Sachsen491
2.500.826
1999
2.551.545
2000
2.610.153
2001
2.622.529
2002
492
2.630.844
2003
487
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
488
http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/staatsregierung/ministerien/smf/haushalt/haushaltsplaene/haushaltsplan_2001_2002/files/gesamtplan_2
001_2002.pdf,
http://www.sachsen.de/de/bf/staatsregierung/ministerien/smf/haushalt/haushaltsplaene/haushaltsplan_2003_2004/files/gesamtplan_2
003_2004.pdf
489 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Index/42zeitr/unterseite42.htm?main=http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Inhalt/42zeitr/ref23/hoch/shul-133.htm, http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/Bildung/hochschulen/insgesamt/zeitreihen/studenten.html,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/Bildung/hochschulen/insgesamt/zeitreihen/studenten_1hs.html
490 http://www.sachsen.de/en/wu/smwa/transport/road/index.html
491 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Index/42zeitr/unterseite42.htm?main=http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Inhalt/42zeitr/ref-32/kfz.htm
492http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
101
Vehicles NUTS 2 level
2000493
1.009.280
1.002.790
598.083
DED1 Chemnitz
DED2 Dresden
DED3 Leipzig
1.1.2002494
1.015.966
1.006.514
600.049
Doctors and dentist
DED Sachsen
497
DED1 Chemnitz
DED2 Dresden
DED3 Leipzig
1999495
Doctors: 13.775
Dentists: 3.748
2001496
Doctors: 13.825
Dentists: 3.771
Doctors: 4.428
Dentists: 1.283
Doctors: 5.503
Dentists: 1.533
Doctors: 3.894
Dentists: 932
Doctors: 4.418
Dentists: 1.305
Doctors: 5.518
Dentists: 1.538
Doctors: 3.897
Dentists: 934
493
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14300000,
494 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14300000
495 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2000&Ags=14300000,
496 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14100000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14200000,
http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/appsl1/servlet/KreisDatenEngl?Daten=Kreis&Jahr=2002&Ags=14300000
497 http://www.statistik.sachsen.de/Inhalt/44fachstat/Querschnitt2000/Aerzte.pdf
102
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4,5
5
5
4
3,5
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Sachsen498
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
15.938
15.890
15.714
16.436
17.053
17.344
16.234
85.5
84.6
84.7
84.7
84.4
83.8
84.5
1.773
1.965
1.918
1.994
2.149
2.328
2.026
17.711
17.855
17.632
18.430
19.202
19.672
18.260
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
839
846
835
873
910
932
965
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
SN
4.497
4.504
4.493
4.531
4.568
4.590
4.623
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
18.550
18.700
18.467
19.303
20.112
20.604
19.125
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
498
103
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
6,7
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objetive 1
Saxony
11240.40
EU
contribution
4858.610
EU
contribution
3057.598
ESF
%
62.93%
EU
contribution
1098.191
EAGGF
%
22.60%
EU
contribution
702.821
%
14.47%
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 6,5
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years499
1991
1996
2001
7.379
15.278
16.855
GDP/capita (€)
4.721.600
4.556.200
4.404.700
Population
2.240.500
1.997.600
1.946.800
Employment (persons)
241.227
322.322
399.328
Unemployment
(persons)
9,1
15,9
19,0
Unemployment rate
1995
1.312
R+D expenditure (mio
€)500
1997
1.533
1999
1.743
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
499
500
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
104
Sachsen-Anhalt (Saxony-Anhalt)
DEE Sachsen-Anhalt
DEE1 Dessau
DEE2 Halle
DEE3 Magdeburg
GDP per head (2000)
DEE Sachsen-Anhalt 501: 15.896 € (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin:
16.216 €)502
Germany503 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEE = 68,4; DEE1 = 64,2; DEE2 = 70,0; DEE3 = 69,1504
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DEE Sachsen-Anhalt505: 41.843
Germany506: 2.030.000
EU-15507: 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000) 508
DEE Sachsen-Anhalt 1.049.000 persons in gainful employment = 58,5% (German average =
68,8%)
DEE1 Dessau: 202.600509
DEE2 Halle: 365.200510
DEE3 Magdeburg: 489.800511
Unemployment rate (2002) 512
DEE Sachsen-Anhalt 20,8 (2001: German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
2001 as 2002 not avaliable for NUTS 2 level
DEE1 Dessau: 21,9%
DEE2 Halle: 21,8%
DEE3 Magdeburg: 19,7%
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3
501
http://www.stala.sachsen-anhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/8/82/821/82111/Bruttoinlandsprodukt__in_SachsenAnhalt_.html sowie http://www.stala.sachsenanhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/1/12/122/12211/Bevoelkerung_nach_der_Beteiligung_am_Erwerbsleben.html, eigene
Berechnungen.
502 http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
503 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
504 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
505http://www.stala.sachsen-anhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/8/82/821/82111/Bruttoinlandsprodukt_nach_Kreisen.html
506 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
507 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
508 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
509 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
510 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
511 Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (Eds.) (2002): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städte
Deutschlands.
512 http://www.stala.sachsen-anhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/1/13/132/13211/Arbeitslosenquoten_nach_Kreisen.html
105
Strengths [short description]513
Sachsen-Anhalt, one of the former GDR states, is located in the center of Germany and covers an
area of 357.022 km². At a number of 2.571.500 inhabitants (in 2002), population density is rather
low. The state has been re-established 8after its existence between 1947 and 1952) with the German
unification. Sachsen-Anhalt shares its international airport with Leipzig (Leipzig/Halle) and has
several regional airports and commercial airports. The three largest cities (Landes, Halle,
Magdeburg, Dessau) are connected to the Intercity-Network of the Deutsche Bahn. With the rivers
Elbe, Saale, Havel, Elbe-Havel-Channel and the Midlandchannel, the state is integrated into the
European waterway network.
Sachsen-Anhalt is constituted by 5 regions:
 Altmark: food and wood processing industry; processing of renewable resources and plastic
production
 Magdeburg: food and wood processing industry; mechanical engineering; logistics
 Harz: tourism; automotive industry; pharmaceutical industry; phyto-biotechnology
 Anhalt: chemical industry; pharmaceutical industry; mechanical engineering; logistics
 Halle: chemical industry; plastic production; biotechnology, IT and media
Important economic branches thus are chemical industry (‚chemical triangle’), mechanical
engineering (traditionally strong sector) and food industry (cultivation of grain, potatoes and sugar
beets). In the south of the state Leuna-Merseburg, Schkopau and Bitterfeld-Wolfen form the socalled ‚chemical triangle’ with large foreign companies such as Dow Chemical or TotalFinaElf
established sites here. The chemical industry is one of the most relevant sectors of the state’s
economic structure. Regarding the turnover in 2001 it was the second largest sector of the
processing industry (just behind the food sector). Sachsen-Anhalt (with 12.000 employees)
produces the highest turnover in the chemical industry within the new Länder. In the first half of
2002 turnover grew about 6.7% to about € 2 billion. Also employment grew in this sector. Within
the chemical industry the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important sub sectors (turnover
in 2002 (515 mio €) four times of that in 1991). Global players such as Bayer or Hexal as well as
SME like Carl Hoernecke GmbH are important pillar of this sub sector.
Nevertheless, this southern region like the whole state, predominantly characterised by chemical
industry also hosts a large food industry. This sector is the largest one in terms of turnover in 2001
(22.5% of the processing industry) and employment in 2001. In this context also the highly
productive agricultural sector should be mentioned.
The metal producing and processing industry is the third largest sector in terms of turnover in 2001
(209.600 € per employee) and the second largest in terms of employment. One quarter of all
employees in this sector in the new Länder are employed in Sachsen-Anhalt.
The mechanical engineering sector is a traditionally strong sector. In 2001 it ranked fourth in
employment (also about ca. 11.200 in 2002) and sixth in turnover. This sector is mainly
characterised by SME. A special advantage of this sector is the high level of quality secured by the
certification according to DIN EN ISO 9001:2000 and DIN ISO 9000 ff.
New economic sectors with a high growth potential are the automotive-supplies and woodprocessing industries and also new technologies such as the information and communications
technology, biotechnology and medical technology.
The automotive-supplies sector (about 10.000 employees) is concentrated in Magdeburg and
Dessau. The development in this area has always been characterised by innovations and thus the
sector has a certain growth potential. Also the biotechnology industry is booming and the ‘biotech’
region Halle-Leipzig-Jena is growing in importance (esp. in the area of phyto-biotechnology
513
http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.sachsenanhalt.de/rcs/LSA/pub/Ch2/pg9751011973146536/index.jsp , http://www.wisa.de/sa_start.htm
106
network ‘InnoPlanta’ awarded by the federal ministry for education and research; biocentre Halle,
biocentre Gatersleben, financial support by the state government for start up in this area).
The single economic sectors develop quite differently with the highest growth rates to be found
within the processing industry. Recently investments focused on the automotive-supplies,
mechanical engineering and wood-processing industries. Among the “new Bundesländer”, Sachsen
has the greatest volume of direct investments, especially due to the chemical industry and the
mechanical engineering. Among the new Länder the state ranks second as business location and
eighth among all German states.
Regarding the education and research field 2 universities, 8 public institutes of higher education, 4
Max-Planck institutes and 2 Fraunhofer installations are located here. The Martin-Luther-University
Halle offers an interesting programme for highly talented pupils (‘Audimax’), which allows pupils
to be especially supported in special schools. The scope of support for highly talented is very broad
in the state (compared to other German states).
In 1999 the state held rank 1 in investment per employee in the processing industry.514
Companies: Abtshof Magdeburg GmbH, Bayer (Bitterfeld), Bishop, Bombardier Transportation,
Bosch Telekom, Brandt AG, Burger Knäcke AG Burg, Campbell’s, Chemiedreieck, Danzas,
Deutsche Post AG, Domo-Group, Doppstadt, Dow Chemical (Schkopau), DaimlerChrysler, EEG Erdöl Erdgas GmbH Enercon-Group, esco - european salt company, FAM Magdeburger
Förderanlagen und Baumaschinen GmbH, Guardian Industries, Gas AG, Halko Halberstädter
Würstchen- und Konservenfabrik GmbH, Halloren Schokoladenfabrik GmbH Halle, Hasseröder
Brauerei GmbH, Hellmann Nicolai, HEXAL, Carl Hoernecke GmbH, K + S Kali GmbH, KATHI
Rainer Thiele GmbH Halle, Kühne & Nagel, Libehna Fruchtsaft GmbH Raguhn, Linde AG, Manuli
Stretch, Mercer (Stendal), MIBRAG mbH, MITTELDEUTSCHE ERFRISCHUNGSGETRÄNKE
GMBH & CO KG (Leisslinger), Nestlé, Nordlam, Otto Versand GmbH, Probiodrug. Propapier
GmbH, Radici Chimica GmbH, Regiocom, Rhodia Syntech, Röstfein Kaffee GmbH Magdeburg,
ROMONTA GmbH - Tagebau Amsdorf, Rotkäppchen Sektkellerei GmbH & Co., Salzwedler
Baumkuchen, Schönebeck und Calbe (windpower stations), Schwan’s-Group, Stöver, TotalFinaElf
(Leuna), Transcom Europe, Varioboard, Walter Telemedien, Zörbiger Konfitüren GmbH,
Weaknesses [short description]
Very high unemployment rate. Like Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Berlin (East),
Sachsen, and Thüringen the state still belongs to the "priority 1" regions (regions with maximum
subsidization possibilities) supported by the EU structural funds.
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been decreasing (1992: 1.125.900, 2002: 1.021.000) and the same holds true for
the GDP/per capita (1992: 8.999 €, 2002: 16.886 €).515 For a long period the state had the highest
unemployment rate in Germany, even if the terrific loss of workplaces was stopped after the first
period after the unification. Economic catch up processes will thus probably last longer than in the
rest of the federal state.
During the GDR the state was the main spot for food production; agriculture was thus one of the
most important sectors. The state, like all new Länder, has gone through a difficult period of
restructuring and concentration on core competencies (chemical industry, mechanical engineering,
food industry) in the early 1990ies. Especially the mining sector (coal, copper) was subject to grave
514
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
515 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
107
changes and restructuring. Because of the natural resources, mining is also today still important, but
concentrates on potash and salt production, natural gas and storage mining (‘Speicherbergbau’).
Furthermore, great parts of former mining areas were transformed into tourism and leisure areas.
Because of the growing investments in this period, especially the mechanical engineering sector has
become strong. Contrary to this the construction industry and related areas like glass; ceramics and
processing of stones and earth are decreasing in importance. Employment was decreased by 3.1%
from 2000 to 2001. The problems of restructuring of the construction industry prevail also in 2002
as in 2002 17.2% less employment have to be noted and one fifth less companies compared to 2001.
Also turnover decreased (2002: 7% less than 2001)
The automotive-supplies sector became boosting since the competence network MAHREGAutomotive won the InnoRegio competition of the federal ministry for education and research. This
network brings together about 100 companies and research institutes in this area.
Further indicators for DEE Sachsen-Anhalt
Public revenue and spending (mio €)516
Revenue
Spending
2001
7.960,59
8.046,27
2002
8.000,00
8.282,00
Employment (at workplace) per sector517
Agriculture:
Industry
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism, Public and
transportation: private
services:518
1999: 40.500
2000: 38.300
2001: 36.800
1999: 161.900
2000: 159.600
2001: 158.000
1999: 166.700
2000: 148.700
2001: 128.300
1999: 251.600
2000: 255.700
2001: 253.100
1999: 462.200
2000: 454.800
2001:461.800
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry519
Branch
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys
Employment figures
2000
2001
1.689
1.668
3.413
3.628
11.676
11.896
5.641
6.480
9.492
9.198
5.755
6.022
11.031
11.142
7.703
7.337
2.748
2.768
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research520
2001/02
43.180
516
http://www.mf.sachsen-anhalt.de/public_finance/budgetary_overview.htm
http://www.stala.sachsenanhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/1/13/133/13311/Erwerbst__tige_und_Arbeitnehmer_mit_Arbeitsort_im_Land_Sachsen_
Anhalt_und_Wirtschaftsabschnitten.html
518 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
519 http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/pdf/pdf10107.pdf
520 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
517
108
Public expenditure on science and research (€)521
2001
2002
1.509.873.506
1.478.522.400
Students at universities522
Wintersemester
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
Total number of
35.353
37.992
40.709
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)523
Category
Kilometres
Motorway
(Autobahn)
320
Road
Total
network
10.574 10.894
Vehicles
2000524 1.517.164
2001525 1.522.925
2003526 1.523.812
Doctors and dentists (2000)527
Doctors
Dentists
8.073
2.009
521
http://www.sachsen-anhalt.de/pdf/pdf10604.pdf
http://www.stala.sachsen-anhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/2/21/213/21311/Statistik_der_Studierenden__
Studierende_insgesamt.html
523 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab36.htm
524 http://www.stala.sachsenanhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/4/46/462/46251/Bestand_an_Kraftfahrzeugen_insgesamt.html
525 http://www.stala.sachsenanhalt.de/Internet/Home/Daten_und_Fakten/4/46/462/46251/Bestand_an_Kraftfahrzeugen_insgesamt.html
526http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
527 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
522
109
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): Total: 4
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
4
5
4
2,5-3
Sachsen-Anhalt528
ST
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
9.510
9.447
9.358
9.775
10.108
10.247
9.590
85.0
84.0
84.4
84.6
84.2
83.5
84.7
1.123
1.241
1.175
1.207
1.300
1.407
1.164
10.633
10.688
10.533
10.982
11.408
11.654
10.754
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
504
506
499
520
540
552
509
Gapfilling
grants
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
2.876
2.878
2.871
2.892
2.912
2.924
2.881
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
11.137
11.194
11.032
11.502
11.948
12.206
11.263
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
528
110
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
5,7
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objetive 1
Saxony-Anhalt
8697.414
EU
contribution
3360.445
EU
contribution
1908.342
ESF
%
56.89%
EU
contribution
715.254
EAGGF
%
21.32%
EU
contribution
730.849
%
21.79%
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 6,2
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years529
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
R+D expenditure (mio
€)530
1991
6998
2849100
1274100
167.127
1996
14189
2731500
1113500
234.451
2001
16367
2598400
1038100
264.493
10,3
18,8
20,9
1995
503
1997
513
1999
523
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive:
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
529
530
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
111
Schleswig-Holstein
DEF Schleswig-Holstein
GDP per head (2000)
DEF Schleswig-Holstein: 22.815 €
Berlin: 26.637 €)532
Germany533 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEF = 96,2534
531
(average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl.
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DEF Schleswig-Holstein: 63.478€ 535
Germany536: 2.030.000
EU-15537: 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)
1.211.000 persons in gainful employment = 65,7% 538 (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002)
DEF Schleswig-Holstein 8,7 % 539 (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,5
Strengths540 [short description]
Schleswig-Holstein is the northernmost German Federal state and the only one to border on both the
North and the Baltic Sea. A population of 2.790.000 inhabits a surface area of 15.763 km².
Schleswig-Holstein benefits from a beneficial location concerning world markets. The state has
good access to western Europe, Scandinavia, and eastern Europe The state’s location offers
optimum conditions for successful trade within the entire Baltic region, one of Europe's most
important growth markets. As too its infrastructure the state, like all other coastal countries profits
from a broad range of options. With a view to air travel, the state is depending on the Hamburg
airport, even if there are also regional airports in Kiel-Holtenau and Lübeck's Blankensee (also
some international flights) offering inner German flights. Moreover there are some smaller airports
for private flights. Ports in Lübeck, Kiel, Brunsbüttel, Flensburg, Husum and Puttgarden offer
access to the maritime transport and manage 40 mio. t per year.
Corporations engaged in environmental and power engineering, medical technology, electrical
engineering and electronics, and biotechnology are rather active in Schleswig-Holstein. ICT has
gained in importance as well, becoming a significant economic factor next to traditional sectors like
shipbuilding and marine technology industries, food industry, health service and tourism.
531
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
533 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
534 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
535 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
536 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
537 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
538 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
539 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (alle abhängigen EPs)
540 http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.wsh.de/GB/facts/index.html
532
112
The trade and commerce sector is very relevant. 15.5% of all employees were working in this sector
in 2000. This is caused by the high number of trading companies, which have established business
in the state. Nevertheless, the economic structure is characterised by a mixture of relevant sectors.
In terms of employment the manufacturing sector (even if employment figure with 20% is below
the German average) was the strongest in 1999 followed by the sector trade, repair and maintenance
of vehicles and consumer goods (18.9%) and health, veterinary and social services (12.3%).
Moreover, employment in the trade, repair and maintenance of vehicles and consumer goods sector
as well as in the guest sector, in public administration and in the health, veterinary and social
services is above the German average. Areas below the German average are real estate and rental of
property and possessions.
With a view to the gross added value the service sector has become the strongest in 2000 surpassing
the manufacturing sector. With 23.6% share the manufacturing sector and construction industry
(German average of 30.1%) rank below the financing, renting and business services sector’s share
of 31.6% (German average = 30.4%) followed by public and private services with 23.5% (German
average 21.1%) and the trade, tourism and transport sector with 19% (German average 17.2%).
Looking at the processing industry of the state, mechanical engineering is the strongest sector
(22.2% of processing industry). The food and tobacco sector is the second with 18.8% followed by
the chemical industry (12.6%). The high-tech sectors (instrumentation and control, optics (11.8%);
and printing and publishing (10.9%)) are above the German average. In terms of turnover of
industrial sectors, the food and tobacco sector ranks first with 19.3% of the total Schleswig-Holstein
industry turnover. It is followed by chemical industry (17.7%) and mechanical engineering (16%).
Contrary to this the automotive industry is weaker represented than compared to the German
average.
The tourism sector has also turned into an important economic area caused by the quality of the
environment and sport opportunities (golf courses, marinas, swimming pools, horse riding
opportunities, the Schleswig-Holstein music festival). Behind Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the state
is the second most chosen holiday destinations in Germany.
Schleswig-Holstein hosts 22 technology centres, which support new developments in the high-tech
sector and business start-ups in this area. Moreover, the multimedia campus in Kiel and Lübeck’s
Media Docks (incl. business start-up centre, business park, media centre) provide for link between
research and business in this branch. In view of the number of technology centres per head the state
ranks second after Nordrhein-Westfalen. Moreover, 3 universities, 4 public institutes of higher
education, 1 Max-Planck institute and 1 Fraunhofer installation are located here.
In 1999 the state held rank 11 in investment per employee in the processing industry.541
Companies: Acer Computer GmbH, Danfoss Compressors GmbH, Ethicon GmbH & Co. KG,
Motorola GmbH, Hydro Agri Brunsbüttel GmbH, MaK Motoren GmbH & Co. KG, Matsushita
Communication Deutschland GmbH, Sysmex Europa GmbH,
Weaknesses [short description]: No special weaknesses
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been (slightly) growing (1992: 1.212.200, 2002:1.233.900) and the same holds
true for the GDP/per capita (1992: 19.630 €, 2002: 23.362 €).542
541
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
542 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm
113
The economic structure of the state changed from the predominance of agriculture and fishery to a
modern technology location. Structural changes are also very evident in the manufacturing sector as
high-technology-based sectors (medical technology) became growth sectors in the past years.
Agriculture used to be a strong sector of the state’s industry and supported the development and
relevance of the food sector. Thus, agricultural industries, food and tobacco industries and also
mechanical engineering (e.g. manufacturing machines for the food industry) developed stronger
than in the rest of Germany. Additionally, the financing, renting and business services field and
wind energy (with 1.500 wing energy parks largest in Germany) became important economic
sector. The shipbuilding sector overcame structural crisis with the concentration of he construction
of special vessels.
Further indicators
Public revenue and spending (€)543
Revenue
Spending
2002
9.537.030.600
9.570.974.400
Employment (at workplace) per sector544
Agriculture:
Industry
(without
building and
construction
trade):
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism, Public and
transportation: private
services:545
2000: 44.000
2001: 44.000
2002: 44.000
2000: 196.000
2001: 195.000
2002: 190.000
2000: 84.000
2001: 80.000
2002: 75.000
2000: 358.000
2001: 358.000
2002: 355.000
2000: 559.000
2001: 565.000
2002: 569.000
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry
Branch
Food and tobacco
Textile, clothing, leather
Timber
Paper, printing, publishing
Mineral oil processing industry
Chemical industry
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Production of equipment for the production of electricity, office
machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment tv,…
Vehicle production
Employment figures
2000546
2001547
19.557
19.235
1.361
2.385
15.564
11.326
897
13.128
13.255
7.211
7.330
5.859
10.000
10.420
23.064
22.897
23.071
13.610
4.278
543
http://landesregierung.schleswig-holstein.de/coremedia/generator/Aktueller_20Bestand/FM/Gesetz_20_2F_20
Erlass_20_2F_20Verordnung/PDF/Allgemein,property=pdf.pdf
544 http://www.statistik-sh.de/M4/m4_06pi1.htm
545 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
546 http://landesregierung.schleswigholstein.de/coremedia/generator/Aktueller_20Bestand/MWAV/Brosch_C3_BCre_20_2F_20Publikation/pdf/WB2001_20mit_20Anla
gen,property=pdf.pdf
547 http://www.statistik-sh.de/M4/PDF/13Produzierendes%20Gewerbe/m4_8k13T3.pdf
114
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research548
2001/02 40.787
Public expenditure on science and research (€)549
2000 2.281.282.800
Students at universities550
Wintersemester
1999/2000
2000/2001
Total number of
41.405
41.387
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)551
Category Motorway
Road
Total
(Autobahn) network
Kilometres
485
9.402 9.887
Vehicles552
2003 1.870.492
Doctors and dentists (2000)553
Doctors
10.009
Dentists
2.161
548
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
549 http://landesregierung.schleswigholstein.de/coremedia/generator/Aktueller_20Bestand/FM/Gesetz_20_2F_20Erlass_20_2F_20Verordnung/PDF/Allgemein,property
=pdf.pdf
550 http://www.statistik-sh.de/
551 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab36.htm
552http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
553 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
115
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,3
2,1
2
2,2
2,9
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Schleswig-Holstein554
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence from
national average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
11.317
11.201
11.293
11.890
12.024
11.932
11.811
102.5
99.6
100.6
100.2
96.3
92.8
97.5
-141
16
-5
0
174
358
115
11.175
11.217
11.288
11.890
12.198
12.291
11.926
101.2
99.8
100.5
100.2
97.7
95.6
98.4
0
24
0
0
261
513
173
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
227
204
182
159
136
114
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
SH
391
392
346
323
561
791
428
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
11.175
11.240
11.288
11.890
12.459
12.804
12.099
101.2
100.0
100.5
100.2
99.8
99.6
99.8
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG). Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
554
116
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale):
3,5
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objective 2
SchleswigHolstein
831.107
EU
contribution
258.319
EU
contribution
221.747
ESF
%
85.84%
EU
contribution
36.572
EAGGF
%
EU
contribution
-
14.16%
%
-
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale): 3,4
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years555
GDP/capita (€)
Population
Employment (persons)
Unemployment
(persons)
Unemployment rate
1991
18.771
2.635.800
1.205.200
80.524
1996
21.423
2.732.400
1.203.700
113.083
2001
23.071
2.795.900
1.244.000
116.149
7,3
10,0
9,4
1995
639
R+D expenditure (mio
€)556
1997
648
1999
674
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
555
556
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
117
Thüringen
NUTS 1: DEG THUERINGEN
NUTS 2: Thüringen appears at several
NUTS levels but only one code is
assigned “DEG Thüringen (NUTS 1,
NUTS 2)”
GDP per head (2000)
DEG THUERINGEN557: 36.688€ (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin:
16.216 €)558
Germany559 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEG = 69,6560
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DEG THUERINGEN (mio €)561: 39.304
Germany562 (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15563 (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)
1.058.000 = 62,5% (German average = 68,8%)564
Unemployment rate (2002) 565
DEG Thüringen 15,9% (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3,5
Strengths [short description] 566
With a surface area of 16.172 km², Thueringen is one of the smaller German territorial states.
Located in the centre of Germany, the former GDR-state has a population of 2.431.000 inhabitants
(in 2002). Concerning its infrastructure the state has access to major west-east and north-south
motorway connections including the centre for goods traffic Thüringen (GVZ) near Erfurt (the
largest in the new Länder with 300 ha). Moreover, the train network is good developed (1.750 km)
and is further developed (ICE/Interregio). The state has an international airport in Erfurt (493.731
passengers in 2001), three regional airports (Altenburg-Nobitz, Eisenach-Kindel und ObermehlerSchlotheim) and 19 minor civil airports. In 2002 Erfurt became awarded because of the high level
of security standards "Airport of the Year 2002" by the Pilot’s federation ‘Cockpit’. Thus,
Thüringen is a good location for logistic companies.
557
http://www.tls.thueringen.de/seite.asp?aktiv=dat01&startbei=datenbank/default2.asp
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
559 http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/vgr/vgrtab9.htm
560 http://personal.lse.ac.uk/begg/private/documents/regional%20data.xls
561 http://www.tls.thueringen.de/seite.asp?aktiv=dat01&startbei=datenbank/default2.asp
562 http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp
563 http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop/print-product/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&product=Freeselect3EN&mode=download
564 http://de.osha.eu.int/docs/uvb2000/tab05.pdf
565 http://www1.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/multijz_heftd.pdf (all persons in gainful employment)
566 http://www.invest-in-germany.com/en/, http://www.bund.de/Verwaltung-inDeutschland/Bund/Anschriftenverzeichnis/Bundeslaender-.5571.htm, http://www.leg.thueringen.de/, http://www.invest-inthueringen.org/en/
558
118
Regarding its labour conditions many enterprises in the state choose new models offering flexible
working hours. In addition, special wage agreements between employers and employees (partly the
pay and wage agreements (‘Flächentarifvertrag’) is not valid here) offer cost advantages in
comparison to most other regions in Germany.
The diversity of the economic structure is very high. Traditional branches are mechanical
engineering (14.300; core competencies: automation technology, special machines), plastics and
metal processing and automotive industry. New field are high-tech areas (computer manufacturing,
optics, semiconductor manufacturing, solartechnology (core competencies: silicon wafers, solar
cells, thin-film technology, sensor technology and microsystems technology) or bio-technology
(centred around Jena)). Thüringen ranked first in Germany as employment increased with over 7%
in 2000. Turnover per employee was 7 times higher in 2001 compared to 1991.
Automotive and automotive supplier sectors are the largest employers in Thüringen (30.000
employees ((24% of industrial employees); core competencies: precision components,
mechatronics, automation). In the high technology sector, main branches are electrical engineering,
microelectronics, ICT and the production of semiconductors. Jena glass and optical instruments
have built up a reputation throughout the world for decades. Biotechnology and instrument making,
manufacture of bio-instruments and the medial/pharmaceutical industry has emerged as a new
industrial sector in Jena. Regarding solartechnology the German first solar village is built in
Kettmannshausen. With a view to the high-technology sector, a network of research centres and
firms working in biotechnological research, development and production have been set up. The
ICT sector (14.000 employees; core competencies: hardware, software, business solutions) is
largely constituted by SME. Also the call-centre sector is a flourishing industry in the state as
flexible working methods such as 24 hour, Sunday, public holiday working services are possible
here without public authorisation.
In terms of turnover in 2001 the food and tobacco industry ranks first with 2.591 mio € followed by
the automotive industry with 1.910 mio €. Next relevant sectors are production of metal products
(1.597 mio €), mechanical engineering (1.577 mio €) and electricity production device (1.488 mio.
€).
5 universities, 5 public institutes of higher education, 3 Max-Planck-institutes, 3 Fraunhofer
installations, 20 economic-oriented institutes, 8 technology centres, 5 industry-oriented transfer
centres are located in the state. Several research institutes are integrated into nation-wide networks
for competency. At 32 patent applications per 100.000 inhabitants, Thueringen ranks first among
the new Länder.
In 1999 the state held rank 9 in investment per employee in the processing industry. 567
Companies: Adam-Opel-AG, Analytik AG, Antec Solar GmbH, Asclepion-Meditec AG, BMW,
Robert Bosch GmbH, Chema Balke-Dürr Verfahrenstechnik GmbH, csg Computer Service GmbH,
Cybio AG, Babcock Borsig AG, Bluechip Computer GmbH, DaimlerChrysler, Deutsche Post AG,
ErSol Solar Energy AG, FER Fahrzeugelektrik GmbH, Fiege Group, Fujitsu Siemens Computer,
Gebr. Becker GmbH & Co. KG, Geratherm Medical AG, Paul Günther Logistik AG,
HELPBYCOM, Ibykus AG, IKEA,, Intershop Communications, Jenapharm, Jenoptik AG, LDT,
Logatec GmbH, LSR GmbH recycling center, Mannesmann Engineering Group's Demag Ergotech
Wiehe GmbH, Mitsubishi Motor Corporation, Mühl AG, MSG MediaServices GmbH, Motex
Mode-Textil-Service GmbH, MüCom Systeme, Panopa Logistik GmbH & Co. KG, P&O Trans
European GmbH, PV Crystalox Solar AG, R+S Textil Handels GmbH, Schott, Swedish Sandvik
Group, Thesys GmbH, Thesycon System Software & Consulting, VEKA Umwelttechnik GmbH,
X-FAB Semiconductor Foundries GmbH, VIAG Interkom, Zeiss, ZF Friedrichshafen AG
567
Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p.
39.
119
Weaknesses [short description]
Like Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Berlin (East), Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt the state
still belongs to the "priority 1" regions (regions with maximum subsidization possibilities)
supported by the EU structural funds. Unemployment level for a long time above the German
average.
Evolution in last decade [short description]
Employment has been slightly (but relative stable over the years) (1992: 1.055.100, 2002:
1.047.000) while the GDP/per capita was growing (1992: 8.901 €, 2002: 16.929 €).568 Nevertheless,
unemployment remains higher than in the rest of Germany.
In the course of economic restructuring, the traditional industrial sector of automotive production
and the optical industry have been flanked by modern sectors, as the industry has gone through
enormous restructuring since the early 1990ies. Thus, most relevant sectors today are the
automotive industry, optoelectronics, and science-based branches (telecommunications and
microelectronics).
With a view to environmental industries, Thüringen was already in 1996 concentrate on the use of
plants as raw materials. Thus, innovative applications are promoted, especially for wood and fiber
plants. Over the past years, the high-tech sector has been constantly growing. Over 30 new
companies have been established in the bio-tech industry in Jena since 1996 alone.
Additionally, the service sector grew in importance as well as the processing industry while the
construction trade decreased its relevance.
Further indicators
Public revenue and spending (€)569
2003 (draft)
Revenue 8.725.219.900
Spending 9.082.732.700
Employment (at workplace) per sector in 1000570
Agriculture:
Industry
(without
building and
construction
trade):
Building and
construction
trade:
Trade, tourism, Public and
transportation: private
services:571
2000: 35,8
2001: 33,7
2000: 205,6
2001: 209,6
2000: 139,4
2001: 125,7
2000:254,3
2001: 250,1
2000: 441,3
2001: 437,3
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry572
Branch
Food and tobacco
Rubber and synthetic material
Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth
Metal (production, working, ..)
Mechanical engineering
Employment figures
2000
2001
15.441
15.732
10.530
10.956
11.284
11.083
265
273
14.284
15.229
568
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab01.asp,
http://www.hsl.de/erwerbstaetigenrechnung/erwerbst%E4tige.htm,
569 http://www.thueringen.de/imperia/md/content/tfm/haushalt/haushalt03-04/1.pdf
570 http://www.th-online.de/download/jawi2002.pdf
571 Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
572 http://www.th-online.de/download/jawi2002.pdf
120
Production of equipment for the production of electricity, office machines, ICT
techniques, optical equipment tv,…
Vehicle production
Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys
18.658
20.084
9.006
7.940
9.594
8.116
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research573
2001/02 40.231
Public expenditure on science and research (thousand €)574
2002 (draft)
2.429.752
2003 (draft)
2.279.213
Students at universities575
Wintersemester
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
Total number of
36.299
39.752
43.302
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)576
Category Motorway
Road
Total
(Autobahn) network
Kilometres
299
9.951 10.250
Vehicles577
2003 1.497.447
Doctors and dentists (2000)578
Doctors
7.692
Dentists
2.076
573
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/hochtab7.htm, http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab26.htm,
http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/biwiku/schultab24.htm
574 http://www.thueringen.de/imperia/md/content/tfm/haushalt/haushalt03-04/1.pdf
575 http://www.tls.thueringen.de/datenbank/TabAnzeige.asp?tabelle=kr001305%7C%7CHochschulen+und+Studierende
+nach+Kreisen
576 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab36.htm
577http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab37.htm
578 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab52.htm
121
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4
4
4,7
3,9
3,3
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
Thüringen579
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
Gapfilling
grants
8.673
8.629
8.507
8.909
9.289
9.444
8.870
85.0
84.0
83.9
84.0
84.0
83.4
84.3
1.019
1.127
1.123
1.164
1.218
1.320
1.125
9.692
9.757
9.630
10.073
10.507
10.764
9.994
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
459
462
456
477
498
510
473
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
TH
2.631
2.634
2.628
2.649
2.670
2.682
2.645
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
10.151
10.219
10.086
10.550
11.005
11.274
10.468
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000:
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
579
122
Public sector transfers
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point
scale): 6,0
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Total
Objetive 1
Thuringia
EU
contribution
2886.137
10018.45
EU
contribution
1480.29
ESF
%
51.29%
EU
contribution
866.7
EAGGF
%
EU
contribution
539.147
30.03%
%
18.68%
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of domestic policies (7 point scale):
6,2
Change in standing of region relative to national average in last five and ten years580
1991
1996
2001
6.444
14.173
16.580
GDP/capita (€)
2.591.400
2.496.500
2.421.000
Population
1.237.900
1.056.400
1.069.200
Employment (persons)
147.963
191.013
194.078
Unemployment
(persons)
10,2
16,7
16,5
Unemployment rate
1995
542
R+D expenditure (mio
€)581
1997
628
1999
630
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
Strongly
positive
Territorial Policy
Public sector transfer
Employment policy
Technology policy
580
581
Slightly positive
Neutral
Slightly
negative
Strongly
negative
X
X
X
X
http://www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
123
Public sector transfers
Part B: Specific policies and their effect on cohesion
1 Macroeconomic policy
How has the approach to macroeconomic policy changed in recent years, and especially
since the advent of EMU?
The German economy is undergoing complicated economic times as the economic stagnation
is going into its third year582. Its growth rate is among the lowest in the Euro area,
unemployment is rising and government finances are problematic in view of the Stability and
Growth Pact (SGP) (deficits of 3.6% and 3.4% of GDP forecast for 2002 and 2003).
Monetary policy is tight in Germany as the lowest rate of inflation in the Euro area (1.3% in
2002) combines with interest rates set by the ECB for the area as a whole 3.3% to give a
comparatively high real rate of interest of 2.0%. Also the rise in the value of the Euro and the
World economic slowdown caused mayor problems for the German economy. Fiscal policy
needs to be revised to obey the SGP, even if much of the public deficit is related to continuing
problems in Eastern Germany. So the improvement of national and regional economies from
the fiscal deficit has been taciturn.
Main Features of country forecast – GERMANY
GDP at constant prices
Private consumption
Public consumption
GFCF
of which: equipment
Change in stocks as % of
GDP
Exports (goods and services)
Final demand
Imports (goods and services)
GNI at constant prices (GDP
deflator)
Contribution to GDP growth:
Employment
Unemployment (a) Compensation of
employees/head
Unit labour costs
Real unit labour costs
Savings rate of households
(b)
GDP deflator
Private consumption deflator
Harmonised index of
consumer prices
Trade balance (c)
Balance on current
transactions with ROW (c)
Net lending(+) or
borrowing(-) vis à vis ROW
(c)
General government balance
(c)(d) General government gross
2001 (bn €)
Curr. prices
% GDP
2071.2
100.0
1232.2
59.5
393.5
19.0
416.3
20.1
2.0
2.0
1.4
1.5
166.3
-9.4
8.0
-0.5
2.0
0.0
7.2
-0.3
9.5
-0.1
726.9
2759.5
688.3
2055.8
35.1
133.2
33.2
99.3
5.2
2.5
4.3
2.0
5.6
3.4
8.5
2.1
1.7
Domestic
demand
Stockbuilding
Foreign
balance
1981-1998
Annual percentage change
1999
2000
2001
2.0
2.9
0.6
3.7
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.2
0.8
4.1
2.5
-5.3
2002
0.2
-0.6
1.5
-6.7
2003
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.0
2004
2.0
1.5
0.8
3.1
-5.8
-0.8
-9.4
-0.7
2.2
-0.5
5.8
-0.2
13.7
4.6
10.5
3.1
5.0
0.7
1.0
0.3
2.6
-0.4
-2.1
0.5
3.4
1.3
3.9
0.4
6.4
3.2
6.7
2.1
3.2
1.6
-0.2
-1.5
0.2
1.6
0.0
0.4
-0.4
-0.7
0.2
1.0
-0.6
1.4
0.1
1.6
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
3.7
1.2
8.4
1.2
1.8
7.8
2.0
0.4
7.7
1.7
-0.6
8.2
1.6
-0.8
8.9
2.2
0.2
8.9
2.3
1.9
-0.7
-
0.4
-0.1
15.4
1.0
1.2
15.4
1.5
0.1
15.7
0.8
-0.8
16.0
0.9
-0.3
16.0
0.5
-0.3
15.8
2.7
2.6
-
0.5 0.4
0.6
0.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.9
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.8
1.1
1.2
3.8
1.2
3.4
-0.8
3.1
-1.0
4.8
0.2
6.2
2.4
6.2
2.5
6.2
2.4
1.0
-0.8
-0.3
0.1
2.4
2.6
1.8
2.4
-1.5
1.1
-2.8
-3.6
-3.4
-2.9
46.0
61.2
60.2
59.5
60.8
62.7
63
582
0.6% in 2001 and forecast of 0.2% in 2002 (European Commission, 2003, Spring Economic Forecasts 2003, European
Economy, pp. 49-51. All statistics from this source unless otherwise stated.
124
Public sector transfers
2001 (bn €)
Curr. prices
% GDP
1981-1998
Annual percentage change
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
debt (c)
(a) as % of civilian labour force. (b) gross saving divided by gross disposable income. (c) as a percentage of GDP. (d) Including proceeds
relative to UMTS licences in 2000. The UMTS amount as a % of GDP would be : 2.5%.
Source: European Commission, 2003, Spring Economic Forecasts 2003, European Economy, p. 50.
Benchmark figures of macroeconomic development in the Federal Republic of
Germany1)
2000
INDUSTRIAL ORIGIN of gross domestic product (GDP)
GDP at 1995 prices
Gainfully employed persons
GDP per gainfully employed person
GDP per gainfully employed person
Unemployment rate in % (Federal Labour Office definition)2) (figures for
earlier years see below)
GDP by expenditure at current prices
Consumption spending
Private households and private organisations w/o income
General government
Gross fixed capital formation
Changes in inventories and the like ( K bn )
Domestic demand
External balance of goods and services ( K bn )
(in % of GDP)
Gross domestic product (nominal)
GDP by expenditure at 1995 prices
Consumption spending
Private households and private organisations w/o income
General government
Gross fixed capital formation
Equipment
Buildings
Other plant
Changes in inventories and the like (GDP growth contribution)3)
Domestic demand
Exports
Imports
External balance of goods and services (GDP growth contribution)3)
Gross domestic product (real growth)
Price trend (1995 = 100)
Consumption spending by private households4)
Domestic demand
Gross domestic product5)
DISTRIBUTION of gross national income
(residence concept)
Compensation of employees
Income from self-employment and property
National income
Gross national income
For information (residence concept):
Employees
Total gross wages and salaries
Per employee
Disposable income of private households
Savings ratio in %6)
2001
2002
Annual
Projection:
2003
2,9
1,8
1,1
0,6
0,4
0,1
0,2
-0,6
0,8
1
-0,5
1,5
9,7
9,4
9,8
10
3,0
2,2
3,0
5,2
3,0
7,8
0,4
2,6
3,5
1,6
-5,1
-9,4
0,5
38,6
1,9
2,0
0,9
2,3
- 6,2
-8,0
-0,2
83,8
4,0
2,0
2,5
1,5
0
-6
2
103
5
2,75
1,4
1,2
2,5
9,5
-2,6
8,4
0,2
1,8
13,7
10,5
1,5
0,8
-5,3
-5,8
- 6,0
5,0
-0,6
-0,8
5,0
1,0
-0,5
1,5
-6,4
- 8,4
-5,9
2,5
0,0
- 1,3
2,9
-1,3
0,75
1
-0
1
-1
3,5
0
0,5
4,5
4
1,0
2,9
1,4
0,6
1,5
0,2
0,5
1
1,5
1,2
-0,3
1,9
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,1
1,8
1,5
1,5
1,75
3,9
- 0,2
2,7
2,8
1,9
0,2
1,5
1,7
1,0
4,2
1,8
2,1
2
3,5
2,5
3
1,8
3,5
1,7
2,9
9,8
0,3
2,2
1,9
3,8
10,1
-0,8 0,9
1,7
1,0
10,3
-0,5
2
2,5
2
10
1) Up to 2002 provisional results of the Federal Statistical Office; National Accounts status: January 2003
2) In relation to all gainfully-employed persons
3) Absolute change (inventories/external balance) in per cent of pre-year GDP (= GDP growth rate contribution)
4) Cost of living: 2002 + 1,3 %; 2003: around + 11/2 %
5) Unit labour costs 2002: + 0,9 %; 2003: + 1 %
6) Saving in per cent of private households' disposable income including occupational pension claims
Source: Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn, p. 8.
125
Public sector transfers
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
7.7
8.9
9.6
9.4
10.4
11.4
11.1
10.5
9.6
9.4
9.8
Unemployment
rate
Source: Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn, p. 31.
In 2001 (2. half) the GDP fall had been greater than expected (decline of - 0.3 % rather than 0.1 %). The first half of 2002 witnessed a slight lift in economic performance also driven by
the recovery in the world economy. Nevertheless, late that year, the improvement in growth
had failed to go on. Reasons were according to the German government the Middle East crisis
and the deterioration in the outlook in the USA.
Shares dropped over the past two years and the fiscal stabilisation efforts had a depressing
effect on the economic cycle. Additionally, the expenditure of GDP in terms of consumer
spending decreased by 0.5 %; while the projection for 2002 had supposed a rise of around 1
%. Higher prices in certain sectors (esp. hotels, catering and services) were perceived as a
result of the introduction of euro notes. Thus, consumer purchase fell notably. Wages rose less
and employment developed less favourably than expected by the 2002 forecasts. Thus also
purchasing power of private households expanded less than foreseen. A decline in investment
in plant and equipment and a continuation of the recession in the construction sector were to
be witnessed too (decline in investment in plant and equipment of 8.4 %; decline in
construction of 5.9 %). The fall of investments in construction was caused by the decrease in
overcapacities in the Eastern Länder and the weak domestic economic performance.
The growth of exports was more favourable (2.9 %). Parallel to this development the imports
fell (- 1.3 %) caused by the weak domestic demand. The net foreign demand (contribution of
foreign trade to GDP growth) was higher than expected beforehand (1.5 %).583
“Germany’s strengths
… important advantages enjoyed by Germany include:
– German companies are internationally competitive. This can be seen from the rise in world market shares in
real terms. Germany’s market share of global exports has risen from 9 % in the mid-1990s to 10 %. 1
– Prices are stable in Germany. At an annualised rate of 1.3 %, Germany had one of the lowest inflation rates in
the eurozone in 2002. 2
– Unemployment amongst young people remains comparatively low in Germany. In 2002, the unemployment
rate of the under-20s stood at 5.4 %, well below the figure for the eurozone. 3 One reason for this is the dual
system of vocational training, which enjoys an exemplary international reputation.
– Much progress has been made in Germany on the deregulation of the network industries (telecommunications,
electricity and gas). Germany is leading the way on this in Europe. This process results in substantial welfare
gains for the consumer in the form of price cuts and quality improvements.
– Environmental protection has emerged over the last two decades as an important business and
competitiveness factor in Germany. In 1998, at least 1.3 million jobs were related to environmental protection
(around 3.6 % of all employees). The expansion of renewable energy in particular has resulted in the
development of new branches of industry and the safeguarding of existing and the creation of new jobs.
– Germany is a pioneer on protecting the climate. In the 1990 to 2001 period, Germany cut its greenhouse gas
emissions by 18 %. Only three more percentage points separate Germany from the climate protection objective
of 21 % as agreed under the Kyoto Protocol.
Sources: 1 Deutsche Bundesbank, 2 Federal Statistical Office, 3 Federal Labour Office“
584
Show the impact of these changes on macroeconomic variables that influence competitiveness
(real and nominal interest rates; etc.) for the last 20 quarters.
The interest rates sank from 2.57 % in January 2002 to 1.22% in July 2003. Interest
payments/taxation rate at Federal level witnessed an increase from 12.5% in 1991 to
583
584
Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn.
Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn.
126
Public sector transfers
approximately 19.0% in 2003 underlining the general economic trend. The labour rose by an
average of 2.8% from 1992 to 2001 and the real unit labour were relatively unstable (varying
from -0.1 in 1999 to 1.2 in 2000, cf. table Main Features of country forecast GERMANY585). “Comparing the growth rates of collectively agreed pay and actual pay, since
the 1990s Germany has constantly been affected by 'negative wage drift' …. The main reasons
for the negative wage drift are a reduction in the level of extra payments awarded at company
level and a decline in collective bargaining coverage”586.
Interest Rates
Changes in relation to
the previous year in %
%
2003 Jul
1,22
-50,6
2003 Jun
1,97
-23,3
2003 May
1,97
-23,3
2003 Apr
1,97
-23,3
2003 Mar
2003 Feb
1,97
1,97
-23,3
-23,3
2003 Jan
1,97
-23,3
2002 Dec
2,47
2002 Nov
2,47
2002 Oct
2,47
2002 Sep
2,47
2002 Aug
2,47
2002 Jul
2,47
2002 Jun
2,57
2002 May
2,57
2002 Apr
2002 Mar
2,57
2,57
2002 Feb
2,57
2002 Jan
2,57
Period: Jan. 2002 bis Jul. 2003 (last up-date: 27.06.2003)
Development of interest
payments / taxation rate at
Federal level (%)
1
Estimate
2
Projection
1991
12,5
1992
12,4
1993
12,9
1994
14,0
1995
13,6
1996
15,0
1997
16,1
1998
16,4
1999
21,4
2000
19,7
2001
19,4
20021
19,3
Source: Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn, p. 28.
20032
19,0
585
European Commission, 2003, Spring Economic Forecasts 2003, European Economy, p. 50
Thorsten Schulten (2002): Development of pay and labour costs in 2001 examined, european industrial relations
observatory on-line, DE0201201F, http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2002/01/feature/DE0201201F.html
586
127
Public sector transfers
Germany interest rates composite leading indicator from 1971
Date
12.02 01.03 02.03 03.03 04.03 05.03
96.5 98.4 99.3 99.1 98.3 97.1
Y/Y %
10.6
9.5
7.4
5.0
1.1
-1.4
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Germany interest rates composite leading indicator from 1986
Date 12.02 01.03 02.03 03.03 04.03 05.03
96.5 98.4 99.3 99.1 98.3 97.1
Y/Y 10.6 9.5 7.4 5.0 1.1 -1.4
128
Public sector transfers
%
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Components
.
Date
12.02
01.03
02.03
03.03
04.03
05.03
Germany
business cycle
Y/Y %
9.2
12.6
12.6
10.5
7.8nbs
100.8
p;
100.6
6.4
98.2
102.0
103.0
102.7
Germany
industrial
prices
cycle
Y/Y %
Y/Y %
95.1
7.1
94.6
8.8
95.4
7.5
99.3
8.5
95.4
7.0 100.9
9.5
95.3
6.2 101.1
7.7
labor market
and costs
demand of
capital
world business competitive
cycle
environment
100.7
103.7
103.3
103.0
Y/Y %
1.0
3.3
2.7
2.2
90.5
91.9
92.8
93.3
Y/Y %
12.9
15.5
16.5
17.3
95.2
97.8
95.4
95.4
Y/Y %
4.3
5.0
-3.6
-5.3
90.1
87.6
86.7
85.9
Y/Y %
-4.5
-9.4
-9.9
-11.0
95.0
3.3
98.5
3.1
103.1
2.1
93.0
19.4
95.6
-13.2
87.7
-8.4
95.1
3.2
97.0
1.1
102.8
1.9
92.1
17.4
96.5
-7.6
87.8
-8.4
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
German business cycle
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
129
Public sector transfers
Germany industrial cycle
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Prices
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
130
Public sector transfers
Labour market and costs
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Demand of capital
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
131
Public sector transfers
Competitive environment
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Source for all graphs above: http://www.fog-lights.ch/germany_interest_rates.html
Actual annual pay and labour costs per employee by sector, 2001
Gross wages and
salaries
Employers' social security
contributions
Total labour
costs
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
EUR 17,100
EUR 3,600
EUR 20,700
Industry
EUR 32,800
EUR 7,600
EUR 40,400
Construction
EUR 23,100
EUR 5,500
EUR 28,600
Trade and transport
EUR 21,500
EUR 4,700
EUR 26,200
Financial, renting and business
activities
EUR 27,400
EUR 6,000
EUR 33,400
Other public and private services
EUR 24,300
EUR 6,100
EUR 30,400
In total
EUR 25,900
EUR 6,000
EUR 31,900
.
Source: Federal Statistical Office 2002. Found in: http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2002/01/feature/DE0201201F.html
Development of collectively agreed and actual pay, total labour costs and unit labour costs, 1992-2001*
Year
Collectively agreed
pay
Actual pay per
employee
Consumer
prices
Total labour costs per
employee
Unit labour
costs
1992
11.0%
10.4%
5.0%
10.5%
6.4%
1993
6.5%
4.4%
4.5%
4.1%
3.8%
1994
2.9%
2.0%
2.7%
3.0%
0.5%
1995
4.6%
3.2%
1.7%
3.6%
2.1%
1996
2.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.3%
0.2%
1997
1.5%
0.3%
1.9%
0.8%
-0.7%
1998
1.8%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.2%
1999
3.0%
1.4%
0.6%
1.2%
0.6%
2000
2.4%
1.6%
1.9%
1.2%
-0.2%
2001
2.1%
1.8%
2.5%
1.6%
1.2%
* Increases against the previous year.
Source: WSI Collective Bargaining Archive (column 2); Federal Statistical Office (columns 3-6). Found in:
http://www.eiro.eurofound.ie/2002/01/feature/DE0201201F.html
132
Public sector transfers
How well does the macroeconomic policy of the Member State reflect the economic
circumstances of the region? Answer in terms of judgements on the appropriateness of the
principal instruments of policy, i.e. the interest rate, the fiscal policy stance and the
development of wages and prices.
The factors outlined above vary according to the economic situation of the Länder, so in low
unemployment regions, the current policy may be justified, but not in more high
unemployment regions. In addition even previously prosperous regions seem to be having
problems at the moment.
The German macroeconomic policy did not have positive effects on the economic
circumstances of the country and the Länder (esp. Eastern Länder here esp. the construction
sector and the high unemployment rate (twice as high as in the rest of the Republic)), as the
economic growth has over a long period been extremely low. Thus, structural change and
economic competitiveness is hampered. The constantly high level of non-wage labour costs
enduringly hampers job creation and economic growth. Also the increase in actual pay per
employee in some years only covered the increase in consumer prices, so that private
consumption could not be stimulated. Even national tax reforms, which are still ongoing,
could not change the bad economic performance. Germany faced a sharp tax decline and tax
estimates for 2002 and 2003 had to be revised downwards and thus the general government
deficit has reached 3.6% of GDP in 2002. This sharp tax decline and the high number of
persons receiving social benefit payments, which are financed exclusively by the
communes/municipalities, thus worsens the financial situation of these lower tiers of
government in Germany. The planned advanced start of the second step of the tax reform (1
January 2004) will impact the situation of the Länder and communes/municipalities insofar as
it is supposed to offer relief to the tense financial situation of the German communes
communes/municipalities
with
the
so
called
municipal
finance
reform
(‘Gemeindefinanzreform’), which was actually foreseen for 2005. This reform focuses on the
areas
 enlargement of the basis for the trade tax (supposed increase: 3,9 bn. €)
o extension on freelancers, such as lawyers, etc.
o extension of the calculation base for trade tax to more independent factors of
calculation such as tenures, rentals, leasing fees, interests etc.
 tax burden on SME to be reduced.587
Nevertheless, Länder politicians emphasise that the advancement of the tax reform will also
negatively impact on the financial situation of the municipalities as it will offer also other tax
relieves, which will reduce communal budgets (e.g. cuts in state aid for hard coal to cofinance tax relieves will negatively impact on Nordrhein-Westfalen).
Also the Agenda 2010 is supposed to strengthen the financial situation of the communes with
the merger of unemployment and social benefit, which will then be covered by the Federal
budget via the Federal Employment Service (‘Bundesanstalt für Arbeit’). Relief is supposed
to make up several (ca. 7) bn. €. Part of this relief is already foreseen to increase child care
facilities at regional level.
For meeting the targets of the Stability and Growth pact, the Federal government in March
2002 set up a national stability pact with the Länder, which aims at guaranteeing the
obedience to budget discipline by the all state levels. The change of the act on budgetary
587
Even though a commission was set up to present reform proposals for the municipal finance reform no agreement could be
found and on 3th July 2003 talks terminated without any result. Nov the government has to present their own law proposal
without the suggestions of the experts of the commission. The proposal is foreseen to be submitted to parliament in August
2003.
133
Public sector transfers
principles adopted in December 2001, which was necessary because of the reform of the
financial equalisation system, imparts a procedure for the domestic implementation of the
European Stability and Growth Pact and thus transfers responsibility in this sector also to the
Länder. The different state levels thus “…agreed in particular that the expenditure of the
Federal Government for 2003 and 2004 should be cut by an average of 0,5 % a year. The
Länder and municipalities will restrict the annual growth in their expenditure to an annual
average of 1 % in the two years. The Financial Planning Council expressly confirmed this
policy in November 2002. The Federal Government, the Länder and the municipalities agree
on the shared objective of cutting the overall budget deficit to back below 3 % of GDP in
2003 and on presenting a balanced state budget by 2006.” 588
As inflation is rather low in Germany (1.4% in 2002: expected to fall to 1.3% in 2003 and
1.2% in 2004) the real interest rates remain below the Euro area average. Nevertheless, the
recent decrease in interest rates could support economic growth by a possible increase of
consumption.
The stimulation of economic growth will depend largely on domestic stimuli. “However,
domestic impulses are likely to remain weak, because, as a result of the prolonged three-year
stagnation and the strong fall in stock market values, many companies need to consolidate
their balance sheets before being able to embark on major investment programmes. The
situation is aggravated by rising levels of bad debt and losses in the German financial sector,
which limit its lending capacity, in particular to small and medium-size enterprises. As a
result, an economic recovery in Germany is likely to again lag behind those of other European
countries.”589
588
589
Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn, p. 36.
European Commission, 2003, Spring Economic Forecasts 2003, European Economy, p.49.
134
Public sector transfers
2 Public expenditure
For those central government policies which have an identifiable regional incidence, supply
data on the amount spent in each region. Please try to construct a table showing flows by
policy area and by region for a recent ‘benchmark’ year and for an earlier year (five to ten
years previously).
[Note: Typically, national policies with an identifiable regional incidence will include areas such as social
protection, infrastructure development and education. It is recognised that there will not be a meaningful
breakdown of the likes of defence or overseas aid spending.]
Most public expenditure for national policies have also an identifiable regional incidence even
if the impact of those policies sometimes cannot be related to a special regional action or
target plan. Federal public expenditure thus covers different aspects that influence regional
development. Most important areas are budget headings for economic development,
infrastructure, agriculture and education/research.590 Nevertheless, given the multitude of
public expenditure implications one single table is hard to be constructed.
(1) Labour market policy
o Measure have an financially balancing impact, as structurally strong Länder
with a huge number of contributor support areas with structural problems and a
the number of recipients of unemployment compensation
Federal budget for the overall national policy area (mio €):591
Labour market policy
2001
15 106
2002 (planned)
15 316
2003 (planned)
11 781
Budget of the Federal Employment Service in 2002 (1000 €)592
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
4.757.212
6.392.711
3.281.299
3.172.460
539.506
1.075.271
3.085.652
2.362.119
4.533.744
10.247.968
1.967.644
588.552
5.313.406
3.536.816
1.798.227
2.917.971
590
Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (2000): Indikatoren und Karten zur Raumentwicklung, Berichte, p. 226.
Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin, p. 13.
592 Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/detail/i.html
591
135
Public sector transfers

This heading includes also the GA of the development of the regional economic
structure (‘Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’) 593
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Approved funds by
GA in mio €
1998 1999 2000
19,6
7,1
1
42,2
27,8
5,3
133,1 186,5 66,2
3,4
4,9
0,3
17,6
10,1
6,8
114,4 110,4 1,5
43,6
75,3
43,2
35,3
11,7
28,2
4,8
3,4
355
184,5
3
341
4,3
4,3
225,2
110,8
4
94,9
3,4
28,5
9
2
23,2
(2) Research and development policy
o High relevance for regional and national competitiveness
o Therefore Federal level and Länder share financial support under art. 91b GG
(see chapter on technology policy)
Federal budget for the overall national policy area (mio €):594
Research and
development policy
2001
10 667
2002 (planned)
11 025
2003 (planned)
11 573
Actual Federal R&D expenditure by Land / performance of
R&D595
1997
1998
1999
2000
mio €
%
mio €
%
mio €
%
mio €
%
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
1 144.4
1 570.3
721.4
243.0
157.8
314.4
15.5
21.3
9.8
3.3
2.1
4.3
1 288.5
1 345.8
706.6
249.2
179.0
295.7
17.5
18.3
9.6
3.4
2.4
4.0
1 181.5
1 287.7
716.3
246.7
198.1
312.3
16.3
17.7
9.9
3.4
2.7
4.3
1 185.4
1 269.2
738.8
245.3
202.3
324.0
15.9
17.1
9.9
3.3
2.7
4.4
593
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.225.
594 Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin, p. 13.
595
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p- 161.
136
Public sector transfers
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
376.8
99.4
5.1
1.3
349.6
126.4
4.8
1.7
361.4
127.3
5.0
1.8
383.9
126.8
5.2
1.7
514.6
1 237.0
115.7
38.4
360.0
150.0
206.9
124.5
7.0
16.8
1.6
0.5
4.9
2.0
2.8
1.7
539.8
1 250.2
122.1
48.8
352.4
151.4
219.0
134.9
7.3
17.0
1.7
0.7
4.8
2.1
3.0
1.8
543.1
1 236.6
118.7
36.4
394.4
156.9
211.2
138.0
7.5
17.0
1.6
0.5
5.4
2.2
2.9
1.9
613.4
1 285.3
127.7
41.0
398.0
158.9
202.2
136.3
8.2
17.3
1.7
0.6
5.4
2.1
2.7
1.8
Federal financial aid to the Länder in this area (mio €)596
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Berlin (West)
Berlin (East)
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Education/Research
acc. to Art 91b GG
2001
2002
17,5
7,1
20,7
7,9
41,6
17,8
46,7
1,1
4,1
10,0
39,2
12,6
26,0
6,0
1,6
58,4
30,7
3,6
31,1
21,5
0,6
1,7
4,2
18,6
4,9
12,4
2,6
0,7
25,8
18,8
1,6
16,1
Support for research
institutes (1000 €)
2001
2002
23.139
13.701
23.894
13.346
22.836
36.735
43.148
1.177
16.713
12.932
16.313
15.237
24.113
3.299
5.243
50.404
23.760
26.482
5.021
23.189
41.599
35.158
1.229
18.573
14.026
17.153
19.086
26.445
3.436
5.410
51.993
24.223
24.972
4.401
This budget heading includes also the GA for building and maintenance of Universities (GA
‘Hochschulbau’)

GA for building and maintenance of Universities (GA ‘Hochschulbau’)
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Federal grants for building
and maintenance of
Universities, etc (mio €)597
1998 1999 2000 2001
142
157
140
162
155
182
176
167
56
49
50
49
42
40
33
40
7
13
13
17
28
33
27
34
32
40
41
46
596
Data provided by the central data collection archive of the Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der
Landesfinanzminister
597 Planungsausschuss für den Hochschulbau (2002): 32. Rahmenplan für den Hochschulbau nach dem
Hochschulbauförderungsgesetz 2003–2006, Berlin, p. 29.
137
Public sector transfers
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
38
41
36
44
53
133
43
147
69
173
78
185
40
11
69
53
26
36
40
12
96
59
27
44
36
15
88
58
26
40
42
17
109
63
29
50
(3) Different infrastructure policy related to cities
o Targeted Federal support for the structural development of cities
o Total volume of 433 mio €, of which
 92 mio € are earmarked fort he old Länder (2000: 41 mio €)
 265 mio € fort he new Länder (2000: 265 mio €)
 76 mio € earmarked for the programme ‚city districts with special need
for renovation – the social city’
Federal budget for 2001598
1000 €
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin (East)
Berlin (West)
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
13519,9
15937,2
23413,2
4002,6
44027,2
1240,0
2556,7
8265,1
30387,3
10607,2
24179,8
5756,9
1567,9
79779,3
46255,5
4297,2
41714,2
% of the budget for East / West
German Länder
14,7
17,3
8,8
4,4
16,6
1,4
2,8
8,9
11,4
11,5
26,3
6,3
1,7
30,1
17,4
4,7
15,7
598
http://www.raumplanung.uni-dortmund.de/fhp/folien%20blockseminar.pdf, Source: Verwaltungsvereinbarung über die
Gewährung von Finanzhilfen des Bundes an die Länder nach Artikel 104a Absatz 4 des GG zur Förderung städtebaulicher
Maßnahmen, 27.04./01.08.2001.
138
Public sector transfers
Federal financial aid to the Länder in this area (mio €)599
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
General financial
support law acc. to
Art 104a Abs.3 GG 600
2001
2002
228,2
271,0
263,1
304,8
222,8
259,0
120,5
126,7
48,3
53,9
100,3
102,0
178,8
221,4
99,4
108,3
311,6
347,0
711,1
803,7
110,1
116,3
35,6
40,1
238,2
250,5
132,8
135,0
116,3
132,0
109,7
113,8
General financial
support law acc. to
Art 104a Abs.4 GG 601
2001
2002
306,6
272,4
354,5
361,8
806,7
223,7
640,2
198,5
21,4
25,6
55,6
48,2
150,0
141,7
699,9
220,6
204,9
186,4
465,4
484,3
107,6
97,5
41,2
27,1
444,7
731,1
314,9
72,0
67,7
663,5
214,4
(4) Agricultural policy
o Special responsibility for the rural area
Federal budget for the overall national policy area (mio €):602
Agricultural policy
2001
1 483
2002 (planned)
1 450
2003 (planned)
1 364
599
Data provided by the central data collection archive of the Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der
Landesfinanzminister
600 This headline covers rental support for social housing, financial support for students and pupils, etc.
601 This headline covers support for social housing, city infrastructure, communal traffic support measures, etc.
602 Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin, p. 13.
139
Public sector transfers
This heading includes also the GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal
protection (‚Förderung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’)
Approved funds by GA603
(1998: entire grants, to be split. 60% Federal level, 40% Länder;
2002: mio € only planned Federal Grants)
1998 (mio DM)
2000 (mio €)604
2002 (mio € ) 605
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
West
East
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
255,730
480,927
166, 276
313, 522
0, 367
89,832
167,730
0,326
2,654
301,333
7,275
25,310
109,852
255,379
153, 721
1, 898
25, 075
60, 429
130, 766
76,887
1,714
9,934
41,197
69,143
359,133
170,453
137,204
17,342
189,908
193,700
136,067
174,584
240, 919
111, 013
84, 440
10, 562
95, 262
91, 238
85, 289
88, 298
111,681
61,041
47,905
5,771
51,089
52,595
36,300
46,100
Public expenditure impacting on regional development nevertheless mainly relate to the
different common competencies/tasks (‘Gemeinschaftsaufgaben’). Thus, central government
support instruments which have an identifiable regional incidence in Germany are:

GA of the development of the regional economic structure (‘Verbesserung der
regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’) (see chapter on territorial policies) (see above)

GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal protection (‚Förderung der
Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’) (see chapter on territorial policies) (see
above)

GA for building and maintenance of Universities (GA ‘Hochschulbau’) (see above)

GA special programme ‘flood’ (‘Hochwasser’) (see chapter on territorial policies)
2002-2003
1.75 mio €
5%
0.35 mio €
1%
Bayern
Brandenburg
603
Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Verbraucherschutz: Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der
Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes" (o.Sonderrahmenplan)
Verteilung der Ist-Ausgaben auf Maßnahmengruppen sowie nach Ländern in Mio DM
in den Jahren 1973 – 1998, http://bmvel.zadi.de/gak/strukturbericht/tab-31.pdf
604 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005.
605 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005, p.89.
140
Public sector transfers
MecklenburgVorpommern
Niedersachsen
Sachsen
Sachsen-Anhalt
Thüringen
Riserve
0.35 mio €
1%
0.35 mio €
21 mio €
5.25 mio €
0.35 mio €
5.6 mio €
1%
60%
15%
1%
16%
Other Federal financial aid to the Länder (mio €)606
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia

Other financial
support607
2001
2002
272,3
250,7
511,8
501,6
356,7
342,5
66,0
68,5
23,5
20,4
71,1
79,9
250,7
240,4
57,4
49,7
267,7
433,3
873,5
711,5
433,3
417,5
22,7
20,4
65,0
110,8
54,9
49,8
100,4
102,9
39,6
32,9
The so called Supplementary federal grants within the financial equalisation scheme
(see chapter on public sector transfer)
Baden-Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine-Westphalia
Rhineland-Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony-Anhalt
Schleswig-Holstein
Thuringia
Supplementary federal grants (mio €)
2000
2001
1 955
1 925
1 375
1 358
987
870
1 030
1 017
970
658
750
2 345
1 493
406
1 370
899
550
612
2 313
1 473
219
1 352
606
Data provided by the central data collection archive of the Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der
Landesfinanzminister
607 Including consequences of war, special support for Eastern Länder, special support for Berlin, other special financial
measures
141
Public sector transfers
13 339
Total

12 637
Different state aid instruments (see chapter on state aid) 608
Title of financial aid
Planned budget
2002 in mio €
Marketing of German hard coal
GA agricutltural structure (without coastal protection)
Social housing
Interest subsidies for housing modernisation in the framework of the ‚KfW’ for the
Eastern Länder
Subsidies for the Eastern Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure
Premium according to housing/house construction premium law
Subsidies for providers of agricultural accidents insurance
Interest subsidies to the ‚KfW’ for building modernisation / renovation to avoid C O2emissions
Subsidies to take on agricultural employees
Indirect support of research and start ups
Adaptation support for employees in hard coal mining sector
Measures to support SME and freelancers as well as to strengthen vocational training
Subsidies to the Federal monopoly administration for spirits
Subsidies for the West Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure
Research and development in the Eastern Länder
Interest subsidies and reimbursement of loss in loans in the framework of the own
capital support programme for self-employment
Support of single measures fort he use of renewable energies
Support of the industrial common research and development
Pension for handing over land (‚Landabgaberente ‘)
Financial support for selling of civil air plains including power plants
Total
in % of financial aid of the federal level
2.929
708
675
614
595
500
256
205
171
137
121
117
108
105
103
101
99
88
87
78
7.796
94,9
Also the co-financing (by national, Länder and district funds) of European funds 2000-2006
(regional development programmes) falls within the area of public expenditure/public sector
transfer, even though it cannot attributed directly to the national budget:609
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
Objective 2
Objective 2
Objective 2
Objetive 1
Objetive 1
BadenWürttemberg
Bavaria
Western part
of Berlin
Eastern part
of Berlin
Brandenburg
ESF
EAGGF
Total
EU
contribution
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
1160.366
97.769
97.769
100%
-
-
-
-
2200.882
1179.189
536.638
384.449
475.804
244.125
88.66%
63.50%
60.834
140.324
11.34%
36.50%
-
-
2120.302
687.558
517.858
75.32%
162.663
23.66%
7.037
1.02%
6733.047
3090.223
1639.26
53.05%
730.66
23.64%
720.302
23.31%
608
Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Achtzehnter Subventionsbericht. Bericht der Bundesregierung über die
Entwicklung der Finanzhilfen des Bundes und der Steuervergünstigungen für die Jahre 1999 –2002 Achtzehnter
Subventionsbericht, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage11114/18-th-Subsidies-report-of-the-FederalGovernment-Summery.pdf, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage6737/18.-Subventionsbericht-derBundesregierung.pdf, p 19.
609 http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/country/prordn/search.cfm?gv_pay=DE&gv_reg=ALL&gv_obj=
ALL&gv_the=ALL&LAN=EN
142
Public sector transfers
Objective 2
Objective 2
Objective 2
Objective 2
Objetive 1
Objective 2
Objective 2
Objective 2
Objetive 1
Objetive 1
Objective 2
Objetive 1
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Lower
Saxony
MecklenburgWestern
Pomerania
North RhineWestphalia
RhinelandPalatinate
Saarland
Saxony
SaxonyAnhalt
SchleswigHolstein
Thuringia
354.659
12.384
542.379
1492.457
113.034
6.192
183.519
733.953
113.034
6.192
183.519
682.254
100%
100%
100%
92.96%
51.699
7.04%
-
-
5493.088
2455.750
1100.19
44.80%
613.47
24.98%
742.09
30.22%
3598.623
970.361
823.62
84.88%
146.741
15.12%
-
-
1402.927
170.677
158.877
93.09%
11.8
6.91%
-
-
981.785
11240.40
8697.414
171.089
4858.610
3360.445
130.841
3057.598
1908.342
76.48%
62.93%
56.89%
40.248
1098.191
715.254
23.52%
22.60%
21.32%
702.821
730.849
14.47%
21.79%
831.107
258.319
221.747
-
-
10018.45
2886.137
539.147
18.68%
1480.29
85.84%
51.29%
36.572
866.7
14.16%
30.03%
143
Public sector transfers
3 Territorial policies
General description610
German territorial or regional policy (‘Regionalpolitik’) is part of the overall economic and
spatial structural policy (‘Raumordnungspolitik’). The main tasks are to support the
development of economically weak regions, the optimal development of all German regions,
equalisation of the different technological standings, support optimal living and working
conditions in Germany. Its main aims are state influence in the economic structure and
development of the German territory, support of the regional economic power and optimal use
of production resources, support of structural change as well as equalisation of the differences
on the different economic areas and development of economically weak regions.
According to art. 30 of the German constitution regional economic support falls under the
competence of the Länder. Thus, the Länder implement their own regional policies.
Nevertheless, since the 1969 the Federal level and the Länder have also shared
responsibilities according to Art 91a with a view to territorial policy, the so called common
tasks (‘Gemeinschaftsaufgaben’, GA). The following GA are the principal policy
instruments used to support ‘territorial’ economic development:

GA of the development of the regional economic structure (‘Verbesserung der
regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’)

GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal protection (‚Förderung der
Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’)

GA special programme ‘flood’ (‘Hochwasser’)
In the context of these GA the Federal and the Länder level share costs (50%-50%). The
framework programme (3 year duration) for the implementation of these GA is set up jointly
each year by the Federal and the Länder level. The responsible ministry at the Federal level is
the Ministry for Economics and Labour.
GA of the development of the regional economic structure (‘Verbesserung der regionalen
Wirtschaftsstruktur’)
 Complementary to EU target 2 regions
 Based on Art. 91 a German constitution
 The federal level contributes within this GA to the regional development of the Länder
 The Länder set their own funding priorities
 Supported areas have to set up integrated regional development concepts including most
important measures for the regional development
o On the base of these development concepts the Länder decide about the overall
funding priorities
 Supported fields:
o Investments in producing and processing industries (‘gewerbliche Wirtschaft’)
 For:
 Setting up or enlarging company sites
 Modernisation of company sites
 Acquisition of lying idle company sites
610
http://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/Wirtschaft/Wirtschaftspolitik/regionalpolitik.html, Andrea Hoppe (2000): Die
Implementation der europäischen Regionalpolitik im Vergleich Deutschland und Großbritannien. Das Beispiel der
Informations- und Beratungsleistungen für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen in NRW und der englischen Region North West,
Bochum.
144
Public sector transfers




Development of business related infrastructure (up to 90% of
eligible costs)
 Partly:
o Counselling services
o Training measure
o Investments in human capital
o Applied research and development
 company level with ‘supra-regional’ performance
 Including tourism
 Support for the creation of tele-workplaces
 Obligation to secure or/and create employment, which has to last for at
least five years after the termination of financial support
 improvement of the income levels
 aims of the spatial structure (‘Raumordnung’) have to be obeyed to
 projects have to avoid harmful emission and correct waste treatment
has to be guaranteed
o Development of the ‘economy supporting’ infrastructure (‘wirtschaftsnahe
Infrastruktur’ in weak regions)
LIMITED support for:
o Processing industry concerning agriculture and fishery
o Iron and steel processing industry
o Shipyards
o Automotive industry
NOT supported fields:
o Agriculture, fishery (if not processing)
o Mining, processing of stones, earth
o Energy and water supply
o Building trade
o Transport and storage business
o hospitals
Supported areas (since 2000)
o Have to be below the German average
o Defined alongside 170 labour market regions
o To be distinguished between different areas:
o A-areas (A-Fördergebiete)
 Strong development disparity
 According to art. 87, 3a TEC
 Maximum support levels for:
 SME: 50%
 Others: 35%
o B-areas (B-Fördergebiete)
 Very serious structural problems
 Labour market region Berlin
 According to art. 87, 3a TEC
 Maximum support levels for:
 SME: 43%
 Others: 28%
o C-areas (C-Fördergebiete)
 Very serious structural problems
 According to art. 87, 3c TEC
 Maximum support levels for:
145
Public sector transfers



 SME: 28%
 Others: 18%
o D-areas (D-Fördergebiete)
 Very serious structural problems
 Based on the EU framework of state aid for SME
 According to art. 87, 3c TEC
 Maximum support levels for:
 SE: 15%
 ME: 7,5%
 Others: max. 100.000 € for three years
Duration of support: max. 36 months
Procedure611:
o Financial means are granted as additional funding on application
o The Länder
 decide on granting the financial support
 control the adherence to funding principles
 can set regional support priorities
o The Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour has to be informed on the
grants on a monthly base.
Implementation lies with the Länder
General overview on GA grants 1998 - 2002612:
Industrial branch
Processing industry
Tourism
Trade
Service sector
Building trade
Others
26.131 mio €
2.302 mio €
880 mio €
892 mio €
247 mio €
2.031 mio €
80%
7%
3%
3%
1%
6%
Business/industry supporting infrastructure (1991-2001)
Totally
For tourism
For Industrial sites
For traffic links
For vocational training,
For supply services
For the restructuring of lying idle sites
Other infrastructure measures
16,4 mio €
33%
20%
18%
8%
3%
2%
16%
611
32. GA Framework programme, part II, to be downloaded under
http://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/Wirtschaft/Wirtschaftspolitik/regionalpolitik.html
612 http://www.bmwi.de/Navigation/Wirtschaft/Wirtschaftspolitik/regionalpolitik.html
146
Public sector transfers
Results of the regional economic support 1991 until 2000 under the GA - Number of
projects (funded by GA budget for industrial sector and infrastructure; Federal funding)613
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
1991
54
336
482
8
52
289
1992
40
338
406
25
46
571
1993
36
279
1133
13
29
902
Number of projects
1994 1995 1996 1997
48
54
35
34
256
253
279
282
873
632
663
674
6
8
3
9
27
25
15
28
680
605
420
394
1998
10
300
430
3
48
285
1999
12
241
602
4
49
432
2000
4
92
29
2
36
17
395
467
316
390
270
182
156
142
176
114
149
131
218
232
176
96
183
75
55
139
99
118
1191
664
48
536
127
96
1802
737
28
1014
84
95
1694
492
20
1928
97
82
1442
322
9
2307
93
74
1324
388
5
735
58
71
1274
383
19
917
86
61
1107
417
9
1000
49
11
1228
416
15
930
30
9
1275
388
9
613
24
277
52
10
241
Results of the regional economic support 1991 until 2000 under the GA - Investments in
mio € (funded by GA budget for industrial sector and infrastructure; Federal funding)614
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
1991
424
716,4
2752,9
7,9
78,2
961,6
1992
392,9
339,2
1125,4
52,5
95,8
1384,5
1993
155,3
734,6
2084,6
48,6
37,8
1203,8
Investments in mio €
1994
1995
1996
199,7
209,9
155,5
824,9
274,9
245,9
2686,7 918,7 1276,3
34,1
22,3
7,3
30,3
40,6
15,5
1200,8
621
632,2
1997
272,7
606,0
880,8
77,9
424,7
538,5
1998
169,2
172,8
477,6
27,3
137,4
417,1
1999
160
144,5
742,2
4,6
80,9
425,7
2000
10,4
26,8
251,6
2,1
45,7
5,1
952,4
1997,4
804,8
805,6
545,6
555,4
482,4
477,2
592,8
524,6
333,5
414,9
574,4
682,3
792,1
735,5
398,6
275,7
95,1
201,8
232,9
232,4
2749
2670,5
169,8
2650,1
347
392,2
4467,9
2376,9
52,3
1979,6
168,5
249,7
2456,2
3586,9
71,2
2722,1
221,9
301,6
4564,0
1050,9
82,8
2513,6
153,1
112,4
1818,8
1325,1
34,5
192,6
100,6
275,3
1577,9
1862,2
136,9
1171,6
178,2
114,1
1406,9
617,8
68
752,1
38,1
22,6
1243,6
635,3
23,9
1283,8
34,6
32,1
878,1
423
35,3
498,8
28,8
107,2
33,4
15,7
121,5
613
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.225.
614 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.225.
147
Public sector transfers
Results of the regional economic support 1991 until 2000 under the GA - Approved
funds by GA in mio € (funded by GA budget for industrial sector and infrastructure; Federal
funding)615
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Approved funds by GA in mio €
1994 1995 1996 1997
22,7
12,9
18,9
24,3
139,7 51,7
70,6 100,9
576,3 153,1 267,8 214,3
4,8
3,1
1,3
9
2,6
4,8
2,1
10,7
229,6 126,6 167,5 153,8
1991
47,9
134,8
538,4
1
6,2
168,5
1992
31,3
59,1
220,3
4,9
5,6
270,7
1993
12,5
121,3
383,1
6
2,9
189,5
1998
19,6
42,2
133,1
3,4
17,6
114,4
1999
7,1
27,8
186,5
4,9
10,1
110,4
2000
1
5,3
66,2
0,3
6,8
1,5
80,1
121,4
62,3
70,7
44
62,5
38,8
50,5
44,4
61,7
40,9
39,4
62,7
66,2
43,6
75,3
43,2
35,3
11,7
28,2
25,4
29,2
29,5
61,9
17,1
33
18
45,2
13,9
16,3
6,9
38,9
16,7
18
4,8
3,4
4,3
4,3
3,4
464,9
477,9
9,6
538,3
608,9
446,6
2,6
368,6
380,2
489,6
5,6
491
707,7
193,5
9,7
428
392.6
291.4
3
250.6
467,5
523,3
17,1
375
396,9
189,2
8,4
252,6
355
184,5
3
341
225,2
110,8
4
94,9
28,5
9
2
23,2
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Results of the regional economic support 1991 until 2000 under the GA (funded by GA
budget for industrial sector and infrastructure; Federal funding)616
Industrial Branch
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Infrastructure
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by
GA in mio €
514,9
1 846,8
2 962,9
73,7
438,9
1 691,5
61
1 244
1 418
22
243
881
63,3
326,1
755,6
12,9
61,3
472,8
3,8
203,0
378,3
42,6
49,8
567,1
10
103
102
11
50
268
1,1
159,0
248,6
32,5
27,2
423,3
1 710,3
1 558,5
825
366
201,5
195,1
229,1
117,6
113
14
110,8
53,7
168,9
257,6
7 655,1
5 007,2
92
103
3 502
1 501
25,4
36,4
1 529,2
1 122,9
6,2
1,8
528,2
604,9
3
2
402
107
1,8
1,3
382, 7
414,5
615
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.225.
616 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.29.
148
Public sector transfers
Industrial Branch
Infrastructure
166,0
60
19,4
103,0
38
53,5
4 742,7
23 906,2
2 405
10 951
1 015,6
5 222,2
357,5
2 639,0
145
1 127
278,0
1 906,1
Schleswig
Holstein
Thuringia
Total
Results of the regional economic support 2000 to 2002 under the GA (funded by GA
budget for industrial sector and infrastructure; Federal funding)617
City/District
Industrial Branch
Investments
in mio €
Bad Kissingen
Cham
Freyung-Grafenau
Hof
Hof city
Passau
Passau city
Regen
Tirschenreuth
Wunsiedel i.
Fichtelgebirge
Total
Berlin (Ost)
Berlin (West)
Total
Barnim
Brandenburg St
Cottbus St
Dahme-Spreewald
Elbe-Elster
Frankfurt/Oder St
Havelland
Märkisch-Oderland
Oberhavel
OberspreewaldLausitz
Oder-Spree
Ostprignitz-Ruppin
Potsdam St.
Potsdam-Mittelmark
Prignitz
Spree-Neiße
Teltow-Fläming
Uckermark
Total
Bremen St.
Bremerhaven St.
90.1
25.7
59,2
24,3
170,6
12,7
49,4
49,3
33,6
514,9
732,3
1 114,5
1 846,8
89,5
145,6
53,1
117,2
129,7
18,8
133,9
138,9
320,4
423,6
146,7
207,9
115,0
155,4
100,9
162,6
387,8
115,9
2 962,9
10,2
63,5
Number of
projects
Infrastructure
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
Investments
in mio €
Regional programme Bayern
11
9.1
4
2.6
10
9,1
7
4,3
11
20,4
4
1,7
3
4,9
5
6,4
6
4,8
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
1
4
2
1
2
-
0.1
0,
0.1
0,3
0,3
-
10
1,1
73
30
103
114,5
44,5
159,0
12
2
1
3
13
1
4
1
6
9
26,2
16,9
0,1
13,6
33,0
34,6
2,4
0,7
9,5
33,7
20,0
1,1
2,8
9,1
11,9
30,7
49,3
14,9
378,3
11
3
2
9
7
4
6
8
102
13,5
0,7
1,9
6,4
4,8
10,1
30,2
10,3
248,6
27,0
15,6
5
6
20,6
11,9
0.3
9.1
0.3
1,7
0,5
-
61
63,3
3,8
Regional programme Berlin
562
128,6
146,8
682
197,5
56,2
1 244
326,1
203,0
Regional programme Brandenburg
89
23,0
41,2
36
39,1
23,1
53
18,2
0,2
67
31,5
19,4
103
29,1
46,5
34
6,8
43,3
69
35,1
3,5
78
28,9
1,4
95
65,5
15,1
78
119,8
44,8
148
45,2
79
51,6
62
41,4
95
35,3
68
22,4
91
44,1
114
75,2
59
43,4
1 418
755,6
Regional programme Bremen
9
1,7
13
11,2
617
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.216.
149
Public sector transfers
Total
73,7
22
City/District
12,9
42,6
Industrial Branch
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
11
32,5
Infrastructure
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
Hersfeld-Rotenburg
Kassel
Kassel St.
Schwalm-Eder-Kreis
Vogelsbergkreis
Waldeck-Frankenberg
Werra-MeissnerKreis
Total
46,8
74,0
54,5
106,3
27,9
49,2
Regional programme Hessen
23
6,1
35
12,6
41
10,9
42
14,0
33
3,2
37
4,5
2,3
11,5
0,6
8,5
13,9
6,3
5
9
1
16
4
10
1,5
4,0
0,4
4,9
8,7
3,9
80,2
32
6,7
5
3,8
50
27,2
Bad Doberan
Demmin
Greifswald St.
Güstrow
Ludwigslust
MecklenburgStrelitz
Müritz
Neubrandenburg St.
Nordvorpommern
Nordwestmecklenburg
Ostvorpommern
Parchim
Rostock St.
Rügen
Schwerin St.
Stralsund St.
Uecker-Randow
Wismar St.
Total
116,8
121,2
39,0
120,2
219,7
20,1
13
13
1
13
21
9
21,5
7,5
3,1
16,9
19,6
3,6
23,1
14,6
21,4
10,4
16
8
26
18
16,3
10,7
16,1
6,3
101,0
48,9
238,2
72,2
48,9
27,6
18,2
28,6
1 691,5
32
12
25
24
14
5
8
10
268
54,1
16,8
68,5
30,5
43,9
20,3
5,9
61,7
423,3
Ammerland
Aurich
Braunschweig St.
Celle
Cloppenburg
Cuxhaven
Delmenhorst St.
Emden St.
Emsland
Friesland
Goslar
Göttingen
Grafschaft Bentheim
Hameln-Pyrmont
Helmstedt
Hildesheim
Holzminden
Leer
Lüchow-Dannenberg
Lüneburg
Nienburg (Weser)
Northeim
32,2
44,5
49,2
131,2
104,4
52,4
18,0
18,4
68,8
73,2
80,0
185,4
54,7
95,6
20,7
77,7
12,5
77,7
13,3
37,3
14,8
53,9
83
35,7
65,6
50
11,7
22,6
70
67,8
98,2
45
26,7
42,5
39
11,8
57,5
14
8,0
26,0
29
5,5
7,7
16
6,0
77,8
881
472,8
567,1
Regional programme Niedersachsen
18
4,6
0,7
28
7,0
12,4
33
5,7
10,2
46
16,0
2,0
38
13,5
9,8
30
7,5
26,5
12
1,8
5,4
5
2,7
4,2
28
6,9
48,5
10
4,7
3,7
34
11,4
5,6
45
21,1
9,8
30
7,4
6,3
34
8,2
3,9
16
3,3
78
7,7
11,9
12
1,4
1,0
34
10,0
10,6
14
2,0
0,4
36
3,5
6,0
14
1,3
2,3
35
6,8
0,7
1
5
1
4
4
10
3
2
16
2
4
5
6
1
0,3
4,4
5,7
1,0
4,3
13,9
2,5
2,0
29,0
1,6
2,7
4,6
2,5
1,8
438,9
118,8
65,3
94,9
191,9
10,0
243
61,3
49,8
Regional programme Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
75
31,4
28,6
27
40,0
9,6
25
15,5
4,1
56
35,7
23,7
84
41,4
28,0
42
6,4
5,7
75
48
47
56
39,7
14,8
27,6
47,1
-
-
9
2
5
1
7
3
2
4,8
0,5
5,0
0,1
2,5
0,7
0,3
150
Public sector transfers
Oldenburg
Oldenburg St.
5,0
36,9
City/District
Bottrop St.
Dortmund St.
Duisburg St.
Gelsenkirchen St.
Hagen St.
Hamm St.
Heinsberg
Herne St.
Krefeld St.
Mönchengladbach
St.
Oberhausen St.
Recklinghausen
Unna
Wesel
Summe
19,5
137,6
6,7
18,1
20,6
27,7
80,6
18,1
14,0
9,6
1 710,3
10,6
189,0
295,7
48,2
73,8
142,0
145,2
21,6
-
-
-
6,9
1
1,4
Number of
projects
Infrastructure
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
Investments
in mio €
24
2,4
4,7
37
18,0
15
0,7
12
1,9
0,6
20
2,2
2,5
24
3,4
2,2
18
10,4
23,5
15
2,9
5,8
3
1,1
0,5
6
1,1
0,5
825
201,5
229,1
Regional programme Nordrhein-Westfalen
9
1,3
63
22,8
16,3
23
32,3
21,5
20
6,1
3,9
16
11,4
15
17,9
15,5
37
23,1
2,2
11
3,5
-
-
-
-
7,0
7
0,6
-
-
-
-
67,1
383,1
170,5
1 558,5
Bad Kreuznach
Birkenfeld
Donnersbergkreis
Kaiserslautern
Kaiserslautern St.
Kusel
Pirmasens St.
Südwestpfalz
Zweibrücken St.
Total
168,9
Merzig-Wadern
Neunkirchen
Saarlouis
City Saarbrücken
Total
77,5
19,6
93,9
66,6
257,6
Annaberg
Aue-Schwarzenberg
Bautzen
Chemnitz St.
Chemnitzer Land
Delitzsch
Döbeln
Dresden St.
Freiberg
0,4
2,5
Industrial Branch
Investments
in mio €
Osterholz
Osterode (Harz)
Peine
Salzgitter St.
Soltau-Fallingbostel
Uelzen
Wesermarsch
Wilhelmshaven St.
Wittmund
Wolfenbüttel
Total
6
15
11,6
7,1
7,6
17,2
36,1
-
-
-
7
14
13,8
0,8
-
-
-
165,5
272,5
191,7
224,9
224,8
80,0
127,2
1 143,0
793,9
92
25,4
Regional programme Saarland
15
10,9
16
2,4
30
13,4
42
9,7
103
36,4
Regional programme Sachsen
157
46,0
208
99,7
127
58,3
174
47,9
104
46,0
51
17,1
87
45,5
234
178,6
198
123,3
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
2
1,8
-
-
1
3
4
6
1
1
1
113
0,2
1,1
1,1
11,5
2,9
0,3
0,3
110,8
-
-
1
2
1
10,2
10,2
1,2
-
-
2
2
6,6
0,3
-
-
-
-
2
1
3
14
20,5
0,1
4,6
53,7
1
0,5
-
-
1
1
0,1
1,2
-
-
-
6,2
3
1,8
57
10,6
44,6
69
48,0
2,7
32
16,9
10,9
366
195,1
117,6
Regional programme Rheinland-Pfalz
9
1,0
4,1
16
0,9
10
1,1
10
2,2
0,2
20
5,2
1,9
80,1
6,4
Number of
projects
-
-
-
0,9
0,9
1
1
0,7
0,6
-
-
-
1,8
2
1,3
8,9
12,4
29,9
11,1
28,3
10,9
10,6
58,1
18,1
25
20
21
10
9
14
6
16
14
6,9
8,9
23,2
5,6
24,3
8,2
7,7
34,1
16,0
151
Public sector transfers
Görlitz St.
Hoyerswerda St.
Leipzig St.
Leipziger Land
Löbau-Zittau
Meißen-Radebeul
Mittlerer
Erzgebirgskreis
Mittweida
Muldentalkreis
34,7
6,5
1 572,8
144,1
227,1
237,2
140,7
20
9
153
67
130
113
228
18,8
1,8
112,7
33,1
67,7
56,3
43,1
3,0
3,6
121,0
39,3
8,9
15,1
2,7
2
1
25
24
14
11
10
2,6
2,9
82,8
32,2
7,7
9,8
2,0
197,2
85,9
140
72
50,4
23,6
5,3
5,1
12
19
4,1
3,1
City/District
Niederschlesischer
Oberlausitzkreis
Plauen St.
Riesa-Großenhain
Sächsische Schweiz
Stollberg
Torgau-Oschatz
Vogtlandkreis
Weißeritzkreis
WestlausitzDresdner Land
Zwickau St.
Zwickauer Land
Total
Altmarkkreis
Salzwedel
Anhalt-Zerbst
AscherslebenStaßfurt
Bernburg
Bitterfeld
Bördekreis
Burgenlandkreis
Dessau St.
Halberstadt
Halle (Saale)St.
Jerichower Land
Köthen
Magdeburg St.
Mansfelder Land
Merseburg-Querfurt
Ohrekreis
Quedlinburg
Saalkreis
Sangerhausen
Schönebeck
Stendal
Weißenfels
Wernigerode
Wittenberg
Total
Dithmarschen
Flensburg St.
Kiel St.
Lübeck St.
Neumünster St.
Nordfriesland
Industrial Branch
Infrastructure
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
49,5
39
13,2
15,6
17
11,7
105,9
148,1
119,1
159,9
80,0
361,4
117,5
312,5
54
76
165
122
61
266
139
161
25,5
42,3
37,3
44,3
22,0
91,9
33,8
76,6
7,2
19,8
33,8
24,1
2,3
18,8
6,6
1,7
3
14
34
23
9
21
16
6
5,9
14,5
24,2
19,2
1,8
13,2
4,6
1,4
43
34,3
3,4
104
38,1
2,6
3 502
1 529,2
528,2
Regional programme Sachsen-Anhalt
76
50,7
26,0
2
4
402
2,3
1,8
382,7
6
14,8
4
4
3,9
3,5
3
2
2
15
2
6
1
1
4
4
7
8
7
2
4
7
5
2
9
2
107
1,4
9,8
0,6
12,6
9,7
72,4
0,5
2,1
13,4
8,3
181,2
3,6
6,5
1,9
0,8
23,7
29,5
10,7
3,1
0,5
414,5
1
1
7
5
4
2
0,1
0,1
8,8
13,9
5,9
0,7
156,4
175,1
7 655,1
183,3
105,3
157,9
112,2
830,4
95,0
91,4
61,6
122,6
102,2
125,4
88,7
172,9
80,6
335,4
194,4
127,0
103,9
98,7
152,3
957,6
61,0
367,9
279,5
5 007,2
24,3
72,0
11,5
51
66
23,5
39,1
5,5
6,1
25
28,6
2,9
89
194,2
16,5
34
14,8
1,0
57
24,9
17,9
50
20,4
10,4
63
32,5
74
28,5
90,0
74
31,9
0,9
34
23,6
2,1
91
43,3
28,2
36
21,4
11,6
77
76,5
273,7
65
42,7
6,3
81
33,1
9,3
32
18,0
2,8
47
18,5
1,5
60
31,4
38,1
68
139,6
33,3
35
14,3
14,6
115
125,4
5,7
101
46,0
0,5
1 501
1 122,9
604,9
Regional programme Schleswig-Holstein
0,1
9
3,3
0,2
12,4
16
7,4
28,5
8,5
9
1,5
2,8
152
Public sector transfers
Ostholstein
Plön
RendsburgEckernförde
Schleswig-Flensburg
Total
22,9
9
2,6
-
-
-
27,4
166,0
Altenburger Land
Eichsfeld
Eisenach St.
182,6
208,7
41,8
13
3,7
60
19,4
Regional programme Türingen
72
38,1
161
50,5
24
7,2
City/District
Erfurt St.
Gera St.
Gotha
Greiz
Hildburghausen
Ilm-Kreis
Jena St.
Kyffhäuserkreis
Nordhausen
Saale-HolzlandKreis
Saale-Orla-Kreis
Saalfeld-Rudolstadt
SchmalkaldenMeiningen
Sömmerda
Sonneberg
Suhl St.
Unstrut-HainichKreis
Wartburgkreis
Weimar St.
Weimarer Land
Total
Total Federal level
9,5
25,4
12,3
7
4
5
4,6
12,7
4,9
3,3
103,0
2
38
1,8
53,5
17,8
6,2
-
11
5
-
14,3
3,9
-
Industrial Branch
Infrastructure
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
Investments
in mio €
Number of
projects
Approved
funds by GA
in mio €
228,8
108,5
358,5
165,7
188,8
266,2
318,7
130,1
128,4
345,5
87
66
133
98
89
217
84
77
74
74
51,6
26,9
68,0
34,5
47,5
62,5
49,6
29,8
38,0
77,0
23,5
4,4
21,2
1,7
8,0
28,8
15,0
6,0
14,7
11,9
6
4
4
2
5
11
1
5
9
6
18,6
2,6
13,3
0,6
7,1
23,8
11,8
4,7
11,7
7,4
125,8
140,7
316,7
112
119
322
30,3
32,6
70,7
4,4
101,4
16,7
4
14
14
3,3
82,3
13,5
370,8
256,7
90,8
111,0
73
116
51
105
83,8
48,1
24,4
24,8
30,0
17,6
1,9
13,3
11
9
3
8
24,0
13,3
1,6
9,9
446,2
16,6
195,1
4 742,7
155
21
75
2 405
78,9
2,8
38,0
16 938
7,7
4,6
0,7
357,5
6
1
6
145
6,2
3,5
0,6
278,0
28 795,0
12 723
115 284
3 192,9
1 368
2 187,8
2000-2003:618
A-areas
Brandenburg
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Sachsen
Brandenburg, Cottbus, Frankfurt/Oder, Barnim, Berlin, Dahme-Spreewald, Berlin, ElbeElster, Havelland, Berlin, Märkisch-Oderland, Berlin, Oberhavel, Berlin, OberspreewaldLausitz, Oder-Spree, Berlin, Ostprignitz-Ruppin, Prignitz, Spree-Neiße, Teltow-Fläming,
Berlin Uckermark
Greifswald, Neubrandenburg, Rostock, Stralsund, Wismar, Bad Doberan, Demmin,
Güstrow, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Müritz, Nordvorpommern, Nordwestmecklenburg,
Ostvorpommern, Parchim, Rügen, Uecker-Randow
Görlitz, Hoyerswerda, Plauen, Annaberg, Aue-Schwarzenberg, Bautzen, Döbeln,
Freiberg,, Kamenz, ohne die Gemeinden Arnsdorf Dresden, Ottendorf-Okrilla,Stadt
Radeberg,Wachau b.Radeberg, Löbau-Zittau, Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis,
Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis, ,Riesa-Großenhain, Sächsische Schweiz , Stadt BadGottleuba-Berggießhübel,Stadt Bad Schandau,Bahretal,Dohma,Stadt,
618
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, Annex 14.
153
Public sector transfers
Sachsen-Anhalt
Thüringen
Dohna,Dürröhrsdorf-Dittersbach,Gohrisch,Stadt, Hohnstein,Hohwald,Kirnitzschtal,Stadt
Königstein/Sächs.Schweiz,Stadt Liebstadt,Lohmen, Müglitztal,Stadt Neustadt
i.Sa.,Porschdorf, Rathen,Rathmannsdorf,Reinhardtsdorf-Schöna, Rosenthal-Bielatal,Stadt
Sebnitz,Stadt Wehlen Stadt,Stadt Stolpen,Struppen, Stollberg Torgau-Oschatz,
Vogtlandkreis, Weißeritzkreis, Stadt Altenberg,Stadt Bärenstein, Stadt Dippoldiswalde,
Stadt Geising,Stadt Glashütte,HartmannsdorfReichenau,Hermsdorf/Erzgeb.,Höckendorf,Malter,Obercarsdorf,
Pretzschendorf,Reinhardsgrimma,Schmiedeberg, Zwickauer Land
Dessau, Anhalt-Zerbst, Aschersleben-Staßfurt, Bernburg, Bitterfeld, Burgenlandkreis,
Halberstadt, Jerichower Land, Köthen, Mansfelder Land, Merseburg-Querfurt, Östliche
Altmark, Quedlinburg, Sangerhausen, Schönebeck, Weißenfels, Wernigerode, Westliche
Altmark, Wittenberg
Gera, Suhl, Altenburger Land, Eichsfeld, Gotha, Ballstädt,Brüheim,Bufleben,
Crawinkel,Dachwig,Döllstädt,Emsetal,Eschenbergen,Finsterbergen,Stadt
Friedrichroda,Friedrichswerth,Georgenthal/Thüringer Wald,Gierstädt,
Goldbach,Großfahner,Haina,Hochheim,Luisenthal,Remstädt,Sonneborn,Tabarz/Thüringer
Wald,Stadt Tambach-Dietharz/Thüringer Wald,
Tonna,Wangenheim,Warza,Westhausen,Wölfis Greiz, Hildburghausen
Ilmkreis, Kyffhäuserkreis, Nordhausen, Saale-Orla-Kreis, Saalfeld-Rudolstadt,
Schmalkalden-Meiningen, Sömmerda, Beichlingen,Bilzingsleben, Büchel,Stadt
Buttstädt,Ellersleben,Eßleben-Teutleben,Frömmstedt,Gangloffsömmern,Griefstedt,
Großbrembach,Großmonra,Großneuhausen, Günstedt,Guthmannshausen,Hardisleben,
Henschleben,Herrnschwende,Kannawurf,Stadt Kindelbrück,Kleinbrembach,
Kleinneuhausen, Stadt Kölleda,Mannstedt,Olbersleben,Ostramondra,Stadt
Rastenberg,Riethgen,Rudersdorf, Schillingstedt,Schwerstedt,Stadt Sömmerda,
Sprötau,Straußfurt,Vogelsberg,Stadt Weißensee, Werningshausen,Wundersleben,
Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis, Weimarer Land Stadt Apolda,Auerstedt,Stadt Bad
Sulza,Eberstedt,Flurstedt,Gebstedt,Großheringen,Kapellendorf,Ködderitzsch,Liebstedt,
Mattstedt,Niederreißen,Niederroßla,Niedertrebra, Nirmsdorf,Oberreißen,Obertrebra,
ßmannstedt, Pfiffelbach,Rannstedt,Reisdorf,Saaleplatte, Schmiedehausen,Wickerstedt,
illerstedt
B-areas
Berlin ad
Brandenburg
MecklenburgVorpommern
Sachsen
Labour market region Berlin and regions in Brandenburg, Potsdam, Barnim,
Ahrensfelde,Basdorf,Stadt Bernau,Blumberg,Eiche,Hirschfelde,
Klosterfelde,Krummensee,Lanke,Lindenberg, Mehrow,Prenden,Rüdnitz,Schönerlinde,
Schönfeld,Schönow,Schönwalde,Schwanebeck,Seefeld,Stolzenhagen (Amt Wandlitz),
Tiefensee,Wandlitz,Stadt Werneuchen,Willmersdorf,Zepernick, Dahme-Spreewald,
Bestensee,Bindow,Blossin, Brusendorf,Dannenreich,Diepensee,Dolgenbrodt,
Eichwalde,Friedersdorf,Gallun,Gräbendorf,Großziethen,Gussow,Kablow,Kiekebusch,Kolberg,Stadt
Königs Wusterhausen, Stadt Mittenwalde,Motzen,Niederlehme,
Pätz,Prieros,Ragow,Schenkendorf,Schönefeld,Schulzendorf,Selchow,Senzig,Streganz,
Telz,Töpchin,Waltersdorf (Amt Schönefeld), Waßmannsdorf,Wernsdorf,Wildau,Wolzig,
Zeesen,Zernsdorf,Zeuthen Havelland, Berge,Bergerdamm,Börnicke, Bredow,Brieselang,DallgowDöberitz,Etzin, Falkenrehde,Stadt Falkensee,Groß Behnitz, Grünefeld,Stadt Ketzin,Kienberg,Klein
Behnitz,Lietzow,Markee,Stadt Nauen,Paaren im Glien,Pausin,Perwenitz, Retzow,Ribbeck,
Schönwalde,Selbelang,Tietzow,Tremmen, Wachow,Wansdorf,Wustermark,Zachow, Zeestow,
Märkisch-Oderland, Stadt Altlandsberg,Dahlwitz-Hoppegarten,FredersdorfVogelsdorf,Hennickendorf,Herzfelde,Hönow,Lichtenow,Münchehofe,Neuenhagen bei
Berlin,Petershagen/Eggersdorf,Rüdersdorf near Berlin, Oberhavel, Birkenwerder,Freienhagen,
Friedrichsthal,Germendorf,Glienicke/Nordbahn,Stadt Hennigsdorf,Hohen Neuendorf, Stadt
Kremmen,Leegebruch,Lehnitz,Malz, Mühlenbeck,Nassenheide,Oberkrämer,Stadt
Oranienburg,Schildow,Schmachtenhagen, Schönfließ,Stolpe,Stadt
Velten,Wensickendorf,Zehlendorf,Zühlsdorf, Oder-Spree, Stadt Erkner,Gosen,Grünheide
(Mark),Hangelsberg,Markgrafpieske, Mönchwinkel,Neu Zittau,Rauen,Schöneiche near
Berlin,Spreeau,Spreenhagen,Woltersdorf, Potsdam-Mittelmark, Stadt Beelitz,BergholzRehbrücke,Bochow,Deetz,Derwitz,Fahlhorst, Fahrland,Fresdorf,Golm,Groß Glienicke, Groß
Kreutz,Kleinmachnow,Krielow, Langerwisch,Marquardt,Michendorf,Neu Fahrland,Nudow,
Philippsthal,Plötzin,Saarmund,Satzkorn,Schmergow,Schwielowsee, Seddiner
See,Seeburg,Stahnsdorf,Stücken, Stadt Teltow,Töplitz,Tremsdorf,UetzPaaren,Stadt Werder
(Havel),Wildenbruch, Wilhelmshorst. Teltow-Fläming, Blankenfelde,Dahlewitz, Glienick,Groß
Kienitz,Groß Machnow,Groß, Schulzendorf,Großbeeren,Jühnsdorf,Kallinchen,Lüdersdorf,Stadt
Ludwigsfelde, Mahlow,Nächst Neuendorf,Nunsdorf,Rangsdorf,Schöneiche,Schönhagen,Thyrow,
Stadt Trebbin, Stadt Zossen, Potsdam-Mittelmark, Labour market region Berlin
Schwerin, Ludwigslust
Chemnitz, Dresden, Leipzig, Zwickau, Chemnitzer Land, Delitzsch, Kamenz, Arnsdorf
154
Public sector transfers
Sachsen-Anhalt
Thüringen
Dresden,Ottendorf-Okrilla,Stadt Radeberg,Wachau bei Radeberg, Leipziger Land, Meißen,
Mittweida, Muldentalkreis, Sächsische Schweiz, Stadt Heidenau,Stadt Pirna, Weißeritzkreis,
Bannewitz,Dorfhain,Stadt Freital,. Kesselsdorf,Kreischa, Mohorn,Stadt Rabenau, Stadt
Tharandt,Stadt Wilsdruff
Halle (Saale), Magdeburg, Bördekreis, Ohrekreis, Saalkreis
Eisenach, Erfurt, Jena, Weimar, Gotha: Apfelstädt,Aspach,Bienstädt, Ebenheim,Emleben,
Ernstroda,Friemar,Fröttstädt,Gamstädt,Stadt Gotha,Grabsleben,Gräfenhain,GüntherslebenWechmar,Herrenhof,Hörselgau,Hohenkirchen,Ingersleben,Laucha,Leinatal, Mechterstädt,
Metebach, Molschleben,
Mühlberg, Nauendorf,Neudietendorf,Nottleben,Stadt
Ohrdruf,Petriroda,Pferdingsleben,Schwabhausen, Seebergen,Teutleben,Tröchtelborn, Trügleben,
Tüttleben,Stadt Waltershausen,Wandersleben, Weingarten,
Zimmernsupra, Saale-Holzland-Kreis, Sonneberg, Wartburgkreis, Weimarer Land: Stadt Bad
Berka,Ballstedt, Bechstedtstraß,Berlstedt,Stadt Blankenhain, Buchfart,Stadt Buttelstedt,Daasdorf
a.Berge, Döbritschen,Ettersburg,Frankendorf,Großobringen,Großschwabhausen,
Gutendorf,Hammerstedt,Heichelheim,Hetschburg,Hohenfelden,
Hohlstedt,Hopfgarten,Hottelstedt,Isseroda, Kiliansroda,Kleinobringen,Kleinschwabhausen,
Klettbach,Stadt Kranichfeld,Krautheim,Kromsdorf,Lehnstedt,
Leutenthal,Stadt Magdala, Mechelroda,Mellingen,Mönchenholzhausen, Nauendorf,Stadt
Neumark,Niederzimmern, Nohra,Oettern,Ottstedt
a.Berge,Ramsla,Rittersdorf,Rohrbach,Sachsenhausen,Schwerstedt, Tonndorf,Troistedt,
Umpferstedt,Utzberg, Vippachedelhausen,Vollersroda,Wiegendorf, Wohlsborn, Sömmerda:
Alperstedt,Andisleben, Eckstedt,Elxleben,Stadt Gebesee,Großmölsen,
Großrudestedt,Haßleben,Kleinmölsen,Markvippach,Nöda,Ollendorf,
Riethnordhausen,Ringleben,Schloßvippach,Udestedt,Walschleben, Witterda
C-Areas
Bayern
Bremen
Hessen
Niedersachsen
NordrheinWestfalen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Saarland
Schleswig-Holstein
Hof, Passau, Cham, Freyung-Grafenau, Hof, Passau. Regen, Wunsiedel, Tirschenreuth
Bremerhaven
Kassel, Hersfeld-Rotenburg, Kassel, Werra-Meißner-Kreis, Schwalm-Eder-Kreis
Emden, Wilhelmshaven, Ammerland, Aurich, Celle. Cloppenburg. Cuxhaven. Friesland,
Göttingen, Goslar, Grafschaft Bentheim, Hameln-Pyrmont, Helmstedt, Holzminden, Leer. LüchowDannenberg, Northeim, Osterode am Harz. Uelzen, Wesermarsch, Wittmund
Bottrop, Dortmund, Duisburg, Hagen, Hamm, Herne, Oberhausen, Heinsberg, Recklinghausen,
Unna. Wesel
Kaiserslautern, Pirmasens, Zweibrücken, Birkenfeld, Donnersbergkreis, Kaiserslautern, Kusel,
Südwestpfalz
Saarbrücken, Merzig-Wadern, Neunkirchen, Saarlouis
Flensburg, Lübeck, Dithmarschen, Nordfriesland, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Flensburg,
D-Areas
Bayern
Bad Kissingen, Kronach, Kulmbach, Rhön-Grabfeld
Bremen
Bremen
Waldeck-Frankenberg, Vogelsbergkreis
Hessen
Niedersachsen
NordrheinWestfalen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Schleswig-Holstein
Braunschweig, Delmenhorst, Oldenburg, Salzgitter (with Baddeckenstedt),. Emsland, Hildesheim,
Lüneburg, Nienburg, Oldenburg, Osterholz, Peine, Soltau-Fallingbostel, Wolfenbüttel (ohne
Baddeckenstedt)
Mönchengladbach, Krefeld
Bad Kreuznach
Kiel, Neumünster, Plön, Rendsburg-Eckernförde
155
Public sector transfers
GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal protection
(‚Förderung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’)619













Close link to EU regulation 1257/99 ‚Support of the rural area’
Complementary to EU target 2 regions
Regulation request development plan for the rural areas
Close co-ordination with the GA for regional economic development
Developed by the Länder
Länder and Federal level set up a joint framework programme
Reponsible ministries at the Federal Level: Agriculture, food and consumer protection
as well as finances
GA for co-financing and support for equalisation of living conditions in Germany
Aims:
o Improvement of competitiveness and performance of agriculture and forestry
(incl. processing and selling)
o Support of specific environmentally sustainable economics practices in
agriculture and forestry
o Support and strengthening the performance of the structures of the rural area
Instruments:
o Support of industrial investments in agriculture and forestry
o Support of competitive processing and selling companies
o Support of areas, which are disadvantaged in terms of natural and economic
aspects
o Environmental measures in agriculture
o Improvement of the agricultural and forestry environment (village
development, etc.)
Support levels:
o Investments in agriculture:
o Total sum of 10.000 – 50.000 € = support: up to 35%
o Total sum of 50.000 – 1.25 mio € = support: 10% (max. 30.000€)
Extension of the support for market and location adjusted agriculture and use of land in
1988, 1993, 1997 and 2002
Focal points 2000-2003:
o Equal standing of farmers, who primarily work in agriculture and those who
have other primary jobs in terms of support for investment
o Concentration of support for huge investments that save livelihood (improved
granting conditions from 100.000 € upwards)
o Support of processing and selling of agricultural goods produced at the
regional levelConcentration and graduation of equalisation payments
compared to earlier plans Implementation lies exclusively with the Länder

Budget:
619
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005.
156
Public sector transfers
Approved funds by GA in mio DM620
(1973-1998: entire grants, to be split appr. 50% Federal level, 50% Länder; 2002: mio € only planned Federal Grants)
19731991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000621
2002622 mio €
1990
5.539,0 372,11
366,76
353,72
331,87
331,22
325,77
271,93
255,73 Total: 277, 127
Total: 149, 720
Baden
58
9
2
2
1
9
5
8
0
Fed.: 166, 276
Fed.: 89,832
Württemberg
9.940,3 704,77
689,23
665,21
629,07
643,88
604,48
511,43
480,92 Total: 522, 534
Total: 279, 550
Bavaria
92
2
9
6
9
3
9
2
7
Fed.: 313, 522
Fed.: 167,730
Total: 0, 611
Total: 0, 544
Berlin
Fed.: 0, 367
Fed.: 0,326
15,032
0,248
0,286
0,515
0,380
0,598
0,904
West
3,560
6,251
4,296
0,463
0,478
0,643
2,654
East
180,77
465,31
501,41
494,42
381,78
454,83
356,86
301,33 Total: 256, 202
Total: 128, 145
Brandenburg
7
1
5
9
7
7
2
3
Fed.: 153, 721
Fed.: 76,887
221,30
9,984
9,992
8,207
7,735
4,853
5,463
7,446
7,275
Total: 3, 163
Total: 2, 798
Bremen
7
Fed.: 1, 898
Fed.: 1,714
276,52
25,267
24,469
27,003
34,844
26,251
26,050
24,231
25,310
Total: 36, 299
Total: 14, 424
Hamburg
8
Fed.: 25, 075
Fed.: 9,934
2.618,7 169,05
164,92
155,89
146,78
151,13
148,95
123,40
109,85 Total: 100, 716
Total: 68, 662
Hesse
98
6
4
6
7
8
7
8
2
Fed.: 60, 429
Fed.: 41,197
270,24
438,47
459,70
452,06
418,11
410,41
300,90
255,37 Total: 212, 726
Total: 112, 165
Mecklenburg
9
6
3
3
4
9
5
9
Fed.: 130, 766
Fed.: 69,143
Western
Pomerania
8.286,5 532,60
525,43
506,93
501,79
470,78
465,03
386,31
359,13 Total: 370, 369
Total: 177, 691
Lower Saxony
46
4
7
0
7
5
8
0
3
Fed.: 240, 919
Fed.: 111,681
4.142,5 249,18
246,06
237,48
222,49
220,22
205,27
182,65
170,45 Total: 185, 022
Total: 101, 735
North Rhine
04
7
2
4
0
9
5
3
3
Fed.: 111, 013
Fed.: 61,041
Westphalia
3.123,1
90
360,65
0
199,10
1
28,507
196,84
2
26,428
189,71
4
24,953
177,68
3
22,447
177,96
3
22,354
174,85
1
22,050
146,07
4
18,373
137,20
4
17,342
Total: 140, 735
Fed.: 84, 440
Total: 17, 603
Fed.: 10, 562
Total: 79, 842
Fed.: 47,905
Total: 9, 618
Fed.: 5,771
Saxony
-
Saxony Anhalt
-
194,81
9
190,61
1
215,15
4
176,45
2
304,12
0
288,28
5
212,00
4
289,34
4
332,60
1
319,91
4
205,29
5
306,41
0
313,40
2
315,70
0
192,92
0
276,36
3
292,23
4
293,00
1
191,63
7
258,15
9
265,80
5
264,66
1
177,72
3
247,90
5
222,22
3
227,76
2
130,84
6
203,92
2
189,90
8
193,70
0
136,06
7
174,58
4
Total: 158, 768
Fed.: 95, 262
Total: 152, 062
Fed.: 91, 238
Total: 131, 174
Fed.: 85, 289
Total: 147, 166
Fed.: 88, 298
Total: 85, 148
Fed.: 51,089
Total: 87, 658
Fed.: 52,595
Total: 55, 551
Fed.: 36,300
Total:
Fed.: 76, 833
46,100
Total: 1 430,084
Fed.: 869,245
Rhineland
Palatinate
Saarland
3.767,6
85
-
Schleswig
Holstein
Thuringia
Total: 2. 712,
277
Fed.: 1. 659,
075
Total
GA special programme ‘flood’ (‘Hochwasser’)
620
Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Verbraucherschutz: Gemeinschaftsaufgabe "Verbesserung der
Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes" (o.Sonderrahmenplan)
Verteilung der Ist-Ausgaben auf Maßnahmengruppen sowie nach Ländern in Mio DM
in den Jahren 1973 – 1998, http://bmvel.zadi.de/gak/strukturbericht/tab-31.pdf
621 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005.
622 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005, p.89.
157
Public sector transfers
This programme has been set up as an addition to the GA of the development of the regional
economic structure for securing and compensating employment in districts, which have been
strongly affected by the 2002 flood. The duration of the programme is 11. August 2002 until
31. December 2003.
 Supported fields:
o Industrial investments
o Infrastructure supporting measure related to industry
o Reconstruction of industrial goods and infrastructure, destroyed by the flood
 Funds ‘Aufbauhilfe’ (reconstruction support):
o Joint funds of the Federal level and the Länder
o Budget: 170 mio €
o Financial contribution of the Federal level: 85mio € (in 2002: 35 mio €)
 Distribution of Federal grants 2002-2003 among the affected Länder
1.75 mio €
5%
0.35 mio €
0.35 mio €
0.35 mio €
21 mio €
5.25 mio €
0.35 mio €
5.6 mio €
1%
1%
1%
60%
15%
1%
16%
Bayern
Brandenburg
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Niedersachsen
Sachsen
Sachsen-Anhalt
Thüringen
Riserve

o Max. support levels:
 SME: 75% of eligible costs
 Other: 50% of eligible costs
Supported regions:
Bayern
Landkreis Passau
Landkreis FreyungGrafenau
Landkreis Regen
Bad Füssing, Büchlberg, Hauzenberg, Hofkirchen, Hutthurm, Neuhaus,
Obernzell, Pocking, Rotthalmünster, Ruderting, Salzweg, Sonnen, Thyrnau,
Tiefenbach, Untergriesbach, Vilshofen, Windorf
Freyung, Mauth, Röhrnbach, Waldkirchen
Arnbruck, Bayrisch Eisenstein, Bodenmais, Böbrach, Drachselsried,
Langdorf, Regen, Viechtach, Zwiesel,
Passau, Stadt
Landkreis Cham
Brandenburg
Landkreis Prignitz
Landkreis OstprignitzRuppin
Landkreis Havelland
Landkreis Elbe-Elster
MecklenburgVorpommern
Landkreis Ludwigslust
Arnschwang, Arrach, Blaibach, Cham, Chamerau, Eschlkam, Furth i.Wald,
Grafenwiesen, Hohenwart, Kötzting, Lam, Lohberg, Miltach, Pemfling,
Pösing, Reichenbach, Rimbach, Roding, Runding, Stamsried, Walderbach,
Weiding, Zandt, Zell
Wittenberge, (OT Lütjenheide, Schadebeuster,, Zwischendeich, Hinzdorf, ,
Gasedow, Wallhöfe), Lenzen, (OT Gandow, Eldenburg, Moor,, Seedorf),
Breese, Cumlosen, (OT Müggendorf), Lanz, OT Bernheide, Jagel, ,
Lütkenwisch, Wustrow), Lenzerwische, (OT Besandten, Unbesandten),
Rühstädt, (OT Abbendorf, Bälow, , Gnevsdorf), Quitzöbel, Weisen
(teilweise), Wootz, (OT Kietz, Mödlich)
Neustadt (Dosse), Sieversdorf-Hohenofen, Dreetz, Zernitz-Lohm, Breddin,
Stüdenitz-Schönemark
Stadt Rhinow , (OT Kietz, Buchhorst, Florienshof), Strodehne, Gülpe,
Hohennauen, Stadt Rathenow, (Gemeinde Semlin)
Mühlberg/Elbe, Bad Liebenwerda, Elsterwerda, Herzberg/Elster, UebigauWahrenbrück, Haida, Reichenhain, Saathain, Stolzenhain a.d.Röder
Besitz, Boizenburg, Brahlstorf, Dersenow, Dömitz, Garlitz, Heidhof,
Jessenitz, Lübtheen, Neu Gülze, Neu Kaliß, Polz, Pritzier, Rüterberg,
Teldau, Vielank, Woosmer
158
Public sector transfers
Niedersachsen
Gartow, Hitzacker
Landkreis LüchowDannenberg
Sachsen
Landkreis Delitzsch
Landkreis Döbeln
Landkreis Leipziger Land
Landkreis Muldentalkreis
Landkreis Torgau-Oschatz
Bad Düben, Doberschütz, Eilenburg, Jesewitz, Laußig, Löbnitz, Zschepplin
Bockelwitz, Döbeln, Ebersbach, Großweitzschen, Hartha, Leisnig,
Niederstriegis, Roßwein, Waldheim, Ziegra-Knobelsdorf
Borna, Espenhain, Eulatal, Frohburg, Geithain, Groitzsch, Großlehna,
Großpösna, Kitzscher, Kohren-Sahlis, Lobstädt, Markranstädt, Narsdorf,
Regis-Breitingen, Rötha, Wyhratal
Bad Lausick, Bennewitz, Colditz, Grimma, Großbardau, Großbothen,
Hohburg, Kühren-Burkhardtshain, Machern, Naunhof, Nerchau,
Parthenstein, Thallwitz, Trebsen/Mulde, Wurzen, Zschadraß
Arzberg, Beilrode, Belgern, Cavertitz, Dommitzsch, Elsnig, GroßtrebenZwethau, Liebschützberg, Mügeln, Naundorf, Oschatz, Pflückuff, SornzigAblass, Torgau, Wermsdorf
Dresden, Stadt
Weißeritzkreis
Landkreis Sächsische
Schweiz
Landkreis Meißen
Landkreis RiesaGroßenhain
Landkreis Annaberg
Landkreis AueSchwarzenberg
Landkreis Chemnitzer
Land,
Landkreis Freiberg
Landkreis Mittlerer
Erzgebirgkreis
Landkreis Mittweida
Landkreis Stollberg
Landkreis Vogtlandkreis
Landkreis Zwickauer
Altenberg, Bannewitz, Bärenstein, Dippoldiswalde, Dorfhain, Freital,
Geising, Glashütte, Hartmannsdorf-Reichenau, Hermsdorf/Erzgeb.,
Höckendorf, Kreischa, Malter, Pretzschendorf, Rabenau, Reinhardtsgrimma,
Schmiedeberg, Tharandt, Wilsdruff
Bad Gottleuba-Berggießhübel, Bad Schandau, Bahretal, Dohma, Dohna,
Gohrisch, Heidenau, Hohnstein, Hohwald, Kirnitzschtal,
Königstein/Sächs.Schw., Liebstadt, Lohmen, Müglitztal, Pirna, Porschdorf,
Rathen, Rathmannsdorf, Reinhardtsdorf-Schöna, Rosenthal-Bielatal,
Sebnitz, Stadt Wehlen, Struppen
Coswig, Diera-Zehren, Heynitz, Käbschütztal, Ketzerbachtal, Klipphausen,
Leuben-Schleinitz, Lommatzsch, Meißen, Moritzburg, Niederau, Nossen,
Radebeul, Radeburg, Triebischtal/Taubenhain, Weinböhla
Diesbar-Seußlitz, Ebersbach, Großenhain, Hirschstein, Lampertswalde,
Nauwalde, Nünchritz, Priestewitz, Riesa , Röderaue, Schönfeld, Stauchitz,
Strehla, Tauscha, Thiendorf, Weißig a.R., Wildenhain, Wülknitz, Zabeltitz,
Zeithain
Annaberg-Buchholz, Bärenstein, Crottendorf, Ehrenfriedersdorf, Elterlein,
Gelenau/Erzgeb., Geyer, Jöhstadt, Königswalde, Mildenau, Oberwiesenthal,
Scheibenberg, Schlettau, Sehmatal, Tannenberg, Thum, Wiesa
Aue, Beierfeld, Bernsbach, Bockau, Breitenbrunn, Eibenstock, Erlabrunn,
Grünhain, Johanngeorgenstadt, Lauter/Sa., Lößnitz, Markersbach, Pöhla,
Raschau, Rittersgrün, Schlema, Schneeberg, Schönheide,
Schwarzenberg/Erzgeb., Sosa, Stützengrün, Zschorlau,
Bernsdorf, Callenberg, Gersdorf, Glauchau, Hohnstein-Ernstthal,
Lichtenstein, Limbach-Oberfrohna, Meerane, Niederfrohna, Oberlungwitz,
Oberwiera, Remse, Schönberg, St. Egidien, Waldenburg,
Augustusburg, Bobritzsch, Brand Erbisdorf, Dorfchemnitz b. Sayda,
Eppendorf, Falkenau, Flöha, Frankenstein, Frauenstein, Freiberg, Gahlenz,
Großhartmannsdorf, Großschirma, Halsbrücke, Hilbersdorf, Leubsdorf,
Lichtenberg/Erzgeb., Mulda/Sa., Neuhausen/Erzgeb., Niederschöna,
Niederwiesa, Oberschöna, Oederan, Rechenberg-Bienenmühle, Reinsberg,
Sayda, Siebenlehn, Weißenborn/Erzgeb.,
Amtsberg, Borstendorf, Deutschneudorf, Drebach, Gornau,
Großrückerswalde, Grünhainichen, Heidersdorf, Hirtstein, Lengefeld,
Marienberg, Olbernhau, Pfaffroda, Pobershau, Pockau, Scharfenstein,
Seiffen/Erzgeb., Venusberg, Waldkirchen, Wolkenstein, Zschopau
Altmittweida, Burgstädt, Claußnitz, Erlau, Frankenberg, Gehringswalde,
Hainichen, Hartmannsdorf, Königsfeld, Königshain-Wiederau, Kriebstein,
Langensteinbach, Lichtenau, Lunzenau, Mittweida, Mühlau, Penig, Rochlitz,
Rossau, Seelitz, Striegistal, Taura, Tiefenbach, Wechselburg, Zettlitz
Auerbach, Burkhardtsdorf, Erlbach-Kirchberg, Gornsdorf, Hohndorf,
Hormersdorf, Jahnsdorf/Erzgeb., Lugau/Erzgeb., Neukirchen/Erzgeb.,
Niderwürschnitz, Niederdorf, Oelsnitz/Erzgeb., Stollberg/Erzgeb.,
Thalheim/Erzgeb., Zwönitz
Adorf, Auerbach, Ellefeld, Falkenstein, Grünbach, Hammerbrücke,
Heinsdorfergrund, Klingenthal/Sa., Lengenfeld, Morgenröthe-Rautenkranz,
Mylau, Neumark, Rodewisch, Schöneck, Steinberg ,
Tannenbergsthal/Vogtl., Treuen, Zwota
Crinitzberg, Fraureuth, Hartenstein, Hartmannsdorf b. Kirchberg, Hirschfeld,
159
Public sector transfers
Land,
Landkreis Kamenz,
Stadt Chemnitz
Stadt Leipzig
Sachsen-Anhalt
Stadt Plauen
Stadt Zwickau
Landkreis Anhalt-Zerbst
Landkreis Bitterfeld,
Landkreis Köthen
Dessau, Stadt
Landkreis Wittenberg
Kirchberg, Langenbernsdorf, Langenweißbach, Mülsen, Reinsdorf,
Wildenfels, Wilkau-Haßlau
Ottendorf-Okrilla, Pulsnitz, Radeberg, Wachau
VG Coswig (Anhalt), Buko, Cobbelsdorf, Coswig, Düben, Griebo, Klieken,
Köselitz, Möllensdorf, Roßlau (Elbe), Senst, Wörpen, Zieko, VG Rosseltal,
Brambach, Bräsen, Hundeluft, Jeber-Bergfrieden, Mühlstedt, Ragösen,
Rodleben, Serno, Stackelitz, Thießen, VG Wörlitzer Winkel, Gohrau,
Rehsen, Riesigk, Vockerode, Wörlitz, VG Zerbster Land, Bias, Dornburg,
Gehrden, Gödnitz, Güterglück, Hohenlepte, Jütrichau, Leps, Lübs, Luso,
Moritz, Nutha, Prödel, Steutz, Walternienburg
VG Raguhn, Altjeßnitz, Marke, Raguhn, Retzau, Schierau, Thurland, Tornau
vor der Heide, Bitterfeld, Greppin, VG Jeßnitz-Bobbau, Bobbau, Jeßnitz
(Anhalt)
Aken
Jessen (Elster), VG Elbe-Heideland-Gemeinden, Globig-Bleddin, Meuro,
Pretzsch (Elbe), Priesitz, Schnellin, Trebitz, VG Elser-Seyda-Klöden, Elster
(Elbe), Gadegast, Gentha, Klöden, Listerfehrda, Mellnitz, Morxdorf,
Naundorf bei Seyda, Rade, Schützberg, Seyda, Zemnick, VG HeideckPrettin, Axien, Labrun, Lebien, Plossig, Prettin, VG Kemberg, Ateritz,
Dabrun, Dorna, Eutzsch, Kemberg, Rackith, Wartenburg, VG Mühlengrund,
Abtsdorf, Bülzig, Dietrichsdorf, Mühlanger, Zörnigall, Wittenberg,
Lutherstadt
Magdeburg, Stadt
Biederitz, Burg, Gübs, Hohenwarthe, Jerichow, Königsborn, Lostau, Menz,
Landkreis Jerichower Land Niegripp, Parchau, Schartau, Elbe-Parey, Wahlitz
Ohrekreis
LK Stendal
LK Schönebeck
Thüringen
Kreis Altenburger Land
Gößnitz
Barleben, Bertingen, Glindenberg, Heinrichsberg, Loitsche, Rogätz, Zielitz
Altenzaun, Arneburg, Aulosen, Bömenzien, Behrendorf, Beuster, Bittkau,
Bölsdorf, Buch, Demker, Elversdorf, Geestgottberg, Grieben, Hämerten,
Havelberg, Hohengöhren, Kehnert, Klietz, Kuhlhausen, Kümmernitz,
Losenrade, Neuermark-Lübars, Neukirchen, Pollitz, Ringfurth, Sandau,
Sandauerholz, Schelldorf, Schönberg, Schönfeld, Schönhausen, Storkau,
Tangermünde, Uetz, Wahrenberg, Wanzer, Wendemark, Werben, Werder,
Wulkau
Barby, Breitenhagen, Glinde, Lödderitz, Plötzky, Pömmelte, Pretzien,
Ranies, Schönebeck
Haselbach, Lödla , Lucka, Meuselwitz, Nobitz, Remsa, Rositz, Saara,
Treben, Windischleuba, Ziegelheim
Infrastructure policy related to cities
o Targeted Federal support for the structural development of cities
o Total volume of 433 mio €, of which
 92 mio € are earmarked fort he old Länder (2000: 41 mio €)
 265 mio € fort he new Länder (2000: 265 mio €)
 76 mio € earmarked for the programme ‚city districts with special need
for renovation – the social city’
160
Public sector transfers
Federal budget for 2001623
1000 €
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin (East)
Berlin (West)
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
13519,9
15937,2
23413,2
4002,6
44027,2
1240,0
2556,7
8265,1
30387,3
10607,2
24179,8
5756,9
1567,9
79779,3
46255,5
4297,2
41714,2
% of the budget for
East / West German
Länder
14,7
17,3
8,8
4,4
16,6
1,4
2,8
8,9
11,4
11,5
26,3
6,3
1,7
30,1
17,4
4,7
15,7
Problems of the multilevel approach of German territorial policy



Conflicts in view of subsidiarity
o Allocation of competencies and influence of the national level
Social dialogue principle of the EU touches upon regional autonomy
o Reservations of the Länder
Due to co-financing the financial power of the Länder is part of the regional policy
Funds ‚German Unification’ (Fonds Deutsche Einheit)
The Funds ‚German Unification’ (Fonds deutsche Einheit), since 1990 principally is a
structural funds for the support of Eastern German Länder. De facto the funds represents
financial transfers from the West to the Eastern German Länder. The West German Länder
finance the funds with about 50% of their share in turnover tax plus an additional annual sum
of 107.372.950,51 €.624
The fund is jointly financed by the Federal level, the Länder and the districts. It covers
budgets that were not integrated into the public budgets of the Federal level and the Länder.
They were thus part of the so called ‘side budget’. From 1990 to 1994 the funds was the most
important instruments for supporting German unification with a final budget of 160 bio DM,
which were supposed to cover the budget deficits of the East German Länder. The transfers
were not assigned to special purposes, but in the beginning were meant to cover the deficits in
the East German social security insurance (45% of the funds) and gap in tax revenue (by
27%). The federal level should support the funds with 20 bio DM (deriving from restructuring
the Federal budget) and the rest of 95 bio DM should be funded by the West German Länder
623
http://www.raumplanung.uni-dortmund.de/fhp/folien%20blockseminar.pdf, Source: Verwaltungsvereinbarung über die
Gewährung von Finanzhilfen des Bundes an die Länder nach Artikel 104a Absatz 4 des GG zur Förderung städtebaulicher
Maßnahmen, 27.04./01.08.2001.
624 Gesetz über die Errichtung eines Fonds "Deutsche Einheit" vom 25. Juli 1990 (BGBl. II S. 518, 533), I S. 944).
161
Public sector transfers
and districts by borrowing (with the credits being paid within 30 years). Bremen and Saarland
did not have to contribute to the finds because of their own weak budget performance. Due to
the high level of financial demands in the Eastern Länder, these Länder were in 1991 fully
integrated into the German turnover tax distribution system. Since 1995 the East German
Länder participate in the horizontal financial equalisation system.625
Budget 1990-1994626
Borrowing
Subsidy Länder
Subsidy Federal
level
Total
1990
bio DM
20,000
2,000
-
1991
bio DM
31,000
4,000
-
1992
bio DM
24,000
9,900
-
1993
bio DM
15,000
14,245
5,960
1994
bio DM
5,000
19,477
10,123
Total
bio DM
95,000
49,622
16,083
22,000
35,000
33,900
35,205
34,600
160,705
The fund will from 1. 1. 2005 onwards be integrated into the German financial equalisation
system. From 2005 until 2019 the Federal level will cover the remaining payments out of the
funds. This will be compensated by an annual fix share of the turnover tax.627 With the so
called ‘Solidarpakt II ’ (see part on public sector transfer) the support of the Eastern Länder is
getting a stabile financial base. The budget from 2005 to 2019 will be 156 bio . € for the
compensation of special burdens caused by the unification. In 2019 the funds will finally
end.628
625
Liv K. Jacobsen: Die Finanzierung der Deutschen Einheit 1990-1998, http://www.studienforumberlin.de/finanzierung_deutsche_einheit.htm
626 http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/fach/abteilungen/bundhaus/bundhaus2001/daten/_private/daten
/ep60/60920000.pdf
627 Bundesergierung (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2001 bis 2005, Berlin.
628 Bundesergierung (2002): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin.
162
Public sector transfers
4 Public sector transfers
The principal channels through which money is transferred between the Länder and between
the Federal level and the Länder in Germany is the German Financial equalisation system.629
The financial equalisation system in its current form exists since 1995 when the separate
systems in East and West Germany were merged under the Solidarpakt.
I. Legal basis
• Ambivalence of the constitutional background:
Art. 30 GG: Sovereignty of the German Länder
vs.
•
•
•
Art. 72 GG: Equality of living conditions
Art. 106 and 107 GG: Principles of the financial relation/equalisation between federal
and Länder level and among the Länder
(Art. 104a – 106 GG)
Law on fiscal equalisation (Finanzausgleichsgesetz (FAG))
II. Tax revenues
Tax revenue is divided between federal government and the Länder as well as between the
Länder themselves.
a) Exclusively federal taxes, e.g. consumption taxes.
(2001: 155,1 Billion DM)
b) Exclusively “Länder”-taxes, e.g. motor vehicle tax, death duties.
(2001: 38,4 Billion DM)
c) “Gemeinschaftssteuern” (shared taxes), e.g. income tax and other profit taxes,
turnover tax. These represent the biggest part of total tax yield.
(2001: 605,8 Billion DM)
Income tax
Corporate tax
Capital gains tax
BUND
42,5 %
50 %
50 %
LÄNDER
42,5 %
50 %
50 %
KOMMUNEN
15 %
-
d) Other
(2001: 73,5 Billion DM)
629
Source: Lenk, Thomas: Aspekte des Länderfinanzausgleichs, Frankfurt/M., 2001; http://www.bundesregierung.de/artikel,45447/Der-Laenderfinanzausgleich-und.htm.
163
Public sector transfers
III. Financial equalisation scheme
1. ‘Primary’ financial equalisation: distribution of “Gemeinschaftssteuern” (shared
taxes) between federal level and Länder and among the Länder
a) Federal level and Länder are outfitted with a certain share of tax revenues
1. Stage: DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME TAX AND CORPORATE TAX
Income tax and corporation tax are being distributed according to their point of origin.
 Income tax: “Domicile principle”
 Corporate tax: “Production site principle”
2. Stage: DISTRIBUTION OF TURNOVER TAX (“BEFOREHAND-EQUALISATION”)
Turnover tax revenues are being split up between federal government, Länder, and local
districts (“Kommunen”).
Local districts receive 2,2 % of total revenues, the rest is split up as follows:
Federal government: 50,5 %.
Länder: 49,5 %.
¾ of the states share is apportioned by population, ¼ is reserved for “financial frail”
states. This shall ensure that the fiscal resources of each Land are raised to at least 92 %
of the average.
(Since 1995 the new Länder got 12,6 billion DM by horizontal turnover tax distribution.
Source: http://www.bundesregierung.de/artikel,-35816/Laenderfinanzausgleich-und-Sol.htm)
[Scale of redistribution under this “beforehand-equalisation” in 2001: About 15 Billion DM (=12 %) of the
states’ share of total turnover tax yield of 124,8 Billion DM.]
2. ‘Secondary’ financial equalisation: real financial equalisation; corrects the primary
tax distribution to guarantee equal per capita tax distribution among the Länder
In power since 1995 (so called Solidarpakt). Before this date, separate systems were applied
in East and West Germany.
Financial power measurement number (Finanzkraftmesszahl) = Länder revenue from taxation
after beforehand turnover tax equalisation plus 50 % local district tax revenue minus harbour
charges (Hafenlasten) of coastal Länder (Hamburg, Bremen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,
Niedersachsen).
The result is compared with the so called equalisation measurement number
(Ausgleichsmesszahl), which serves the determination of financial requirement (defined as the
average financial equipment of all Länder per capita, which is multiplied with the population
number of the respective Land. Because of the special requirement of the city states, their
population is taken into account with the factor 1,35.
If in the end the equalisation measurement number id higher than the financial power
measurement number the Land is entitled to get financial equalisation. It financial power is
lift to 95% of the average financial power.
164
Public sector transfers
b.) Federal level and Länder compensate deviations of their fiscal capacities
3. Stage: SPECIFIC HORIZONTAL EQUALISATION SCHEME (“LÄNDER-LÄNDERFINANZAUSGLEICH”)
The “rich” states compensate the “poor” through financial transfers.
Compensation of shortfalls:
Percentage of average fiscal capacity
Up to 92 %
92 to 100 %
Compensation
Full
37,5 %
Compulsory redistribution of surpluses:
Percentage of average fiscal capacity
100 – 101 %
101 – 110 %
> 110 %
Redistribution
15 %
66 %
80 %
[Scale of redistribution under the specific equalisation scheme in 2001: About 15 billion
DM. More than ¾ were assigned to Berlin and the eastern Länder.]
4. Stage: VERTICAL FINANCIAL EQUALISATION / SUPPLEMENTARY FEDERAL GRANTS
(“BUNDESERGÄNZUNGSZUWEISUNGEN” OR „BUND-LÄNDER-FINANZAUSGLEICH“)



“Gap-filling grants” (Fehlbedarfsbundesergänzungszuweisungen): Guarantee
the poor Länder the lifting up of their financial power to at least 99, 5 % of
average financial capacity of all Länder
Compensations for special burdens
(Sonderbedarfsbundesergänzungszuweisungen) to relieve small Länder of the
costs of “political management” and new Länder of special costs arising from
unification (teilungsbedingte Sonderkosten) as well as Bremen and Hamburg
for budgetary crisis (high public depths)
Transitional grants (Übergangsbundesergänzungszuweisungen) for the poorer
west German Länder since 1995. Designed degressively (minus 10% per year).
Widely used after unification, previously insignificant.
[Scale of redistribution under the supplementary federal grants in 2001: About 24,7 Billion
DM.]
Total yield of redistribution under the federal equalisation scheme in 2001630
Purpose
Distribution of turnover tax,
deviating from apportionment by population
Specific horizontal equalisation scheme
Total yield,
in Billion DM
+/+/-
15,3
14,8
630
Source: Bayrisches Staatsministerium der Finanzen (Ed.): Informationen und Argumente. Der bundesstaatliche
Finanzausgleich, München 2002.
165
Public sector transfers
“German Unification Fund”
5,0
Supplementary federal grants
+
24,7
Federal equalisation scheme total about
59,8
Results of specific horizontal equalisation scheme ( stage 3), in Billion DM
(Positive: received; negative: paid)
Hessen
Baden-Württemberg
Bayern
Nordrhein- Westfalen
Hamburg
Schleswig- Holstein
Saarland
Rheinland-Pfalz
Bremen
Mecklenburg- Vorpommern
Niedersachsen
Brandenburg
Thüringen
Sachsen-Anhalt
Sachsen
Berlin
Total yield of balancing
1990
1994
-1,4
-2,5
0
-0,1
0
0,6
0,4
0,5
0,6
1,9
4,0
-1,8
-0,4
-0,7
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,4
0,7
0,6
0,0
1,0
0,0
0,1
0,1
-0,1
2,9
1995
-2,2
-2,8
-2,5
-3,4
-0,1
-0,1
0,2
0,2
0,6
0,8
0,5
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,8
4,2
11,2
1999
-4,7
-3,4
-3,2
-2,6
-0,7
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,7
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,2
1,3
2,1
5,3
14,6
2000
-5,4
-3,9
-3,7
-2,2
-1,1
0,4
0,3
0,8
0,9
1,0
1,1
1,3
1,3
1,4
2,3
5,5
16,3
2001
-5,1
-4,2
-4,5
-0,5
-0,5
0,1
0,3
0,4
0,8
0,8
1,9
1,0
1,1
1,2
2,0
5,2
14,8
Trend
since 1995
o
o
o
o
o
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
IV. Recent developments631
In its November 1999 ruling the German constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)
asked the government to revise the German financial equalisation system (BverfG, 2 BvF
2/98 vom 11.11.1999, Absatz-Nr. (1-347)).
On the legal proceedings brought to ask for judicial review to the constitutional court
by Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, and Hessen the Bundesverfassungsgericht decided that parts
of the law on financial equalisation were not in compliance with § 107 of the German
Constitution (Grundgesetz). The appealing Länder Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, and Hessen
stated among others, that the integration of the ‘new’ Länder constituted a fundamental
change of the law on the financial equalisation system and that thus a new law had to be
drafted instead of the amendment of the old law in 1993 and 1998. Furthermore the law on
financial equalisation would partly be not in compliance with the Grundgesetz, especially
concerning the German Unification Fund (‘Fonds Deutsche Einheit’). Old and financially
weaker Länder due to the chosen amendments over proportionally suffered from the
extension of the system on the new Länder. Moreover, the consideration of harbour charges
(Hafenlasten) and the special treatment of the city states (their population is taken into
account with the factor 1,35) would need revision. Facts, which Bremen, Niedersachsen and
631
Sources: http://www.bundesregierung.de/artikel,-35816/Laenderfinanzausgleich-und-Sol.htm;
http://www.bundesregierung.de/artikel,-45819/Bundesregierung-und-Laender-ei.htm
166
Public sector transfers
Schleswig-Holstein still underlined as necessary to be considered within the future financial
equalisation scheme.
The government, according to the ruling, was asked to adopt the new financial
equalisation system until 1st January 2005. Until 1st January 2003 the government in a twostep procedure had to adopt a law on budgetary principles (the so called Maßstäbegesetz) with
clear principles of distribution. Based onthis law the new financial equalisation system should
be adopted until 2005.
Also until 2005 a follow-up regulation (Solidarpakt II) has to be adopted for the
terminating Solidarpakt with the new Länder, which has to be closely interlinked with the
new financial equalisation system.
In February 2001 the German federal government adopted its draft new
Maßstäbegesetz. The draft presents the principles for the vertical and horizontal distribution
of turnover tax, the horizontal financial equalisation scheme (Länderfinanzausgleich) and the
supplementary federal grants (Bundesergänzungszuweisungen). The draft thus laid down
abstract principles for the concrete distribution and equalisation, which will be laid down in
the new law on the financial equalisation system.
On 23rd June 2001 the Federal government and the Länder agreed the new financial
equalisation system (in power from 2005 to 2020) and the Solidarpakt II scheme (in power
from 2005 to 2020; financial volume: ca. 156 billion €). Key elements of the new financial
equalisation system are:
 The Federal level will take over the German Unification Fund (‘Fonds Deutsche
Einheit’: comprises 25,5 billion € remaining debts (Altschulden) of the Länder)
o
From 2020 on the Federal level will take over the remaining debts of then
about 6,5 billion €
 The federal level will pay ca. 0,77 billion € to guarantee a fair financial
equalisation among the Länder
 Financially stronger Länder will be allowed to keep more over their tax revenue
surplus (Steuermehreinnahmen) than before (now: 12%)
The Solidarpakt II includes:
 Ca. 156 billion € transfer to the Eastern Länder
o
Ca. 105 billion € due to the investment support measures act
(Investitionsfördergesetz)
and
supplementary
federal
grants
(Bundesergänzungszuweisungen)
o
Ca. 51 billion € due to the general economy support measures of the
Federal budget
Equalisation Payments * 632
Supplementary federal grants
2000
Volume of equalisation payments
Baden-Württemberg
Bavaria
Brandenburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
632
13 339
1 375
1 030
970
2001
12 637
1 358
1 017
899
Länder receiving
equalisation payments
2000
2001
Mio €
8 273
7 588
644
500
500
436
568
954
Länder making
equalisation payments
2000
2001
8 273
1 957
1 884
2 734
-
7 587
2 132
2 298
2 622
-
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/fist/fisttab023.htm
167
Public sector transfers
North Rhine-Westphalia
Rhineland-Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony-Anhalt
Schleswig-Holstein
Thuringia
Berlin
Bremen
Hamburg
* Preliminary results.
658
750
2 345
1 493
406
1 370
1 955
987
-
550
612
2 313
1 473
219
1 352
1 925
870
-
392
167
1 182
711
185
670
2 812
442
-
231
146
1 036
595
59
575
2 654
402
-
1 141
556
269
266
168
Public sector transfers
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”):
Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Baden-Württemberg633
BW
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
46.016
46.432
46.211
49.879
52.398
54.453
51.958
109.7
108.8
108.7
111.3
111.0
112.0
113.3
-2.803
-2.521
-2.410
-3.477
-3.426
-3.873
-4.170
43.212
43.911
43.801
46.402
48.972
50.581
47.787
103.0
102.9
103.0
103.5
103.7
104.0
104.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
43.212
43.911
43.801
46.402
48.972
50.581
47.787
103.0
102.9
103.0
103.5
103.7
104.0
104.2
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
633
169
Public sector transfers
Bayern634
BY
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
52.432
53.786
53.936
56.368
59.699
62.219
59.946
107.7
108.6
109.4
108.6
109.1
110.4
112.3
-2.532
-2.862
-3.102
-2.907
-3.188
-3.749
-4.495
49.901
50.925
50.834
53.461
56.511
58.470
55.451
102.5
102.8
103.1
103.0
103.3
103.7
104.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
49.901
50.925
50.834
53.461
56.511
58.470
55.451
102.5
102.8
103.1
103.0
103.3
103.7
104.1
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
634
170
Public sector transfers
Berlin635
BE
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
13.692
13.787
13.429
13.737
14.092
14.381
13.446
72.6
72.3
71.4
70.1
69.0
68.6
68.5
4.222
4.336
4.432
4.891
5.316
5.521
5.191
17.914
18.123
17.861
18.628
19.408
19.902
18.637
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
849
858
846
882
919
943
883
Gapfilling
grants
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
2.662
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
3.730
3.739
3.727
3.763
3.800
3.824
3.764
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
18.763
18.982
18.707
19.510
20.327
20.845
19.520
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
635
171
Public sector transfers
Brandenburg636
BB
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
8.923
8.907
8.935
9.474
9.937
10.163
9.723
86.6
85.1
85.5
85.6
85.2
84.5
86.3
864
1.035
986
1.044
1.147
1.263
977
9.787
9.942
9.921
10.518
11.084
11.426
10.701
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
464
471
470
498
525
541
507
Gapfilling
grants
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
1.985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
2.613
2.620
2.619
2.647
2.674
2.690
2.656
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
10.250
10.413
10.391
11.016
11.609
11.967
11.208
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
636
172
Public sector transfers
Bremen637
HB
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
2.948
2.917
3.144
2.724
3.136
2.990
2.830
80.9
79.2
86.4
71.8
79.3
73.9
74.9
562
635
350
912
665
872
787
3.510
3.552
3.494
3.636
3.801
3.862
3.618
96.3
96.4
96.0
95.8
96.1
95.5
95.8
121
120
130
142
139
164
144
Gapfilling
grants
126
126
126
126
126
126
126
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
72
64
56
48
40
32
1.800
1.800
1.800
1.800
1.800
1.600
1.400
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
2.127
2.118
2.120
2.124
2.113
1.930
1.702
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
3.631
3.672
3.624
3.778
3.940
4.026
3.761
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.6
99.5
99.6
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
637
173
Public sector transfers
Hamburg638
HH
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
9.553
10.099
9.753
10.669
11.242
12.178
10.843
103.5
107.9
105.2
109.8
110.2
116.0
109.3
-117
-482
-273
-615
-665
-1.099
-520
9.453
9.618
9.480
10.054
10.577
11.079
10.322
102.2
102.8
102.3
103.5
103.7
105.5
104.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
9.453
9.618
9.480
10.054
10.577
11.079
10.322
102.2
102.8
102.3
103.5
103.7
105.5
104.1
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
638
174
Public sector transfers
Hessen639
HE
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
27.444
29.122
28.897
30.589
33.621
35.254
33.266
112.2
117.2
116.9
117.6
123.0
125.3
125.7
-2.153
-3.240
-3.148
-3.439
-4.744
-5.354
-5.129
25.292
25.883
25.749
27.150
28.877
29.901
28.137
103.4
104.1
104.2
104.3
105.6
106.3
106.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
Divergence from
national average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
25.292
25.883
25.749
27.150
28.877
29.901
28.137
103.4
104.1
104.2
104.3
105.6
106.3
106.4
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
639
175
Public sector transfers
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement
)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
1995 6.291
84.6
771
7.062
95.0
335
164
1.479
0
0
1996 6.260
83.6
856
7.116
95.0
337
164
1.479
0
0
1997 6.195
83.6
843
7.038
95.0
333
164
1.479
0
0
1998 6.476
83.7
877
7.353
95.0
348
164
1.479
0
0
1999 6.757
*
2000 6.879
*
2001 6.446
83.6
921
7.678
95.0
364
164
1.479
0
0
83.1
983
7.862
95.0
372
164
1.479
0
0
83.9
853
7.299
95.0
346
164
1.479
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after
SHES and
Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
1.97 7.397
8
1.98 7.453
0
1.97 7.371
6
1.99 7.701
1
2.00 8.042
7
2.01 8.234
5
1.98 7.645
9
SFH total
Gapfillin
g
grant
s
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen and
Saarland
Transitional grants
(west Germany)
Contributio
n/
assignment
within
SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Compensations for
special burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations for
special political
costs
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern640
MV Fiscal
Divergence
resources from national
before
average
SHES (in (balance
Mio. DM) measurement
)
(= 100)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement
)
(= 100)
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
640
176
Public sector transfers
Niedersachsen641
NI
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
30.413
30.739
30.312
31.772
32.889
33.793
30.972
96.2
95.4
94.4
93.8
92.2
92.0
89.6
0.452
0.553
0.672
0.788
1.037
1.113
1.864
30.866
31.292
30.984
32.560
33.926
34.906
32.837
97.6
97.1
96.5
96.1
95.2
95.0
95.0
678
830
1.008
1.182
1.556
1.637
1.556
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
507
456
406
355
304
253
203
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Rehabilitation
al grants
Bremen and
Saarland
Transitional
grants
(west
Germany)
Compensatio
ns for special
burdens
(east
Compensatio
Germany)
ns for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
1.185
1.286
1.414
1.537
1.860
1.890
1.759
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
31.544
32.121
31.992
33.742
35.482
36.543
34.393
99.8
99.7
99.6
99.6
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
641
177
Public sector transfers
Nordrhein-Westfalen642
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
107.0
106.4
106.4
106.3
105.3
104.6
101.7
-3.449
-3.125
-3.059
-3.096
-2.578
-2.201
-0.525
74.999
76.128
75.795
79.835
83.664
85.871
79.876
102.3
102.2
102.3
102.3
102.1
101.9
101.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78.448
79.253
78.854
82.931
86.242
88.071
80.402
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
NRW Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
74.999
76.128
75.795
79.835
83.664
85.871
79.876
102.3
102.2
102.3
102.3
102.1
101.9
101.1
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
642642
178
Public sector transfers
Rheinland-Pfalz643
RP
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
15.545
15.824
15.628
16.169
17.199
17.002
16.377
96.2
96.3
95.2
93.4
94.5
90.8
93.2
229
231
296
429
379
780
451
15.773
16.056
15.924
16.598
17.578
17.782
16.828
97.6
97.7
97.0
95.9
96.5
95.0
95.7
343
347
444
644
568
842
676
Gapfilling
grants
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
451
406
361
316
271
226
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
1.013
972
1.024
1.179
1.058
1.287
1.075
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
16.116
16.403
16.368
17.242
18.146
18.624
17.504
99.8
99.8
99.7
99.6
99.7
99.5
99.6
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
643
179
Public sector transfers
Saarland644
SL
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
4.019
4.017
4.010
4.185
4.315
4.402
4.134
90.9
89.8
90.4
90.1
88.9
88.4
88.9
180
234
204
228
294
329
286
4.199
4.251
4.214
4.413
4.609
4.731
4.420
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
199
201
200
209
218
224
209
Gapfilling
grants
153
153
153
153
153
153
153
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
72
64
56
48
40
32
1.600
1.600
1.600
1.600
1.200
1.050
900
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
2.032
2.026
2.017
2.018
1.619
1.467
1.294
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
4.398
4.452
4.414
4.622
4.827
4.955
4.629
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
644
180
Public sector transfers
Schleswig-Holstein645
SH
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence from
national average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
11.317
11.201
11.293
11.890
12.024
11.932
11.811
102.5
99.6
100.6
100.2
96.3
92.8
97.5
-141
16
-5
0
174
358
115
11.175
11.217
11.288
11.890
12.198
12.291
11.926
101.2
99.8
100.5
100.2
97.7
95.6
98.4
0
24
0
0
261
513
173
Gapfilling
grants
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
227
204
182
159
136
114
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
391
392
346
323
561
791
428
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
11.175
11.240
11.288
11.890
12.459
12.804
12.099
101.2
100.0
100.5
100.2
99.8
99.6
99.8
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
645
181
Public sector transfers
Sachsen646
SN
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
15.938
15.890
15.714
16.436
17.053
17.344
16.234
85.5
84.6
84.7
84.7
84.4
83.8
84.5
1.773
1.965
1.918
1.994
2.149
2.328
2.026
17.711
17.855
17.632
18.430
19.202
19.672
18.260
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
839
846
835
873
910
932
965
Gapfilling
grants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
3.658
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
4.497
4.504
4.493
4.531
4.568
4.590
4.623
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling
grants
(in Mio.
DM)
18.550
18.700
18.467
19.303
20.112
20.604
19.125
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
646
182
Public sector transfers
Sachsen-Anhalt647
ST
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
9.510
9.447
9.358
9.775
10.108
10.247
9.590
85.0
84.0
84.4
84.6
84.2
83.5
84.7
1.123
1.241
1.175
1.207
1.300
1.407
1.164
10.633
10.688
10.533
10.982
11.408
11.654
10.754
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
504
506
499
520
540
552
509
Gapfilling
grants
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
2.208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
2.876
2.878
2.871
2.892
2.912
2.924
2.881
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
11.137
11.194
11.032
11.502
11.948
12.206
11.263
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
647
183
Public sector transfers
Thüringen648
TH
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Supplementary federal grants (in Mio. DM)
8.673
8.629
8.507
8.909
9.289
9.444
8.870
85.0
84.0
83.9
84.0
84.0
83.4
84.3
1.019
1.127
1.123
1.164
1.218
1.320
1.125
9.692
9.757
9.630
10.073
10.507
10.764
9.994
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
459
462
456
477
498
510
473
Gapfilling
grants
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
2.008
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SFH total
Contribution
/ assignment
within SHES
(in Mio. DM)
Rehabilitational
grants Bremen
and Saarland
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
Transitional
grants
(west Germany)
Compensations
for special
burdens
(east Germany)
Compensations
for special
political costs
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999*
2000*
2001
Fiscal
resources
before SHES
(in Mio.
DM)
2.631
2.634
2.628
2.649
2.670
2.682
2.645
Fiscal
resources
after SHES
and Gapfilling grants
(in Mio.
DM)
Divergence
from national
average
(balance
measurement)
(= 100)
10.151
10.219
10.086
10.550
11.005
11.274
10.468
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
*) preliminary
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage1512/Steuern-und-Bundesergaenzungszuweisungen.pdf, 2001: http://www.laenderfinanzausgleich.com
648
184
Grants from central government to lower tiers of government
Results of the regional economic support 1991 until 2000 under the GA GA of the
development of the regional economic structure (‘Verbesserung der regionalen
Wirtschaftsstruktur’) (funded by GA budget for industrial sector and infrastructure; Federal
funding)649
Approved funds by GA in
mio € 1991 - 2000
Industrial
Infrastructure
Branch
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
63,3
326,1
755,6
12,9
61,3
472,8
1,1
159,0
248,6
32,5
27,2
423,3
201,5
195,1
110,8
53,7
25,4
36,4
1 529,2
1 122,9
19,4
1 015,6
5 222,2
1,8
1,3
382, 7
414,5
53,5
278,0
1 906,1
GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal protection (‚Förderung der
Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’)650
2000651
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Total: 277, 127
Fed.: 166, 276
2002 (only planned Federal
contribution) 652
Total: 149, 720
Fed.: 89,832
Total: 522, 534
Fed.: 313, 522
Total: 0, 611
Fed.: 0, 367
Total: 256, 202
Fed.: 153, 721
Total: 279, 550
Fed.: 167,730
Total: 0, 544
Fed.: 0,326
Total: 128, 145
Fed.: 76,887
649
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.29.
650 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005.
651 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005.
652 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005, p.89.
185
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
Total: 3, 163
Fed.: 1, 898
Total: 36, 299
Fed.: 25, 075
Total: 100, 716
Fed.: 60, 429
Total: 212, 726
Fed.: 130, 766
Total: 2, 798
Fed.: 1,714
Total: 14, 424
Fed.: 9,934
Total: 68, 662
Fed.: 41,197
Total: 112, 165
Fed.: 69,143
Total: 370, 369
Fed.: 240, 919
Total: 185, 022
Fed.: 111, 013
Total: 140, 735
Fed.: 84, 440
Total: 17, 603
Fed.: 10, 562
Total: 158, 768
Fed.: 95, 262
Total: 152, 062
Fed.: 91, 238
Total: 131, 174
Fed.: 85, 289
Total: 177, 691
Fed.: 111,681
Total: 101, 735
Fed.: 61,041
Total: 79, 842
Fed.: 47,905
Total: 9, 618
Fed.: 5,771
Total: 85, 148
Fed.: 51,089
Total: 87, 658
Fed.: 52,595
Total: 55, 551
Fed.: 36,300
Total: 147, 166
Fed.: 88, 298
Total: 2. 712, 277
Fed.: 1. 659, 075
Total:
Fed.: 76, 833 46,100
Total: 1 430,084
Fed.: 869,245
GA special programme ‘flood’ (‘Hochwasser’) 2002-2003
2002-2003
1.75 mio €
0.35 mio €
0.35 mio €
0.35 mio €
21 mio €
5.25 mio €
0.35 mio €
5.6 mio €
Bayern
Brandenburg
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Niedersachsen
Sachsen
Sachsen-Anhalt
Thüringen
Riserve
5%
1%
1%
1%
60%
15%
1%
16%
GA for building and maintenance of Universities (GA ‘Hochschulbau’)
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
Federal grants for building and maintenance of
Universities, etc (mio €)653
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
143
149
131
142
157
140
162
100
108
125
155
182
176
167
86
56
56
56
49
50
49
44
40
43
42
40
33
40
14
10
10
7
13
13
17
22
26
26
28
33
27
34
51
48
46
32
40
41
46
25
29
37
38
41
36
44
66
82
62
53
43
69
78
653
Planungsausschuss für den Hochschulbau (2002): 32. Rahmenplan für den Hochschulbau nach dem
Hochschulbauförderungsgesetz 2003–2006, Berlin, p. 29.
186
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
118
146
145
133
147
173
185
39
21
32
16
34
10
40
11
40
12
36
15
42
17
83
38
30
38
57
44
37
47
66
52
37
43
69
53
26
36
96
59
27
44
88
58
26
40
109
63
29
50
Total volume of Federal financial aid to the Länder (mio €)654
Education/Researc
h acc. to Art 91b
GG
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
2001
17,5
20,7
41,6
46,7
1,1
4,1
10,0
39,2
12,6
26,0
6,0
1,6
58,4
30,7
3,6
2002
7,1
7,9
17,8
21,5
0,6
1,7
4,2
18,6
4,9
12,4
2,6
0,7
25,8
18,8
1,6
31,1
16,1
General financial
support law acc. to
Art 104a Abs.3
GG 655
2001
2002
228,2
271,0
263,1
304,8
222,8
259,0
120,5
126,7
48,3
53,9
100,3
102,0
178,8
221,4
99,4
108,3
311,6
347,0
711,1
803,7
110,1
116,3
35,6
40,1
238,2
250,5
132,8
135,0
116,3
132,0
109,7
113,8
General financial
support law acc. to
Art 104a Abs.4
GG 656
2001
2002
306,6
272,4
354,5
361,8
806,7
223,7
640,2
198,5
21,4
25,6
55,6
48,2
150,0
141,7
699,9
220,6
204,9
186,4
465,4
484,3
107,6
97,5
41,2
27,1
444,7
731,1
314,9
72,0
67,7
663,5
Other financial
support657
2001
272,3
511,8
356,7
66,0
23,5
71,1
250,7
57,4
267,7
873,5
433,3
22,7
65,0
54,9
100,4
2002
250,7
501,6
342,5
68,5
20,4
79,9
240,4
49,7
433,3
711,5
417,5
20,4
110,8
49,8
102,9
39,6
32,9
214,4
Infrastructure policy related to cities
o Targeted support for the structural development of cities
o Total volume of 433 mio €, of which
 92 mio € are earmarked fort he old Länder (2000: 41 mio €)
 265 mio € fort he new Länder (2000: 265 mio €)
 76 mio € earmarked for the programme ‚city districts with special need
for renovation – the social city’
Federal budget for support measures for city infrastructure 2001658
654
Data provided by the central data collection archive of the Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der
Landesfinanzminister
655 This headline covers rental support for social housing, financial support for students and pupils, etc.
656 This headline covers support for social housing, city infrastructure, communal traffic support measures, etc.
657 Including consequences of war, special support for Eastern Länder, special support for Berlin, other special financial
measures
187
1000 €
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin (East)
Berlin (West)
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
13519,9
15937,2
23413,2
4002,6
44027,2
1240,0
2556,7
8265,1
30387,3
10607,2
24179,8
5756,9
1567,9
% of the budget for
East / West German
Länder
14,7
17,3
8,8
4,4
16,6
1,4
2,8
8,9
11,4
11,5
26,3
6,3
1,7
79779,3
46255,5
4297,2
41714,2
30,1
17,4
4,7
15,7
Funds German Unification
Budget 1990-1994659
Borrowing
Subsidy Länder
Subsidy Federal level
Total
1990
bio DM
20,000
2,000
22,000
1991
bio DM
31,000
4,000
35,000
1992
bio DM
24,000
9,900
33,900
1993
bio DM
15,000
14,245
5,960
35,205
1994
bio DM
5,000
19,477
10,123
34,600
Total
bio DM
95,000
49,622
16,083
160,705
Total gross expenditure in regions (Länder budgets only)660
1995
27.242
1996
27.804
1997
26.929
1998
28.731
1999
28.620
2000
30.264
29.641
22.085
9.750
3.982
9.064
15.586
7.149
31.153
21.812
9.855
4.006
9.455
16.590
7.606
30.713
21.423
9.657
4.024
9.420
16.533
7.308
31.078
21.192
9.749
4.055
9.361
16.658
7.330
31.677
21.081
9.834
4.100
9.490
17.755
7.237
32.410
20.895
9.700
4.115
9.729
18.213
7.118
19.719
19.803
19.746
20.101
20.261
20.848
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
658
http://www.raumplanung.uni-dortmund.de/fhp/folien%20blockseminar.pdf, Source: Verwaltungsvereinbarung über die
Gewährung von Finanzhilfen des Bundes an die Länder nach Artikel 104a Absatz 4 des GG zur Förderung städtebaulicher
Maßnahmen, 27.04./01.08.2001.
659 http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/fach/abteilungen/bundhaus/bundhaus2001/daten/_private/daten
/ep60/60920000.pdf
660 Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2002): Bund – Länder Finanzbeziehungen auf der Grundlage der geltenden
Finanzverfassungsordnung, Berlin.
188
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
42.488
10.330
3.129
15.535
10.393
7.148
43.886
10.983
3.230
16.103
10.326
7.240
45.112
10.853
3.158
15.665
10.809
7.135
45.033
10.947
3.193
15.375
10.470
7.279
45.502
11.080
3.204
15.549
10.302
7.442
46.179
11.219
3.266
16.123
10.454
7.551
9.044
237.239
9.630
243.121
9.604
241.561
9.680
243.218
9. 794
245.268
9.687
249.338
Financial balance of public budgets by Länder 661 1*
2000
2001
Mio €
Baden-Württemberg
+139
-3 467
+1 091
-1 574
Brandenburg
-475
-714
Hesse
+230
-1 081
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
-592
-648
Lower Saxony
-836
-4 308
-1 914
-7 862
-647
-1 559
-3
-101
Saxony
-173
-169
Saxony-Anhalt
-854
-1 170
Schleswig-Holstein
-328
-416
Thuringia
-688
-777
-2 546
-5 235
Bremen
-140
-305
Hamburg
-675
-1 413
Bavaria
North Rhine-Westphalia
Rhineland-Palatinate
Saarland
Berlin
* Difference between expenditure and revenue incl. internal offsetting
(result in the negative = net borrowing; result in the positive = net lending);
not identical with the government budget deficit in national accounting.
1 As for 2000 and 2001, excluding hospitals with a commercial accounting
system and special-purpose associations.
Debt of public budgets* 1 by Länder662
2001
2002
Mioi €
Baden-Württemberg
Bavaria
Brandenburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine-Westphalia
Rhineland-Palatinate
Saarland
661
662
39 505 40 359
32 069 33 755
15 326 16 453
31 173 33 131
10 256 10 815
44 770 47 959
111 341 116 603
23 960 25 358
7 103
7 469
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/fist/fisttab021.htm
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/fist/fisttab024.htm
189
Saxony
16 239 16 513
Saxony-Anhalt
17 748 19 015
Schleswig-Holstein
18 518 19 550
Thuringia
14 639 15 195
Berlin
38 350 44 647
Bremen
8 894
9 584
Hamburg
17 624 18 183
* Credit market debt in the broader sense
( = securities debt, indebtedness to banks, saving banks,
insurance companies or other domestic/foreign institutions,
and equalisation claims).
1 Land, communities/local authorities and special-purpose
associations.
Debt of the public budgets 1 of the Länder
in EUR per resident*663
2001
2002
Baden-Württemberg
3 741
3 796
Bavaria
2 612
2 732
Brandenburg
5 901
6 360
Hesse
5 134
5 446
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
5 798
6 170
Lower Saxony
5 639
6 017
North Rhine-Westphalia
6 178
6 456
Rhineland-Palatinate
5 929
6 262
Saarland
6 657
7 012
Saxony
3 686
3 782
Saxony-Anhalt
6 826
7 413
Schleswig-Holstein
6 626
6 958
Thuringia
6 044
6 325
Berlin
11 332
13 172
Bremen
13 465
14 505
Hamburg
10 251
10 535
* Credit market debt in the broader sense
( = securities debt, indebtedness to banks, saving banks, insurance
companies or other domestic/foreign institutions, and equalisation claims).
1 Land, communities/local authorities and special-purpose associations.
Net borrowing of public budgets by Länder664 1
2000
2001
Mio €
Baden-Württemberg
474 2 537
Bavaria
-267
374
503
560
-1 333
-494
60
375
-355
1 087
North Rhine-Westphalia
426
3 103
Rhineland-Palatinate
420
671
Saarland
-65
-222
Saxony
216
161
Brandenburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
663
664
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/fist/fisttab025.htm
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/fist/fisttab022.htm
190
Saxony-Anhalt
808
755
Schleswig-Holstein
457
585
Thuringia
729
708
1 937
4 896
-53
40
-261
-153
Berlin
Bremen
Hamburg
* Borrowing minus debt repayments in the credit market.
1 As for 2000 and 2001, excluding hospitals with a commercial
accounting system and special-purpose associations.
Tax revenue by the Länder (Länder participation at common taxes and original Länder
taxes) in mio € 665
1995
14.108
1996
13.518
1997
13.092
1998
14.868
1999
15.695
2000
16.342
2001
15.375
16.102
3.874
1.628
914
3.191
8.437
996
15.814
3.789
1.252
849
3.265
8.812
767
15.656
3.668
1.217
967
3.078
8.505
755
16.817
3.866
1.329
760
3.496
9.329
812
17.890
3.963
1.334
940
3.706
10.523
831
18.915
4.095
1.247
881
4.043
11.128
805
17.908
3.544
1.202
804
3.507
10.216
628
8.811
24.135
4.608
1.081
2.702
1.430
3.430
8.431
23.012
4.451
1.010
2.110
1.105
3.161
8.020
22.312
4.218
1.004
2.013
1.038
3.148
8.703
24.362
4.525
1.011
2.211
1.149
3.431
8.903
25.572
4.931
1.028
2.225
1.139
3.391
8.825
26.340
4.818
1.068
1.946
1.008
3.337
8.328
22.714
4.502
1.042
1.781
919
3.292
1.298
96.744
981
92.327
959
89.648
1.080
97.749
1.107
103.177
959
105.757
876
96.638
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
665
Bundesministerium der Finanzen, homepage.
191
5 State aid
Investigating and obtaining figures from a broader range of sources of state aid (regional and
local authorities as well as central authorities)
A broader range of figures was investigated and only the central data collection archive of the
Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der Landesfinanzminister could provide
some additional data on the distribution of Federal state aid among the Länder (see below).
Furthermore the European Commission, DG Competition nevertheless provides data on state
aid cases registered by the Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/
state_aid/register/State Aid Register). Moreover, data on Commission Decisions on Germany,
Regions/provinces, by aid instrument and by sector/activity, including aid intensity and
amount can be downloaded at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/
register/ii/by_region_3.html.
State aid in Germany is divided between the different state levels, thus the national level as
well as the Länder level can grant state aid from their own budgets. The figures presented
below represent only the Federal share in state aid and thus vary from the Commission data,
which represent the entire state aid of all state levels.
“Legal basis and definition of „subsidies“
The subsidies concept of the Federal Government concentrates, as specified by law, on aid
from the Federal Budget to private enterprises and economic sectors. Section 12 of the Law to
promote economic stability and growth (StWG) expressly refers to aid provided by the
government to enterprises and economic sectors for adjustment, support and for increasing
productivity. Account is also taken of other aid which in key sectors of the economy reduces
the cost of specific goods and services to private households which can at the same time be
directly assigned to the sphere of economic activity; this relates predominantly to aid for
housing construction. … Allocations, grants, capital increases in federal undertakings and
Federal Government guarantees are not included.. . In accordance with its specific mandate
the subsidies report reflects only those aspects of government activity that have a direct and
indirect impact on the economy. ... Due to the fact that there are many concepts under which
to define the term subsidy, at international level subsidies are looked at under aspects which
differ from those considered in the subsidies report of the Federal Government. In April 2000
the EU Commission submitted its eighth subsidies report, which lists national aids of EU
countries in the areas of manufacturing, agriculture, fisheries, coal, transport, financial
services, training, tourism, media and culture. The reduction of subsidies in EU countries in
the years 1996 to 1998 was largely characterised by declining aids in Germany and Italy.”666
“The total volume of subsidies in Germany [incl. aid provided by the Länder as well as market
organisation spending of the European Union and the ERP financial aid] decreased from €
58.1 bn in 1999 to € 57.8 bn in 2001. The decrease is mainly attributable to lower financial
aid by the Federal Government (by € 1.4 bn) and lower ERP financial aid (by € 0.4 bn).”667
The overall reduction of German national subsidies is in line with the multi-annual plan of the
Federal Government according to which financial aids from 1999 to 2005 will decline from €
10.9 bn to € 6.5 bn. Vis-à-vis 2001 this indicates a reduction by ca. 31.6 %. State aid is cut in
the mining sector (decline from € 4.3 bn in 1999 to € 2.2 bn in 2005) and in the housing sector
666
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage11114/18-th-Subsidies-report-of-the-Federal-Government-Summery.pdf,
p- 6-7.
667 http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage11114/18-th-Subsidies-report-of-the-Federal-Government-Summery.pdf,
p. 4.
192
(decline from € 2 bn in 1999 to € 912 million in 2005). Federal tax policy will ensure Federal
tax relief measures (which are another instrument of financial support for the regional
development besides direct state aid) becoming increasingly less attractive beyond 2005.668
The most important beneficiary of state aid is the industry (including mining) with 9.9 bn € in
2002 (46% of total state aid and Federal tax relieves). Nevertheless, also here the general
trend of reduction of state aid (around 322 mio € since 1999) can be witnessed.
Most important institutions and agencies that are involved in granting state aid are:
 Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen "Otto von Guericke" e.V.
(AiF)
 Ausstellungs- und Messe-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft e.V. (AUMA)
Bundesagentur für Außenwirtschaft (bfai)
 BINE Informationsdienst
 Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (BAFA)
 Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (BA)
 Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB)
 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)
 Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen (BMVBW)
 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (BMWA)
 Bundesverband Deutscher Kapitalbeteiligungsgesellschaften e.V.
 Deutsche Ausgleichsbank (DtA)
 Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU)
 DEG - Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH
 Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V.
 Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR)
 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH - Projektträger Jülich (PTJ)
 Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH Fraunhofer Services GmbH
 Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH
 gbb Beteiligungs-AG
 GSF-Forschungszentrum für Umwelt und Gesundheit GmbH
 HERMES Kreditversicherungs-AG
 Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln (IW)
 iXPOS - Das Außenwirtschaftsportal
 Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW)
 Mittelstandsbank
 Netzwerk elektronischer Geschäftsverkehr
 Stiftung für wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und berufliche Qualifizierung (SEQUA)
TÜV Akademie Rheinland GmbH - Projektträger Mobilität und Verkehr, Bauen und
Wohnen (PT MVBW)
 tbg Technologie-Beteiligungs-Gesellschaft
 VDI/VDE-Technologiezentrum Informationstechnik GmbH
 VDI-Technologiezentrum Physikalische Technologien
 Verband der Bürgschaftsbanken e.V.
Development of State aid of the Federal Government from 1999 to 2002 (mio €)669
Designation
1999
2000
2001
2002
668
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage11114/18-th-Subsidies-report-of-the-Federal-Government-Summery.pdf,
p. 7.
669 http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage11114/18-th-Subsidies-report-of-the-Federal-Government-Summery.pdf,
p- 2.
193
1. Consumer
protection, food
and agriculture
2. Trade and
industry
(without
transport)
1.827
1.754
1.510
1.347
2.1. Mining
including sales and
set-aside
subsidies for the
hardcoal industry
4.308
3.972
3.696
3.050
3.894
3.712
3.380
2.929
38
67
181
123
2.3. Technology
and innovation
subsidies
419
394
416
398
2.4. Aid for
specific sectors of
industry
134
139
219
192
999
896
812
2.2. Efficient use
of energy and
renewable energy
sources
2.5. Regional
structural
measures
700
2.6. Trade and
industry
in general
3. Traffic
4. Housing
5. Savings
incentives and
asset formation
Total
647
467
283
267
16
2.081
423
4
1.922
451
6
1.908
511
36
1.605
500
10.892
10.065
9.542
8.219
Total volume of state aid by Federal Government, Länder und local authorities (bn €)670
Federal
Government
Länder
Local
authorities
1970
4,0
1975
5,2
1980
6,4
1985
6,1
1990
7,3
1995
9,4
1996
12,4
1997
11,7
1998
11,4
1999
10,9
2000
10,1
2001
9,5
3,0
0,5
3,7
0,5
6,2
0,5
6,2
0,5
7,2
1,1
10,7
1,5
10,9
1,6
11,7
1,7
11,0
1,6
11,3
1,6
11,2
1,6
11,2
1,6
The main areas, in which state aid is relevant, are:671
670
Ibid., p.4
Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Achtzehnter Subventionsbericht. Bericht der Bundesregierung über die
Entwicklung der Finanzhilfen des Bundes und der Steuervergünstigungen für die Jahre 1999 –2002 Achtzehnter
Subventionsbericht, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage11114/18-th-Subsidies-report-of-the-FederalGovernment-Summery.pdf, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage6737/18.-Subventionsbericht-derBundesregierung.pdf, p 19.
671
194
Planned budget 2002 in
mio €
Title of state aid
Marketing of German hard coal
Subsidies for the Eastern Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure
Subsidies for providers of agricultural accidents insurance
Interest subsidies to the ‚KfW’ for building modernisation / renovation to avoid C O2emissions
Subsidies to take on agricultural employees
Adaptation support for employees in hard coal mining sector
Measures to support SME and freelancers as well as to strengthen vocational training
Subsidies to the Federal monopoly administration for spirits
Subsidies for the West Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure
Interest subsidies and reimbursement of loss in loans in the framework of the own
capital support programme for self-employment
Support of the industrial common research and development
Pension for handing over land (‚Landabgaberente ‘)
Financial support for selling of civil air plains including power plants
Total
2.929
595
256
205
171
121
117
108
105
101
88
87
78
4.961
National state aid in figures 2001
The Commission figures include Federal as well as Länder and local authorities’ state aid and
do not distinguish between the different levels. If we would like to draw conclusions on the
impact of national/Federal state aid we will have to distinguish between these different
categories as presented above. The figures above concern state aid from the Federal level to
the Länder level.
2001
23,3
Total state aid in billion €
11,9
Total state aid less agriculture,
fisheries and transport in billion €
1,14
Total aid as % of GDP
0,58
Total aid less agriculture, fisheries
and transport as % of GDP
Source: European Commission (2003): State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2003 update COM(2003)225 final, p. 10.
State aid as a % of GDP
in 2001
Trend in the share of
aid to GDP, 1997-2001,
% points
Share of aid to
horizontal objectives as
a % of total aid, 2001
Trend in the share of
aid to horizontal
objectives as % of total
aid
1,23
-0,26
46
+14,4
Source: DG Competition, http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/key_indicators.html.
State aid by sector
%of total
Manufacturing
Services
Transport
Agriculture
& Fisheries
Coal
Not
elsewhere
classified
Total
40
9
18
0
23.274
(including
tourism,
financial,
media and
culture)
2001
33
0
Million
euro
Source: European Commission (2003): State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2003 update COM(2003)225 final, p. 13.
195
Share of State aid by sector
Manufacturing
Services
Transport
(including
tourism,
financial,
media and
culture)
Agriculture
& Fisheries
Coal
Not
elsewhere
classified
38
1
37
6
18
1
1997-2001
35
0
39
7
18
1
1999-2001
Source: European Commission (2003): State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2003 update COM(2003)225 final, p. 14.
State aid to the manufacturing sector by type of aid instrument, 1999 -2001
%
Type of aid
Grants
Tax
Equity
Soft loans
Tax
Guarantees
exemptions
participations
deferrals
49,9
35,8
0,2
7,2
0,9
6,1
Source: European Commission (2003): State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2003 update COM(2003)225 final, p. 26.
State aid for horizontal objectives and particular sectors, 2001
Horizontal Objectives
Research and Development
Environment
SME
Commerce
Energy saving
Employment aid
Training aid
Other Objectives
Particular sectors
Shipbuilding
Other Manufacturing Sectors
Other Non-manufacturing Sectors
Coal
Tourism
Financial Services
Media, Cultural sector & services
Percentage of total aid less
agriculture, fisheries and
transport
63
13
27
4
0
1
1
0
18
37
0
1
35
1
0
0
11.853
Total aid less
agriculture, fisheries
and transport in
million €
Source: European Commission (2003): State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2003 update COM(2003)225 final, p. 18.
State aid to coal mining, 1997 – 2001
Yearly average of aid
destined to current
production
1997 - 1999
1999 - 2001
Yearly average of aid not
destined to current production
(in million €)
1999 - 2001
1997 - 1999
in million €
€ per employee
in million
€ per employee
€
441,6
951,4
4.540,7
62.977
3.541,6
60.922
Source: European Commission (2003): State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2003 update COM(2003)225 final, p. 19.
196
Distinguishing under the general heading of ‘regional state aid’ how much is spent on
particular categories of policy assistance [e.g. aid for regional employment that may also be
classified as general employment aid] (see also part on public sector transfer and territorial
policy) Identifying the regional breakdown of state aid by recipient regions.
Given the progress of the German unification process, German statistics on state aid
increasingly neglect the differentiation of measures and/or payments between Eastern and
West German Länder. A complete overview on measures for the new Länder is not provided
for even in the 18th German report on state aid which does not offer a concrete list of state aid
distribution between the Länder, as also the Federal budget is structured alongside thematic
items and not regional distribution.672 Thus, no exact breakdown of the state aid for the
different items to the Länder can be provided. Moreover, also officials of the Federal Ministry
for Finances contacted (in charge of the state aid policy) confirmed that neither this ministry
nor the Länder ministries collect or aggregated these data with a view to the Länder level.
Total volume of Federal state aid to the Länder (bn. DM)673
West
Länder
Eastern
Länder
1970
7,8
1975
10,1
1980
12,5
1985
11,9
1990
14,2
1991
13,0
1993
11,8
1995
10,2
1996
17,1
1997
15,8
1998
15,5
1999
15,2
-
-
-
-
-
6,7
7,5
8,2
7,2
7,0
6,7
6,6
Federal State aid for regional infrastructure and development in the ‘old’ and ‘new’
Länder (in mio €)674
Länder
Old Länder:
Bayern, Bremen, Hessen,
Saarland, Niedersachsen,
Schleswig- Holstein, RheinlandPfalz, Nordrhein- Westfalen
New Länder:
Mecklenburg- Vorpommern,
Sachsen, Sachsen- Anhalt,
Brandenburg, Thüringen und
Berlin
Targets
-Subsidies for company related
investments
-support for regional investment
activities under the GA of the
development of the regional
economic structure
-Subsidies for company related
investments in economically
weak regions of the new Länder
-support for regional investment
activities under the GA of the
development of the regional
economic structure
Total Regional infrastructural
measures
1999
2000
95,6
Planned
budget
2001
115,0
Planned
budget
2002
105,1
99,9
898,7
800,1
697,4
594,8
998,6
895,7
812,4
699,9
Federal state aid granted only to the Eastern Länder675
672
Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Achtzehnter Subventionsbericht. Bericht der Bundesregierung über die
Entwicklung der Finanzhilfen des Bundes und der Steuervergünstigungen für die Jahre 1999 –2002 Achtzehnter
Subventionsbericht, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage6737/18.-Subventionsbericht-der-Bundesregierung.pdf,
p. 9.
673 Deutscher Bundestag (1999): Drucksache 14/1500, p. 23.
674 Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Achtzehnter Subventionsbericht. Bericht der Bundesregierung über die
Entwicklung der Finanzhilfen des Bundes und der Steuervergünstigungen für die Jahre 1999 –2002 Achtzehnter
Subventionsbericht, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage6737/18.-Subventionsbericht-der-Bundesregierung.pdf,
p 64.
675 Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Achtzehnter Subventionsbericht. Bericht der Bundesregierung über die
Entwicklung der Finanzhilfen des Bundes und der Steuervergünstigungen für die Jahre 1999 –2002 Achtzehnter
Subventionsbericht, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage11114/18-th-Subsidies-report-of-the-Federal-
197
Title of state aid
Subsidies for social housing, modernisation and
renovation for the Eastern Länder
Relief of housing companies acc. to the
regulation concerning the ‘old debt support act’
(‘Altschuldenhilfegesetz’)
Interest subsidies in the framework of the
housing modernisation programme II of the
‘KfW’
Support of marketing and selling of Eastern
German products
Subsidies for the reduction of costs for interests
for loans for the support of company related
investments
Allocation for interest support from ‘old debts’
concerning the housing sector
1999
in mio €
376,9
2000
in mio €
352,1
Planned budget
2001 in mio €
284,8
Planned budget
2002 in mio €
238,5
-
-
30,7
25,0
-
-
5,1
12,8
9,0
9,2
10,2
9,0
0,5
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,6
0,9
-
-
Government-Summery.pdf, http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Anlage6737/18.-Subventionsbericht-derBundesregierung.pdf, p 28.
198
6 Employment policies
Basic outline of the German employment policy676
OECD Employment Outlook (table on ‘public expenditure and participant inflows in
labour market programmes in OECD countries’)677
Public employment services and
administration
Labour market training
Training for unemployed adults and
those at risk
Training for employed adults
Youth measures
Measures for unemployed and
disadvantaged youth
Support of apprenticeship and related
form of general youth training
Subsidised employment
Subsidies to regular employment in
the private sector
Support of unemployed persons
starting enterprises
Direct job creation (public and nonprofit)
Measures for the disabled
Vocational rehabilitation
Work for the disabled
Unemployment compensation
Early retirement for labour market
reasons
TOTAL
Active measures (1-5)
Passive measures (6-7)
Public expenditure as %
of GDP
2000
2001
0.23
0.23
Participants inflows as %
of the labour force
2000
2001
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
1.49
1.49
1.22
1.22
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.08
1.02
0.66
0.66
0.01
0.01
0.36
-
0.32
0.03
0.25
0.03
1.24
0.11
1.04
0.12
0.04
0.04
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.19
0.90
0.68
0.27
0.11
0.15
1.89
0.01
0.29
0.12
0.16
1.90
0.02
0.30
0.30
-
0.30
0.30
-
3.14
1.24
1.90
3.13
1.20
1.92
4.04
-
-
In 2002 the German employment “growth was ... very limited (0.2%). Unemployment (7.9%)
was stagnant and not expected to fall until 2003. The number of jobs declined in the Eastern
Länder where unemployment remains high. Long-term unemployment (3.9%) remains above
the EU average, even if a decreasing trend can be discerned. The overall employment rate
rose by 2 % since 1997. The rate for women has been increasing even faster (+3.5 %) and is
higher than the 2005 interim EU-target. Although the employment rate for older workers (5564 years) is close to the EU average, it remains below the very low starting level of 1997”
Based on Umbach, Gaby (2003): Employment Policies in Germany and the United Kingdom – The impact of
Europeanisation, AGF-Project report – Political Sciences, Cologne.
677 http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00032000/M00032007.pdf.
676
199
(Council/European Commission 2003:65). These trends are supported by the still low level of
economic growth in Germany.
2002 Council recommendations
Main points of the 2002 recommendations of the Council of the EU to Germany were:






to dedicate further efforts on preventing the increase of long-term unemployment
to remove work disincentives for older workers (esp. the German early retirement
practice)
to invest further more efforts to make work contracts and work organisation more
flexible
to tackle skills gaps in the labour market including incentives for continuous
education, training and apprenticeship
to reduce taxes on labour and social security contributions for the lowest level of the
wage scale
to reduce the gender pay gap and to promote childcare provisions should be
strengthened (Council of the EU 2002:73).
Overall reform activities 2002
In 2002, various reform activities were launched including two most relevant initiatives: the
Job-Aqtiv Act and the proposals of the Committee “Modern Services on the Labour Market”
(a.k.a. Hartz concept). Moreover, the modernisation of the Federal Employment Service was
subject to reforms.
Given the general economic slowdown the 2002 German NAP underlined the priority of
improving the overall economic performance in order to promote employment and to
support job creation. The reduction of the public debt and the creation of a reasonable tax
system were thus priority targets. Special attention was to be paid to the enhancement of
equal opportunities and to the reintegration of women and older workers into the labour
market. Besides, investing in the quality of work together with efforts to increase lifelong
learning activities were major points of the planned German employment policy reforms in
2002 (Federal Republic of Germany 2002:10).
The German employment policy development paid furthermore tribute to the regional
dimension of the EES by introducing the programme ‘Promotion of Job-Creating
Infrastructure’ (‘Beschäftigung schaffende Infrastrukturförderung’ should ensure that the
regional policies on infrastructure were to be taken into account), which together with the
JobAqtiv act more closely when employment policies were planned (Federal Republic of
Germany 2002).
Employment policy initiative in 2002
As most important the Job-Aqtiv act entered into force in January. It re-orientated the general
orientation of the German employment policy and focuses e.g. on the employment of older
workers, on training measures and lifelong learning aspects. With this orientation it could be
interpreted as a response especially to guidelines 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 of the EES (also as the
EES is referred to in the preamble of the law). The act supports preventive/active employment
policy approach and intends to modernise different labour market instruments especially
related to job placement measures. It thus provides for supplementary instruments (e.g. reintegration agreements, job rotation) for the re-integration of unemployed persons into work
and for training measures for those in work. On the basis of local employment offices’
decisions, private agencies are allowed to take part in job placement activities. Furthermore,
employment offices have to provide applicants with a job profile including the assessment of
200
employability. Active job placement measures have to be offered directly when a person has
reported unemployed. In this context, the new government approach ‘Encouraging and
Motivating’ (‘Fördern und Fordern’) is applied. Gender equality is characterised as the
universal principle of the law to promote employment, supported by measures to support the
reconciliation of work and family life and gender-mainstreaming. The law aims at improving
monitoring of effectiveness of the existing instruments of the German labour market policy
(Federal Republic of Germany 2002:90ff.).
In March 2002, the Committee “Modern Services on the Labour Market” (“Moderne
Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt”, the so called ‘Hartz Commission’ named after its
chairman Peter Hartz) was set up to prepare the reform the German employment policy and
the federal Employment Service (FES). The German FES in February 2002 became focus of
the public attention because of the revelation of wrong placement figures and considerable
mismanagement (Thiel 2002:14). The Hartz Commission presented its report (the so called
‘Hartz Concept’), which is considered as the core concept of the German employment
policy reform, on 16th August 2002. The concept is based on the main aims to reduce the
number of unemployed people from nearly 4 millions to nearly 2 millions until 2005, to
diminish the period of job placement from 33 weeks to 22 weeks and to decrease
spending on earnings-related benefit and unemployment benefit from 40 to 13 thousand
million €. The instruments to achieve these aims are:
(1) stronger incentives for a quick job placement,
(2) targeted support for self-employment and
(3) a stronger use of temporary employment.
Concerning temporary employment, so-called ‘personnel agencies’ (‘Personalagentur’)
will be connected to the 181 job centres, lending unemployed people for a restricted period to
companies. After a period of 6 months unemployment unemployed persons not willing to
work will suffer cutbacks in earnings-related benefit (by this means unemployment shall
decrease by 780.000). With a view to job placement, employed persons have to announce
unemployment as soon as they are under notice to leave their current job. Missing this duty
will indicate cuts in earnings-related benefit. Companies who avoid dismissals will get
discounts for their contributions to the unemployment insurance. The principle of
reasonableness to accept jobs will be tightened. Unemployed have to make evident that a
job is unreasonable for them and not the other way around (as it currently is). Young singles
additionally can be obligated to move within Germany to find jobs. They will also have to
accept lower wages. In the future, earnings-related benefit will be paid in three rates during
the first 6 months of unemployment, based on the income during the period of employment.
As to low wages, the current € 325,- ‘mini-jobs’ will be restructured. Employees earning no
more then € 500,- will get state subsidies to their health and pensions insurance. Social
security contribution will be decreased to 10 % and these compulsory contribution to the
social security will start with an income of € 200,-. Self employment will become less
bureaucratic and more simply to achieve for unemployed people. If the profit does not exceed
€ 25.000,- in the first three years, it can be kept together with the state subsidy for
unemployment. A tax flat rate of 10% will be kept (unemployment shall decrease by 500.000
through the instruments of ‘Ich-AG’ and of ‘Familien-AG’). Older persons can be removed
from job placement on their own request. Instead of earnings-related benefit they would
receive a payment, which would take also into consideration their social security
contributions.
The Hartz concept proposes 13 modules of innovation to decrease unemployment and to
reform the FES (Schmitthenner 2002; Bundesregierung 2002):
201













Family-friendly job placement (‘Quick-placement’) for families and lone parents
New reasonableness and voluntariness
Job Centre as integral organisation form/ bringing together of all actors
Young unemployed / ‘share certificates for education’
Personnel service agencies as business unit / Neutralisation of the protection against
wrongful dismissal / in-house training / integration of those, who are difficultly
placeable
Service for customers, employers and increase of job placements
Merger of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance / multi function cards
Restructuring of the Länder employment services into competence centres for new
jobs and employment development, market research and support for development
New employment and decrease moonlighting by the introduction of ‘Ich-AG’ (‘I-Inc.’)
and of ‘Familien-AG’ (‘Family-Inc.’) with social security contributions and a 10 % tax
Job balance / ‘Discount system’ for employees
‘Bridge system’ for older people
Transparent Controlling and efficient IT-support of all processes
Contribution of ‘Professionals of the Nation’, Master plan, project coalition following
the Alliance for Jobs.
On 21st August the government decided the ‘1:1’ implementation of the Hartz concept. In
October 2002, Hans Eichel, Minister of Finance, announced to transfer 2.8 thousand million
€ to the FES for the implementation of the Hartz concept. The Bundestag in November 2002
approved the implementation of the concept by 1st January 2003. The reform was split into
two draft bills in order to avoid problems resistance of the opposition (CDU/CSU) dominated
Bundesrat. The first part of the law (not subject to consent of the Bundesrat) integrated the
rules concerning reasonableness, support for training as well as framework conditions for
temporary employment. The second part of the draft bills (need for consent of the Bundesrat),
included measures with a view to mini-jobs and self employment.
Further new policies
The ‘Immediate Programme for the Reduction of Youth Unemployment’ was further
extended until 2003 with another 1.02 billion € available. The main “objective for 2002 is to
achieve another balance between in-company vacancies and young applicants” (Federal
Republic of Germany 2002:29). Other policies were directed to the implementation of the
Equality Law for Disabled People (the act to combat unemployment of disabled
persons/‘Gesetz zur Bekämpfung der Arbeitlosigkeit Schwerbehinderter’) and the action
programme ‘Reducing Youth Unemployment (‘Abbau der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit’). To
generally improve the situation of immigrants in Germany, the partners of the Alliance for
Jobs jointly launched the action programme ‘Improving Training Opportunities for
Migrants’ (‘Verbessung der Bildungssituation von Migrantinnnen und Migranten’) to
provide advice and help. The new initiative ‘A New Quality of Work’ (‘Neue Qualität der
Arbeit’) reacted to the recommendations of the Council in 2001 and should guarantee the
equilibrium of flexibility and social security (ibid.:11f.). With a view to early retirement, the
average retirement age was increased to 65 years and the revised pension law provides for
additional incentives to stay in work. The federal programme ‘Vocational Skill-building for
Young People with a Special Need for Promotion’ was continued with a budget of about €
55 million until 2005, while the programme ‘An Enhanced Culture of Learning’
(‘Lernkultur Kompetenzentwicklung’) concentrated on improving in-house training. The
202
overall tax reform was to refine the corporate tax law (‘Gesetz zur Fortentwicklung des
Unternehmenssteuerrechts’) to relieve tax burdens on SME’s.
2002 Joint Employment Report
Commenting on the 2002 activities the Council and the Commission in 2003 advised
Germany to enhance activities to increase the employment rate of older workers. Moreover,
the activities under the employability pillar would need to be enhanced and structural reforms
in Eastern Germany should further be advanced. Further efforts were also needed to reduce
taxation and non-wage labour costs and concerning childcare facilities. Finally, Germany was
asked to re-start talks of the Alliance of Jobs (Council/European Commission 2003).
2003 Council recommendations
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Improve efficiency of job search assistance and active
labour market programmes
Systematic review and removal of regulatory barriers; ma
work contracts and work organisation more flexible
Develop and implement life-long learning strategy
Reform of the tax-benefit system; reduction of non-wage
labour costs
Strengthen efforts to reduce the gender pay gap; promote
child care provisions
The Council and the European Commission still underlined that child care facilities and the
gender pay gap were to be tackled. As in 2002 the employment rate of older people was
criticised as too low. The Council asked Germany to further concentrate on active and
preventive labour market measures. Taxation, high non-wage labour costs and the
conditions for earnings-related benefit were to be seen as disincentives to create new jobs
and to re-enter labour market. Additionally the degree of regulation (incl. institutions to
govern wage formation (‘Flächentarifvertrag’ and the ‘Günstigkeitsprinzip))’ have been
criticised for inhibiting job creation (Council of the EU/European Commission 2003:8). Both
European institutions suggested to improve job search assistance and labour market
programmes, to focus on job creation in the Eastern Länder, to review and remove
regulatory barriers to create new jobs, to support flexible work organisation schemes, to
further promote and implement life-long learning measures as well as to reform the taxbenefit system to make work pay (ibid:8-9).
Overall reform activities 2003
In March 2003 German chancellor Gerhard Schröder presented his Agenda 2010 to promote
far reaching structural reforms in Germany. With this agenda the government presents
reforms suggestions for the three most pressing problems of the country: labour market
reform, restructuring of social security systems and promoting economic growth. The
Agenda 2010 thus not only focuses on labour market and employment policies reforms, but
also on restructuring social security systems, reforms of the industry law (new crafts law and
promotion of SME), new investment programmes and the local financial reform
(‘Gemeindefinanzreform’) and further initiatives in the education and research sector
(Bundesregierung 2003).
Concerning labour market reform the Agenda 2010 proposes to reform the protection
against wrongful dismissal by
(1) especially flexibilising the threshold value for small enterprises (up
to 5 employees),
203
(2) explicitly defining the indicators for social decisions in the case of
dismissals caused by restructuring and
(3) adding compensation options in order to promote job creation.
Furthermore the period for receiving earnings-related benefit will be substantially
shortened to 12 months. For older workers a period of 18 months (currently 32 months) is
foreseen. Additionally unemployment benefit and income support should be merged in
order to remove disincentives to work. A new structure of the Federal employment
services and its job centres with a privatised management structure should support a
stronger service and costumer orientation (e.g. closer relations to companies). Job
creation measures in eastern Germany will continue to be active labour market
instruments for this region (Bundesregierung 2003). These flexibilisation measures are
largely inspired by the Hartz concept and should enter into force in January 2004. The
European Commission assessed the Agenda 2010 as positive even though not far enough
reaching steps to consolidate the national budget (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2003a).
The Agenda 2010 has initiated a vivid discussion and has been criticised especially by the left
wing of the SPD and the federal trade union federation DGB, which presented its own counter
programme (Focus Magazin 2003), while the coalition partner BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
approved the programme at a spcial party convention in June 2003. At the same time, the
opposition parties asked for stricter reforms than presented by the government. Major points
of critique are the flexibilisation of the threshold value for small enterprises, the cut in social
services, the reduction of period for receiving earnings-related benefit and the merger of
unemployment benefit and income support.
Nevertheless, leading economic research institutes cautiously welcomed the positive impact
the proposed reforms could potentially exert on economic upturn and job creation, even if
they were perceived as not far reaching enough (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2003b).
Further new policies
Additionally the Jump programme was further extended until the end of 2004 by the ‘Jump
plus’ programme presented by the government in May 2003.
Assessment
So far, the German employment policy reform does not seem to be a huge success in terms
of job creation and increase in employment. Main reform priorities were reduction of
youth and long-term unemployment, enhancement of training efforts, promotion of the
dual apprenticeship. On the other hand the reduction of non-wage labour costs, even if it
was aspect to several tax reform initiatives, has not been implemented so far. Therefore,
areas such as tax and pension reform and decreasing social security contributions were
not as successful as necessary to promote job creation. The high level of early retirement
still creates problems for the German social security system and for the reduction of non-wage
labour costs. Moreover, reforms in the entrepreneurship pillar seem hesitant and late.
Germany reacted also quite late to the necessities of higher flexibility within the labour
market. Repeated critique from the European level was also directed to the problems of the
high degree of early retirement and the low activity rate of older people in the country, the
tax burden on labour, the gender equality issue as well as overall high level of unemployment.
Nevertheless, a trend for the transition for passive to active labour market measures can be
witnessed early in 1998/99, when the social-democratic/green coalition entered into office.
Indicate to what degree regional issues are relevant in national employment
policies?
204
A core instrument of regional economic development by the Federal Government and the
Länder is the common task “Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur” (GA)
(Improvement of Regional Economic Structures) (see ‘territorial policy’) adds to the national
employment policy. The GA promotes industry initiatives and business-related infrastructure
and also supports regional development concepts. A variety of regional co-operations between
industry boards, unions, chambers of commerce, labour administration, and vocational
schools exist to increase training capacities. The Länder created full-time schools, e.g., a
vocational preparatory year, a vocational elementary school year, and vocational schools for
those youths who did not find an apprenticeship in the dual system with the goal to improve
the apprenticeship situation and outlook for the future of young people (German NAP 2001).
Generally the education policy and thus the training and skills sector is dominated by Länder
policies as education policy is falling within the competencies of the German Länder.
As outline below, regional issues are integrated in the German NAP. Moreover, one of the
most important aspects with regional relevance is the division of labour market performance
and partly labour regimes (longer working hours in industry in the eastern part, wage
differentiation and working hours flexibility, subsidised wages, etc.) between the western and
eastern Länder. The eastern Länder are characterised by an unemployment rate well above the
German average and by huge problems of job creation and economic restructuring. Thus,
employment policy in the eastern Länder strongly focuses on publicly funded direct job
creation measures and subsidised employment measures. Also needs for structural changes
(such as the closing down of ships yards or the mining sector in several Länder) are
responded to with national employment measures such as the Job-Aqutiv Act.
The German employment policy moreover also pays tribute to the regional dimension of the
EES by introducing the programme ‘Promotion of Job-Creating Infrastructure’
(‘Beschäftigung schaffende Infrastrukturförderung’), which together with the JobAqtiv act
should ensure that the regional policies on infrastructure were to be taken into account more
closely when employment policies were planned (Federal Republic of Germany 2002). With
the Job-Aqtiv Act the Federal government also took into account different regional
developments of youth unemployment by allocating half of the funds to the new Länder. The
Job-Aqtiv act also established the aim that measures to promote employment should also
make a contribution towards boosting employment and improving infrastructure on the
regional level.
Moreover, as outlined in the 2001 and 2002 German NAP, one main objective was the
reduction of the persisting regional disparities between the old and the new Länder.
Furthermore, nine territorial employment pacts have been set up in 1998 (see below).
Example of regional aspects relevant to the national employment policy:
 Regional training alliances
 local and regional projects to fully utilise and increase the number of in-company
apprenticeships
 “Regional Networks for Further Training“
 regional co-operation between schools and businesses
 Initiative on School-Business/World of Work to promote improved co-operation
between schools and regional businesses
 The support programmes of the federal government within the framework of a policy
for SMEs, regional policy and labour market policy are a major factor in the financial
support of employment initiatives on a local level
205














“Improvement of the Regional Economic Structure”,
regional development concepts
initiative called the “Regional Economic Assistance via Citizenship Participation” by
the federal government
regional networks for the development and recruitment of skilled workers, analysis of
needs, exchange of experience, and general co-operation
Regional initiatives develop ideas and solutions will be developed which will improve
the transition of young people from school to work
In the Länder, concepts are developed for the labour market and the economy to
expand regional co-operation, to create additional qualifications through vocational
schools, and to utilise intercultural competence, especially in young people of foreign
origin
On the regional level, “Alliances for Jobs” are implemented by co-ordinating regional
and labour market policy
The Federal Government took account of the differing regional trends in youth
unemployment by increasing the share for the new Länder in the Immediate Action17-Programme by DM 200 million to DM 1 billion in 2001.
Together with the new Länder, the Federal Government will also initiate special
programmes for training places in the coming years. 16,000 places are planned in
2001. The Länder are also initiating their own programmes (roughly 8,000 places).
The Länder are promoting the expansion of the vocational school system to become a
system of locations for acquiring vocational competence.
regional expansion of its “EXIST-Seed” portion in 2001
regional innovation programmes InnoRegio (Regional Innovation) and Innovative
regionale Wachstumskerne (Innovative Regional Centres of Growth) provide SMEs
with enhanced access to aid programmes and boost innovation in the new Länder
promotional measure Netzwerkmanagement-Ost (NEMO) (Network Management
East) will establish regional networks of research establishments in the new Länder
integration between regional policy and other areas of policy, particularly labour
market policy, in order to promote employment on the regional level more efficiently
Describe national policies with different regional coverage; their aim and
coverage678
The amount of subsidised employment measures is higher in Eastern Germany than in the
western Länder. The same holds true for structural change.
Subsidised employment creating measures
Expenditure in 2002 (in 1000 €)
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
36.182
59.784
260.306
218.422
26.690
20.223
32.306
678
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Aktuelle Arbeitsmarktdaten,
http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/service/statistik/detail/a.html
206
Expenditure in 2002 (in 1000 €)
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
218.456
103.656
203.065
23.963
13.991
568.732
297.687
32.374
215.310
Support for mobility is higher in the East than in the West
Expenditure in 2002 (in 1000 €)
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
1.538
2.754
3.239
16.227
368
231
1.484
16.206
5.276
6.024
1.577
279
33.925
27.281
2.294
12.671
The support for apprenticeship and related forms for disadvantaged young people varies
among the Länder.
Expenditure in 2002 (in 1000 €)
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
53.658
64.172
64.075
100.073
10.516
15.841
44.648
94.640
77.994
156.985
36.353
14.360
153.618
83.028
26.272
72.550
207
Differences are also to be found in the support for reintegration of disadvantaged persons into
the labour market.
Expenditure in 2002 (in 1000 €)
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
37.432
26.797
15.215
13.087
2.808
6.100
26.840
8.536
25.300
72.587
12.419
4.230
19.374
13.916
8.509
14.819
What is the role of regional and local governments in employment policies (if
any)?679 (see also next sub-heading on Alliances for work)
Regional and local government have a certain potential of fine-tuning national employment
policies to counter balance differences in economic structures and labour markets. Thus, esp.
Länder with huge problems in this area have developed own strategies. An important
intervening factor is the composition of the regional government and their opposition to the
national one.
Regional and local governments are also involved in the territorial employment pacts
integrating also Federal Office for Special Aspects of Unification, the Labour promotion,
Employment and structural development agency, companies, research institutes and
educational establishments, trade unions, local chambers of industry, commerce and crafts,
local authorities and employment service, clubs and job-creation enterprises, environmental
organisations
Territorial employment pacts680
 Territorial employment pacts have been launched at 9 pilot sites (approved by the
Commission in 1998)
 Amberg-Sulzbach (Bavaria) (Objective 3,4,5(b) under the European Structural
Fund)
o Incorporation of business restructuring measures into e regional
development strategy
 Neukölln (Berlin) (Objective 2,3,4 under the European Structural Fund)
o Greater emphasis on the creation of sustainable employment and
apprenticeship in SMEs
 Bremen (Objective 2,3,4 under the European Structural Fund)
679
European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, and Social Affairs, Unit EMPL/A.1, Employment and
European Social Fund, Brussels 2001.
680 European Commission, Regional Policy, Territorial employment pacts, homepage
208






o To pool the experience and skills of all persons responsible for and active
on the labour market to develop a new, joint approach to employment
policy
 Hamburg (Objective 3,4 under the European Structural Fund)
o Management of structural change in the metropolitan region
o Secure future prospects for young people
 Güstrow (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) (Objective 1 under the European
Structural Fund)
o Improvement in employment situation by mobilising regional
development reserves and innovation
 Braunschweig-Peine (Lower Saxony) (Objective 2,3,4 under the European
Structural Fund)
o Safeguarding existing jobs and opening up new sources of employment
 The Ruhr (North Rhine-Westaflia) (Objective 2,3,4 under the European
Structural Fund)
o Ongoing development of regional structural and labour market policy
involving all local players
 Chemnitz (Saxony) (Objective 1 under the European Structural Fund)
o Overcoming the structural problems of the traditional mechanical
engineering industry in the area, safeguarding the region as a location for
business and enterprise reorganisation
 Zeitz (Saxony-Anhalt) (Objective 1 under the European Structural Fund)
o Development and implementation of job-creating project with the
involvement of all partners
Joint working meetings of the pacts at least twice a year
Instituted a nation-wide network
60% of the overall budget allocated to developing endogenous potential
19% of the overall budget allocated to infrastructure schemes (57.8% of the budget
going to the Güstrow Pact)
9.2% of the overall budget allocated to human resource development
4.5% of the overall budget allocated to schemes to integrate people into the job market
Amberg-Sulzbach
Neukölln
Braunschweig-Peine
Bremen
Chemnitz
Güstrow
Hamburg
Ruhr
Zeitz
Total budget (€)
23.306.400
6.567.400
43.935.000
12.256.360
47.944.500
10.675.463
12.976.100
32.597.200
312.105.000
EU funding (€)
2.088.000
1.050.000
17.763.000
4.575.000
21.811.000
995.000
2.140.000
8.522.000
51.084.000
209
Are there relevant differences between regions in the arrangements governing labour markets?
Not really significant, as all are structured according to the national example of the Alliance for jobs
Outline of Alliances for Work or comparable institutions on Länder level681
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
681
Name of institution (founding
date)
Alliance for Education and
Employment (May 1999)
Employment Pact Bavaria (June
1996)
Participants
Main objectives
- Land government
- Industry
- Trade unions (until January
2000)
- Land employment office
- universities
- Municipalities
Improving the framework
conditions for education,
training, technology and
employment to strengthen the
positive development on the
labour market
- Organisations of Bavarian
industry
- Trade unions
- Bavaria’s state government
- Stopping the decrease of
employment
- Reducing the unemployment
figures
- Improving the situation of
training vacancies working
groups:
- situation of training vacancies
- labour market fund
- lack of skilled workers,
continuing education and
flexibilisation of the labour
market
- compatibility of family and
Main decisions or results
(year)
60 recommendations for action,
31 have already been
implemented and the remaining
have been initiated, e. g. (from
February 2001)
- Securing the future possibilities
of training (24)
- Promoting lifelong learning
(10)
- Increasing labour market
flexibility (4)
- Innovative ways for more
employment (9)
- assistance to create jobs (13)
- situation of training vacancies:
Catalogue of measures „Training
Initiative
Bavaria“ (1997), „Training
Initiative 2006“ (Oct. 2000) to
support the efforts of industry
and to further improve training
opportunities for young people
(27 individual measures).
- labour market fund: Since 1997
an annual 10.2 million € from
privatisation gains for training
and employment promotion
measures; so far the working
Ibid. pp. 120-125.
210
Name of institution (founding
date)
Participants
Main objectives
employment
- dialogue between different
branches of industry
- socially acceptable
development of EU expansion to
the East
- unemployment of severely
disabled people
Berlin
Berlin’s Alliance for Securing
Production Sites and
Employment
(March 1996)
- Senate
- Industry (chamber of trade
and commerce, business
associations, chamber of
handcrafts)
- Trade unions
- Land employment office
Working groups:
- labour market and innovation
offensive
- elimination of red- tape
- regional solidarity
- reduction of costs
- training and continuing
Main decisions or results
(year)
group has unanimously selected
237 projects to be equipped with
funds of approx. 60 million € so
that approx. 16,500 participants
can be trained and approx.
12,000 receive different support
measures.
- Additional decisions (19961999): conclusion of a
declaration on loyalty to wage
negotiations and sub-contraction
in order to guarantee the existing
collective bargaining agreements
in the construction sector,
founding of a counselling agency
for technology and innovation
TIBAY (1999), passing the
“Bavaria model” (1999) to
reduce or avoid overtime by
granting wage cost subsidies for
fixed- term employment of
unemployed workers;
- additional decisions in 2001 on
the lack of skilled workers,
compatibility of family and
employment, socially acceptable
development of EU expansion to
the East, vocational continuing
education, flexibilisation of the
labour market.
Sept. 1996 – presentation of
interim report by the 5 working
groups.
June 1999 – decision on reports
on the issues training/ vocational
education and qualification and
scarce professions.
211
Name of institution (founding
date)
Brandenburg
Bremen
Participants
Main objectives
education
Since 1999:
- hospital reform/ socially
acceptable implementation of
hospital planning
- qualification and scarce
professions
- conditions of Berlin as a
premier location for business
- taking up the priorities of the
Federal Government’s
immediate programme for
vocational education policy/ new
initiatives to create training
vacancies and to combat youth
unemployment
Strengthening industry and
improving the employment
situation in the regions of
Brandenburg.
Joint session of Land
government
and the board of the Standing
Conference of Local Planning
Authorities (1st meeting in April
1996)
- Land government
- board of the Standing
Conference of Local Planning
Authorities
- county district
commissioners and mayors
Brandenburg’s training
consensus
(informal)
- Land government
- umbrella associations of
industry
- Trade unions
- Employment service
- Municipalities
Using the existing structures and
bodies, especially the Land
Committee for Vocational
Education Brandenburg to solve
current and future problems in
the vocational training sector.
Alliance for Employment and
Training in Bremen and
Bremerhaven (April 1999)
- Senator for Labour,
Women, Health, Youth and
Social Affairs
- Senator for Industry and
Ports
- Senator for Education and
Working groups:
- improving the situation of the
training
market/ reducing youth
unemployment
- further development of labour
Main decisions or results
(year)
The Alliance is a process and has
shifted to the local level. Since
2000/ 2001 so- called “District
Employment Alliances” (BBB)
have been created in all 12
districts of Berlin. These
alliances integrate the relevant
local partners and businesses and
work on local projects.
Selection of projects with special
importance for industry and the
employment situation. As far as
employment effects are
concerned, training potentials
and women’s share are taken
into consideration.
The partners of Brandenburg’s
training consensus have set
themselves the target to provide
a training vacancy that leads to a
recognised occupational training
certificate for each young person
who is able and willing to be
trained.
- on training market situation:
declaration of Alliance partners:
a vacancy is to be provided for
each young person who is able
and willing to be trained (1999),
regular regional training
212
Name of institution (founding
date)
Hamburg
Regular discussions with the first
mayor (2002)
Participants
Main objectives
Science and Research
- Associations
- Trade unions
- Chamber
- Employment offices
- Magistrate Bremerhaven
market policy
- Innovative industrial policy to
secure and create jobs
- first mayor
- Senate representatives
- Industry
- Associations
- Chambers of trade and
commerce
- Trade unions
- Employment service
priorities:
employment, labour market
policy and training policy,
including social inclusion
Main decisions or results
(year)
conferences, establishment of a
co- ordination office for
additional joint vocational
training for T. I. M. E. jobs
(2000), bundling of support for
off- company training in the
programme „joint training places
and training partnerships“ (1999/
2002)
- on further development of
labour market policy:
information and advertising
campaign for an enforcement of
part- time in old age (2000),
support of the programme
„Older people in employment”
(2000), combating the
unemployment of severely
disabled people (2000/ 01)
- on industrial policy: bundling
of strengths to combat illegal
employment (since 1999),
initiative to tap off the potentials
of the biotechnology sector
(2000), establishment of the
forum „Employer tourism“
(2000), participation in the
IAB’s company panel survey
(2000/ 01)
1. round of discussions
scheduled for April 2002, so no
results yet
213
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Name of institution (founding
date)
Meeting with the premier to
discuss the situation of training
vacancies (1996)
Participants
Main objectives
Main decisions or results
(year)
Annually setting target figures
for training contracts and joint
actions and recommendations to
achieve the targets
- premier
- Land ministries
- Land employment office
- Associations of
entrepreneurs or employers
- Trade unions
- Chambers
- combating youth
unemployment
- improving the situation of
training vacancies
- Regular meetings with labour
market actors
- Alliance with companies that
offer temporary work (February
2002)
- premier
- Land ministries
- Land employment office
- Associations of
entrepreneurs or employers
- Trade unions
- Chambers
- Integration of the unemployed
into employment
- creating new jobs
- combating illegal employment
and moonlighting
- developing new labour market
policy initiatives
Agreements with the Alliance’s
partners within the framework of
co- ordination negotiations on
Hesse’s labour market policy, e.
g. in institutionalised support
groups
Alliance for Employment
Competitiveness Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania (December
1998)
- Land government
- Employers’ associations
- Trade unions
- Land employment office
North
- Chambers
- Conference of cities and
municipalities
- Conference of counties
- Society for industry
promotion
and - creating and guaranteeing
training vacancies and jobs by
improving co- operation between
Land, industry and trade unions
- supporting the activities of the
Alliance on the national level –
developing own initiatives to
improve
the employment and training
situation in Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
- regional development
- securing a high degree of
training vacancies
- signing the training pact 2000
Plus (1999)
- review of training promotion
(2000)
- support of the JUMP
Programme
- development of Youth- WorkFuture (JAZ) programme,
including the pilot projects
„youth builds“, „DUO“, „youth
firms“ (2001)
- development of an offensive to
promote Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania as a business location
(2001)
- developing Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania as a
biotechnology location by
founding BioCon Valley M- V e.
- working groups:
- vocational training of young
people
- reduction of youth
unemployment
- framework conditions for the
startup and development of
214
Name of institution (founding
date)
Participants
Main objectives
businesses
- new ways in labour market
policy
- regional development of
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
Alliance for Employment and
Training in Lower Saxony
(December 1998: first meeting
of
control group)
Control group:
- Land government
- Employers
- Trade unions
working groups:
- control group
- associations
- churches
- local umbrella associations
- Land working groups
- securing existing jobs
- creating new jobs
- securing future opportunities
for young people in employment
and training
- combating youth
unemployment and creating
additional training places
Main decisions or results
(year)
V. (2001)
- improving support for startups (since 1999)
- preparation of EU enlargement
to the East (since 2001)
- Start of labour market and
structural development
programme ASP (2002)
- development of a qualification
offensive (2001)
- introduction of labour
promotion projects in the public
interest (GAP) (since 1999)
- testing different pilot projects
incl. on job rotation and part
time work (since 2000)
- implementation of different
projects for Western
Pomerania’s regional
development (since 1999)
- passing the „Programme to
combat youth unemployment
and to create additional training
vacancies in Lower Saxony“
(September 2001)
- results so far: by the end of
2001 3,000 long- term
unemployed young people had
been placed; clear improvement
of balance of training places
- Start of Training Offensive
2002 (decision from 2001)
- regulations on loyalty to
collective bargaining agreements
for all construction
plans of Land and municipalities
that amount to less than 5
215
Name of institution (founding
date)
North Rhine Westphalia
Alliance for Employment,
Training
Competitiveness in North
Rhine Westphalia (December
1998)
Participants
- Employers’ associations
- Chamber
- Trade unions
- Land government
Additional participants
during the preparatory
meetings of the Alliance are
representatives of:
- the protestant and catholic
Main objectives
Developing concepts and pilot
projects to create and secure
innovative jobs with future
perspectives
Priorities include:
- combating youth
unemployment, improving the
training situation
- employment possibilities for
Main decisions or results
(year)
million €. This goes back to
extensive discussions in the
Alliance
- circular directive on „Principles
to exclude inappropriately low
and high offers when awarding
public contracts
- evaluation of employment
programmes on the basis of
incentives and discussions in the
Alliance
- preparation of the action
programme to integrate disabled
people into the general labour
market
- implementation of the
GEMEINSAM Programme
(promotion of additional training
vacancies within the framework
of joint training systems) by the
end of 2004
- start of the pilot project „joint
learning places to promote
training in the new IT and media
professions“ (LOVE- IT) by the
Land government: creation of 2,
000 new training contracts
during the project’s first year.
inter alia - Training consensus
North Rhine Westphalia
- Land initiative "Youth and
Employment"
- starting the SME offensive
"Move" (1999)- joint declaration
on the support of transfer
partnerships and the initiation of
regional networks of
216
Name of institution (founding
date)
Rhineland Palatinate
Oval table
(January 1995)
Participants
Main objectives
churches
- the Land employment
office
-the Institute for Labour and
Technology
- the Project Ruhr GmbH
and
- other experts
low- skilled workers
- supporting collective
bargaining agreements on preretirement part- time work and
other models of flexibilisation of
working time
- working time models
- cross- border labour market
- incomes of the future – worker
participation in company capital
- SME offensive North Rhine
Westphalia "Move"
- Multimedia in mechanical
engineering
- Alliance for Work in the rural
regions
- senior citizen industry
- transfer partnerships
- future initiative for the
construction industry
- Premier
- Minister for Labour, Social
Affairs, Family Matters and
Health,
- Minister for Industry,
Transport, Agriculture and
Viniculture,
- Minister for Education,
Women and Youth
- Land employment office
- German Federation of
Trade Unions, ver. di, IG
Metall, IG BCE
- Federation of Rhineland
Palatinate’s employers’
associations
- securing jobs
- creating new jobs
- securing training for young
people
- influencing the continued
structural change
- promoting social and industrial
innovation
- extending an effective,
innovative and practice-related
school and education system
Main decisions or results
(year)
competencies to support the
transfer of workers (1999)
- simplification of pilot projects
to integrate low- skilled workers
(1999)
- Start of the "100 Businesses"
project to attract businesses to
use pro-employment working
time models (2000)
- Land initiative „incomes of the
future“ (2001)
- multimedia in mechanical
engineering (2001)
- network for employment
promotion (spring 1996):
promotion programme for SMEs
to implement flexible working
hours, cross- departmental
“special committee Illegal
Employment”, support of
regional training dialogues,
development of employment
possibilities for the low- skilled
unemployed
- training consensus (1997):
promotion of joint training
places, extension of
Land and local authorities to
train, promotion of off- company
217
Name of institution (founding
date)
Participants
Main objectives
- Chambers
Saarland
Saxony
Main decisions or results
(year)
training
- implementation of JuSoPro
(2000): labour market
conferences in problematic
areas, targeted contacts with
companies and affected people
- Training and Employment Pact
for Young People in the
Saarland
- various working groups
activities
Alliance for Work Saarland
(January 1999)
- Land government
- Chambers
- Business associations
- Trade unions
- Land employment office
Co- ordinating labour market
policy issues and measures to
support the creation of new jobs
Priorities:
- New employment opportunities
- Vocational training
- Youth unemployment
- Flexibilisation of labour
Joint Initiative Saar (1997) Land government
- party groups of the state
parliament
- associations of employers
and industry
- Chamber of Labour
- Trade unions
- churches
- employment service
- local umbrella associations
- environmental
associations
Broad co- operation of important
future- oriented measures of
industrial, location and labour
market policy
- pilot project for low- skilled
workers (1999)
- network „Employment
transfer“ (2000)
- concept for the „practically
skilled“ (2000/ 2001)
Foundation Innovation and
Labour Saxony (December
1996)
Board of the foundation:
- Saxony’s state
government
- associations of employers
and industry
- Trade unions
Participating to secure existing
employment and create new
employment
Main results in 2001:
- approx. 230 expert activities in
approx. 300 businesses, mostly
SMEs in the processing industry,
to increase competitiveness and
gain a livelihood
- support of approx. 50
networked projects of companies
and scientific institutions
(InnoRegio projects, innovation
218
Name of institution (founding
date)
Saxony Anhalt
Alliance for Work and
Competitiveness in Saxony
Anhalt
(January 1999: first meeting)
Participants
- Land government
- Industry
- Trade unions
- Municipalities
- Employment service
Main objectives
- supporting the Alliance for
Work at the Federal level
- reducing unemployment
- securing training for young
people
- improving the competitiveness
of Saxony Anhalt as a location
for business
Main decisions or results
(year)
fora, growth hubs)
- support of approx. 120 regional
projects, including 36 leading
projects, mostly to develop
human resources and cover
industry’s demand for skilled
workers.
These activities helped to secure
and develop approx. 9,500 jobs
in approx. 300 businesses, most
from the processing industry.
- labour market policy
initiatives: „demand- oriented
qualification to eradicate
bottlenecks of skilled workers”,
facilitation of the transition from
training into employment,
extended use of Saxony Anhalt’s
measures for the long- term
unemployed and older workers
- training: closing the gap in
training vacancies (best balance
of training places in the nation
for the past three years).
- promotion of SMEs: SME
initiative, business set- up
offensive, improvement of
framework conditions, package
of measures to investigate and
persecute moonlighting and
illegal employment
- environmental balance sheet:
Alliance for the Environment to
develop industry in an
environmentally- friendly way:
discussions with industry,
implementation and continuation
219
Name of institution (founding
date)
Schleswig Holstein
Participants
Main objectives
Alliance „Work for Schleswig
Holstein“ (February 1999)
Alliance „Work for
Schleswig Holstein“:
- Land government
- Land employment office
- business associations
- chambers
- handcrafts
- Trade unions;
Alliance „Work for Schleswig
Holstein“:
- labour market policy:
aggressive use of JuSoPro,
extending vocational continuing
education, use of pre-retirement
part- time work with
simultaneous employment of
younger workers, creating jobs
with orking time measures
- industrial policy: supporting
the offensive for business startups by the Land and the external
representation of the industrial
location, bundling the
counselling activities for
industry and technology
promotion, speeding up planning
and approval procedures
„Kiel Meeting“ (1988)
„Kiel Meeting“:
umbrella associations of industry
and trade unions as well as the
Land government headed by the
premier
„Alliance for Training“
- Land ministries
„Kiel Meeting“:
Issues that go beyond current
politics; development and
discussion of strategic aims of
labour market and industrial
policy
- offering a training vacancy for
Main decisions or results
(year)
of ecological audits,
environmental certificate of
Saxony Anhalt’s crafts, relief
catalogue for local industry.
- image improvement for Saxony
Anhalt: image campaign
“Industrial location, state of
research and technology”, active
and aggressive investor
acquisition
Since the majority of the
scheduled topics and concrete
objectives of the „Work for
Schleswig Holstein“ Alliance
has been implemented , this
successful co- operation between
social partners and Land
government will be continued in
the „Kiel Meeting“.
results 1997- 2001
220
Name of institution (founding
date)
(annually)
The first “Alliance for
Vocational
Training” was initiated in 1997.
Thuringia
Participants
Main objectives
- chambers
- associations
- Trade unions
- Land employment office
each young person
who is able and willing to be
trained.
- filling the existing training
vacancies,
- supporting the Alliance for
Work, Training and
Competitiveness at the Federal
level to modernise Germany’s
dual system of vocational
training.
No formal Alliance for Work,
but regular meetings: high- level
meetings / meetings between
trade unions and industry
(regularly since 1996)
- creating additional jobs for the
(long- term)
unemployed, especially for
women,
- Land government
- umbrella associations of
industry
- chambers
- Trade unions
Thuringia’s Training Initiative
(2001)
- Land ministries
- Industry
- chambers
- Trade unions
- employment service
- local umbrella associations
- reducing (long- term)
unemployment young people,
older workers, recipients of
social assistance
- reducing placement obstacles
through vocational continuing
education
- improving industrial and tourist
infrastructure
- flexibilisation of labour
- securing industry’s demand in
skilled workers
-further development of
vocational guidance classes
and professional orientation
- further development of
Thuringia’s joint training places
- converting the vocational
training centres of the crafts
trade into centres of
competencies
Main decisions or results
(year)
- creation of additional training
places
- measures to increase young
peoples’ ability to be trained
- increased creation of training
places in new professions
- agreement on the co- operation
of all partners in Germany’s dual
system additionally in 2000/
2001
- provision of training vacancies
for each young who is able and
willing to be trained
- filling the existing training
vacancies
Initiation and test of „Second
Career“ programme in cooperation with Thurinigia’s
employment offices
- review of professional
preparation
Extensive information campaign
221
222
Provide a general assessment of how much national employment policies
differ in different regions and of the governance of employment policies
As outlined in the German NAP 2002, the regional employment policies have different focal
points and main priorities. We thus find a number of differences in regional employment
policy measures, which nevertheless still focus on the core German labour market problems
of job creation and activation, youth, female and long-term unemployment, training,
promoting economic growth, etc.
National employment policies moreover have to respond to the different strengths and
weaknesses of the German Länder. Therefore the implementation of these national
employment policies can differ according to the special needs and the resources of a region.
Generally the Länder are rather innovative in terms of their employment policies, e.g
focussing on flexibilisation of work. Thus, the Länder are important fields for experiments in
this area.682
Labour market performance in 1999683
Strengths
Baden-Württemberg
Bayern
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hessen
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Niedersachsen
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Saarland
Youth unemployment, low
unemployment and female
unemployment
Good marks in all areas
Good mark in participation in the
labour market, medium marks in
long-term unemployment
Good figures in participation in the
labour market and long-term
unemployment,
No special strengths, good figures
in female unemployment and
unemployment
Figures generally in the upper
middle field, very good
performance in female
unemployment
Good figures (in comparison to
other Länder) in youth and female
unemployment and unemployment
Good figures in participation in the
labour market and long-term
unemployment
No special strengths
performance in female
unemployment and unemployment
in the upper middle field
All figures well except
employment rate
Female employment rate in upper
Weaknesses
Weaker employment rates and
higher long-term unemployment
No special weaknesses
Very bad performance in terms of
youth unemployment, relatively
weak in other areas too
Weak performance in
unemployment rates, youth and
female unemployment
Nearly all figures are weak
No special weaknesses
Weaker performance in
employment rates and long-term
unemployment
Weak performance in
unemployment rates, youth and
female unemployment
Comparably low employment rate
and high long-term unemployment
rate
Especially weak performing in
employment rate and long-term
unemployment
Low employment rate
Especially weak performing in
682
Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik, WIP Occasional Paper
Nr. 12, Tübingen, p. 26.
683 Translated version of Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik, WIP
Occasional Paper Nr. 12, Tübingen, p. 24
223
area
Sachsen
Sachsen-Anhalt
Schleswig-Holstein
Thüringen
Very good figures in participation
in the labour market, medium in
long-term unemployment
Good figures in participation in the
labour market, medium in longterm unemployment
Generally good – upper middle
field, esp. female unemployment
Very good figures in participation
in the labour market and in longterm unemployment
employment rate and long-term
unemployment
Weak performance in
unemployment rates, youth and
female unemployment
Especially weak performance in
unemployment rates, youth and
female unemployment
No special weaknesses
Weak performance in
unemployment rates, youth and
female unemployment
According to Blancke/Schmid until 1997 three different types of labour markets could be
identified in the different German Länder684:



Those using a push strategy with high readiness to introduced innovation, high degree
of deepness of labour market interventions, active labour market policy, close link to
industry and regional policy, wage subsidies, subsidised employment, subsidised
structural change, creation of incentives for private employers to hire unemployed
persons, close link between employment and training, neo-corporate political process,
high level of budget spending for employment measures
o Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen,
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Thüringen
Those using a pull strategies with a low level of active labour market measures, low
degree of budget spending in this area, target group and problem focused labour
market policy, support of apprenticeship for (disadvantaged) young persons, low
degree of innovations, measures close to work places, labour market policy not linked
to structural or industry policy, hardly any institutionalised labour market coordination measures, economic policy as equivalent to labour market policy,
o Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Hessen, Rheinland-Pfalz.
Those using a stay strategy (close to the pull strategy) with low degree of labour
market intervention weak link to regional policy, low level of innovations, normal use
of labour market instruments (co-financing by the Federal Employment Service,
strong orientation alongside target groups), nevertheless: high level of budget
spending
o Saarland, Schleswig-Holstein
Since 1998 all Länder have put greater emphasis on active labour market measures and the
development of innovative strategies. Thus, pull strategy Länder increased public spending in
the area and the co-operation in regional Alliances for work intensified the innovative
potential. Talks within those alliances for work are compared to the national level more
successful and even less conflictual. Additionally elements of political steering (work hour
models, evaluation of the need for training) are increasingly integrated into regional
employment and labour market policies too.
Regional priorities in labour market policies as presented in the 2002 NAP (wording of
the NAP) 685
684
Translated version of Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik, WIP
Occasional Paper Nr. 12, Tübingen, p. 29.
224
Baden-Württemberg:
 scarce public means for active labour market measures
 main principle: increased co-ordination between employment policy and economic
policy, education policy and women’s policy as well as policy for rural areas
 decentralised approach: measures have to be aimed at the regional level (incl.
participation of social partners, NGOs, education institutions
 priorities of the regional employment strategy:
o strengthening the active and preventive approach
o promoting business start-ups
o taking into account innovative measures and methods
o training opportunities for unskilled, semi-skilled and older workers
o measures to prepare low-performing young people for vocational training or
classes to prepare mothers for a reinsertion into employment.
 implementation of state programmes aiming at integration into the primary labour
market
o ‘Youth-Work-Future’
o ‘Work and Future for the Long-term Unemployed’
o projects by the European Social Fund
Bavaria:
 Priorities (esp. targeted at SMEs)
 promotion of start-ups and company successions
 promotion of the regions
 targeted promotion of new technologies (framework of the High-TechOffensive)
 co-operation-based employment policy approach reflected in Bavaria’s
Employment Pact.
 supplement, support and strengthen active labour market policy of the Federal
Labour Office
 integration into the primary labour market
 labour market fund financed by the interests earned in the privatisations of
the „Future Bavaria” programme
o Implemented within the framework of Bavaria’s Employment Pact.
o Individual measures are chosen in a consensus reached by the individual
participants of the Pact.
o Targeted at the promotion of groups difficult to place
o Main focus on districts of the local employment offices with an aboveaverage unemployment rate (receiving approx. 80 % of the funds)
 programmes and measures concentrate on
o promotion of special groups (recipients of social assistance, disadvantaged
young people, older unemployed persons and unemployed foreigners)
o promotion of non-profit worker transfers to re-integrate unemployed recipients
of social assistance (combination of placement elements, occupational
qualification, limited employment contracts and educational guidance)
 ESF funds are also used for the re-integration of people with special placement
difficulties
o Vocational continuing training measures for people receiving of benefits
according to the Social Law Compendium
685
Federal Republic of German: National Action Plan for Policy on Employment 2002, Berlin 2002, pp. 92-104.
225
o important contribution to Bavaria’s labour market with measures of tailormade vocational continuing training targeted at structural changes of the
regions and aim at attracting companies into the regions
Berlin:
 Labour market policy framework programme ARP (basis of Berlin’s labour market
policy since 1991)
 ‘Berlin’s Alliance for Competitiveness and Securing Production Sites’: one of the
main frameworks for discussion of labour market reforms
 Senate of Berlin (in co-operation with the districts) will create conditions to award
contracts in the framework of employment-creating infrastructure promotion pursuant
to the Job-AQTIV Act
 Integration of labour market policy measures into development strategies of the
districts
 Training as a key element (sufficient vocational training vacancies): promise of the
above mentioned Alliance to offer a training vacancy to each willing young person
Brandenburg:
 Four priority areas:
o Qualifying for working life – promoting initial vocational training
 regional government’s aim to provide a training vacancy that offers
training in a recognised profession for each willing young person.
 special programmes to increase the number of vocational training
places
 programmes to create additional training vacancies
o Financing work instead of unemployment - integrating target groups into the
labour market is the second pillar of Brandenburg’s labour market policy.
 differentiated amount of measures: e.g. measures to promote
institutions that provide services for the unemployed, the promotion of
a course scheme for the long-term unemployed and a programme called
“Work instead of Social Assistance”
o Stabilising existing jobs - unemployment shall be tackled by preventive
measures set in the companies (priority to promote the qualification of workers
in SMEs)
o New methods and instruments – innovative solutions for selected individual
support
 stabilisation and creation of jobs for SMEs
 campaigns so far focussed on the flexibilisation of working hours,
women in IT jobs and the improvement of education programmes in
companies.
 priorities are the result of a partnership agreement within the reform of the programme
„Qualification and Employment for Brandenburg“ in which a large number of the
Land’s labour market policy actors participated.
Bremen:
 main instrument: Bremen’s active „Employment Policy Action Programme” (BAP)
o takes the financial means of the Land and the local authorities pursuant to the
Social Assistance Act of the city of Bremen and bundles them with funds by
the ESF and the EFRE.
226


o BAP funds are combined with the promotion funds of the employment offices
in Bremen and Bremerhaven
The strategic aims of the BAP:
o Preventing reaction: guaranteeing and promoting employment
o Active labour market policy guiding structural changes
o Creating additional and future-oriented training places
o Preventing the emergence of long-term unemployment / combating existing
long-term unemployment
o Special support for groups at risk on the labour market
seven funds of the BAP:
o Qualification fund (strengthening Bremen as a location for business by
qualifying its labour force potential)
o Support fund (support of innovation of SMEs)
o Start-up fund (promotes the self-employment of unemployed persons)
o Fund to promote the employment and qualification of severely disabled people
(integration of severely disabled people into the labour market)
o Promotion of employment fund pursuant to the Social Law Compendium III
(bundles labour market policy instruments of employment promotion usually
financed in addition to the Federal Labour Office)
o Fund for local employment promotion pursuant to the Social Assistance Act
(occupational integration of recipients of social assistance)
o Planning and development fund (innovative approaches in labour market
policy, e.g. the Alliance for Work and Training)
Hamburg:
 Revision in 2002:
 Aims: closely aligning labour market policy with company needs and at an
increased coupling of labour market policy measures with the general labour
market
 Priority:
o integration of the unemployed into the regular labour market under the heading
„Promote, Demand, Efficiency“
o support of measures to maintain and create jobs
o tailor-made promotion of unemployed persons through profiling and
assessment
o strictly aiming pro-employment measures at the needs that are relevant to
employ and integrate unemployed persons and at the needs of the companies
on the general labour market
o creating additional low-quality jobs
o setting up an efficient controlling system for the scope and the use of different
labour market policy programmes
o criteria like benefits agreements, the preservation of wage compensation offers,
etc. shall be used as a condition that employers have to fulfil in order to receive
support
o opening up of low-skilled and low-wage jobs
 „Hamburg Model of Employment Promotion“ (1 March 2002)
 creation of additional employment with compulsory social
insurance
 granting wage cost subsidies without red-tape, handing out
cheques, a voucher for continuing training
227


mixture between a „wage combination model“ (worker
promotion) and wage cost subsidies (employer promotion)
Target group: long-term unemployed persons, recipients of
social assistance, unemployed persons who have not finished
their vocational training and people likely to become long-term
unemployed
Hesse:
 Priorities:
o promotion of especially disadvantaged target groups: the long-term
unemployed, recipients of social assistance, severely disabled people,
disadvantaged young people, older unemployed persons and women
o placement measures
o assistance to find a job
o vocational guidance
o promotion of vocational training programmes
o measures of vocational continuing training
o employment and wage cost subsidies
o immediate integration into the general labour market
o measures to improve the infrastructure
 „Action Programme for Regional Labour Market Policy“ (HARA)
o freely combinable modules of „Hesse’s Action Programme for Regional
Labour Market Policy“
o aid programmes and multiple activities organised at the local and district level
o integration of unemployed recipients of social assistance into employment “
 wage combination model Hesse”
o reactivate jobs or create new jobs in the low-wage sector
 the Land strengthened programmes to improve equal opportunities
o „in-company training vacancies for single mothers“
o women’s promotion measure of the HARA programme (child care, inclusion
of women’s bureaux, women’s quota)
o above-average participation of women in Hesse’s combined wage pilot project
(72 % of participants are women)
 2001: Land and ESF funds of more than 100 million DM available for labour market
measures
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
 labour market policy leans back on regional development concepts
 labour market policy also supplements the economic, education, social and
environmental policies as well as regional and state planning.
 assists regional actors in the development of new skills
 employment promotion projects that benefit the community (‘GAP projects’)
 „Labour market and Structural Development Programme“ (ASP)
o new approaches to strengthen the region’s labour market
o Groups of people and activities that are not supported by the local employment
offices receive special promotion
o helping the administrative districts and towns to facilitate the return into
employment for citizens who receive social assistance
o measures are mainly ESF funded.
o Priorities:
 Occupational integration of young people and young adults
228






state programme JAZ “Youth – Work – Future”
programme „Enterprise MV“ for young unemployed people
who want to become self-employed
 „mv4you“, a communication agency for young people who do
not see sufficient professional perspectives in Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania at the moment but want to stay in contact
with the region.
Equal opportunities for men and women
 complementing gender mainstreaming strategies
 specific promotion of women
 promotion programmes are reviewed upon their gender impact
 Specific activities to reduce structural discrimination of women
Developing the knowledge-based society
Participation of the regional and local levels
 The responsibilities of the regional/local level are strengthened
by their participation in the design of the programmes
disabled people are taken into special consideration
Lower Saxony
 In 2002, focus on young people under 25
o promotion of structural adjustment measures, training opportunities for the
unemployed, etc.
o so-called “youth offices” have been established in 7 cities in Lower Saxony
(besides the existing counselling structures from the state programmes RAN
and RABaZ)
 provide new employment opportunities for young recipients of social
assistance
 greater focus to the preventive idea of the labour market programme
o focus on the primary labour market
o linking the programme with the economic policy
 Priorities:
o preventive measures (preventive approach)
o early intervention,
o vocational training and vocational continuing training
o extending the comprehensive labour market programme for women
o promoting the compatibility of family and employment for men and women
(family services, implementation of gender mainstreaming in all labour market
programmes)
o linking labour market policy with economic and structural policies
o enhancing effectiveness through tailor-made promotion programmes.
North Rhine-Westphalia
 decentralised, participative approach of labour market policy
 Priorities:
o target group-oriented, structure-oriented and preventive labour market policy
o promotion concept developed by the Land supplements the promotion of the
Federal Government
o own promotion systems that enable new ways of employment promotion with
ESF funds
229



o strategies to link labour market policy measures with the special needs of
companies
o occupational integration of the long-term unemployed, young people and
women as well as migrants and disabled people
o advocating occupational integration of young people
 pilot projects (with the social partners) to promote the transition from
school into employment were developed
 initiative „Youth and Employment“: approach for occupational
integration of young unemployed people.
Support of regional and sectoral structural changes
o thirty regional conferences
 members are the respective representatives of a.o. the local authorities,
the employment service, the employers and the trade unions
o Ruhr area
o specific promotion approaches to provide new employment perspectives for
the unemployed and those threatened by unemployment
o promotion of employment transfers carried out in co-operation with the social
partners
o occupational reorientation and reinsertion of former miners
support for counselling and training projects in order to structure necessary adjustment
processes in companies
Within the framework of the labour market policy co-financed by the ESF, the labour
ministry has concluded target agreements with the conferences that define the results
that should be achieved for the respective policy areas with the funds available to the
region. The results shall be discussed in annual meetings on the state of the
programmes with the regions and if necessary, adjustments to the regional strategies
shall be agreed.
Rhineland Palatinate
 main target groups
o long-term unemployed, recipients of social assistance, older unemployed
persons and young people who are hard to place
o workers threatened by dismissal
 development of early warning systems
 “what-to-do” guidelines in a company crisis
 promotion for the creation of labour policy safety structures
 use of outplacement counsellors.
 in the past ten years: approx. 200 active organisations of labour market policy
measures (annual volume of approx. 50 million € from Land and ESF funds)
 set of instruments from counselling and training over vocational guidance to the actual
placement into employment on the regular labour market.
 labour market-relevant research and employment-securing support measures for
companies
 state programme „Work has to pay off – supplementary child benefit to avoid reliance
on social assistance“
 „Mainz model“
 establishment of service agencies
Saarland
 Sub-goals and promotion priorities:
o Promoting equal opportunities of men and women
230



o
o
o
o
o
o
increasing the percentage of women in gainful employment
facilitating their return into employment
improving the occupational opportunities of women on the labour
market
 equal participation of women in labour market policy measures
 facilitating the compatibility of family and employment
Combating long-term unemployment
 increased use of preventive measures to avoid long-term
unemployment
 provide additional occupational qualification measures as well as
employment
Combating youth unemployment
 providing additional occupational qualification measures as well as
employment
 developing modular, gradual measures
 reducing the percentage of unskilled young adults
 reducing the percentage of young people without a degree of secondary
general education
Promoting initial vocational training:
 especially for low-performing young people
Promoting integration into the labour market:
 development and improvement of basic vocational training measures
tied with employment
 measures on skills that can be used on the primary labour market.
 expanding structures of employment-promoting regional and local
counselling, placement and acquisition.
Promotion of occupational re-orientation:
 expanding occupational re-orientation offers for those workers who are
in risk or who are losing their job due to structural changes due to
structural changes of the economy
Adjustment of occupational qualification:
 improved measures to adjust skills to the technical and organisational
changes and the changes of production systems
Saxony
 Saxony’s labour market policy focuses on:
o Human capital investment
o Improving the entrepreneurial environment by promoting skills of
entrepreneurial thinking and acting
o Reducing long-term unemployment by strengthening growth factors and by
focussed use of labour market policy instruments, especially for qualification
and promotion of disadvantaged groups,
o Offering integration measures for the long-term unemployed through activities
outside of traditional gainful employment.
o Reforming social security systems
o Rendering working hours more flexible
o Integrating elements of civic responsibility.
 less interventionist reactive promotion
 focus on transition into the primary labour market (e.g. specific training opportunities
targeted at company needs)
231




As far as promotion funded by the ESF and the local employment offices is concerned,
unemployed persons or those threatened by unemployment shall continue to be
supported pursuant to the regulations of the ESF and the Law to Promote Employment
Wage cost subsidies for companies used mainly to reinsert people who are particularly
disadvantaged onto the labour market as well as business start-ups
Saxony also participates in pilot projects for the employment of low-skilled workers
Strategic priorities of the promotion policy T’AURIS project’:
o Attracting additional competitive companies (settlements, business start-ups)
o Maintaining the competitiveness of the existing companies
o Qualification, creating an environment for the creation, multiplication and
economic use of knowledge
o Creating an efficient infrastructure
o Using the specific regional potentials
Saxony Anhalt
 large part of the budget is spent on initial vocational training, the qualification of
workers, into counselling for companies on matters of personnel and organisational
development and into job rotation (preventive approach)
 principle of financing employment instead of unemployment
 increase in labour market opportunities for women
 measures shall also contribute to the Land’s structural development
 older workers: programme „Actively into Retirement“
 four aims:
o increasing and improving the availability of jobs
o improving the integration opportunities of special groups
o redistribution of labour
o improving the infrastructure
Schleswig Holstein
 activities taking into account the principle of promoting and demanding
 With the funds from the European Social Fund, Schleswig Holstein will use approx.
260 million € for these means until the end of 2006
 concept for the state’s structural development “Our Aim: A Future in our own Region”
(initiated in 2000 with a duration until the end of 2006)
o bundles resources from national and European sources for securing jobs and
creating new jobs, promoting general and vocational education in the sense of
lifelong learning and creating equal opportunities
 sub programme „Employment for Schleswig Holstein 2000 (ASH 2000)“ (Land’s list
of objectives)
o closely follows the EES principles and especially the ESF prerequisites for
promotion
 “Elmshorn Model” (now called Personnel-Service-Agency/PSA):
o new employment possibilities in the low-wage sector
o innovatively links job acquisition with skills tailored to the respective needs
and (if necessary) grants for the social insurance contributions
 „Employment for Schleswig Holstein“ (regional action programme) provides the
institutional framework for tripartite co-operation.
 The Land participates in the continuing development of the national Law to Promote
Employment
232
o pushed that job rotation be included into the regulations of the Social Law
Compendium IIII
Thuringia
 Priorities:
o creating additional training places through the „Thuringia Training Initiative“
o continuing development of ESF programmes to combat youth unemployment
(projects like „Job Access in Thuringia” (JET) will be continued)
o measures to improve the management and co-ordination of training
programmes within the framework of the training offensive
o promoting in-service training of workers and business owners
o measures to reactivate unemployed skilled workers, e.g. by continuing the
“Second Career” programme
o pilot project for tailor-made training of workers and unemployed persons
(QualiPass Thuringia)
o promoting business start-ups and entrepreneurship
o continuing labour market policy programmes for young people, women, the
long-term unemployed and older people (e.g. “Work instead of Social
Assistance”, „50-plus“ and „unemployed and hard-to-place“)
o promoting structural adjustment measures (e.g. improving the content of the
measures has been achieved by introducing quality criteria as a yardstick)
o bringing labour market policy to the regions, drafting and implementing
regional development and promotion concepts
Nevertheless, the main separating line lies between western and eastern German countries
with huge differences in employment and unemployment rates, but also in the need for
structural adaptation and change.
As far as the overall governance of employment policies is concerned, more or less the same
type of structures apply in the different Länder, as e.g. the Employment Service is a Federal
agency and regional alliances for work were structured after the example of the national
Alliance for Jobs. Nevertheless, esp. the integration of social partners varies. Moreover, the
Federal Employment Service as well as unemployment and social benefit are co-financed by
the Länder at the regional and local level. Thus, the Länder partly set up programmes on
‘Work instead of social benefit’ in order to minimizes expenditure in this area.
The most important actors involved at the Länder level are the ministries for labour and social
affairs, the ministries for economy and education, local authorities and the employment
services.
233
Regional data on employment policies
Supply data that documents employment policies: concentrate on expenditure and the number of participants affected by these policies, but also
report other relevant information that bears on cohesion.
(Note that, in addition to national sources, useful summary information can be found in OECD, ‘Employment Outlook’ and European Commission, Employment and social
affairs, ‘Employment policies in the EU and in Member States’ for national data).
Public expenditure of the Federal Employment Service (in 1000 €)686
Public
employment
services (2002)
Of which are
earmarked for:
Labour market
training (training
for employed
adults)
Youth measures
(unemployed
youth;
apprenticeships
and related
forms)
Subsidised
employment
(subsidies to
regular
employment;
support for
unemployed
starting
enterprises; direct
job creation)
686
BadenWürtte
mberg
Bayern
Berlin
Brande
nburg
Bremen
Hambu
rg
Hessen
Meckle
nburgVorpom
mern
Nieders
achsen
Nordrh
einWestfal
en
Rheinla
nd-Pfalz
Saarlan
d
Sachsen
Sachsen
-Anhalt
Schlesw
igHolstein
Thüring
en
4.757.2
12
6.392.7
11
3.281.2
99
3.172.4
60
539.50
6
1.075.2
71
3.085.6
52
2.362.1
19
4.533.7
44
10.247.
968
1.967.6
44
588.55
2
5.313.4
06
3.536.8
16
1.798.2
27
2.917.9
71
198.26
8
263.867
471.91
6
211.76
2
36.814
68.273
159.20
2
163.15
1
264.58
4
590.28
2
112.63
3
37.560
294.48
4
289.15
3
99.796
214.66
0
150.71
6
217.930
206.83
8
300.10
9
329.21
2
49.826
136.00
4
243.67
3
232.02
7
506.93
8
96.244
32.525
434.68
8
240.61
1
106.15
1
219.97
6
222.05
6
309.799
916.95
0
399.42
5
57.071
113.16
9
277.93
7
342.85
9
602.55
5
635.63
2
745.95
6
42.575
891.56
7
593.26
6
119.18
1
377.99
0
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Aktuelle Arbeitsmarktdaten, http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/service/statistik/detail/a.html
234
Measures for the
disabled (2002)
Unemployment
compensation
Support for
employment
creating
infrastructure
ESF
389.12
8
4.520.9
62
1.931
437.119
128.29
8
2.349.8
65
132.79
9
29.689
52.328
4.514.4
47
35.663
554.08
1
2.770.6
52
52.331
16.680
842.79
2
9.272
185.81
5
2.303.8
21
11.163
465.72
3
5.022
19.754
10.991
16.646
5.496
7.366
12.007
86.208
612.40
5
8.286.0
73
8.820
153.65
3
1.463.3
95
5.745
43.526
1.712.9
12
92.731
271.14
9
3.530.9
33
24.812
17.424
21.328
52.652
10.641
5.164
436.93
9
2.738
187.49
5
3.967.5
62
108.78
6
161.43
8
3.735.0
69
186.59
9
28.480
25.293
26.502
1.307.5
52
6.693
141.19
0
1.995.2
24
26.881
6.620
21.695
Number of participants affected687
Labour market
training (training
for unemployed
adults; training
for employed
adults) (entrance
2002)688
Subsidised
employment
(subsidies to
regular
employment;
support for
unemployed
starting
enterprises; direct
job creation)
(Dec. 2002)689
Measures for the
disabled690
BadenWürttem
berg
Bayern
Berlin
Branden
burg
Bremen
Hambur
g
Hessen
Mecklen
burgVorpom
mern
Niedersa
chsen
Nordrhei
nWestfale
n
Rheinlan
d-Pfalz
Saarland
Sachsen
SachsenAnhalt
Schleswi
gHolstein
Thüring
en
21.293
33.610
30.666
28.351
5.419
11.385
22.595
26.679
40.746
79.200
17.382
5.782
43.514
39.112
14.676
29.891
1.920
2.883
11.217
11.680
1.471
1.572
1.878
10.614
5.160
11.125
1.501
617
27.586
15.249
1.479
10.347
11.716
16.910
3.748
3.767
1.206
2.674
5.810
3.296
10.086
23.393
5.440
1.451
6.990
3.861
3.281
3.578
687
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Aktuelle Arbeitsmarktdaten, http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/detail/i.html
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Teilnehmer/Eintritte in Maßnahmen der beruflichen Weiterbildung nach Ländern, http://www.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia5/fbw/ads055l.xls
689
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003):Arbeitsmarkt in Zahlen, Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahmen, Dezember 2002, http://www. arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/abm_heftd.pdf, p.9.
688
690
ibid.
235
Unemployment
compensation
(Dez. 2002)a
a
296.436
392.975
250.393
233.822
43.620
72.752
198.207
182.993
327.222
728.176
133.627
41.268
389.189
257.314
119.975
201.402
incl. unemployment benefit, reintegration support and pension transition subsidies
236
Regional differences in paid weekly working hours (h) 2002691
All
37,9
37,5
37,3
37,5
39,3
36,8
37,5
37,6
39,6
37,2
38,1
37,8
38,0
39,5
39,9
38,0
39,7
Germany
Baden-Württemberg
Bayern
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hessen
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Niedersachsen
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Saarland
Sachsen
Sachsen-Anhalt
Schleswig-Holstein
Thüringen
Male
38,0
37,7
37,5
37,7
39,4
36,7
37,5
37,7
39,6
37,3
38,2
37,9
38,2
39,6
39,9
38,0
39,8
Female
37,2
36,8
36,4
36,6
39,2
37,1
37,1
37,1
39,2
36,6
36,9
37,2
37,0
39,2
39,7
37,5
39,3
Regional differences in salaries
Production Industry
Hourly wage
2002 (€)692
Germany
Baden-Württemberg
Bayern
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hessen
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Niedersachsen
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Saarland
Sachsen
Sachsen-Anhalt
Schleswig-Holstein
14,56
15,60
14,72
14,66
11,05
16,77
16,74
15,13
10,72
15,31
15,04
15,00
15,73
10,46
10,81
14,36
Monthly wage 2002 (€)693
Production Industry, Trade,
Financial and insurance
services
Monthly wage 2001 (€)694
All
2.396
2.544
2.387
2.388
1.888
2.677
2.728
2.471
1.843
2.477
2.490
2.465
2.601
1.797
1.874
2.368
All
3.110
3.258
3.219
2.383
3.298
3.290
3.270
2.318
2.946
3.176
3.016
2.873
2.414
2.369
2.888
Male
2.484
2.667
2.486
2.455
1.929
2.737
2.783
2.551
1.894
2.546
2.560
2.537
2.672
1.881
1.918
2.461
Female
1.837
1.949
1.849
2.018
1.619
1.986
2.080
1.920
1.448
1.938
1.878
1.853
1.943
1.423
1.529
1.820
Male
3.492
3.670
3.620
2.747
3.683
3.661
3.591
2.647
3.300
3.522
3.379
3.252
2.770
2.698
3.271
Female
2.455
2.521
2.498
2.046
2.498
2.719
2.689
2.018
2.294
2.529
2.399
2.197
2.053
2.041
2.289
691
http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab61.htm.
http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab62.htm.
693 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab63.htm.
694 http://www.destatis.de/jahrbuch/jahrtab63.htm.
692
237
Thüringen
10,30
1.776
1.864
1.471
2.359
2.657
1.993
238
Literature
Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven
Arbeitsmarktpolitik, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 12, Tübingen,
Bundesregierung (2003): Die Maßnahmen der Agenda 2010 im Überblick,
http://www.bundesregierung.de/basisattribute,-482917/Die-Massnahmen-der-Agenda2010.htm
Bundesregierung (2002): Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt - die 13 Module des
Hartz-Konzepts, http://www.bundesregierung.de/
emagazine_entw,-431462/Moderne-Dienstleistungen-am-Ar.htm.
Council of the EU (2002) Council Recommendation of 18 February 2002 on the
implementation of Member States’ employment policies, Official Journal L60, 24.1.2001,
pp. 70-80.
Council of the EU/European Commission (2003): Joint Employment Report 2002,
Brussels.
Federal Republic of Germany (2002): National Employment Action Plan 2002, Berlin.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2003a): Solbes fordert Deutschen mehr Reformen ab, 22.
May 2003, p. 11.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2003b): Deutliche Worte der Forschungsinstitute zur
Wortschaftspolitik der Regierung, 15. April 2003, p. 15.
Focus Magazin (2003): Reformen, immer feste druff, 12. May 2003, pp. 020-025.
Schmitthenner, Horst (Hg.) (2002): Bewertung der Vorschläge von Peter Hartz, IG Metall
Vorstands-Mitteilungen http://www.arbeitnehmerkammer.
de/sozialpolitik/doku/1_politik/ba_hartz_RS29_2002_igm_sopo.pdf, 01.07.2002.
Thiel, Elke (2002): National Report for Germany, GOVECOR project,
http://www.govecor.org/data/20020910182059_German_Report2.pdf.
239
7 Technology policies
Describe the main national technology and innovation policies and explain whether, and if so
how, they are applied at regional level.
The national technology policy has been going through a change of general approach in recent
years. ‘Huge technology’ research (nuclear research, aerospace research, etc.) no longer build
the focus of activities, but the support for research and development networks and clusters and
different new areas such as biotechnology, renewable energies, micro technologies, etc. This
change was promoted by the Federal level in order to support the regional development of
research activities throughout Germany.
“The German Government is increasingly relying on promotional approaches to stimulate
regional competence centres in pioneering areas of technology. It will put the existing and
successful regional promotional measures in the new federal states on a steady basis, to enable
scientific and technical crystallisation points to evolve there with a high commercial potential
and a strong influence outside their region.”695
Federal budget for the overall national policy area (mio €):696
2001
10.667
Research and
development policy
2002 (planned)
11.025
2003 (planned)
11.573
Moreover, the German technology policy is characterised by a strong decentralised approach,
which includes parallel funding of R+D activities by the Federal and the Länder level and
indicates a weaker regional impact of the central state than in other EU member states.
Technology policy related tasks in Germany697
State level
Regional level



National level






Tasks
Support of interaction and know-how transfer between economy and
science
Decline of administrative burden for setting up research sites
Support of an innovation-friendly climate and information of the public
on new technologies
Guarantee of a high level of education (in cooperation with the Länder)
Support of a quick and efficient patent rolls
Provide for good conditions for the development of private venture
capital markets
Increase the adaptability of labour markets to structural changes caused
by innovation activities
Shortening of licensing procedures for new goods
Tax relief for employees’ participation
Research and technology policies principally fall within the competences of the Länder.
Nevertheless, according to art 91b GG and given the relevance of these policy areas for the
development of the entire Republic the Federal level and the Länder have the opportunity to
cooperate on a voluntary base and to commonly finance policies at their discretion.698 Since
695
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung / Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2002): Innovation
Policy - More Dynamic for Competitive Jobs, Berlin/Bonn, p. 52.
696 Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin, p. 13.
697 IfW/ISI/NIW/DIW (2000): Regionale Verteilung von Innovations- und Technologiepotentialen in Deutschland und
Europa, Karlsruhe, p. 531.
698 Bundesministerium der Finanzen: Das System der öffentlichen Haushalte, Berlin,
http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Service/Bundeshaushalt-.802.9330/Broschueren/Das-System-der-OeffentlichenH...htm
240
1975 the Federal level and the Länder set up a framework plan for joint support measures
under this article. The main body for the establishment of this framework is the Bund-Länder
Commission for Educational Planning and Research Promotion (Bund-Länder-Kommission
für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung – BLK). The framework plans set up
expenditure targets for the different areas and institutions. The plans are subdivided into two
relevant budget headings with a clear focus on the later area:
 planning of education measures

scientific research of supra regional relevance
Regarding these joint measures the co-financing level is not fix and can be adapted from
measure to measure; e.g. co-financing for the Max-Planck institutes and the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft is 50% - 50%, while other measures vary. Moreover the Federal
level offers funding for different research centres and institutes (the so called blue list / Blaue
Liste). The measures and instruments are implemented by regional/Länder authorities.
For a recent benchmark year (2000, 2001 or 2002), provide information on the scale and
regional distribution of spending on these policies.
The Eastern Länder (incl. East Berlin) received about 1.3 billion € (18 %) of technology and
research funding by the Federal level in Germany in 2000.This represents a slight decrease by
0.7 % from 1999. Among the Eastern Länder, Saxony (5.4%) received the largest share in
2000, followed by Brandenburg (3.3%), Saxony-Anhalt (2.1%), Thuringia (1.8%) and
Mecklenburg – Western Pomerania (1.7%). Among the West Länder, North RhineWestphalia (17.3%) and Bavaria (17.1%) got the highest level of Federal funding, followed
by Baden-Württemberg (15.9%) and West-Berlin (10%).699
Actual Federal R&D expenditure by Land / performance of
R&D700
1997
1998
1999
2000
mio €
%
mio €
%
mio €
%
mio €
%
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
1 144.4
1 570.3
721.4
243.0
157.8
314.4
376.8
99.4
15.5
21.3
9.8
3.3
2.1
4.3
5.1
1.3
1 288.5
1 345.8
706.6
249.2
179.0
295.7
349.6
126.4
17.5
18.3
9.6
3.4
2.4
4.0
4.8
1.7
1 181.5
1 287.7
716.3
246.7
198.1
312.3
361.4
127.3
16.3
17.7
9.9
3.4
2.7
4.3
5.0
1.8
1 185.4
1 269.2
738.8
245.3
202.3
324.0
383.9
126.8
15.9
17.1
9.9
3.3
2.7
4.4
5.2
1.7
514.6
1 237.0
115.7
38.4
360.0
150.0
206.9
124.5
7.0
16.8
1.6
0.5
4.9
2.0
2.8
1.7
539.8
1 250.2
122.1
48.8
352.4
151.4
219.0
134.9
7.3
17.0
1.7
0.7
4.8
2.1
3.0
1.8
543.1
1 236.6
118.7
36.4
394.4
156.9
211.2
138.0
7.5
17.0
1.6
0.5
5.4
2.2
2.9
1.9
613.4
1 285.3
127.7
41.0
398.0
158.9
202.2
136.3
8.2
17.3
1.7
0.6
5.4
2.1
2.7
1.8
Federal financial aid to the Länder according to art 91b GG701
Education/Research acc. to art 91b GG
699
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Facts &Figures Research 2002, p. 297.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p- 161.
701 Data provided by the central data collection archive of the Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der
Landesfinanzminister
700
241
Planning of
education
measures
(mio €)702
Research of
supra
regional
relevance
Support for research
institutes
(1000 €)
(mio €)
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Berlin (West)
Berlin (East)
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
2001
24,2
2002
11,2
2001
17,5
20,7
17,4
2002
7,1
7,9
6,5
2001
2002
23.139
13.701
23.894
13.346
23.189
41.599
35.158
1.229
18.573
14.026
17.153
40,3
35,2
18,3
16,2
6,4
1,1
4,1
10,0
4,0
3,1
0,6
1,7
4,2
2,4
22.836
36.735
43.148
1.177
16.713
12.932
16.313
-
-
12,6
26,0
4,9
12,4
15.237
24.113
19.086
26.445
44,0
23,9
25,2
192,8
19,3
15,3
12,8
93,1
6,0
1,6
14,4
6,9
3,6
5,8
158,1
2,6
0,7
6,5
3,5
1,6
3,2
68,9
3.299
5.243
50.404
23.760
26.482
5.021
3.436
5.410
51.993
24.223
24.972
4.401
340.253
348.133
Among the common tasks (‚Gemeinschaftsaufgaben’= GA) according the art 91a GG exists
also a GA for building and maintenance of Universities (GA ‘Hochschulbau’). This task is cofinanced by the Federal level (50%) and the Länder (50%) and is not subject to discretionary
powers of the two levels. It is in power since 1970 and support infrastructural measures in
university building and maintenance activities.
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
Federal grants for building and maintenance of
universities (mio €)703
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
143
149
131
142
157
140
162
100
108
125
155
182
176
167
86
56
56
56
49
50
49
44
40
43
42
40
33
40
14
10
10
7
13
13
17
22
26
26
28
33
27
34
51
48
46
32
40
41
46
25
29
37
38
41
36
44
66
118
82
146
62
145
53
133
43
147
69
173
78
185
39
21
83
38
30
38
918
32
16
57
44
37
47
927
34
10
66
52
37
43
923
40
11
69
53
26
36
921
40
12
96
59
27
44
1023
36
15
88
58
26
40
1021
42
17
109
63
29
50
1132
702
Including action programme apprenticeship East.
Planungsausschuss für den Hochschulbau (2002): 32. Rahmenplan für den Hochschulbau nach dem
Hochschulbauförderungsgesetz 2003–2006, Berlin, p. 29.
703
242
Are there any specific regional technology strategies administered by national government
bodies or agencies or sub-national authorities?
Of special relevance in this policy field is the InnoRegio programme for which the Federal
level offers 80 mio € in 2003. “InnoRegio, an initiative for support of innovative regions, is
aimed especially at improving productivity, competitiveness and regional attractiveness in the
new Länder.”704 The programme concentrates on financing innovations in the Eastern Länder.
The programme does not finance Länder as a whole, but different projects and networks.
Thus the budget spent on the different projects cannot be allocated to the Länder but refers to
the projects funded.
The Federal ministry for education and research provides for a total Federal budget of 225,6
mio € for the period from 1999-2006 covering the costs for a total number of 339 projects.
The Länder / regions themselves establish their focus, based on their economic and research
activities and qualifications. By this programme 23 research networks have been created.
Moreover, in 2001 the programme 'Innovative Regional Core Growth Areas' was initiated to
complement InnoRegio. It promotes innovative initiatives in the Eastern Länder, which are
based on regional clusters of competence and production. So far 9 core growth areas have
been advanced (ca. 40 mio €). Additionally, about 40 laboratories for innovation and
foundation were established in universities and research institutes in the Eastern Länder States
(25.6 mio €). Furthermore, so called innovation forums with a total number of 444 regional
initiatives applied for support.705
Supported InnoRegios706
704
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 288.
http://www.innoregio.de/foerderung.php
706 http://www.innoregio.de/innoregios.php
705
243
Budgets for the several projects under InnoRegio (mio €)707
707
ibid.
244
Federal grants for InnoRegios708
Project
Berlin
Berlin-Buch-AG: Management für innovative Therapieentwicklung
Brandenburg
BioHyTec, Biohybrid-Technologien in der Region PotsdamLuckenwalde
RIO, Regionales Innovationsbündnis Oberhavel
Firm: Mittelostbrandenburgisches Zentrum für innovatives
Recycling zur Entwicklung neuer Verbundprojekte
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
8
Up to 10
95
Maritime Allianz, Ostseeregion
DISCO, Diabetes Informations- und Service-Center Ostvorpommern
NUKLEUS, Präzisionsmaschinenbau
Kunststoffzentrum Westmecklenburg
Saxony
KONUS, Kooperative Nutzung von Datennetzen für die berufliche
Eingliederung von blinden und sehbehinderten Menschen
InnoSachs, Hochtechnologien als Initiator für eine zukunftsorientierte Regionalentwicklung
Textilregion Mittelsachsen Sachsen 31 Mio.
BioMeT, Innovationsnetzwerk Dresden Sachsen 40 Mio. IAW 2010,
Industrie- und Automobilregion Westsachsen 2010
RIST, Regionale Innovationsnetzwerke Stoffkreisläufe
Musicon Valley
Saxony Anhalt
Budget (mio DM)
Up to 10
Up to 10
34
16
31
20
22
22
99
18
35
18
10
18
112
708
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2001): FÖRDERUNG REGIONALER INNOVATIONSINITIATIVEN
IN DEN NEUEN LÄNDERN - Sachstandsbericht -Stand: 09.10.2001, Berlin, S. 4.
245
INNO PLANTA, Pflanzenbiotechnologie Nordharz/Börde
MAHREG Automotive
NinA, Naturstoff-Innovationsnetzwerk Altmark
Rephyna, Innovationspotenzial Börde
INNOMED: Regionales Netzwerk für Neuromedizin-technik
Thuringia
Barrierefreie Modellregion für den integrativen Touris-mus
INPROSYS, Produktions- und Fertigungstechnik
Micro Innovates Macro: Bautronic Konzept 2001
40
20
20
22
Up to 10
30
14
10
Up to 6
Core Growth Area709
Overall budget of 150 mio DM, single financing per area between 5 and 13 mio
DM
Berlin
<xmlcity:berlin>: Kompetenz- und Anwendungszentrum XML
Brandenburg
NOA: Netzwerk für innovative Oberflächentechnik und Anlagenbau Sachsen
Berlin-Brandenburg
Anwendungszentrum intermodale Verkehrstelematik Berlin; Brandeburg
Mecklenburg Western
Pomerania
Maritime Knowledge and Decision Support Systems, Rostock – Maritime Safety
Assistance
INNOCIS: "Innovationsinitiative kostengünstige, flexible CIS-Photovoltaik
Saxony
Zukunftsmarkt neue Werkstoffe, ASGLAWO GmbH
Saxony Anhalt
Pharmaka aus Magdeburg - Tradition und Zukunft
Industrielle Produktion Therapeutischer Rekombinanter Proteine
Thuringia
Funktionelle anorganische-nichtmetallische Materialien –fanimat
Moreover, the Federal ministry for economics and labour operates the research and
development support programmes PRO INNO, NEMO and others, for which unfortunately no
regional breakdown could be provided.
PRO INNO
 launched in mid 1999
 ends in 2003
 budget: 317 mio €
 support for research and development in SME
 non-repayable grants
 preference of support for new Länder (but also transnational networks)
NEMO
 network building for innovation in the new Länder
 1. round 2002: 92 applications, of which 24 have been granted
 2. round 2002: 61 applications
 Federal contribution for network management costs
 Budget: 7.9 mio €
Budget for Federal support for technology policies710
709
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2001): FÖRDERUNG REGIONALER INNOVATIONSINITIATIVEN
IN DEN NEUEN LÄNDERN - Sachstandsbericht -Stand: 09.10.2001, Berlin, S. 9.
710
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Facts &Figures Research 2002, p. 283.
246
Programme name
PROgramm INNOvation skills of small and medium-sized
companies (PRO INNO) with the predecessor programme
“Research co-operation among small and medium-sized
enterprises“
Support of innovative networks (InnoNet)
Industrial co-operative research by small and medium-sized
companies (IGF),with the initiative programme “Future
technologies for small and medium-sized
enterprises“(ZUTECH)
Innovation management NEMO (for small companies and
crafts companies from the new Länder)
Technology-oriented visit and innovation programme (TOP)
Programme to strengthen innovation and technology transfer
in small and medium-sized companies (crafts/trades,
industry, retail/whole sale, services and liberal professions)
Programme/project
duration
Predecessor programme:
from 1993 to 1998
PRO INNO: from 1999 to
2003
from 1999 to 2003
IGF: no ending date
defined;
ZUTECH: since 1999, no
ending date defined
Funding volume
(mio €)
1998 –2002: 564
1999 –2002: 17.36
1998 –2002: IGF:
some 442
1999 to 2002
from 2000 to 2004
of this for
ZUTECH 21.1
2000 –2002: 7.9
from 1992 to 2002
1998 –2002: 1.8
indefinite
1999 –2002: 44.15
247
8 Inward direct investment
Are there any data on employment in foreign-owned versus indigenous industry at the
regional level (provide a sectoral breakdown of such data if available)
No such data could be found. Nevertheless, in order to get an impression of the volume of
foreign direct investment in the German Länder, a table is provided below indicating, that the
economic division between Eastern and West German Länder is also obvious in terms of
inward direct investments as the new Länder remain substantially below the figures of the old
Länder.
Inward direct investments in the Länder (mio. €)711
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
GERMANY
1994
16.775
11.479
5.215
349
1.058
12.353
28.427
444
1995
18.918
14.521
5.420
460
1.278
13.805
31.649
460
1996
19.838
16.770
5.624
614
1.534
12.885
31.700
460
1997
23.308
17.866
5.307
1.102
1.538
16.189
39.576
448
1998
30.449
24.680
7.031
1.126
1.904
17.687
51.815
697
1999
34.836
32.868
6.950
1.123
1.685
26.578
73.271
623
2000
51.273
32.857
14.049
1.194
1.537
32.924
90.563
727
7.612
33.974
7.823
38.142
7.874
43.767
8.472
49.884
10.451
59.016
10.788
93.133
11.448
222.841
2.927
1.418
441
700
1.694
408
125.275
2.812
971
409
1.585
2.454
614
141.372
3.119
767
409
1.074
2.710
716
149.860
4.164
848
750
2.492
3.537
585
176.065
4.134
1.026
948
2.838
4.095
551
218.449
5.609
1.100
1.155
3.250
4.721
633
298.326
9.207
1.110
1.306
3.432
6.728
1.414
482.611
(Upon request data can also be provided for investments coming from companies located in
the different Länder abroad.)
Any data on Manufacturing (and Services) firm size by region?
Even though the most frequent firms size type in all Länder are SME with less than 50
employees, big firms with 1000 and more employees is the most relevant firm size type in
terms of employment in the majority of old Länder. This type is followed by firms with 200499 employees as most relevant employers in Hesse, Lower Saxony, Rhineland Palatinate,
Schleswig-Holstein and Saxony-Anhalt, firms with 100-199 employees in Mecklenburg-West
Pomerania, Saxony and Thuringia and firms with less than 50 employees in Brandenburg and
North-Rhine Westfalia.
Firm size and number of employees by firms size in 09/2000712
Baden
Württemberg
Number of
firms
Total
Less than
50
employees
50-99
employees
100-199
employees
200-499
employees
500-999
employees
1000 and
more
employees
8857
4294
1939
1309
914
245
156
711
http://www.bankgesellschaft.de/vowi/11_bln_bbg/04_vergl/08_struktur/lv_dir_inv_j.htm
Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (2003): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien
Städten Deutschlands, CD-Rom.
712
248
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western
Pomerania
Lower
Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland
Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony
Anhalt
Schleswig
Total
Less than
50
employees
50-99
employees
100-199
employees
200-499
employees
500-999
employees
1000 and
more
employees
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
1272299
123382
134974
181856
277031
164948
390108
8047
4018
1707
1118
784
265
155
1222331
105340
120006
155759
243381
180604
417241
913
509
192
104
74
19
15
111912
13528
13724
14164
22030
13043
35423
1175
751
251
105
47
13
8
91448
18268
17344
14619
14472
9663
17082
351
193
64
45
25
17
7
65132
5080
4518
5995
7638
11339
30562
590
323
98
73
61
20
15
98490
8916
6868
10125
19808
14463
38310
3288
1729
674
410
315
98
62
461887
46627
46873
56647
95878
63473
152389
651
379
149
80
36
4
3
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
48904
10188
10546
10890
10481
2555
4244
4182
2153
920
558
399
104
48
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
564271
57940
64352
77783
122911
69730
171555
10673
5056
2531
1493
1079
347
167
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
1479308
145857
176993
210174
324889
234631
386764
2303
-
-
-
2219
-
84
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
305086
-
-
-
170860
-
134226
535
274
114
63
42
21
21
106262
7988
7734
8559
12566
14973
54442
2782
1613
627
342
158
33
9
222357
44207
43525
47756
46673
22429
17767
1277
732
292
146
86
15
6
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
104036
19910
20267
20005
26388
9786
7680
1493
906
270
169
100
30
18
249
Holstein
Thuringia
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Number of
firms
Number of
employees by
firms size
Total
Less than
50
employees
50-99
employees
100-199
employees
200-499
employees
500-999
employees
1000 and
more
employees
141939
22367
18904
23474
30389
19162
27643
1742
955
436
221
110
16
4
136304
26954
30308
31246
31217
10641
5938
(Upon request data on NUTS 2 Level can also be provided for firm size and number of
employees by firms size. It was not provided in the first place, as the question only aimed at
‘regions’.)
Any data on regional job targets set by national agencies?
Given that Germany takes part in the European Employment Strategy the country has set
itself the overall job targets agreed at the European level. Nevertheless the regional parts of
the German NAP do not indicate regional job targets or the plan of setting up such targets. As
already indicated in the table on differences between regions in the arrangements governing
labour markets (cf. chapter on ‘Employment policy’) the Alliances for Work in the different
Länder have set themselves different main objectives and so far have achieved different aims.
However, no regional job targets have been set by national agencies or other authorities as
also ambitious national job targets as indicated in the Hartz-concept (creation of about 4 mio
new jobs) are not taken up again (e.g. by the Agenda 2010). Only Hesse decided to annually
set up target figures for training contracts, but not for regional job creation.
Any data on advance factory building (at regional or even national level) by national
agencies?
The terms is understood as "'factory building the construction of which is promoted by a local
community group the objective of which, or one of the main objectives of which, is to
promote the development of, and the creation of opportunities for employment in, its locality”
and thus related to the gross fixed capital formation or the German term
‘Bruttoanlageinvestitionen’. The figures for this item are presented for the Länder indicating
how much was spent in the Länder on (new) advance factory building. As to the Federal
level, no relation between the volume of investments and their distribution between the
Länder could be found.
Advanced factory building (Gross fixed capital formation / ‘Bruttoanlageinvestitionen’)
(new buildings) of the Länder713
Gross fixed capital formation (new assets) in Germany by Bundesland 1991 to 2000 at current prices
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mio €.
713
BadenWürttemberg
52.752 54.945 51.438 50.145 48.026 48.998 48.215 50.817 53.562 57.151
Bayern
67.952 71.095 64.238 69.022 68.339 68.720 66.506 71.866 73.696 79.532
Berlin
13.663 15.648 16.036 15.421 16.355 19.142 21.827 17.762 17.012 15.927
Brandenburg
8.117
10.906 14.775 17.838 17.627 18.661 17.667 17.449 17.093 16.081
Bremen
3.164
3.111
2.800
3.030
3.092
Hamburg
9.792
11.412 11.135 10.236 9.635
9.656
10.730 11.692 11.074 12.504
3.275
2.808
3.299
3.769
3.991
http://www.statistik-bw.de/VolkswPreise/ArbeitskreisVGR/tab07.asp
250
Gross fixed capital formation (new assets) in Germany by Bundesland 1991 to 2000 at current prices
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Mio €.
29.874 30.769 29.926 27.318 29.126 27.747 29.357 30.505 32.320 32.649
Hessen
MecklenburgVorpommern
6.937
Niedersachsen
34.144 34.745 32.548 33.195 33.006 32.220 34.000 35.958 38.780 40.176
NordrheinWestfalen
72.614 74.895 68.314 69.278 68.844 69.675 71.673 76.306 84.432 88.085
Rheinland-Pfalz
16.758 16.890 16.320 17.640 18.181 16.885 17.836 18.916 19.732 20.580
10.715 12.658 14.008 14.525 13.062 11.931 11.129 10.473 10.106
Saarland
4.343
Sachsen
15.449 18.738 21.300 29.079 31.926 32.367 30.371 27.998 26.546 25.867
Sachsen-Anhalt
8.731
4.478
4.023
4.425
4.769
4.734
4.922
5.846
5.757
6.032
13.830 16.741 19.604 20.046 17.689 16.649 16.580 15.069 14.180
Schleswig-Holstein 10.438 11.474 11.121 11.913 12.655 12.078 12.674 13.587 14.203 14.091
Thüringen
7.729
11.850 15.283 17.591 16.730 13.577 13.560 13.272 14.364 13.128
Germany
362.460 395.500 389.130 409.520 412.590 408.240 411.010 422.980 437.880 450.080
Gross fixed capital formation (new assets) in Germany by Bundesland 1991 to 2000 at current prices
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year to year change in %
Baden-Württemberg
+4,2
-6,4
-2,5
-4,2
+2,0
-1,6
+5,4
+5,4
+6,7
Bayern
+4,6
-9,6
+7,4
-1,0
+0,6
-3,2
+8,1
+2,5
+7,9
Berlin
+14,5 +2,5
-3,8
+6,1
+17,0 +14,0 -18,6
-4,2
-6,4
+34,4 +35,5 +20,7 -1,2
+5,9
-5,3
-1,2
-2,0
-5,9
-1,7
+6,7
+14,3 +5,9
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
+5,3
-14,2
-0,3
+8,2
+2,0
+16,5 -2,4
-8,1
-5,9
+0,2
+11,1 +9,0
-5,3
+12,9
+3,0
-8,7
+6,6
-4,7
+5,8
+3,9
+6,0
+1,0
+54,5 +18,1 +10,7 +3,7
-10,1
-8,7
-6,7
-5,9
-3,5
Niedersachsen
+1,8
-6,3
+2,0
-0,6
-2,4
+5,5
+5,8
+7,8
+3,6
Nordrhein-Westfalen
+3,1
-8,8
+1,4
-0,6
+1,2
+2,9
+6,5
+10,7 +4,3
Rheinland-Pfalz
+0,8
-3,4
+8,1
+3,1
-7,1
+5,6
+6,1
+4,3
+4,3
Saarland
+3,1
-10,2
+10,0 +7,8
-0,7
+4,0
+18,8 -1,5
+4,8
Sachsen
+21,3 +13,7 +36,5 +9,8
+1,4
-6,2
-7,8
-5,2
-2,6
Sachsen-Anhalt
+58,4 +21,1 +17,1 +2,3
-11,8
-5,9
-0,4
-9,1
-5,9
+9,9
Hessen
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
-2,7
-4,6
+4,9
+7,2
+4,5
-0,8
Thüringen
+53,3 +29,0 +15,1 -4,9
-18,8
-0,1
-2,1
+8,2
-8,6
Germany
+9,1
-1,1
+0,7
+2,9
+3,5
+2,8
Schleswig-Holstein
-3,1
-1,6
+7,1
+5,2
+6,2
+0,7
Moreover, the common tasks (cf. chapter on ‘Territorial policy’) and state aid instruments (cf.
chapter on ‘State aid’) are relevant in this context, as they support and finance investments
also in factory building to minimise regional diversity and to save and create employment.
251
GA of the development of the regional economic structure (‘Verbesserung der regionalen
Wirtschaftsstruktur’) (see chapter on territorial policies)714
Approved funds by GA in mio €
1991 - 2000
Industrial Branch
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
63,3
326,1
755,6
12,9
61,3
472,8
201,5
195,1
25,4
36,4
1 529,2
1 122,9
19,4
1 015,6
5 222,2
GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal protection (‚Förderung der
Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’) (see chapter on territorial policies) – Total Federal
Support715
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
2000 (mio DM)716
166, 276
313, 522
0, 367
153, 721
1, 898
25, 075
60, 429
130, 766
240, 919
111, 013
84, 440
10, 562
95, 262
91, 238
2002 (mio €)717
89,832
167,730
0,326
76,887
1,714
9,934
41,197
69,143
111,681
61,041
47,905
5,771
51,089
52,595
714
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 15/861, 15.Wahlperiode 10.04.2003: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung,
Zweiunddreißigster Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur “ für den
Zeitraum 2003 bis 2006, p.29.
715 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005.
716 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005.
717 Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/9009, 14. Wahlperiode, 06. 05. 2002: Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes“ für den Zeitraum 2002
bis 2005, p.89.
252
85, 289
88, 298
1. 659, 075
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
Total
36,300
46,100
869,245
Annual employment numbers by region will allow calculation of net job creation numbers
Annual employment (persons in gainful employment) numbers by Länder (Sept.) 718
1999
2000
2001
Baden Württemberg
3.775.672
3.862.423
3.897.772
2002
(estimated)
3.884.872
Bavaria
4.339.786
4.449.049
4.497.323
4.460.020
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
1.149.495
838.312
284.700
755.510
2.162.249
609.316
1.155.000
819.780
287.918
774.388
2.216.728
595.516
1.138.977
790.236
289.867
782.178
2.240.378
572.243
1.110.970
771.587
287.451
772.593
2.214.694
554.009
2.432.369
5.911.526
2.480.184
6.014.847
2.463.031
6.004.180
2.443.161
5.931.094
1.199.710
358.236
1.575.245
876.704
824.149
850.516
1.214.968
363.714
1.542.279
844.693
832.907
830.651
1.214.680
363.523
1.487.689
824.710
830.876
807.492
1.209.416
357.921
1.450.481
799.715
822.587
782.820
Is there any possibility of obtaining gross job creation and gross job destruction numbers?
The two main trends in gross job creation and gross job destruction are a general decrease in
job creation since 1999 in all Länder and an increase in job destruction in the old Länder,
while in the five new Länder Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, Saxony, SaxonyAnhalt and Thuringia a (slight) decrease in job destruction since 1999 can be observed.
Gross job creation (creation of gainful employment)719
Baden Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony
North Rhine Westphalia
Rhineland Palatinate
Saarland
1991-1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
-
275.969
422.271
160.495
181.514
28.039
58.881
172.201
155.653
298.453
523.771
125.019
31.892
271.698
409.313
159.361
179.507
29.136
57.843
172.154
143.721
298.995
524.733
123.694
31.981
244.735
386.309
151.112
176.136
27.091
55.162
158.265
133.137
284.025
484.776
114.428
29.812
255.402
408.682
145.632
170.228
25.326
56.757
160.569
126.481
279.692
496.827
120.103
29.362
718
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/detail/b.html.
Number of person entering unemployment from gainful employment, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit:
http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/detail/a.html
719
253
-
Saxony
Saxony Anhalt
Schleswig Holstein
Thuringia
334.259
211.374
108.879
195.546
314.362
201.923
105.589
186.475
306.273
199.289
104.015
174.030
298.610
183.970
101.911
165.023
Gross job destruction (destruction of gainful employment) 720
Baden
Württemberg
Bavaria
Berlin
Brandenburg
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Mecklenburg
Western
Pomerania
Lower
Saxony
North Rhine
Westphalia
Rhineland
Palatinate
Saarland
Saxony
Saxony
Anhalt
Schleswig
Holstein
Thuringia
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
234.940
283.335
341.434
326.497
314.322
329.936
309.330
291.708
285.774
260.321
284.153
326.605
396.814
183.455
226.680
28.490
61.170
156.714
185.453
414.690
181.194
222.904
27.606
63.899
173.173
196.977
485.315
167.362
177.234
29.717
67.173
200.765
144.299
462.417
173.151
159.735
28.975
66.145
195.625
143.106
474.458
162.150
177.047
29.779
64.394
193.375
149.111
500.803
172.333
200.721
30.215
67.677
208.913
166.343
486.850
172.488
196.603
29.464
64.947
199.581
169.430
457.535
161.730
188.263
29.194
61.277
187.038
152.267
433.813
161.472
201.881
29.144
59.474
182.072
159.290
417.148
159.994
185.810
29.101
57.089
176.463
151.426
452.053
161.420
186.769
30.027
61.287
184.706
148.033
508.083
167.756
182.307
30.009
66.776
212.884
142.716
279.159
277.821
327.949
309.444
320.602
353.649
353.343
326.594
310.190
319.016
325.044
338.783
503.541
557.554
636.133
603.592
587.548
617.945
584.769
556.925
557.575
556.135
594.766
653.071
123.341
131.850
150.070
140.356
141.980
150.648
148.433
136.974
131.841
130.126
134.328
149.496
36.820
393.092
239.270
37.249
421.682
240.050
43.733
338.261
226.233
37.625
285.159
204.934
35.405
323.882
223.759
38.521
362.109
250.912
35.585
380.593
245.700
33.178
336.562
219.862
33.974
354.384
227.146
33.670
343.305
211.454
34.182
327.666
199.565
36.920
314.212
195.602
108.859
109.925
120.414
119.889
116.795
125.599
123.066
115.844
110.800
110.841
117.690
123.178
252.998
263.774
206.729
174.173
195.350
221.278
218.237
191.242
204.712
191.005
182.008
180.670
We will need a list of ‘designated regions; i.e. those which the national authorities designate
as warranting policy support and towards which they claim (nominally, at least) to direct
extra resources and attention.
The objective 1 regions as defined under the ESF are also those regions especially profiting
from national public transfer instruments.721
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
ESF
Eastern part of Berlin
Brandenburg
Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania
Saxony
Saxony-Anhalt
Thuringia
EAGGF
Total
EU
contribution
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
2120.302
6733.047
5493.088
687.558
3090.223
2455.750
517.858
1639.26
1100.19
75.32%
53.05%
44.80%
162.663
730.66
613.47
23.66%
23.64%
24.98%
7.037
720.302
742.09
1.02%
23.31%
30.22%
11240.40
8697.414
10018.45
4858.610
3360.445
2886.137
3057.598
1908.342
1480.29
62.93%
56.89%
51.29%
1098.191
715.254
866.7
22.60%
21.32%
30.03%
702.821
730.849
539.147
14.47%
21.79%
18.68%
Moreover, also objective 2 regions are relevant under this heading.722
720
Number of person entering gainful employment from unemployment, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit:
http://www.pub.arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/detail/a.html
721
http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/country/prordn/search.cfm?gv_pay=DE&gv_reg=ALL&gv_obj=
ALL&gv_the=ALL&LAN=EN
722 http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/country/prordn/search.cfm?gv_pay=DE&gv_reg=ALL&gv_obj=
ALL&gv_the=ALL&LAN=EN
254
2000-2006 (mio €)
ERDF
ESF
Total
Baden-Württemberg
Bavaria
Western
part
of
Berlin
Bremen
Hamburg
Hesse
Lower Saxony
North
RhineWestphalia
Rhineland-Palatinate
Saarland
Schleswig-Holstein
EU
contribution
EAGGF
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
EU
contribution
%
1160.366
2200.882
1179.189
97.769
536.638
384.449
97.769
475.804
244.125
100%
88.66%
63.50%
60.834
140.324
11.34%
36.50%
-
-
354.659
12.384
542.379
1492.457
3598.623
113.034
6.192
183.519
733.953
970.361
113.034
6.192
183.519
682.254
823.62
100%
100%
100%
92.96%
84.88%
51.699
146.741
7.04%
15.12%
-
-
1402.927
981.785
831.107
170.677
171.089
258.319
158.877
130.841
221.747
93.09%
76.48%
85.84%
11.8
40.248
36.572
6.91%
23.52%
14.16%
-
-
As broader definition those Länder receiving so called Supplementary federal grants within
the financial equalisation scheme (see chapter on public sector transfer) can be regarded as
regions eligible to direct extra resources and attention.
Saxony
Berlin
Saxony-Anhalt
Brandenburg
Thuringia
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
Bremen
Lower Saxony
Saarland
Rhineland-Palatinate
Schleswig-Holstein
Baden-Württemberg
Bavaria
Hesse
North Rhine-Westphalia
Hamburg
723
Supplementary federal grants (mio €)723
2000
2001
2 345
2 313
1 955
1 925
1 493
1 473
1 375
1 358
1 370
1 352
1 030
1 017
987
870
970
899
750
612
658
550
406
219
-
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/fist/fisttab023.htm
255