LSE - Individual Web Pages for Taught Students
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
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 Arbeitsmarkt-Politik. 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.
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 pre- and 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.
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 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 industry-specific 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.
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.
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 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 state-owned 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) co-ordinate 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 co-ordination 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.
2 Regional profiles
Baden-Württemberg
|NUTS 1: DE1 BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG |NUTS 2 DE11 STUTTGART |
| |DE12 KARLSRUHE |
| |DE13 FREIBURG |
| |DE14 TUEBINGEN |
GDP per head (2000)
DE1 Baden-Württemberg[1]: 28.083 (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)[2]
Germany[3]: 24.700
EU-15 = 100, DE1 = 122,0[4]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE1 Baden-Württemberg[5] (mio €): 294.667
Germany[6] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[7](mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
| |Persons in gainful employment (Erwerbstätige) |
|DE1 Baden-Württemberg |74%[8] (German average = 68,8%) |
| | |
| |2002[9]:: 5.359.000 |
| |2000[10]:: 5.286.800 |
|DE11 STUTTGART |April 2002[11]: 1.900.200 |
|DE12 KARLSRUHE |April 2002[12]: 1.251.800 |
|DE13 FREIBURG |April 2002[13]: 1.015.600 |
|DE14 TUEBINGEN |April 2002[14]: 850.900 |
Unemployment rate (2002)
| |Average numbers per year |
|DE1 Baden-Württemberg[15]: |294.905 persons (5,4%)[16] |
| |(German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%) |
|DE11 STUTTGART [17] |99.992 persons |
|DE12 KARLSRUHE [18] |79.604 persons |
|DE13 FREIBURG [19] |57.476 persons |
|DE14 TUEBINGEN [20] |42.818 persons |
Technological standing (5 point scale): 4
Strengths[21]
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 third-largest 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
Weaknesses[24] [short description]
Few natural resources and energy resources; high export orientation
Evolution in last decade[25] [short description]
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 |2001 |2002 |
|Revenue |28.569.500 |29.559.600 |28.911.100 |28.132.300 |
|Spending |28.619.800 |30.264.000 |31.557.900 |30.779.600 |
DE11 STUTTGART (in thousand €)[28]
| |1999 |2000 |
|Revenue |10.930.411 |10.822.485 |
|Spending |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 |Industry (without |Building and |Trade, tourism, |Public and private |
| | |building and |construction trade |transportation |services[32]: |
| | |construction trade) | | | |
|DE1 |1999: 27.409 |1999: 1.413.316 |1999: 254.061 |1999: 759.216 |1999: 669.484 |
|Baden-Württemberg[33]|2000: 28.592 |2000: 1.426.307 |2000: 251.685 |2000: 782.802 |2000: 707.883 |
| |2001: 27.500 |2001 1.445.886 |2001: 239.452 |2001: 793.171 |2001: 731.269 |
|DE11 STUTTGART[34] |1999: 10.912 |1999: 598.728 |1999: 95.647 |1999: 288.586 |1999: 481.009 |
| |2000: 11.294 |2000: 605.212 |2000: 93.747 |2000: 297.739 |2000: 503.060 |
| |2001: 10.876 |2001: 615.304 |2001: 89.920 |2001: 301.637 |2001: 514.436 |
|DE12 KARLSRUHE[35] |1999: 5.464 |1999: 326.946 |1999: 61.531 |1999: 204.220 |1999: 358.088 |
| |2000: 5.868 |2000: 330.822 |2000: 61.007 |2000: 209.515 |2000: 372.899 |
| |2001: 5.662 |2001: 332.000 |2001: 57.840 |2001: 211.423 |2001: 383.324 |
|DE13 FREIBURG[36] |1999: 5.695 |1999: 265.378 |1999: 51.099 |1999: 105.144 |1999: 224.474 |
| |2000: 6.001 |2000: 267.824 |2000: 51.587 |2000: 155.518 |2000: 233.487 |
| |2001: 5.847 |2001: 271.967 |2001: 48.768 |2001: 158.868 |2001: 239.238 |
|DE14 TUEBINGEN[37] |1999: 5.338 |1999: 229.453 |1999: 45.784 |1999: 116.272 |1999: 189.030 |
| |2000: 5.429 |2000: 230.639 |2000: 45.344 |2000: 120.026 |2000: 195.990 |
| |2001: 5.115 |2001: 233.447 |2001: 42.924 |2001: 121.243 |2001: 200.322 |
Industrial Structure[38]:
Branches of industry (processing industry)
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
|Branch |Employment figures |
| |1995 |2000 |2002 |
|Food and tobacco |61.130 |64.277 |62.182 |
|Textile |55.344 |40.978 |35.994 |
|Timber |24.956 |20.838 |18.444 |
|Paper, printing, publishing |80.971 |81.177 |78.152 |
|Chemical industry |60.439 |59.783 |58.421 |
|Rubber and synthetic material |60.323 |63.145 |59.790 |
|Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |30.201 |26.501 |23.705 |
|Metal (production, working, ..) |135.755 |145.891 |145.263 |
|Mechanical engineering |275.070 |267.473 |272.648 |
|Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,… |214.759 |207.131 |202.836 |
|Vehicle production |194.311 |225.693 |235.578 |
|Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys, recycling |53.821 |46.663 |42.089 |
|Mining |4.729 |4.392 |4.307 |
|Processing industry |1.259.813 |1.254.521 |1.239.596 |
|Total industry |1.264.542 |1.258.913 |1.243.903 |
Investments[39]
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
|Branch |Investments(€) |
| |1995 |2000 |2001 |
|Food and tobacco |438.797.000 |431.246.000 |467.266.000 |
|Textile |176.247.000 |159.585.000 |158.889.000 |
|Timber |126.301.000 |117.838.000 |118.922.000 |
|Paper, printing, publishing |573.038.000 |686.277.000 |611.731.000 |
|Chemical industry |483.444.000 |716.295.000 |648.958.000 |
|Rubber and synthetic material |365.639.000 |442.325.000 |417.232.000 |
|Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |272.095.000 |239.581.000 |245.156.000 |
|Metal (production, working, ..) |677.936.000 |998.218.000 |1.138.222.000 |
|Mechanical engineering |1.109.366.000 |1.493.611.000 |1.507.200.000 |
|Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical |983.410.000 |1.438.677.000 |1.676.123.000 |
|equipment,… | | | |
|Vehicle production |1.524.690.000 |1.961.346.000 |2.608.920.000 |
|Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment,|175.955.000 |195.824.000 |173.944.000 |
|toys, recycling | | | |
|Mining |80.604.000 |76.929.000 |72.176.000 |
|Processing industry |6.951.784.000 |8.927.059.000 |9.840.690.000 |
|Total industry |7.032.388.000 |9.003.989.000 |9.912.866.000 |
Research base
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Employment in Education, research and university clinics[40]
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 universities[42]
|Semester |Beginners |Total number of |
| | |students |
|1999/00 |32.442 |187.453 |
|2000/01 |36.275 |194.000 |
|2001/02 |- |204.530 |
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Computer equipment in public schools 2001/02[43]
| |Number |Number of pupils |
|Total number of schools |3.964 | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |1.295.537 |
|Schools with internet access |3.783 | |
| |(95,4%) | |
|Special rooms for computer pools |4.841 | |
| |(1,2 per school) | |
|Special rooms for computer pools with internet |4.272 | |
|access | | |
|Computers to be used for lessons |110.330 | |
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Internet access and mobile phones in private households (2002)[44]
| |Total households |Single-person |Couples without |Couples with (still|
| | |households |children |minor) children |
|Mobile phones|63% |37% |66% |87% |
|Internet |61% |40% |52% |86% |
|access | | | | |
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Telephone equipment of private households (January 2001)[45]
|Households with… |…mobile phone only|…mobile phone and |… fixed-line |…without telephone|
| | |fixed-line |telephones | |
| | |telephones | | |
| |2% |52% |43% |3% |
Support infrastructure
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[46]
|Category |Motorway |Federal road |Provincial road |District road |Total |
| |(Autobahn) |(Bundesstraße) |(Landesstraße) |(Kreisstraße) | |
|Kilometres |1999: 1.021 |1999: 4.448 |1999: 9.950 |1999: 12.048 |1999: 27.467 |
| |2000: 1.025 |2000: 4.435 |2000: 9.938 |2000: 12.065 |2000: 27.463 |
| |2001: 1.029 |2001: 4.433 |2001: 9.937 |2001: 12.056 |2001: 27.455 |
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Vehicles[47]
|1998 |6.693.704 |
|1999 |6.836.002 |
|2000 |6.963.988 |
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
Doctors and dentists (2000)[48]
|Doctors |37.606 |
|Dentists |7.769 |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,3
|Territorial Policy |2,3 |
|Public sector transfer |0 (negative) |
|Employment policy |2,2 |
|Technology policy |4,5 |
Baden-Württemberg[49]
|BW |Fiscal resources |Divergence from national average (balance measurement) |
| |before SHES (in Mio.|(= 100) |
| |DM) | |
| | | |ERDF |
|GDP/capita (€) |22.944 |25.185 |28.565 |
|Population |9.899.200 |10.345.100 |10.560.800 |
|Employment (persons) |5.081.900 |5.010.100 |5.367.400 |
|Unemployment (persons) |159.318 |353.920 |264.213 |
|Unemployment rate |3,7 |8,0 |5,5 |
| |1995 |1997 |1999 |
|R+D expenditure (mio €)[51] |9302 |10045 |10997 |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
| |Strongly positive |Slightly positive |Neutral |Slightly negative |Strongly negative |
|Public sector transfer | | | |X | |
|Employment policy | | |X | | |
|Technology policy |X | | | | |
Bayern (Bavaria)
|NUTS 1: |NUTS 2: |
|DE2 Bayern |DE21 Oberbayern |
| |DE22 Niederbayern |
| |DE23 Oberpfalz |
| |DE24 Oberfranken |
| |DE25 Mittelfranken |
| |DE26 Niederfranken |
| |DE27 Schwaben |
GDP per capita (2000)
DE2 Bayern[52]: 28.933 € (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)[53]
DE21 Oberbayern[54]: 35.745 €
DE22 Niederbayern[55]: 22.521 €
DE23 Oberpfalz[56]: 24.973 €
DE24 Oberfranken[57]: 23.990 €
DE25 Mittelfranken[58]: 29.251 €
DE26 Niederfranken[59]: 24.013 €
DE27 Schwaben[60]: 24.905 €
Germany[61]: 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 Bayern[63] (mio €): 352.620
Germany[64] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[65] (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)[66]
6.229.300 (74,8%[67]) (German average = 68,8%)
DE21 Oberbayern 2.243.100[68]
DE22 Niederbayern 556.700[69]
DE23 Oberpfalz 532.000[70]
DE24 Oberfranken 547.000[71]
DE25 Mittelfranken 879.000[72]
DE26 Niederfranken 641.800[73]
DE27 Schwaben 840.9000[74]
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
Strengths[76] [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 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 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, Wacker-Chemie.
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, highly-precise 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.
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 panies: 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 micro-electronics, 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 Main-Spessart 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.
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 Bayern[81]
| |2001 |
|Revenue |33 537.000 |
|Spending |33.227.000 |
Employment per sector[82]
DE2 Bayern
|Agriculture: |Industry (without |Building and |Trade, tourism, |Public and private |
| |building and |construction trade: |transportation: |services[83]: |
| |construction trade): | | | |
| | | | | |
| |2000: 1.436.700 | | | |
|2000: 33.100 |2001: 1.449.500 |2000: 318.700 |2000: 1.009.000 |2000: 1.567.600 |
|2001: 32.300 | |2001: 302.000 |2001: 1.028.000 |2001: 1.617.200 |
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry (processing industry)[84]
|Branch |Employment figures |
| |2000 |2001 |2002 |
|Building and construction trade |174.157 |163.572 |151.542 |
|Energy industry |29.079 |30.467 |30.250 |
|Processing industry, mining, working of |1.207.000 |1.219.000 |1.186.000 |
|stone and earth | | | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[85]
|2001/02 |173.601 |
Public expenditure on science and research in 2000[86]
10,49 Mrd. €
Students at universities[87]
|1980 |152.857 |
|1990 |257.453 |
|1999 |210.774 |
Support infrastructure
DE2 Bayern
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[88]
|Road network |41.707 km |
|Motorway |2.283 km |
Vehicles[89]
|2002 |8.865.295 |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[90]
|Doctors |47.265 |
|Dentists |9.789 |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,5
|Territorial Policy |2,8 |
|Public sector transfer |0 (negative) |
|Employment policy |2,8 |
|Technology policy |4,4 |
Bayern[91]
|BY |Fiscal resources |Divergence from national average (balance measurement) |
| |before SHES (in Mio.|(= 100) |
| |DM) | |
| | | |ERDF |
|GDP/capita (€) |22.178 |25.402 |29.379 |
|Population |11.526.400 |12.015.800 |12.280.400 |
|Employment (persons) |5.976.600 |5.925.600 |6.295.200 |
|Unemployment (persons) |214.780 |401.991 |332.417 |
|Unemployment rate |4,4 |7,9 |6,0 |
| |1995 |1997 |1999 |
|R+D expenditure (mio €)[93] |8.240 |8.527 |9.629 |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
| |Strongly positive |Slightly positive |Neutral |Slightly negative |Strongly negative |
|Public sector transfer | | | |X | |
|Employment policy | | |X | | |
|Technology policy |X | | | | |
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 Berlin[94]: 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]
Germany[96]: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100, DE3 = 95,6[97]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE 3 Berlin[98] (mio €): 75.749
Germany[99] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[100](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
Strengths[104] [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 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.
Further indicators
DE3 Berlin
Public revenue and spending (mio €)[107]
| |1998 |1999 |
|Revenue[108] |12.091 |12.767 |
|Spending[109] |21.364 |21.305 |
Employment per sector[110]
|Agriculture: |Industry (without |Building and |Trade, tourism, |Public and private |
| |building and |construction trade: |transportation: |services[111]: |
| |construction trade):| | | |
| | | | | |
| |2000: 156.075 | | | |
| |2001: 153.650 |2000: 88.400 | |2000: 632.390 |
|2000: 5.900 | |2001: 74.000 |2000: 259.950 |2001: 638.225 |
|2001: 5.600 | | |2001: 259.150 | |
Industrial Structure
The Manufacturing Sector in Berlin in September 2001: Economic Divisions and Workforce Size (Companies with ... employees)[112]
|Economic Divisions |Total Number|1 – 49 |50 – 199 |200 – 499 |500 – 999 |1 000 and more|
| |of Companies| | | | | |
|Coal mining, peat |1 |- |1 |- |- |- |
|productiong | | | | | | |
|Stone and earth, other |4 |4 |- |- |- |- |
|extractive industry | | | | | | |
|Food |222 |168 |39 |11 |4 |- |
|Tobacco processing |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 |
|Publishing, printing and |1 009 |955 |45 |4 |3 |2 |
|duplication | | | | | | |
|Chemicals |103 |78 |19 |4 | |2 |
|Rubber and plastics |101 |83 |14 |3 |1 |- |
|production | | | | | | |
|Glass and ceramics, stone |79 |69 |6 |4 |- |- |
|and earth processing | | | | | | |
|Prime metal production and |27 |11 |9 |1 |- |- |
|processing | | | | | | |
|Metal products |261 |221 |32 |7 |- |1 |
|Mechanical engineering |206 |164 |31 |5 |4 |2 |
|Office equipment, EDP |25 |22 |3 |- |- |- |
|equipment and installations | | | | | | |
|Equipment for electricity |122 |85 |23 |11 |- |3 |
|generation, distribution etc| | | | | | |
|Radio, TV and communications|103 |77 |12 |10 |2 |- |
|technology | | | | | | |
|Medical technology, |175 |146 |25 |1 |3 |- |
|measurement and quality | | | | | | |
|assurance technology, optics| | | | | | |
|Motor vehicles and |16 |4 |7 |2 |2 |1 |
|components | | | | | | |
|Other vehicles |28 |16 |6 |5 |- |1 |
|Furniture, jewellery, |146 |141 |5 |- |- |- |
|musical instruments, sport | | | | | | |
|equipment, toys and other | | | | | | |
|products | | | | | | |
|Recycling |29 |26 |3 |- |- |- |
|Total |2 921 |2 508 |309 |70 |20 |14 |
(Source: Statistisches Landesamt Berlin [Berlin Statistics Office] 2002)
The Manufacturing Sector in Berlin: A Profile of the Key Groups in April 2002[113]
|Key Groups |Company |Total Workforce |Number of |Completed |Turnover |
| | | |Workers Employed|Workers’ |in million EUR |
| | | | |Working Hours | |
| | | | |in 1, 000s | |
|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 |
|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 |
|Changes vis-à-vis same month | | | | | |
|previous year in % | | | | | |
|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 |
|Consumer durables producers |-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 |
Investments[114]
Branches of industry (processing industry)
|Branch |Investments (€) |
| |1999 |2000 |2001 |
|Food |127.690.000 |124.086.000 |75.257.000 |
|Tobacco |- |34.723.000 |- |
|Textile |2.503.000 |2.485.000 |9.866.000 |
|Clothing |2.483.000 |1.349.000 |939.000 |
|Timber |1.632.000 |1.737.000 |2.113.000 |
|Paper |22.594.000 |19.813.000 |11.819.000 |
|Printing, publishing |100.658.000 |99.950.000 |116.391.000 |
|Chemical industry |65.863.000 |84.146.000 |100.948.000 |
|Rubber and synthetic material |37.765.000 |62.148.000 |46.942.000 |
|Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |18.408.000 |20.594.000 |13.364.000 |
|Metal (production, working, ..) |10.043.000 |6.239.000 |14.707.000 |
|Production of hardware |145.055.000 |90.873.000 |107.370.000 |
|Mechanical engineering |67.110.000 |74.563.000 |70.904.000 |
|Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,… |3.434.000 |2.042.000 |1.731.000 |
|Production of electricity producing appliances |74.799.000 |110.016.000 |96.838.000 |
|Radio, TV, news technique |36.031.000 |54.367.000 |92.449.000 |
|Medical and optical techniques, measurement technology, control engineering |17.961.000 |20.061.000 |20.872.000 |
|Vehicles and supplying products |61.606.000 |46.611.000 |61.801.000 |
|Other vehicle engineering |51.201.000 |61.394.000 |78.184.000 |
|Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys, recycling |5.368.000 |7.005.000 |4.835.000 |
|Recycling |2.594.000 |- |5.016.000 |
|Total |934.222.000 |925.425.000 |952.961.000 |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[115]
|2001/02 |73.658 |
Spending on universities (€)[116]
|1998 |2.107.113.000 |
|1999 |2.181.296.000 |
|2000 |2.145.808.000 |
Students at universities[117]
|Semester |Beginners |Total number of |
| | |students |
|1999/00 |4.840 |133.124 |
|2000/01 |5.011 |132.406 |
|2001/02 |5.169 |138.394 |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure 2001 (categories of streets)[118]
|Road network |182,8 km |
|Motorway |68,6 km |
Vehicles[119]
|1998 |1.372.292 |
|1999 |1.374.925 |
|2000 |1.384.202 |
|2001 |1.425.278 |
|2002 |1.440.174 |
|2003 |1.438.345 |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[120]
|Doctors |17.481 |
|Dentists |3.783 |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4,3
|Territorial Policy |4 |
|Public sector transfer |5 |
|Employment policy |3,8 |
|Technology policy |4,2 |
Berlin[121]
|BE |Fiscal resources |Divergence from national average (balance measurement) |
| |before SHES (in Mio.|(= 100) |
| |DM) | |
| | | |ERDF |
|GDP/capita (€) |17.851 |21.991 |22.507 |
|Population |3.438.800 |3.466.500 |3.385.100 |
|Employment (persons) |1.662.700 |1.581.900 |1.556.200 |
|Unemployment (persons) |179.953 |235.999 |272.307 |
|Unemployment rate |10,6 |15,2 |17,9 |
| |1995 |1997 |1999 |
|R+D expenditure (mio €)[123] |2.417 |2.588 |2.778 |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
| |Strongly positive |Slightly positive |Neutral |Slightly negative |Strongly negative |
|Public sector transfer |X | | | | |
|Employment policy |X | | | | |
|Technology policy |X | | | | |
Brandenburg
|NUTS 1: DE4 BRANDENBURG | |
GDP per head (2000)
DE4 Brandenburg[124];16.535 € (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin: 16.216 €)[125]
Germany[126]: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE 4= 69,4[127]
GDP at current prices/in million €
Brandenburg[128] (mio €): 43 000
Germany[129] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[130] (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
Strengths[135] [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.
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 high-tech 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.
Weaknesses[137] [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 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 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, 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 |2000 |2001 |2002 |
|Revenue |9.177,8 |9.244,2 |9.353,4 |8.508,0 |
|Spending |9.834,0 |9.699,5 |9.915,9 |10.163,1 |
Employment per sector[141]
|Agriculture: |Industry (without |Building and |Trade, tourism, |Public and private |
| |building and |construction trade: |transportation: |services[142]: |
| |construction trade): | | | |
| | | | | |
| |2002: 135.400 | | | |
| | |2002: 104.300 | |2002: 414.800 |
|2002: 37.200 | | |2002: 223.200 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry [143]
|Branch |Employment figures |
| |2002 |
|Processing industry including mining and |135.400 |
|working of stone and earth | |
|Building and construction trade |104.300 |
|Trade and craft |223.200 |
|Total industry |462.900 |
Investments[144]
|Branch |Investments in mill. € |
| |2000 |2001 |2002 |
|Processing industry including mining and working of stone and earth |1.045 |1.128 |1.138 |
|Production of goods of preliminary work (Vorleistungsgüter) |734 |705 |709 |
|Production of items of capital expenditure |194 |288 |259 |
|Production of consumer items (consumer and utility goods) |16 |37 |25 |
|Production of consumer goods |101 |98 |149 |
|Total processing industry |2.090 |2.256 |3.415 |
Research base
Employment in Education and, research[145]
|1999 |33.845 |
|2000 |33.971 |
|2001 |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 |Total number of |
|1999/2000 |2000: 4 812 |19.896 |
|2000/2001 |2001: 5 310 |21.649 |
|2001/2002 |2002: 5 254 |22.721 |
|2002/2003 |- |25 086 |
Total number of public schools[148]
|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 |2002 |
|ISDN |4,7 |5,7 |(8,5) |
|Mobil |31,6 |54,7 |70,4 |
|Answering machines |36,1 |39,2 |44,1 |
|Fax/PC fax cart |10,2 |10,0 |(12,4) |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets) [152]
|Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Federal road |Provincial road |District road |Total |
| | |(Bundesstraße) |(Landesstraße) |(Kreisstraße) | |
|Kilometres |1999: 766 |1999: 2.774 |1999: 5.801 |1999: 15.768 | 1999: 25.109 |
Vehicles[153]
|2001 |1.615.564 |
|2002 |1.639.823 |
|2003 |1.653.624 |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[154]
|Doctors |7.252 |
|Dentists |1.831 |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4,2
|Territorial Policy |4,3 |
|Public sector transfer |4,7 |
|Employment policy |4 |
|Technology policy |3,5 |
Brandenburg[155]
|BB |Fiscal resources |Divergence from national average (balance measurement) |
| |before SHES (in Mio.|(= 100) |
| |DM) | |
| | | |ERDF |
|GDP/capita (€) |7.451 |15.081 |16.787 |
|Population |256200 |2547500 |2596200 |
|Employment (persons) |1186900 |1066700 |1044900 |
|Unemployment (persons) |141.172 |187.051 |233.588 |
|Unemployment rate |10,3 |16,2 |18,8 |
| |1995 |1997 |1999 |
|R+D expenditure (mio €)[157] |507 |584 |672 |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
| |Strongly positive: |Slightly positive |Neutral |Slightly negative |Strongly negative |
|Public sector transfer |X | | | | |
|Employment policy |X | | | | |
|Technology policy | |X | | | |
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]
Germany[160]: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE5 = 142,9[161]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE5 Bremen[162]: 21 887
Germany[163] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[164](mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
388.000 persons in gainful employment[165] = 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
Strengths[168] [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 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 promoted the establishment of research institutes such as the 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.
Further indicators:
Public revenue and spending (mill €)[171]
|1999 |2000 |2001 | |Revenue |3.323 |3.023 |3.033 | |Spending |3.927 |3.931 |4.002 | |
Employment per sector[172]
Agriculture:
1999: 966
2000: 929 |Industry (without building and construction trade):
1999: 66.732
2000: 66.679 |Building and construction trade:
1999: 17.307
2000: 17.121 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
1999: 81.399
2000: 82.266 |Public and private services:[173]
1999: 110.109
2000: 114.373 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry[174]
Branch |Employment figures | | |2000 |2001 | |Production of goods of preliminary work (Vorleistungsgüter) |14.870 |14.891 | |Production of items of capital expenditure |33.136 |33.655 | |Production of consumer items (consumer and utility goods) |1.033 |1.056 | |Production of consumer goods |15.762 |15.528 | |Food and tobacco |1.392 |1.380 | |Paper, printing, publishing |2.198 |2.175 | |Fish processing |3.009 |3.100 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |1.967 |1.835 | |Mechanical engineering |5.352 |5.557 | |Production of equipment for the production of electricity |3.293 |3.558 | |Vehicle production |24.382 |24.747 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[175]
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 |Total number of | |1995/1996 |3 390 |26 369 | |2000/2001 |4 228 |26 538 | |2001/2002 |5 026 |28 220 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[178]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |59 |98 |157 | |
Vehicles[179]
2000 |331 392 | |2001 |337 252 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[180]
Doctors |3.155 | |Dentists |528 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,4
Territorial Policy |2,6 | |Public sector transfer |4,8 | |Employment policy |3,3 | |Technology policy |2,9 | |
Bremen[181]
HB |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |2.948 |80.9 |562 |3.510 |96.3 |121 |126 |0 |80 |1.800 |2.127 |3.631 |99.6 | |1996 |2.917 |79.2 |635 |3.552 |96.4 |120 |126 |0 |72 |1.800 |2.118 |3.672 |99.6 | |1997 |3.144 |86.4 |350 |3.494 |96.0 |130 |126 |0 |64 |1.800 |2.120 |3.624 |99.6 | |1998 |2.724 |71.8 |912 |3.636 |95.8 |142 |126 |0 |56 |1.800 |2.124 |3.778 |99.6 | |1999* |3.136 |79.3 |665 |3.801 |96.1 |139 |126 |0 |48 |1.800 |2.113 |3.940 |99.6 | |2000* |2.990 |73.9 |872 |3.862 |95.5 |164 |126 |0 |40 |1.600 |1.930 |4.026 |99.5 | |2001 |2.830 |74.9 |787 |3.618 |95.8 |144 |126 |0 |32 |1.400 |1.702 |3.761 |99.6 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 3,8
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Bremen |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 years[182]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |26.191 |29.107 |33.996 | |Population |682.500 |678.800 |660.300 | |Employment (persons) |405.300 |383.100 |391.000 | |Unemployment (persons) |31.629 |44.374 |39.851 | |Unemployment rate |10,7 |15,6 |13,6 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[183] |583 |427 |452 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | |X | | | | |Public sector transfer |X | | | | | |Employment policy |X | | | | | |Technology policy |X | | | | | |
Hamburg
DE6 Hamburg | | |
GDP per head (2000)
DE6 Hamburg[184]: 42.068 € (the highest in Germany) (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)[185]
Germany[186]: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE6 = 181,5[187]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE6 Hamburg (mio €): 71.947 [188]
Germany[189] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[190] (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)
Employment rate: 66,1 %[191][192] (86,2%[193]) (German average = 68,8%)
People employed: 1.042.100[194]
Unemployment rate (2002)
9 % [195] (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
People unemployed: 76.518[196]
Technological standing (5 point scale): 4,3
Strengths[197] [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 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 consumer-oriented 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 bio-technologies (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 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 politico-economic interests have shifted to the north-east of the republic.
Further Indicators
Public revenue and spending (mio €)[199]
|2001 |2002 | |Revenue |7.797,8 |8.256,3 | |Spending |9.366,7 |9.471,4 | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector[200]
Agriculture:
2000: 5.500
2001: 5.400
2002: 5.500 |Industry (without building and construction trade):
2000: 133.700
2001: 135.600
2002: 133.500 |Building and construction trade:
2000: 45.900
2001: 42.700
2002: 40.100 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
2000: 314.900
2001: 315.000
2002: 313.600 |Public and private services:[201]
2000: 542.800
2001: 554.000
2002: 553.000 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[202]
2001/02 |34.712 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (mio €)[203]
2001 |846,5 | |2002 |822,9 | |
Students at universities[204]
Wintersemester |Total number of | |1999/2000 |65 115 | |2000/2001 |64 084 | |2001/2002 |66 514 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[205]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |59 |98 |157 | |
Vehicles[206]
2003 |947.472 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[207]
Doctors |9.046 | |Dentists |1.725 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 1,8
Territorial Policy |1,8 | |Public sector transfer |0 (negative) | |Employment policy |3 | |Technology policy |2,5 | |
Hamburg[208]
HH |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |9.553 |103.5 |-117 |9.453 |102.2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |9.453 |102.2 | |1996 |10.099 |107.9 |-482 |9.618 |102.8 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |9.618 |102.8 | |1997 |9.753 |105.2 |-273 |9.480 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |9.480 |102.3 | |1998 |10.669 |109.8 |-615 |10.054 |103.5 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |10.054 |103.5 | |1999* |11.242 |110.2 |-665 |10.577 |103.7 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |10.577 |103.7 | |2000* |12.178 |116.0 |-1.099 |11.079 |105.5 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |11.079 |105.5 | |2001 |10.843 |109.3 |-520 |10.322 |104.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |10.322 |104.1 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 3
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Hamburg |12.384 |6.192 |6.192 |100% |- |- |- |- | |
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 years[209]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |33.057 |37.903 |42.749 | |Population |1.660.700 |1.708.400 |1.721.000 | |Employment (persons) |1.024.400 |1.009.800 |1.052.600 | |Unemployment (persons) |63.013 |83.942 |70.648 | |Unemployment rate |8,7 |11,7 |9,3 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[210] |1.233 |1.309 |1.263 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | | |X | | | |Public sector transfer | | | |X | | |Employment policy | |X | | | | |Technology policy | | |X | | | |
Hessen
NUTS 1: DE7 Hessen |NUTS 2: DE71 DARMSTADT
DE72 GIEßEN
DE73 KASSEL | |
GDP per head (2000)
DE7 Hessen[211]: 30.347 € (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)[212]
Germany[213]: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE7 = 129,4, DE71 = 148,8, DE72 = 95,0, DE 73 = 101,3[214]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DE7 Hessen[215] (mio €): 183.055 €
Germany[216] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[217] (mio €): 8.524.371
Employment rate (2000)
DE7 Hessen: 72,5%[218] (2.992.800 persons employed[219]) (German average = 68,8%)
DE71 Darmstadt 1.946.500[220]
DE72 Gießen 453.600[221]
DE73 Kassel 588.300[222]
Unemployment rate (2002)
DE7 Hessen 7,8[223] (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)
Strengths[228] [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 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 sub-sectors) (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 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.
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.
Further indicators:
Public revenue and spending (mio €)[233]
|1999 | |Tax Revenue |14.343 | |Spending |17.930 | |
DE7 Hessen
Employment per sector[234]
Agriculture:
1999: 47.500
2000: 47.700
2001: 48.000 |Industry (without building and construction trade):
1999: 792.500
2000: 787.200
2001: 780.200 |Building and construction trade:
1999: 64.329
2000: 62.714
2001: 59.116 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
1999: 770.300
2000: 794.400
2001: 802.800 |Public and private services:[235]
1999: 1.315.500
2000: 1.363.600
2001: 1.391.700 | |
DE71 DARMSTADT[236]
Total employment |1.975.700 | |Employment per sector 2001 |1,0%
Agriculture
|22,9%
Proceeding Industry (including building and construction trade) |76,0%
Public and private services:[237]
| |DE72 GIEßEN[238]
Employment per sector
Total employment |457.100 | |Employment per sector 2001 |2,3%
Agriculture
|32,1%
Proceeding Industry (including building and construction trade) |65,5%
Public and private services:[239]
| |DE73 KASSEL[240]
Employment per sector[241]
Total employment |590.000 | |Employment per sector 2001 |2,9%
Agriculture
|30,5%
Proceeding Industry (including building and construction trade) |66,5%
Public and private services:[242]
| |
Industrial Structure
DE7 Hessen
Branches of industry[243]
Branch |Employment figures | | |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002
(average of IV. quarter) | |Food and tobacco |34.873 |35.216 |34.789 |34.726 | |Paper, printing, publishing |30.438 |31.166 |31.844 |29.204 | |Chemical industry |65.927 |63.899 |64.246 |62.903 | |Rubber and synthetic material |35.535 |35.858 |36.148 |34.925 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |51.844 |51.253 |51.904 |50.705 | |Mechanical engineering |64.009 |63.109 |62.582 |60.533 | |Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,… |63.667 |63.896 |64.930 |62.186 | |Vehicle production |72.003 |70.647 |69.766 |67.207 | |
DE7 Hessen
Investments[244]
Branch |Investments (1000€) | | |2000 |2001 | |Food and tobacco |277.510 |239.511 | |Paper, printing, publishing |229.495 |176.311 | |Chemical industry |862.362 |926.161 | |Rubber and synthetic material |277.173 |279.567 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |360.970 |347.505 | |Mechanical engineering |275.637 |259.344 | |Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,… |337.388 |391.866 | |Vehicle production |705.408 |867.767 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[245]
2001/02 |92.963 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (mio €)[246]
1999 |4.437 | |
DE7 Hessen
Students at universities[247]
Wintersemester |Beginners |Total number of | |1999/2000 |18.039 |149.046 | |2000/2001 |19.549 |150.868 | |2001/2002 |21.971 |156.414 | |
DE7 Hessen
Computer equipment per 100 private household s[248]
1993 |1998 | |24,6 |44,3 | |
DE7 Hessen
Internet access or online services per 100 private households[249]
1993 |1998 | |- |8,5 | |
DE7 Hessen
Telephone equipment per 100 private households[250]
|1993 |1998 | |ISDN |- |6,6 | |Telefons |97,5 |98,0 | |Mobil |- |11,9 | |Answering machines |- |37,9 | |Fax/PC fax cart |- |17,9 | |
Support infrastructure
DE7 Hessen
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[251]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Federal road (Bundesstraße) |Provincial road (Landesstraße) |District road (Kreisstraße) |Total | |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
1998[252] |3.919.120 | |1999[253] |3.970.485 | |2000[254] |4.095.245 | |2003[255] |4.198.953 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[256]
Doctors |22.509 | |Dentists |4.838 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 1,8
Territorial Policy |2 | |Public sector transfer |0 (negative) | |Employment policy |2,3 | |Technology policy |2,8 | |
Hessen[257]
HE |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |27.444 |112.2 |-2.153 |25.292 |103.4 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |25.292 |103.4 | |1996 |29.122 |117.2 |-3.240 |25.883 |104.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |25.883 |104.1 | |1997 |28.897 |116.9 |-3.148 |25.749 |104.2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |25.749 |104.2 | |1998 |30.589 |117.6 |-3.439 |27.150 |104.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |27.150 |104.3 | |1999* |33.621 |123.0 |-4.744 |28.877 |105.6 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |28.877 |105.6 | |2000* |35.254 |125.3 |-5.354 |29.901 |106.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |29.901 |106.3 | |2001 |33.266 |125.7 |-5.129 |28.137 |106.4 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |28.137 |106.4 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 3
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Hesse |542.379 |183.519 |183.519 |100% |- |- |- |- | |
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 years[258]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |24.055 |27.326 |30.966 | |Population |5.795.700 |6.017.900 |6.072.900 | |Employment (persons) |2.890.800 |2.870.900 |3.022.800 | |Unemployment (persons) |123.264 |254.050 |200.533 | |Unemployment rate |5,1 |9,3 |7,4 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[259] |3631 |3755 |4482 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive:
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | | |X | | | |Public sector transfer | | | |X | | |Employment policy | | |X | | | |Technology policy | |X | | | | |
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Mecklenburg-West Pomerania)
NUTS 1: DE8 MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN | | |
GDP per head (2000) in €
DE8 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern[260]: 16.240€ (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin: 16.216 €)[261]
Germany[262]: 24.700€
EU-15 = 100; DE8 = 69,4[263]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern[264] (mio €): 28.643
Germany[265] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[266](mio €): 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
59,7%[267] (753.700 persons[268]) (German average = 68,8%)
Unemployment rate (2002)
18,6 %[269] (169.747 persons[270]) (German average: 9,8%; West 7,9%, East: 18,0%)
Technological standing (5 point scale): 3-3,5
Strengths[271] [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.
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 Greifswald-Rostock 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, Technologie- und 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]
Weaknesses[273] [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 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 |2000 |2001 | |Revenue |6.734 |6.479 |6.508 | |Spending |7.236 |7.118 |7.058 | |
Employment per sector[276] (in 1000)
|Agriculture:
|Industry (without building and construction trade): |Building and construction trade:
|Trade, tourism, transportation:
|Private and
Public services[277]
| |1999 |38,3 |85,8 |103,7 |196,8 |336,7 | |2000 |35,9 |84,7 |96,5 |196,4 |338,7 | |2001 |32,5 |84,1 |84,0 |191,5 |338,8 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry[278]
Branch |Employment figures | | |2000
(June 2000) |2001 | |Food and tobacco |16.813 |14.714 | |Textile, clothing, leather |1.093 |263
(only textile) | |Timber |2.924 |2.412 | |Paper, printing, publishing |3.839 |3.139 | |Chemical industry |- |950 | |Rubber and synthetic material |1.712 |1.371 | |Glas, ceramic, processing of stone and earth |3.888 |2.623 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |11.741 |11.626 | |Mechanical engineering |6.584 |2.707 | |Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,… |6.370 |4.359 | |Vehicle production |7.461 |7.446 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys, recycling |7.522 |3.969 | |
Investments[279]
Branch |Investments (1000€) in 2000 | | |Business (Betrieb) |Enterprises
(Unternehmen) | |Food and tobacco |91.718 |90.026 | |Textile, clothing, leather |994
(only textile) |- | |Timber |234.980 |234.209 | |Paper, printing, publishing |35.471 |40.233 | |Chemical industry |10.281 |5.421 | |Rubber and synthetic material |10.174 |10.429 | |Glas, ceramic, processing of stone and earth |26.702 |17.076 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |87.861 |58.206 | |Mechanical engineering |22.158 |22.900 | |Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,… |29.879 |20.781 | |Production of equipment for the production of electricity |16.554 |10.662 | |Vehicle production |26.808 |41.758 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys, recycling |14.704 |28.832 | |
Employment in education, higher education and research[280]
2001/02 |28.813 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (1.000 €)[281]
2000 |188.412 | |
Students at universities[282]
Semester |Beginners |Total number of students | |1999/00 |5.521 |25.830 | |2000/01 |5.782 |27.171 | |2001/02 |5.467 |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 |(2,3) | |Telefons |94,1 | |Mobil |11,3 | |Answering machines |29,0 | |Fax/PC fax cart |7,5 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets), in kilometres[286]
|Motorway (Autobahn) |Federal road (Bundesstraße) |Provincial road (Landesstraße) |District road (Kreisstraße) |Total | |1999 |262 |2.072 |3.239 |4.130 |9.703 | |2000 |336 |2.077 |3.242 |4.123 |9.778 | |2001 |354 |2.081 |3.246 |4.124 |9.805 | |
Vehicles[287]
2000 |1.006.878 | |2001 |1.041.001 | |2002 |1.051.961 | |
Doctors and dentists[288]
|1999 |2000 |2001 | |Total |5.982 |6.024 |6.031 | |dentists |1.533 |1.524 |1.522 | |1 doctor per .... inhabitants |300 |296 |292 | |1 dentist per ... inhabitants |1.170 |1.171 |1.156 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,7
Territorial Policy |3,7 | |Public sector transfer |4,7 | |Employment policy |3,5 | |Technology policy |3 | |
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern[289]
MV |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |6.291 |84.6 |771 |7.062 |95.0 |335 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.978 |7.397 |99.5 | |1996 |6.260 |83.6 |856 |7.116 |95.0 |337 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.980 |7.453 |99.5 | |1997 |6.195 |83.6 |843 |7.038 |95.0 |333 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.976 |7.371 |99.5 | |1998 |6.476 |83.7 |877 |7.353 |95.0 |348 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.991 |7.701 |99.5 | |1999* |6.757 |83.6 |921 |7.678 |95.0 |364 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |2.007 |8.042 |99.5 | |2000* |6.879 |83.1 |983 |7.862 |95.0 |372 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |2.015 |8.234 |99.5 | |2001 |6.446 |83.9 |853 |7.299 |95.0 |346 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.989 |7.645 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 6,6
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objetive 1 |Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania |5493.088 |2455.750 |1100.19 |44.80% |613.47 |24.98% |742.09 |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 years[290]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |7.334 |14.888 |16.500 | |Population |1.907.700 |1.820.300 |1.767.800 | |Employment (persons) |845.600 |773.600 |734.600 | |Unemployment (persons) |128.303 |171.106 |167.938 | |Unemployment rate |12,5 |18,0 |19,6 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[291] |249 |268 |291 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy |X | | | | | |Public sector transfer |X | | | | | |Employment policy |X | | | | | |Technology policy | |X | | | | |
Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony)
NUTS 1: DE9 Niedersachsen |NUTS 2 DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG
DE92 HANNOVER
DE93 LÜNEBURG
DE94 WESER-EMS | |
GDP per head (2000)
DE9 Niedersachsen[292]: 22.320 € (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)[293]
Germany[294]: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DE9 = 96,0; DE91 = 106,1; DE92 = 108,2; DE93 = 78,5; DE94 = 90,1[295]
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DE9 Niedersachsen[296]: 176.579
Germany[297]: 2.030.000
EU-15[298]: 8 524 371
Employment rate (2000)
DE9 Niedersachsen 3.479.900 persons[299] (65,6%)[300] (German average = 68,8%)
DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG: 752.000[301]
DE92 HANNOVER: 1.023.100[302]
DE93 LÜNEBURG: 629.300[303]
DE94 WESER-EMS: 1.081.400[304]
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
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 non-university 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. 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, Deta-Akkumulatorenwerk 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]
|2001 |2002 | |Revenue |43.342.660.771,84 DM |18.195.700.000 € | |Spending |45.229.079.111,55 DM |21.685..000.000 € | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector
|Agriculture (including meat processing industry) |Industry (without building and construction trade) |Building and construction trade:
|Trade, tourism, transportation: |Public and private services:[310] | |DE9 Niedersachsen[311] |1999: 123.300[312]
2000: 123.500[313]
2001: 124.000[314]
2000: 31.111[315]
06/2001: 35.572[316] |1999: 1.410.000[317]
2000: 1.419.600[318]
2001: 1.419.000[319]
2000: 678.521[320]
06/2001: 674.007[321] |1999: 231.600[322]
2000: 230.500[323]
2001: 216.500[324]
2000: 189.647[325]
06/2001: 186.630[326] |1999: 916.100[327]
2000: 936.800[328]
2001: 935.700[329]
2000: 589.445[330]
06/2001: 583.301[331] |1999: 1.417.900[332]
2000: 1.463.200[333]
2001: 1.482.900[334]
2000: 1.409.196[335]
06/2001: 1.403.934[336] | |DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG[337] |06/2001: 5.147 |06/2001: 197.954 |06/2001: 33.037 |06/2001: 109.348 |06/2001: 319.087 | |DE92 HANNOVER [338] |06/2001: 6.363 |06/2001: 119.931 |06/2001:46.728 |06/2001:182.769 |06/2001: 451.245 | |DE93 LÜNEBURG: [339] |06/2001: 9.617 |06/2001: 90.942 |06/2001:41.615 |06/2001: 113.532 |06/2001: 236.071 | |DE94 WESER-EMS: [340] |06/2001: 14.445 |06/2001: 207.100 |06/2001:65.250 |06/2001: 177.652 |06/2001: 397.531 | |
Industrial Structure
DE9 Niedersachsen
Branches of industry[341]
Branch |Employment figures 06/2000 | | |DE9 Niedersachsen[342] (03/2003) |DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG |DE92 HANNOVER |DE93 LÜNEBURG |DE94 WESER-EMS: | |Mining, stones, coal, ore |8.133 |2.738 |3.846 |1.916 |4.769 | |Food and tobacco |75.264 |11.988 |16.098 |23.275 |37.273 | |Textile, clothing, leather |10.284 |1.982 |2.565 |2.085 |6.698 | |Timber |7.592 |2.859 |2.303 |1.768 |4.915 | |Paper, printing, publishing |38.030 |10.447 |15.139 |5.665 |15.300 | |Mineral oil processing industry |1.770 |- |- |115 |1.291 | |Chemical industry |27.833 |5.698 |10.472 |7.394 |5.500 | |Rubber and synthetic material |42.185 |11.324 |15.964 |7.142 |14.396 | |Glas, ceramic, processing of stones and earth |19.081 |4.384 |9.154 |2.680 |6.813 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |53.566 |23.686 |15.253 |9.337 |28.703 | |Mechanical engineering |50.580 |10.388 |19.680 |12.182 |22.861 | |Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment,… |54.403 |24..836 |26.237 |5.704 |12.030 | |Vehicle production |138.636 |79.124 |24.841 |3.662 |31.117 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys, recycling |12.599 |3.737 |7.647 |4.026 |10.116 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[343]
2001/02 |58.798 | |
Public expenditure on science and research[344]
2001 |11.674.467.720,82 DM | |2003 |6.032,8 mio € | |
Students at universities[345]
Wintersemester |Total number of | |1999/2000 |143.307 | |2000/2001 |143.559 | |2001/2002 |150.104 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[346]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |1.352 |26.722 |28.074 | |
Vehicles
2001[347] |DE9 Niedersachsen: 4.940.598
DE91 BRAUNSCHWEIG: 1.030.390
DE92 HANNOVER: 1.350.072
DE93 LÜNEBURG: 1.090.102
DE94 WESER-EMS: 1.470.034 | |2003[348] |DE9 Niedersachsen: 5.328.738 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[349]
Doctors |24.331 | |Dentists |5.639 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,1
Territorial Policy |3,5 | |Public sector transfer |2,3 | |Employment policy |3 | |Technology policy |3,5 | |
Niedersachsen[350]
NI |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) |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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |30.413 |96.2 |0.452 |30.866 |97.6 |678 |0 |0 |507 |0 |1.185 |31.544 |99.8 | |1996 |30.739 |95.4 |0.553 |31.292 |97.1 |830 |0 |0 |456 |0 |1.286 |32.121 |99.7 | |1997 |30.312 |94.4 |0.672 |30.984 |96.5 |1.008 |0 |0 |406 |0 |1.414 |31.992 |99.6 | |1998 |31.772 |93.8 |0.788 |32.560 |96.1 |1.182 |0 |0 |355 |0 |1.537 |33.742 |99.6 | |1999* |32.889 |92.2 |1.037 |33.926 |95.2 |1.556 |0 |0 |304 |0 |1.860 |35.482 |99.5 | |2000* |33.793 |92.0 |1.113 |34.906 |95.0 |1.637 |0 |0 |253 |0 |1.890 |36.543 |99.5 | |2001 |30.972 |89.6 |1.864 |32.837 |95.0 |1.556 |0 |0 |203 |0 |1.759 |34.393 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 3,3
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Lower Saxony |1492.457 |733.953 |682.254 |92.96% |51.699 |7.04% |- |- | |
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 years[351]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |18.573 |20.471 |22.725 | |Population |7.426.700 |7.795.700 |7.939.600 | |Employment (persons) |3.294.900 |3.330.600 |3.483.900 | |Unemployment (persons) |244.283
|386.244
|350.110
| |Unemployment rate |8,1 |12,1 |10,0 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[352] |2772 |2859 |3962 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive:
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | |X | | | | |Public sector transfer | |X | | | | |Employment policy | |X | | | | |Technology policy | |X | | | | |
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]
Germany[355]: 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEA = 108,6 DEA1 =121,2; DEA2 = 115,5; DEA3 = 87,7; DEA = 105,5; DEA= 99,7[356]
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen[357]: 450.137
Germany[358] : 2.030.000
EU-15[359]: 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: 2.502.200[361]
DEA2 KÖLN: 2.028.800[362]
DEA3 MÜNSTER: 1.118.000[363]
DEA4 DETMOLD: 986.500[364]
DEA5 ARNSBERG: 1.686.200[365]
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%)
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: hard coal, iron and steel industry, automotive industry, electrical
engineering, installation construction, environmental technology and recycling
• ‘Rhineline’: chemical industry, automotive industry, administrative centre, financial and
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
• ‘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-in-four 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 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]
|2001 |2002 | |Revenue |49.160,8 |48.558,4 | |Spending |54.929,5 |54.551,8 | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector
|Agriculture
|Industry
|Trade, tourism, transportation |Public and private services[377] | |DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen[378]
|1999: 123.000
2000: 122.900
2001: 123.000 |1999: 2.425.500
2000: 2.413.300
2001: 2.367.600 |1999: 2.139.500
2000: 2.206.700
2001: 2.231.700 |1999: 3.434.600
2000: 3.598.700
2001: 3.674.700 | |DEA1 DUESSELDORF[379]
|1999: 27.300
2000: 27.700
2001: 28.100 |1999: 688.00
2000: 678.300
2001: 664.400 |1999: 685.100
2000: 699.900
2001: 707.400 |1999: 1.060.900
2000: 1.103.100
2001: 1.127.000 | |DEA2 KOELN[380]
|1999: 22.800
2000: 22.800
2001: 22.600 |1999: 495.100
2000: 496.500
2001: 490.100 |1999: 514.000
2000: 534.300
2001: 542.200 |1999: 926.900
2000: 973.100
2001: 996.700 | |DEA3 MUENSTER[381]
|1999: 28.800
2000: 29.000
2001: 29.500 |1999: 330.700
2000: 327.700
2001: 318.800 |1999: 286.300
2000: 297.400
2001: 300.800 |1999: 450.800
2000: 470.000
2001: 477.100 | |DEA4 DETMOLD[382]
|1999: 22.900
2000: 22.600
2001: 22.200 |1999: 343.00
2000: 345.400
2001: 341.400 |1999: 241.600
2000: 248.000
2001: 250.100 |1999: 357.100
2000: 371.900
2001: 379.200 | |DEA5 ARNSBERG[383]
|1999: 21.200
2000: 20.700
2001: 20.600 |1999: 568.700
2000: 565.400
2001: 553.000 |1999: 412.600
2000: 427.000
2001: 431.100 |1999: 648.900
2000: 680.500
2001: 694.700 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry[384]
Branch |Employment figures | | |DEA Nordrhein-Westfalen[385] |DEA1 DUESSEL-DORF[386] |DEA2 KOELN[387] |DEA3 MUENSTER[388] |DEA4 DETMOLD[389] |DEA5 ARNSBERG[390] | | |2000 |2001 |2000 |2001 |2000 |2001 |2000 |2001 |2000 |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 |53.875 |51.626 |13.917 |14.585 |6.767 |6.035 |16.011 |16.202 |9.429 |9.097 |5.319 |4.838 | |Timber |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 |90.288 |91.607 |24.969 |25.074 |27.236 |27.771 |7.781 |8.166 |17.104 |17.020 |13.198 |13.574 | |Mineral oil processing industry |5.501 |4.978 |- |568 |694 |- |- |3.474 |- |- |- |- | |Chemical industry
|134.098 |131.813 |47.919 |46.945 |55.345 |53.619 |15.985 |16.363 |5.421 |5.412 |9.429 |9-474 | |Rubber and synthetic material |71.504 |72.763 |11.068 |11.035 |22.178 |22.769 |10.901 |10.942 |12.600 |12.920 |14.757 |15.097 | |Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |44.251 |43.046 |10.498 |9.703 |12.600 |12.521 |9.336 |9.073 |5.513 |5.240 |6.304 |6.510 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |315.472 |314.828 |110.927 |109.409 |31.815 |30.793 |19.987 |19.626 |26.288 |26.943 |136.456 |128.058 | |Mechanical engineering |228.314 |25.295 |59.936 |58.318 |36.734 |36.813 |31.250 |29.709 |41.379 |42.234 |59.016 |58.221 | |Production of equipment for the production of electricity, office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment tv,… |158.104 |159.879 |37.222 |37.910 |28.452 |29.499 |11.247 |11.153 |23.709 |25.038 |57.474 |56.280 | |Vehicle production |102.750 |102.384 |25.541 |25.036 |34.761 |35.028 |6.204 |6.486 |9.843 |9.998 |26.401 |25.836 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys |58.991 |57.417 |5.2115 |4.016 |4.540 |4.507 |8.540 |8.745 |30.854 |30.365 |9.843 |9.784 | |Recycling
|779 |775 |335 |289 |195 |214 |132 |148 |- |- |117 |- | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[391]
2001/02 |264.433 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (mio. €)[392]
2002 |12.807,5 | |
Students at universities[393]
Wintersemester |Total number of | |1999/2000 |492.772 | |2000/2001 |492.701 | |2001/2002 |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 machines |- |45 | |Fax/PC fax cart |- |18 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[397]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |2.180 |27.448 |29.628 | |
Vehicles
1999[398] |10.606.152 | |2000[399] |10.741.517 | |2001[400] |10.969.936 | |2003[401] |11.255.936 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[402]
Doctors |62.944 | |Dentists |12.473 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 3,3
Territorial Policy |3,5 | |Public sector transfer |0 (negative) | |Employment policy |3,3 | |Technology policy |4,3 | |
Nordrhein-Westfalen[403]
NRW |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |78.448 |107.0 |-3.449 |74.999 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |74.999 |102.3 | |1996 |79.253 |106.4 |-3.125 |76.128 |102.2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |76.128 |102.2 | |1997 |78.854 |106.4 |-3.059 |75.795 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |75.795 |102.3 | |1998 |82.931 |106.3 |-3.096 |79.835 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |79.835 |102.3 | |1999* |86.242 |105.3 |-2.578 |83.664 |102.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |83.664 |102.1 | |2000* |88.071 |104.6 |-2.201 |85.871 |101.9 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |85.871 |101.9 | |2001 |80.402 |101.7 |-0.525 |79.876 |101.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |79.876 |101.1 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 3,3
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |North Rhine-Westphalia |3598.623 |970.361 |823.62 |84.88% |146.741 |15.12% |- |- | |
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 years[404]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |20.774 |22.964 |25.411 | |Population |17.426.200 |17.913.700 |1.702.700 | |Employment (persons) |7.970.800 |7.801.800 |8.397.000 | |Unemployment (persons) |561.331 |826.959 |766.277 | |Unemployment rate |7,9 |11,4 |9,6 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[405] |6729 |7101 |7792 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive:
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | |X | | | | |Public sector transfer | | | |X | | |Employment policy | |X | | | | |Technology policy |X | | | | | |
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]
Germany[408] 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEB = 96,7; DEB1 = 89,5; DEB2 = 85,4; DEB3 = 105,0[409]
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz[410]: 89.427
Germany[411]: 2.030.000
EU-15[412]: 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 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. [pic]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 full-time employees) work in the agricultural sector. Moreover, Rheinland-Pfalz is the biggest wine-producing 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]
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]
|2000 |2001 |2002 (draft) |2003 (draft) | |Revenue |10.598,0 |10.624,6 |10.530,9 |10.817,5 | |Spending |11.075,7 |11.277,1 |11.379,5 |11.598,7 | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector
DEB Rheinland-Pfalz [421]
Agriculture:
2000: 52.800
2001: 53.800
2002: 54.100 |Industry (without building and construction trade):
2000: 396.700
2001: 393.000
2002: 385.600 |Building and construction trade:
2000: 116.200
2001: 115.400
2002: 110.500 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
2000: 891.000
2001: 902.600
2002: 908.000 |Public and private services:[422]
2000: 1.089.600
2001: 1.098.800
2002: 1.110.100 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry[423]
Branch |Employment figures 2002 | |Food and tobacco |24.958 | |Textile, clothing, leather |9.339 | |Timber |7.932 | |Paper, printing, publishing |17.787 | |Mineral oil processing industry |332 | |Chemical industry |60.017 | |Rubber and synthetic material |23.400 | |Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |19.281 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |37.862 | |Mechanical engineering |36.130 | |Production of equipment for the production of electricity, office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment tv,… |19.183 | |Vehicle production |29.425 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys, recycling |9.588 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[424]
2001/02 |55.669 | |
Public expenditure on science and research)[425]
2000 |5.744,9 mio DM | |
Students at universities[426]
Wintersemester |Total number of | |1996/97 |81.227 | |2001/2002 |85.881 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[427]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |839 |17.649 |18.488 | |
Vehicles
2002[428] |2.861.809 | |2003[429] |2.885.533 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[430]
Doctors |10.751 | |Dentists |2.023 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,5
Territorial Policy |2,5 | |Public sector transfer |2,8 | |Employment policy |2 | |Technology policy |2,5 | |
Rheinland-Pfalz[431]
RP |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |15.545 |96.2 |229 |15.773 |97.6 |343 |219 |0 |451 |0 |1.013 |16.116 |99.8 | |1996 |15.824 |96.3 |231 |16.056 |97.7 |347 |219 |0 |406 |0 |972 |16.403 |99.8 | |1997 |15.628 |95.2 |296 |15.924 |97.0 |444 |219 |0 |361 |0 |1.024 |16.368 |99.7 | |1998 |16.169 |93.4 |429 |16.598 |95.9 |644 |219 |0 |316 |0 |1.179 |17.242 |99.6 | |1999* |17.199 |94.5 |379 |17.578 |96.5 |568 |219 |0 |271 |0 |1.058 |18.146 |99.7 | |2000* |17.002 |90.8 |780 |17.782 |95.0 |842 |219 |0 |226 |0 |1.287 |18.624 |99.5 | |2001 |16.377 |93.2 |451 |16.828 |95.7 |676 |219 |0 |180 |0 |1.075 |17.504 |99.6 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 2,8
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Rhineland-Palatinate |1402.927 |170.677 |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 years[432]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |18.887 |20.507 |22.529 | |Population |3.788.700 |3.985.800 |4.041.200 | |Employment (persons) |1.675.300 |1.667.400 |1.761.800 | |Unemployment (persons) |82.334
|149.782
|134.801
| |Unemployment rate |5,4 |9,4 |7,6 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[433] |1457 |1766 |1948 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive:
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | | |X | | | |Public sector transfer | |X | | | | |Employment policy | | |X | | | |Technology policy | | |X | | | |
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]
Germany[436] 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEC = 96,8[437]
GDP at current prices/in Million € (2000)
DEC Saarland[438]: 24.248
Germany[439]: 2.030.000
EU-15[440]: 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).
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 Saar-Lor-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 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 |2002 |2003 | |Revenue |3.193.407.200 |3.146.288.500 |3.004.060.500 | |Spending |3.356.084.200 |3.364.793.100 |3.382.473.200 | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector[448]
Agriculture:
2002: 1.564 |Industry (without building and construction trade):
2002: 115.314 |Building and construction trade:
2002: 21.390 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
2002: 77.186 |Public and private services:[449]
2002: 137.973 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry[450]
Branch |Employment figures 2002 | | | | |Food and tobacco |8.100 | |Textile |398 | |Timber |774 | |Paper, printing, publishing |2.241 | |Chemical industry |794 | |Rubber and synthetic material |5.486 | |Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |4.246 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |43.932 | |Mechanical engineering |12.925 | |Production of equipment for the production of electricity |3.463 | |Production of office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment tv,… |3.065 | |Vehicle production |225.007 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys, recycling |1.155 | |Recycling |134 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[451]
2001/02 |17.679 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (mio. €)[452]
2001 |826,6 | |2002 |847,2 | |2003 |876,8 | |
Students at universities[453]
|Beginners (included in total number) |Total number of | |Wintersemester 2000/01 |3.004 |19.970 | |Summersemester 2002 |307 |18.857 | |Wintersemester 2001/02 |3.270 |20.150 | |Summersemester 2002 |355 |18.954 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[454]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |236 |1.795 |2.031 | |
Vehicles
1999[455] |690.338 | |2000[456] |701.288 | |2001[457] |728.338 | |2001[458] |741.922 | |2003[459] |746.185 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[460]
Doctors |4.020 | |Dentists |658 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,5
Territorial Policy |2,5 | |Public sector transfer |2,5 | |Employment policy |3 | |Technology policy |2 | |
Saarland[461]
SL |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |4.019 |90.9 |180 |4.199 |95.0 |199 |153 |0 |80 |1.600 |2.032 |4.398 |99.5 | |1996 |4.017 |89.8 |234 |4.251 |95.0 |201 |153 |0 |72 |1.600 |2.026 |4.452 |99.5 | |1997 |4.010 |90.4 |204 |4.214 |95.0 |200 |153 |0 |64 |1.600 |2.017 |4.414 |99.5 | |1998 |4.185 |90.1 |228 |4.413 |95.0 |209 |153 |0 |56 |1.600 |2.018 |4.622 |99.5 | |1999* |4.315 |88.9 |294 |4.609 |95.0 |218 |153 |0 |48 |1.200 |1.619 |4.827 |99.5 | |2000* |4.402 |88.4 |329 |4.731 |95.0 |224 |153 |0 |40 |1.050 |1.467 |4.955 |99.5 | |2001 |4.134 |88.9 |286 |4.420 |95.0 |209 |153 |0 |32 |900 |1.294 |4.629 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 2,9
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Saarland |981.785 |171.089 |130.841 |76.48% |40.248 |23.52% |- |- | |
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 years[462]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |18.965 |20.532 |23.218 | |Population |1.074.700 |1.083.500 |1.067.300 | |Employment (persons) |481.100 |477.200 |511.500 | |Unemployment (persons) |35.981
|52.065
|44.906
| |Unemployment rate |8,6
|12,4
|9,8
| |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[463] |204 |219 |227 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | | |X | | | |Public sector transfer | | |X | | | |Employment policy | |X | | | | |Technology policy | | |X | | | |
Sachsen (Saxony)
NUTS 1:
DED SACHSEN |NUTS 2:
DED 1 Chemnitz[464]
DED 2 Dresden[465]
DED 3 Leipzig[466] | |
GDP per head (2000)
DED SACHSEN[467]: 16.283€ (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin: 16.216 €)[468]
Germany[469] 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEC =70,4; DEC1 = 65,9; DEC2 = 71,6; DEC3 = 75,0[470]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DED SACHSEN[471]: 72.340
Germany[472] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[473] (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]
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-City-Express 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. 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
Public revenue and spending (€)[479]
|2001 |2002 |2003 | |Revenue |15.395.600 |15.902.000 |17.586.500 | |Spending |15.908.991,20 |16.081.046,60 |17.977.671,9 | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector
|Agriculture, forestry, fishery:
|Industry (including processing industry without building and construction trade): |Building and construction trade:
|Trade, tourism, transportation:
|Public and private services:[480]
| |DED Sachsen[481] |2000: 55.300
2001: 52.600
2002: 49.700 |2000: 353.800
2001: 357.000
2002: 363.400 |2000: 260.700
2001: 229.500
2002: 204.800 |2000: 460.600
2001: 460.400
2002: 457.000 |2000: 842.800
2001: 847.400
2002: 850.300 | |DED 1 Chemnitz[482] |2000: 20.900 |2000: 152.000 |2000: 98.300 |2000: 162.900 |2000: 269.800 | |DED 2 Dresden[483] |2000: 22.400 |2000: 135.300 |2000: 97.500 |2000: 178.100 |2000: 341.200 | |DED 3 Leipzig[484] |2000: 11.300 |2000: 64.000 |2000: 64.800 |2000: 117.900 |2000: 233.900 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry
Branch |Persons employed 2000[485] |Persons employed 2001[486] | |Mining |DED 1 Chemnitz: 98.348
DED 2 Dresden: 82.212
DED 3 Leipzig: 38.417 |DED 1 Chemnitz: 101.626
DED 2 Dresden: 84.003
DED 3 Leipzig: 39.062 | |Intermediate goods industry |DED 1 Chemnitz: 40.931
DED 2 Dresden: 36.558
DED 3 Leipzig: 16.859 |DED 1 Chemnitz: 43.426
DED 2 Dresden: 38.945
DED 3 Leipzig: 16.947 | |Capital goods industry |DED 1 Chemnitz: 36.228
DED 2 Dresden: 25.189
DED 3 Leipzig: 12.831 |DED 1 Chemnitz: 36.856
DED 2 Dresden: 25.306
DED 3 Leipzig: 182 | |Durable goods industry |DED 1 Chemnitz: 3.495
DED 2 Dresden: 2.863
DED 3 Leipzig: 689 |DED 1 Chemnitz: 4.061
DED 2 Dresden: 3.078
DED 3 Leipzig: 695 | |Non-durable goods industry |DED 1 Chemnitz: 17.693
DED 2 Dresden: 17.603
DED 3 Leipzig. 8.038 |DED 1 Chemnitz: 17.282
DED 2 Dresden: 16.774
DED 3 Leipzig: 8.219 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[487]
2001/02 |69.911 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (mio. €)[488]
2001 |4.119,6 | |2002 |4.325,9 | |2003 |4.333,0 | |
Students at universities[489]
Year |Beginners (included in total number) |Total number of | |1999 |16.985 |80.171 | |2000 |18.013 |84.516 | |2001 |19.158 |90.162 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure 2001 (categories of streets) [490]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Federal Road network |State Road network |County Roads |Total | |Kilometres |452 km |2.421 km |4.731 km |5.946 km |13.550 km | |
Vehicles DED Sachsen[491]
1999 |2.500.826 | |2000 |2.551.545 | |2001 |2.610.153 | |2002 |2.622.529 | |2003[492] |2.630.844 | |
Vehicles NUTS 2 level
|2000[493] |1.1.2002[494] | |DED1 Chemnitz |1.009.280 |1.015.966 | |DED2 Dresden |1.002.790 |1.006.514 | |DED3 Leipzig |598.083 |600.049 | |
Doctors and dentist
|1999[495] |2001[496] | |DED Sachsen [497]
|Doctors: 13.775
Dentists: 3.748 |Doctors: 13.825
Dentists: 3.771 | |DED1 Chemnitz |Doctors: 4.428
Dentists: 1.283 |Doctors: 4.418
Dentists: 1.305 | |DED2 Dresden |Doctors: 5.503
Dentists: 1.533 |Doctors: 5.518
Dentists: 1.538 | |DED3 Leipzig |Doctors: 3.894
Dentists: 932 |Doctors: 3.897
Dentists: 934 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4,5
Territorial Policy |5 | |Public sector transfer |5 | |Employment policy |4 | |Technology policy |3,5 | |
Sachsen[498]
SN |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |15.938 |85.5 |1.773 |17.711 |95.0 |839 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.497 |18.550 |99.5 | |1996 |15.890 |84.6 |1.965 |17.855 |95.0 |846 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.504 |18.700 |99.5 | |1997 |15.714 |84.7 |1.918 |17.632 |95.0 |835 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.493 |18.467 |99.5 | |1998 |16.436 |84.7 |1.994 |18.430 |95.0 |873 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.531 |19.303 |99.5 | |1999* |17.053 |84.4 |2.149 |19.202 |95.0 |910 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.568 |20.112 |99.5 | |2000* |17.344 |83.8 |2.328 |19.672 |95.0 |932 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.590 |20.604 |99.5 | |2001 |16.234 |84.5 |2.026 |18.260 |95.0 |965 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.623 |19.125 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 6,7
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objetive 1 |Saxony |11240.40 |4858.610 |3057.598 |62.93% |1098.191 |22.60% |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 years[499]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |7.379 |15.278 |16.855 | |Population |4.721.600 |4.556.200 |4.404.700 | |Employment (persons) |2.240.500 |1.997.600 |1.946.800 | |Unemployment (persons) |241.227
|322.322
|399.328
| |Unemployment rate |9,1 |15,9 |19,0 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[500] |1.312 |1.533 |1.743 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy |X | | | | | |Public sector transfer |X | | | | | |Employment policy |X | | | | | |Technology policy |X | | | | | |
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]
Germany[503] 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEE = 68,4; DEE1 = 64,2; DEE2 = 70,0; DEE3 = 69,1[504]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DEE Sachsen-Anhalt[505]: 41.843
Germany[506]: 2.030.000
EU-15[507]: 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: 202.600[509]
DEE2 Halle: 365.200[510]
DEE3 Magdeburg: 489.800[511]
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
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 so-called ‚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 wood-processing 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 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 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 MAHREG-Automotive 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]
|2001 |2002 | |Revenue |7.960,59 |8.000,00 | |Spending |8.046,27 |8.282,00 | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector[517]
Agriculture:
1999: 40.500
2000: 38.300
2001: 36.800 |Industry
1999: 161.900
2000: 159.600
2001: 158.000 |Building and construction trade:
1999: 166.700
2000: 148.700
2001: 128.300 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
1999: 251.600
2000: 255.700
2001: 253.100 |Public and private services:[518]
1999: 462.200
2000: 454.800
2001:461.800 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry[519]
Branch |Employment figures | | |2000 |2001 | |Timber |1.689 |1.668 | |Paper, printing, publishing |3.413 |3.628 | |Chemical industry |11.676 |11.896 | |Rubber and synthetic material |5.641 |6.480 | |Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |9.492 |9.198 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |5.755 |6.022 | |Mechanical engineering |11.031 |11.142 | |Vehicle production |7.703 |7.337 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys |2.748 |2.768 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[520]
2001/02 |43.180 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (€)[521]
2001 |1.509.873.506 | |2002 |1.478.522.400 | |
Students at universities[522]
Wintersemester |Total number of | |1999/2000 |35.353 | |2000/2001 |37.992 | |2001/2002 |40.709 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[523]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |320 |10.574 |10.894 | |
Vehicles
2000[524] |1.517.164 | |2001[525] |1.522.925 | |2003[526] |1.523.812 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[527]
Doctors |8.073 | |Dentists |2.009 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): Total: 4
Territorial Policy |4 | |Public sector transfer |5 | |Employment policy |4 | |Technology policy |2,5-3 | |
Sachsen-Anhalt[528]
ST |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |9.510 |85.0 |1.123 |10.633 |95.0 |504 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.876 |11.137 |99.5 | |1996 |9.447 |84.0 |1.241 |10.688 |95.0 |506 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.878 |11.194 |99.5 | |1997 |9.358 |84.4 |1.175 |10.533 |95.0 |499 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.871 |11.032 |99.5 | |1998 |9.775 |84.6 |1.207 |10.982 |95.0 |520 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.892 |11.502 |99.5 | |1999* |10.108 |84.2 |1.300 |11.408 |95.0 |540 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.912 |11.948 |99.5 | |2000* |10.247 |83.5 |1.407 |11.654 |95.0 |552 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.924 |12.206 |99.5 | |2001 |9.590 |84.7 |1.164 |10.754 |95.0 |509 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.881 |11.263 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 5,7
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objetive 1 |Saxony-Anhalt |8697.414 |3360.445 |1908.342 |56.89% |715.254 |21.32% |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 years[529]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |6998 |14189 |16367 | |Population |2849100 |2731500 |2598400 | |Employment (persons) |1274100 |1113500 |1038100 | |Unemployment (persons) |167.127
|234.451
|264.493
| |Unemployment rate |10,3 |18,8 |20,9 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[530] |503 |513 |523 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive:
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy |X | | | | | |Public sector transfer |X | | | | | |Employment policy | |X | | | | |Technology policy | |X | | | | |
Schleswig-Holstein
DEF Schleswig-Holstein | | |
GDP per head (2000)
DEF Schleswig-Holstein: 22.815 € [531] (average of old Länder incl. Berlin: 26.426 € and excl. Berlin: 26.637 €)[532]
Germany[533] 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEF = 96,2[534]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DEF Schleswig-Holstein: 63.478€ [535]
Germany[536]: 2.030.000
EU-15[537]: 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
Strengths[540] [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.
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]
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]
|2002 | |Revenue |9.537.030.600 | |Spending |9.570.974.400 | |
Employment (at workplace) per sector[544]
Agriculture:
2000: 44.000
2001: 44.000
2002: 44.000 |Industry (without building and construction trade):
2000: 196.000
2001: 195.000
2002: 190.000 |Building and construction trade:
2000: 84.000
2001: 80.000
2002: 75.000 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
2000: 358.000
2001: 358.000
2002: 355.000 |Public and private services:[545]
2000: 559.000
2001: 565.000
2002: 569.000 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of processing industry
Branch |Employment figures | | |2000[546] |2001[547] | |Food and tobacco |19.557 |19.235 | |Textile, clothing, leather |- |1.361 | |Timber |- |2.385 | |Paper, printing, publishing |15.564 |11.326 | |Mineral oil processing industry |- |897 | |Chemical industry |13.128 |13.255 | |Rubber and synthetic material |7.211 |7.330 | |Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth | |5.859 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |10.000 |10.420 | |Mechanical engineering |23.064 |22.897 | |Production of equipment for the production of electricity, office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment tv,… |- |23.071 | |Vehicle production |13.610 |4.278 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[548]
2001/02 |40.787 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (€)[549]
2000 |2.281.282.800 | |
Students at universities[550]
Wintersemester |Total number of | |1999/2000 |41.405 | |2000/2001 |41.387 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[551]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |485 |9.402 |9.887 | |
Vehicles[552]
2003 |1.870.492 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[553]
Doctors |10.009 | |Dentists |2.161 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 2,3
Territorial Policy |2,1 | |Public sector transfer |2 | |Employment policy |2,2 | |Technology policy |2,9 | |
Schleswig-Holstein[554]
SH |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |11.317 |102.5 |-141 |11.175 |101.2 |0 |164 |0 |227 |0 |391 |11.175 |101.2 | |1996 |11.201 |99.6 |16 |11.217 |99.8 |24 |164 |0 |204 |0 |392 |11.240 |100.0 | |1997 |11.293 |100.6 |-5 |11.288 |100.5 |0 |164 |0 |182 |0 |346 |11.288 |100.5 | |1998 |11.890 |100.2 |0 |11.890 |100.2 |0 |164 |0 |159 |0 |323 |11.890 |100.2 | |1999* |12.024 |96.3 |174 |12.198 |97.7 |261 |164 |0 |136 |0 |561 |12.459 |99.8 | |2000* |11.932 |92.8 |358 |12.291 |95.6 |513 |164 |0 |114 |0 |791 |12.804 |99.6 | |2001 |11.811 |97.5 |115 |11.926 |98.4 |173 |164 |0 |91 |0 |428 |12.099 |99.8 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 3,5
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Schleswig-Holstein |831.107 |258.319 |221.747 |85.84% |36.572 |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 years[555]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |18.771 |21.423 |23.071 | |Population |2.635.800 |2.732.400 |2.795.900 | |Employment (persons) |1.205.200 |1.203.700 |1.244.000 | |Unemployment (persons) |80.524 |113.083
|116.149
| |Unemployment rate |7,3 |10,0 |9,4 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[556] |639 |648 |674 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy | | |X | | | |Public sector transfer | | |X | | | |Employment policy | | |X | | | |Technology policy | | |X | | | |
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 THUERINGEN[557]: 36.688€ (average of new Länder incl. Berlin: 17.424 € and excl. Berlin: 16.216 €)[558]
Germany[559] 24.700 €
EU-15 = 100; DEG = 69,6[560]
GDP at current prices/in Million €
DEG THUERINGEN (mio €)[561]: 39.304
Germany[562] (mio €): 2.030.000
EU-15[563] (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 Obermehler-Schlotheim) 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.
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
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 1000[570]
Agriculture:
2000: 35,8
2001: 33,7 |Industry (without building and construction trade):
2000: 205,6
2001: 209,6 |Building and construction trade:
2000: 139,4
2001: 125,7 |Trade, tourism, transportation:
2000:254,3
2001: 250,1 |Public and private services:[571]
2000: 441,3
2001: 437,3 | |
Industrial Structure
Branches of industry[572]
Branch |Employment figures | | |2000 |2001 | |Food and tobacco |15.441 |15.732 | |Rubber and synthetic material |10.530 |10.956 | |Glas, ceramic, working of stone and earth |11.284 |11.083 | |Metal (production, working, ..) |265 |273 | |Mechanical engineering |14.284 |15.229 | |Production of equipment for the production of electricity, office machines, ICT techniques, optical equipment tv,… |18.658 |20.084 | |Vehicle production |9.006 |9.594 | |Furniture, jewellery, musical instruments, sports equipment, toys |7.940 |8.116 | |
Research base
Employment in education, higher education and research[573]
2001/02 |40.231 | |
Public expenditure on science and research (thousand €)[574]
2002 (draft) |2.429.752 | |2003 (draft) |2.279.213 | |
Students at universities[575]
Wintersemester |Total number of | |1999/2000 |36.299 | |2000/2001 |39.752 | |2001/2002 |43.302 | |
Support infrastructure
Infrastructure (categories of streets)[576]
Category |Motorway (Autobahn) |Road network |Total | |Kilometres |299 |9.951 |10.250 | |
Vehicles[577]
2003 |1.497.447 | |
Doctors and dentists (2000)[578]
Doctors |7.692 | |Dentists |2.076 | |
Designation for principal domestic policy support instruments (5 point scale): 4
Territorial Policy |4 | |Public sector transfer |4,7 | |Employment policy |3,9 | |Technology policy |3,3 | |
Thüringen[579]
TH |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |8.673 |85.0 |1.019 |9.692 |95.0 |459 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.631 |10.151 |99.5 | |1996 |8.629 |84.0 |1.127 |9.757 |95.0 |462 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.634 |10.219 |99.5 | |1997 |8.507 |83.9 |1.123 |9.630 |95.0 |456 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.628 |10.086 |99.5 | |1998 |8.909 |84.0 |1.164 |10.073 |95.0 |477 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.649 |10.550 |99.5 | |1999* |9.289 |84.0 |1.218 |10.507 |95.0 |498 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.670 |11.005 |99.5 | |2000* |9.444 |83.4 |1.320 |10.764 |95.0 |510 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.682 |11.274 |99.5 | |2001 |8.870 |84.3 |1.125 |9.994 |95.0 |473 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.645 |10.468 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Impact on ex-ante divergence from national average of support from EU funds (7 point scale): 6,0
| |2000-2006 (mio €) | | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objetive 1 |Thuringia |10018.45 |2886.137 |1480.29 |51.29% |866.7 |30.03% |539.147 |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 years[580]
|1991 |1996 |2001 | |GDP/capita (€) |6.444 |14.173 |16.580 | |Population |2.591.400 |2.496.500 |2.421.000 | |Employment (persons) |1.237.900 |1.056.400 |1.069.200 | |Unemployment (persons) |147.963 |191.013 |194.078 | |Unemployment rate |10,2 |16,7 |16,5 | |
|1995 |1997 |1999 | |R+D expenditure (mio €)[581] |542 |628 |630 | |
Estimated effect on regional circumstances of different domestic policies:
|Strongly positive
|Slightly positive
|Neutral
|Slightly negative
|Strongly negative
| |Territorial Policy |X | | | | | |Public sector transfer |X | | | | | |Employment policy |X | | | | | |Technology policy |X | | | | | |
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 year[582]. 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
|2001 (bn €) |Annual percentage change | | |Curr. prices |% GDP |1981-1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |2003 |2004 | |GDP at constant prices |2071.2 |100.0 |2.0 |2.0 |2.9 |0.6 |0.2 |0.4 |2.0 | |Private consumption |1232.2 |59.5 |2.0 |3.7 |1.4 |1.5 |-0.6 |0.2 |1.5 | |Public consumption |393.5 |19.0 |1.4 |1.0 |1.2 |0.8 |1.5 |0.5 |0.8 | |GFCF
of which: equipment |416.3
166.3 |20.1
8.0 |1.5
2.0 |4.1
7.2 |2.5
9.5 |-5.3
-5.8 |-6.7
-9.4 |0.0
2.2 |3.1
5.8 | |Change in stocks as % of GDP |-9.4 |-0.5 |0.0 |-0.3
|-0.1
|-0.8
|-0.7
|-0.5 |-0.2 | |Exports (goods and services) |726.9 |35.1 |5.2 |5.6 |13.7 |5.0 |2.6 |3.4 |6.4 | |Final demand |2759.5 |133.2 |2.5 |3.4 |4.6 |0.7 |-0.4 |1.3 |3.2 | |Imports (goods and services) |688.3 |33.2 |4.3 |8.5 |10.5 |1.0 |-2.1 |3.9 |6.7 | |GNI at constant prices (GDP deflator) |2055.8 |99.3 |2.0 |2.1 |3.1 |0.3 |0.5 |0.4 |2.1 | |Contribution to GDP growth: |Domestic demand | |1.7 |3.2 |1.6 |-0.2 |-1.5 |0.2 |1.6 | | |Stockbuilding | |0.0 |-0.4 |0.2 |-0.6 |0.1 |0.2 |0.2 | | |Foreign balance | |0.4
|-0.7 |1.0 |1.4 |1.6 |0.0 |0.2 | |Employment | | |0.3 |1.2 |1.8 |0.4 |-0.6 |-0.8 |0.2 | |Unemployment (a) - | | |- |8.4 |7.8 |7.7 |8.2 |8.9 |8.9 | |Compensation of employees/head | | |3.7 |1.2 |2.0 |1.7 |1.6 |2.2 |2.3 | |Unit labour costs | | |1.9 |0.4 |1.0 |1.5 |0.8 |0.9 |0.5 | |Real unit labour costs | | |-0.7 |-0.1 |1.2 |0.1 |-0.8 |-0.3 |-0.3 | |Savings rate of households (b) | | |- |15.4 |15.4 |15.7 |16.0 |16.0 |15.8 | |GDP deflator | | |2.7 |0.5 - |0.3 |1.4 |1.6 |1.2 |0.8 | |Private consumption deflator | | |2.6 |0.4 |1.5 |1.9 |1.4 |1.3 |1.1 | |Harmonised index of consumer prices | | |- |0.6 |1.5 |2.1 |1.3 |1.3 |1.2 | |Trade balance (c) | | |3.8 |3.4 |3.1 |4.8 |6.2 |6.2 |6.2 | |Balance on current transactions with ROW (c) | | |1.2 |-0.8
|-1.0 |0.2 |2.4 |2.5 |2.4 | |Net lending(+) or borrowing(-) vis à vis ROW (c) | | |1.0 |-0.8
|-0.3 |0.1 |2.4 |2.6 |1.8 | |General government balance (c)(d) - | | |2.4 |-1.5 |1.1
|-2.8
|-3.6
|-3.4
|-2.9 | |General government gross debt (c) | | |46.0 |61.2 |60.2 |59.5 |60.8 |62.7 |63 | |(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
|2001 |2002 |Annual
Projection:
2003 | |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) |
2,9
1,8
1,1
9,7 |
0,6
0,4
0,1
9,4 |
0,2
-0,6
0,8
9,8 |
1
-0,5
1,5
10 | |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 ) |
3,0
2,2
3,0
5,2 |
3,5
1,6
-5,1
-9,4 |
0,9
2,3
- 6,2
-8,0 |
2,5
1,5
0
-6 | |Domestic demand
External balance of goods and services ( K bn )
(in % of GDP) |3,0
7,8
0,4 |0,5
38,6
1,9 |-0,2
83,8
4,0 |2
103
5 | |Gross domestic product (nominal) |2,6 |2,0 |2,0 |2,75 | |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) |
1,4
1,2
2,5
9,5
-2,6
8,4
0,2 |
1,5
0,8
-5,3
-5,8
- 6,0
5,0
-0,6 |
-0,5
1,5
-6,4
- 8,4
-5,9
2,5
0,0 |
0,75
1
- 0
1
- 1
3,5
0 | |Domestic demand
Exports
Imports
External balance of goods and services (GDP growth contribution)3) |1,8
13,7
10,5
1,0 |-0,8
5,0
1,0
1,4 |- 1,3
2,9
-1,3
1,5 |0,5
4,5
4
0,5 | |Gross domestic product (real growth) |2,9 |0,6 |0,2 |1 | |Price trend (1995 = 100)
Consumption spending by private households4)
Domestic demand
Gross domestic product5) |
1,5
1,2
-0,3 |
1,9
1,4
1,4 |
1,4
1,1
1,8 |
1,5
1,5
1,75 | |DISTRIBUTION of gross national income
(residence concept)
Compensation of employees
Income from self-employment and property
National income
Gross national income |
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 | |For information (residence concept):
Employees
Total gross wages and salaries
Per employee
Disposable income of private households
Savings ratio in %6) |
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.
|1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 | |Unemployment rate |7.7 |8.9 |9.6 |9.4 |10.4 |11.4 |11.1 |10.5 |9.6 |9.4 |9.8 | |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 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 - GERMANY[585]). “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
[pic] |% |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 |1,97 |-23,3 | |2003 Feb |1,97 |-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 |2,57 | | |2002 Mar |2,57 | | |2002 Feb |2,57 | | |2002 Jan |2,57 | | |Period: Jan. 2002 bis Jul. 2003 (last up-date: 27.06.2003)
Source: Bundesbank,
|1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |20021 |20032 | |Development of interest payments / taxation rate at Federal level (%) |12,5 |12,4 |12,9 |14,0 |13,6 |15,0 |16,1 |16,4 |21,4 |19,7 |19,4 |19,3 |19,0 | |1 Estimate
2 Projection
Source: Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn, p. 28.
Germany interest rates composite leading indicator from 1971
[pic]
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
[pic]
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
Components
. |Germany business cycle |Germany industrial cycle |prices |labor market and costs |demand of capital |world business cycle |competitive environment | |Date | |Y/Y % | |Y/Y % | |Y/Y % | |Y/Y % | |Y/Y % | |Y/Y % | |Y/Y % | |12.02 |98.2 |9.2 |95.1 |7.1 |94.6 |8.8 |100.7 |1.0 |90.5 |12.9 |95.2 |4.3 |90.1 |-4.5 | |01.03 |102.0 |12.6 |95.4 |7.5 |99.3 |8.5 |103.7 |3.3 |91.9 |15.5 |97.8 |5.0 |87.6 |-9.4 | |02.03 |103.0 |12.6 |95.4 |7.0 |100.9 |9.5 |103.3 |2.7 |92.8 |16.5 |95.4 |-3.6 |86.7 |-9.9 | |03.03 |102.7 |10.5 |95.3 |6.2 |101.1 |7.7 |103.0 |2.2 |93.3 |17.3 |95.4 |-5.3 |85.9 |-11.0 | |04.03 |100.8 |7.8nbsp; |95.0 |3.3 |98.5 |3.1 |103.1 |2.1 |93.0 |19.4 |95.6 |-13.2 |87.7 |-8.4 | |05.03 |100.6 |6.4 |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
[pic]
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Germany industrial cycle
[pic]
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Prices
[pic]
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Labour market and costs
[pic]
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Demand of capital
[pic]
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Competitive environment
[pic]
Copyright © SYZ & CO Bank 2001-03
Source for all graphs above:
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:
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:
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 co-finance 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 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]
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]
|2001 |2002 (planned) |2003 (planned) | |Labour market policy |15 106 |15 316 |11 781 | |
Budget of the Federal Employment Service in 2002 (1000 €)[592]
Baden Württemberg |4.757.212 | |Bavaria |6.392.711 | |Berlin |3.281.299 | |Brandenburg |3.172.460 | |Bremen |539.506 | |Hamburg |1.075.271 | |Hesse |3.085.652 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |2.362.119 | |Lower Saxony |4.533.744 | |North Rhine Westphalia |10.247.968 | |Rhineland Palatinate |1.967.644 | |Saarland |588.552 | |Saxony |5.313.406 | |Saxony Anhalt |3.536.816 | |Schleswig Holstein |1.798.227 | |Thuringia |2.917.971 | |
• This heading includes also the GA of the development of the regional economic structure (‘Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur’) [593]
|Approved funds by GA in mio € | | |1998 |1999 |2000 | |Baden Württemberg |- |- |- | |Bavaria |19,6 |7,1 |1 | |Berlin |42,2 |27,8 |5,3 | |Brandenburg |133,1 |186,5 |66,2 | |Bremen |3,4 |4,9 |0,3 | |Hamburg |- |- |- | |Hesse |17,6 |10,1 |6,8 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |114,4 |110,4 |1,5 | |Lower Saxony |43,6 |43,2 |11,7 | |North Rhine Westphalia |75,3 |35,3 |28,2 | |Rhineland Palatinate |4,8 |4,3 |- | |Saarland |3,4 |4,3 |3,4 | |Saxony |355 |225,2 |28,5 | |Saxony Anhalt |184,5 |110,8 |9 | |Schleswig Holstein |3 |4 |2 | |Thuringia |341 |94,9 |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]
|2001 |2002 (planned) |2003 (planned) | |Research and development policy |10 667 |11 025 |11 573 | |
|Actual Federal R&D expenditure by Land / performance of R&D[595] | | |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 | | |mio € |% |mio € |% |mio € |% |mio € |% | |Baden Württemberg |1 144.4 |15.5 |1 288.5 |17.5 |1 181.5 |16.3 |1 185.4 |15.9 | |Bavaria |1 570.3 |21.3 |1 345.8 |18.3 |1 287.7 |17.7 |1 269.2 |17.1 | |Berlin |721.4 |9.8 |706.6 |9.6 |716.3 |9.9 |738.8 |9.9 | |Brandenburg |243.0 |3.3 |249.2 |3.4 |246.7 |3.4 |245.3 |3.3 | |Bremen |157.8 |2.1 |179.0 |2.4 |198.1 |2.7 |202.3 |2.7 | |Hamburg |314.4 |4.3 |295.7 |4.0 |312.3 |4.3 |324.0 |4.4 | |Hesse |376.8 |5.1 |349.6 |4.8 |361.4 |5.0 |383.9 |5.2 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |99.4 |1.3 |126.4 |1.7 |127.3 |1.8 |126.8 |1.7 | |Lower Saxony |514.6 |7.0 |539.8 |7.3 |543.1 |7.5 |613.4 |8.2 | |North Rhine Westphalia |1 237.0 |16.8 |1 250.2 |17.0 |1 236.6 |17.0 |1 285.3 |17.3 | |Rhineland Palatinate |115.7 |1.6 |122.1 |1.7 |118.7 |1.6 |127.7 |1.7 | |Saarland |38.4 |0.5 |48.8 |0.7 |36.4 |0.5 |41.0 |0.6 | |Saxony |360.0 |4.9 |352.4 |4.8 |394.4 |5.4 |398.0 |5.4 | |Saxony Anhalt |150.0 |2.0 |151.4 |2.1 |156.9 |2.2 |158.9 |2.1 | |Schleswig Holstein |206.9 |2.8 |219.0 |3.0 |211.2 |2.9 |202.2 |2.7 | |Thuringia |124.5 |1.7 |134.9 |1.8 |138.0 |1.9 |136.3 |1.8 | |
Federal financial aid to the Länder in this area (mio €)[596]
|Education/Research acc. to Art 91b GG |Support for research institutes (1000 €) | | |2001 |2002 |2001 |2002 | |Baden Württemberg |17,5 |7,1 |23.139 |23.894 | |Bavaria |20,7 |7,9 |13.701 |13.346 | |Berlin |41,6 |17,8 | | | |Berlin (West) | | |22.836 |23.189 | |Berlin (East) | | |36.735 |41.599 | |Brandenburg |46,7 |21,5 |43.148 |35.158 | |Bremen |1,1 |0,6 |1.177 |1.229 | |Hamburg |4,1 |1,7 |16.713 |18.573 | |Hesse |10,0 |4,2 |12.932 |14.026 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |39,2 |18,6 |16.313 |17.153 | |Lower Saxony |12,6 |4,9 |15.237 |19.086 | |North Rhine Westphalia |26,0 |12,4 |24.113 |26.445 | |Rhineland Palatinate |6,0 |2,6 |3.299 |3.436 | |Saarland |1,6 |0,7 |5.243 |5.410 | |Saxony |58,4 |25,8 |50.404 |51.993 | |Saxony Anhalt |30,7 |18,8 |23.760 |24.223 | |Schleswig Holstein |3,6 |1,6 |26.482 |24.972 | |Thuringia |31,1 |16,1 |5.021 |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’)
|Federal grants for building and maintenance of Universities, etc (mio €)[597] | | |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 | |Baden Württemberg |142 |157 |140 |162 | |Bavaria |155 |182 |176 |167 | |Berlin |56 |49 |50 |49 | |Brandenburg |42 |40 |33 |40 | |Bremen |7 |13 |13 |17 | |Hamburg |28 |33 |27 |34 | |Hesse |32 |40 |41 |46 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |38 |41 |36 |44 | |Lower Saxony |53 |43 |69 |78 | |North Rhine Westphalia |133 |147 |173 |185 | |Rhineland Palatinate |40 |40 |36 |42 | |Saarland |11 |12 |15 |17 | |Saxony |69 |96 |88 |109 | |Saxony Anhalt |53 |59 |58 |63 | |Schleswig Holstein |26 |27 |26 |29 | |Thuringia |36 |44 |40 |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 2001[598]
|1000 € |% of the budget for East / West German Länder | |Baden Württemberg |13519,9 |14,7 | |Bavaria |15937,2 |17,3 | |Berlin (East) |23413,2 |8,8 | |Berlin (West) |4002,6 |4,4 | |Brandenburg |44027,2 |16,6 | |Bremen |1240,0 |1,4 | |Hamburg |2556,7 |2,8 | |Hesse |8265,1 |8,9 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |30387,3 |11,4 | |Lower Saxony |10607,2 |11,5 | |North Rhine Westphalia |24179,8 |26,3 | |Rhineland Palatinate |5756,9 |6,3 | |Saarland |1567,9 |1,7 | |Saxony |79779,3 |30,1 | |Saxony Anhalt |46255,5 |17,4 | |Schleswig Holstein |4297,2 |4,7 | |Thuringia |41714,2 |15,7 | |
Federal financial aid to the Länder in this area (mio €)[599]
|General financial support law acc. to Art 104a Abs.3 GG [600] |General financial support law acc. to Art 104a Abs.4 GG [601] | | |2001 |2002 |2001 |2002 | |Baden Württemberg |228,2 |271,0 |306,6 |272,4 | |Bavaria |263,1 |304,8 |354,5 |361,8 | |Berlin |222,8 |259,0 |806,7 |223,7 | |Brandenburg |120,5 |126,7 |640,2 |198,5 | |Bremen |48,3 |53,9 |21,4 |25,6 | |Hamburg |100,3 |102,0 |55,6 |48,2 | |Hesse |178,8 |221,4 |150,0 |141,7 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |99,4 |108,3 |699,9 |220,6 | |Lower Saxony |311,6 |347,0 |204,9 |186,4 | |North Rhine Westphalia |711,1 |803,7 |465,4 |484,3 | |Rhineland Palatinate |110,1 |116,3 |107,6 |97,5 | |Saarland |35,6 |40,1 |41,2 |27,1 | |Saxony |238,2 |250,5 |- |444,7 | |Saxony Anhalt |132,8 |135,0 |731,1 |314,9 | |Schleswig Holstein |116,3 |132,0 |72,0 |67,7 | |Thuringia |109,7 |113,8 |663,5 |214,4 | |
(4) Agricultural policy
o Special responsibility for the rural area
Federal budget for the overall national policy area (mio €):[602]
|2001 |2002 (planned) |2003 (planned) | |Agricultural policy |1 483 |1 450 |1 364
| |
This heading includes also the GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal protection (‚Förderung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’)
|Approved funds by GA[603]
(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 |255,730 |166, 276 |89,832 | |Bavaria |480,927 |313, 522 |167,730 | |Berlin | |0, 367 |0,326 | |West |- | | | |East |2,654 | | | |Brandenburg |301,333 |153, 721 |76,887 | |Bremen |7,275 |1, 898 |1,714 | |Hamburg |25,310 |25, 075 |9,934 | |Hesse |109,852 |60, 429 |41,197 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |255,379 |130, 766 |69,143 | |Lower Saxony |359,133 |240, 919 |111,681 | |North Rhine Westphalia |170,453 |111, 013 |61,041 | |Rhineland Palatinate |137,204 |84, 440 |47,905 | |Saarland |17,342 |10, 562 |5,771 | |Saxony |189,908 |95, 262 |51,089 | |Saxony Anhalt |193,700 |91, 238 |52,595 | |Schleswig Holstein |136,067 |85, 289 |36,300 | |Thuringia |174,584 |88, 298 |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 | |Bayern |1.75 mio € |5% | |Brandenburg |0.35 mio € |1% | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |0.35 mio € |1% | |Niedersachsen |0.35 mio € |1% | |Sachsen |21 mio € |60% | |Sachsen-Anhalt |5.25 mio € |15% | |Thüringen |0.35 mio € |1% | |Riserve |5.6 mio € |16% | |
Other Federal financial aid to the Länder (mio €)[606]
|Other financial support[607] | | |2001 |2002 | |Baden Württemberg |272,3 |250,7 | |Bavaria |511,8 |501,6 | |Berlin |356,7 |342,5 | |Brandenburg |66,0 |68,5 | |Bremen |23,5 |20,4 | |Hamburg |71,1 |79,9 | |Hesse |250,7 |240,4 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |57,4 |49,7 | |Lower Saxony |267,7 |433,3 | |North Rhine Westphalia |873,5 |711,5 | |Rhineland Palatinate |433,3 |417,5 | |Saarland |22,7 |20,4 | |Saxony |65,0 |110,8 | |Saxony Anhalt |54,9 |49,8 | |Schleswig Holstein |100,4 |102,9 | |Thuringia |39,6 |32,9 | |
• The so called Supplementary federal grants within the financial equalisation scheme (see chapter on public sector transfer)
|Supplementary federal grants (mio €) | | |2000 |2001 | |Baden-Württemberg |- |- | |Bavaria |- |- | |Berlin |1 955 |1 925 | |Brandenburg |1 375 |1 358 | |Bremen |987 |870 | |Hamburg |- |- | |Hesse |- |- | |Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania |1 030 |1 017 | |Lower Saxony |970 |899 | |North Rhine-Westphalia |- |- | |Rhineland-Palatinate |658 |550 | |Saarland |750 |612 | |Saxony |2 345 |2 313 | |Saxony-Anhalt |1 493 |1 473 | |Schleswig-Holstein |406 |219 | |Thuringia |1 370 |1 352 | |Total |13 339 |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 |2.929 | |GA agricutltural structure (without coastal protection) |708 | |Social housing |675 | |Interest subsidies for housing modernisation in the framework of the ‚KfW’ for the Eastern Länder |614 | |Subsidies for the Eastern Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure |595 | |Premium according to housing/house construction premium law |500 | |Subsidies for providers of agricultural accidents insurance |256 | |Interest subsidies to the ‚KfW’ for building modernisation / renovation to avoid CO2-emissions |205 | |Subsidies to take on agricultural employees |171 | |Indirect support of research and start ups |137 | |Adaptation support for employees in hard coal mining sector |121 | |Measures to support SME and freelancers as well as to strengthen vocational training |117 | |Subsidies to the Federal monopoly administration for spirits |108 | |Subsidies for the West Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure |105
| |Research and development in the Eastern Länder |103 | |Interest subsidies and reimbursement of loss in loans in the framework of the own capital support programme for self-employment |101
| |Support of single measures fort he use of renewable energies |99 | |Support of the industrial common research and development |88 | |Pension for handing over land (‚Landabgaberente ‘) |87 | |Financial support for selling of civil air plains including power plants |78 | |Total |7.796 | |in % of financial aid of the federal level |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 |ESF |EAGGF | | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Objective 2 |Baden-Württemberg |1160.366 |97.769 |97.769 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Objective 2 |Bavaria |2200.882 |536.638 |475.804 |88.66% |60.834 |11.34% |- |- | |Objective 2 |Western part of Berlin |1179.189 |384.449 |244.125 |63.50% |140.324 |36.50% |- |- | |Objetive 1 |Eastern part of Berlin |2120.302 |687.558 |517.858 |75.32% |162.663 |23.66% |7.037 |1.02% | |Objetive 1 |Brandenburg |6733.047 |3090.223 |1639.26 |53.05% |730.66 |23.64% |720.302 |23.31% | |Objective 2 |Bremen |354.659 |113.034 |113.034 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Objective 2 |Hamburg |12.384 |6.192 |6.192 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Objective 2 |Hesse |542.379 |183.519 |183.519 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Objective 2 |Lower Saxony |1492.457 |733.953 |682.254 |92.96% |51.699 |7.04% |- |- | |Objetive 1 |Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania |5493.088 |2455.750 |1100.19 |44.80% |613.47 |24.98% |742.09 |30.22% | |Objective 2 |North Rhine-Westphalia |3598.623 |970.361 |823.62 |84.88% |146.741 |15.12% |- |- | |Objective 2 |Rhineland-Palatinate |1402.927 |170.677 |158.877 |93.09% |11.8 |6.91% |- |- | |Objective 2 |Saarland |981.785 |171.089 |130.841 |76.48% |40.248 |23.52% |- |- | |Objetive 1 |Saxony |11240.40 |4858.610 |3057.598 |62.93% |1098.191 |22.60% |702.821 |14.47% | |Objetive 1 |Saxony-Anhalt |8697.414 |3360.445 |1908.342 |56.89% |715.254 |21.32% |730.849 |21.79% | |Objective 2 |Schleswig-Holstein |831.107 |258.319 |221.747 |85.84% |36.572 |14.16% |- |- | |Objetive 1 |Thuringia |10018.45 |2886.137 |1480.29 |51.29% |866.7 |30.03% |539.147 |18.68% | |
3 Territorial policies
General description[610]
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
• 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:
• 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
• Procedure[611]:
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 - 2002[612]:
Industrial branch
Processing industry |26.131 mio € |80% | |Tourism |2.302 mio € |7% | |Trade |880 mio € |3% | |Service sector |892 mio € |3% | |Building trade |247 mio € |1% | |Others |2.031 mio € |6% | |
Business/industry supporting infrastructure (1991-2001)
Totally |16,4 mio € | |For tourism |33% | |For Industrial sites |20% | |For traffic links |18% | |For vocational training, |8% | |For supply services |3% | |For the restructuring of lying idle sites |2% | |Other infrastructure measures |16% | |
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]
|Number of projects | | |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 | |Baden Württemberg |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Bavaria |54 |40 |36 |48 |54 |35 |34 |10 |12 |4 | |Berlin |336 |338 |279 |256 |253 |279 |282 |300 |241 |92 | |Brandenburg |482 |406 |1133 |873 |632 |663 |674 |430 |602 |29 | |Bremen |8 |25 |13 |6 |8 |3 |9 |3 |4 |2 | |Hamburg |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Hesse |52 |46 |29 |27 |25 |15 |28 |48 |49 |36 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |289 |571 |902 |680 |605 |420 |394 |285 |432 |17 | |Lower Saxony |395 |316 |270 |156 |176 |149 |218 |176 |183 |55 | |North Rhine Westphalia |467 |390 |182 |142 |114 |131 |232 |96 |75 |139 | |Rhineland Palatinate |99 |127 |84 |97 |93 |58 |86 |49 |30 |- | |Saarland |118 |96 |95 |82 |74 |71 |61 |11 |9 |24 | |Saxony |1191 |1802 |1694 |1442 |1324 |1274 |1107 |1228 |1275 |277 | |Saxony Anhalt |664 |737 |492 |322 |388 |383 |417 |416 |388 |52 | |Schleswig Holstein |48 |28 |20 |9 |5 |19 |9 |15 |9 |10 | |Thuringia |536 |1014 |1928 |2307 |735 |917 |1000 |930 |613 |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]
|Investments in mio € | | |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 | |Baden Württemberg |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Bavaria |424 |392,9 |155,3 |199,7 |209,9 |155,5 |272,7 |169,2 |160 |10,4 | |Berlin |716,4 |339,2 |734,6 |824,9 |274,9 |245,9 |606,0 |172,8 |144,5 |26,8 | |Brandenburg |2752,9 |1125,4 |2084,6 |2686,7 |918,7 |1276,3 |880,8 |477,6 |742,2 |251,6 | |Bremen |7,9 |52,5 |48,6 |34,1 |22,3 |7,3 |77,9 |27,3 |4,6 |2,1 | |Hamburg |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Hesse |78,2 |95,8 |37,8 |30,3 |40,6 |15,5 |424,7 |137,4 |80,9 |45,7 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |961,6 |1384,5 |1203,8 |1200,8 |621 |632,2 |538,5 |417,1 |425,7 |5,1 | |Lower Saxony |952,4 |804,8 |545,6 |482,4 |592,8 |333,5 |574,4 |792,1 |398,6 |95,1 | |North Rhine Westphalia |1997,4 |805,6 |555,4 |477,2 |524,6 |414,9 |682,3 |735,5 |275,7 |201,8 | |Rhineland Palatinate |232,9 |347 |168,5 |221,9 |153,1 |100,6 |178,2 |38,1 |34,6 |- | |Saarland |232,4 |392,2 |249,7 |301,6 |112,4 |275,3 |114,1 |22,6 |32,1 |28,8 | |Saxony |2749 |4467,9 |2456,2 |4564,0 |1818,8 |1577,9 |1406,9 |1243,6 |878,1 |107,2 | |Saxony Anhalt |2670,5 |2376,9 |3586,9 |1050,9 |1325,1 |1862,2 |617,8 |635,3 |423 |33,4 | |Schleswig Holstein |169,8 |52,3 |71,2 |82,8 |34,5 |136,9 |68 |23,9 |35,3 |15,7 | |Thuringia |2650,1 |1979,6 |2722,1 |2513,6 |192,6 |1171,6 |752,1 |1283,8 |498,8 |121,5 | |
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]
|Approved funds by GA in mio € | | |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 | |Baden Württemberg |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Bavaria |47,9 |31,3 |12,5 |22,7 |12,9 |18,9 |24,3 |19,6 |7,1 |1 | |Berlin |134,8 |59,1 |121,3 |139,7 |51,7 |70,6 |100,9 |42,2 |27,8 |5,3 | |Brandenburg |538,4 |220,3 |383,1 |576,3 |153,1 |267,8 |214,3 |133,1 |186,5 |66,2 | |Bremen |1 |4,9 |6 |4,8 |3,1 |1,3 |9 |3,4 |4,9 |0,3 | |Hamburg |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Hesse |6,2 |5,6 |2,9 |2,6 |4,8 |2,1 |10,7 |17,6 |10,1 |6,8 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |168,5 |270,7 |189,5 |229,6 |126,6 |167,5 |153,8 |114,4 |110,4 |1,5 | |Lower Saxony |80,1 |62,3 |44 |38,8 |44,4 |40,9 |62,7 |43,6 |43,2 |11,7 | |North Rhine Westphalia |121,4 |70,7 |62,5 |50,5 |61,7 |39,4 |66,2 |75,3 |35,3 |28,2 | |Rhineland Palatinate |25,4 |29,5 |17,1 |18 |13,9 |6,9 |16,7 |4,8 |4,3 |- | |Saarland |29,2 |61,9 |33 |45,2 |16,3 |38,9 |18 |3,4 |4,3 |3,4 | |Saxony |464,9 |608,9 |380,2 |707,7 |392.6 |467,5 |396,9 |355 |225,2 |28,5 | |Saxony Anhalt |477,9 |446,6 |489,6 |193,5 |291.4 |523,3 |189,2 |184,5 |110,8 |9 | |Schleswig Holstein |9,6 |2,6 |5,6 |9,7 |3 |17,1 |8,4 |3 |4 |2 | |Thuringia |538,3 |368,6 |491 |428 |250.6 |375 |252,6 |341 |94,9 |23,2 | |
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
|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 € | |Baden Württemberg |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Bavaria |514,9 |61 |63,3 |3,8 |10 |1,1 | |Berlin |1 846,8 |1 244 |326,1 |203,0 |103 |159,0 | |Brandenburg |2 962,9 |1 418 |755,6 |378,3 |102 |248,6 | |Bremen |73,7 |22 |12,9 |42,6 |11 |32,5 | |Hamburg |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Hesse |438,9 |243 |61,3 |49,8 |50 |27,2 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |1 691,5 |881 |472,8 |567,1 |268 |423,3 | |Lower Saxony |1 710,3 |825 |201,5 |229,1 |113 |110,8 | |North Rhine Westphalia |1 558,5
|366 |195,1 |117,6 |14 |53,7 | |Rhineland Palatinate |168,9 |92 |25,4 |6,2 |3 |1,8 | |Saarland |257,6 |103 |36,4 |1,8 |2 |1,3 | |Saxony |7 655,1 |3 502 |1 529,2 |528,2 |402 |382, 7 | |Saxony Anhalt |5 007,2 |1 501 |1 122,9 |604,9 |107 |414,5 | |Schleswig Holstein |166,0 |60 |19,4 |103,0 |38 |53,5 | |Thuringia |4 742,7 |2 405 |1 015,6 |357,5 |145 |278,0 | |Total |23 906,2 |10 951 |5 222,2 |2 639,0 |1 127 |1 906,1 | |
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
|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 € | |Regional programme Bayern | |Bad Kissingen |- |- |- |0.3 |1 |0.1 | |Cham |90.1 |11 |9.1 |9.1 |4 |0, | |Freyung-Grafenau |25.7 |4 |2.6 |0.3 |2 |0.1 | |Hof |59,2 |10 |9,1 |1,7 |1 |0,3 | |Hof city |24,3 |7 |4,3 |- |- |- | |Passau |170,6 |11 |20,4 |0,5 |2 |0,3 | |Passau city |12,7 |4 |1,7 |- |- |- | |Regen |49,4 |3 |4,9 |- |- |- | |Tirschenreuth |49,3 |5 |6,4 |- |- |- | |Wunsiedel i. Fichtelgebirge |33,6 |6 |4,8 |- |- |- | |Total |514,9 |61 |63,3 |3,8 |10 |1,1 | |Regional programme Berlin | |Berlin (Ost) |732,3 |562 |128,6 |146,8 |73 |114,5 | |Berlin (West) |1 114,5 |682 |197,5 |56,2 |30 |44,5 | |Total |1 846,8 |1 244 |326,1 |203,0 |103 |159,0 | |Regional programme Brandenburg | |Barnim |89,5 |89 |23,0 |41,2 |12 |26,2 | |Brandenburg St |145,6 |36 |39,1 |23,1 |2 |16,9 | |Cottbus St |53,1 |53 |18,2 |0,2 |1 |0,1 | |Dahme-Spreewald |117,2 |67 |31,5 |19,4 |3 |13,6 | |Elbe-Elster |129,7 |103 |29,1 |46,5 |13 |33,0 | |Frankfurt/Oder St |18,8 |34 |6,8 |43,3 |1 |34,6 | |Havelland |133,9 |69 |35,1 |3,5 |4 |2,4 | |Märkisch-Oderland |138,9 |78 |28,9 |1,4 |1 |0,7 | |Oberhavel |320,4 |95 |65,5 |15,1 |6 |9,5 | |Oberspreewald-Lausitz |423,6 |78 |119,8 |44,8 |9 |33,7 | |Oder-Spree |146,7 |148 |45,2 |20,0 |11 |13,5 | |Ostprignitz-Ruppin |207,9 |79 |51,6 |1,1 |3 |0,7 | |Potsdam St. |115,0 |62 |41,4 |2,8 |2 |1,9 | |Potsdam-Mittelmark |155,4 |95 |35,3 |9,1 |9 |6,4 | |Prignitz |100,9 |68 |22,4 |11,9 |7 |4,8 | |Spree-Neiße |162,6 |91 |44,1 |30,7 |4 |10,1 | |Teltow-Fläming |387,8 |114 |75,2 |49,3 |6 |30,2 | |Uckermark |115,9 |59 |43,4 |14,9 |8 |10,3 | |Total |2 962,9 |1 418 |755,6 |378,3 |102 |248,6 | |Regional programme Bremen | |Bremen St. |10,2 |9 |1,7 |27,0 |5 |20,6 | |Bremerhaven St. |63,5 |13 |11,2 |15,6 |6 |11,9 | |Total |73,7 |22 |12,9 |42,6 |11 |32,5 | |
City/District |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 € | |Regional programme Hessen | |Hersfeld-Rotenburg |46,8 |23 |6,1 |2,3 |5 |1,5 | |Kassel |74,0 |35 |12,6 |11,5 |9 |4,0 | |Kassel St. |54,5 |41 |10,9 |0,6 |1 |0,4 | |Schwalm-Eder-Kreis |106,3 |42 |14,0 |8,5 |16 |4,9 | |Vogelsbergkreis |27,9 |33 |3,2 |13,9 |4 |8,7 | |Waldeck-Franken-
berg |49,2 |37 |4,5 |6,3 |10 |3,9 | |Werra-Meissner-
Kreis |80,2 |32 |10,0 |6,7 |5 |3,8 | |Total |438,9 |243 |61,3 |49,8 |50 |27,2 | |Regional programme Mecklenburg-Vorpommern | |Bad Doberan |116,8 |75 |31,4 |28,6 |13 |21,5 | |Demmin |121,2 |27 |40,0 |9,6 |13 |7,5 | |Greifswald St. |39,0 |25 |15,5 |4,1 |1 |3,1 | |Güstrow |120,2 |56 |35,7 |23,7 |13 |16,9 | |Ludwigslust |219,7 |84 |41,4 |28,0 |21 |19,6 | |Mecklenburg-
Strelitz |20,1 |42 |6,4 |5,7 |9 |3,6 | |Müritz |118,8 |75 |39,7 |23,1 |16 |16,3 | |Neubrandenburg St. |65,3 |48 |14,8 |14,6 |8 |10,7 | |Nordvorpommern |94,9 |47 |27,6 |21,4 |26 |16,1 | |Nordwestmecklen-
burg |191,9 |56 |47,1 |10,4 |18 |6,3 | |Ostvorpommern |101,0 |83 |35,7 |65,6 |32 |54,1 | |Parchim |48,9 |50 |11,7 |22,6 |12 |16,8 | |Rostock St. |238,2 |70 |67,8 |98,2 |25 |68,5 | |Rügen |72,2 |45 |26,7 |42,5 |24 |30,5 | |Schwerin St. |48,9 |39 |11,8 |57,5 |14 |43,9 | |Stralsund St. |27,6 |14 |8,0 |26,0 |5 |20,3 | |Uecker-Randow |18,2 |29 |5,5 |7,7 |8 |5,9 | |Wismar St. |28,6 |16 |6,0 |77,8 |10 |61,7 | |Total |1 691,5 |881 |472,8 |567,1 |268 |423,3 | |Regional programme Niedersachsen | |Ammerland |32,2 |18 |4,6 |0,7 |1 |0,3 | |Aurich |44,5 |28 |7,0 |12,4 |5 |4,4 | |Braunschweig St. |49,2 |33 |5,7 |10,2 |1 |5,7 | |Celle |131,2 |46 |16,0 |2,0 |4 |1,0 | |Cloppenburg |104,4 |38 |13,5 |9,8 |4 |4,3 | |Cuxhaven |52,4 |30 |7,5 |26,5 |10 |13,9 | |Delmenhorst St. |18,0 |12 |1,8 |5,4 |3 |2,5 | |Emden St. |18,4 |5 |2,7 |4,2 |2 |2,0 | |Emsland |68,8 |28 |6,9 |48,5 |16 |29,0 | |Friesland |73,2 |10 |4,7 |3,7 |2 |1,6 | |Goslar |80,0 |34 |11,4 |5,6 |4 |2,7 | |Göttingen |185,4 |45 |21,1 |9,8 |5 |4,6 | |Grafschaft Bentheim |54,7 |30 |7,4 |6,3 |6 |2,5 | |Hameln-Pyrmont |95,6 |34 |8,2 |3,9 |1 |1,8 | |Helmstedt |20,7 |16 |3,3 |- |- |- | |Hildesheim |77,7 |78 |7,7 |11,9 |9 |4,8 | |Holzminden |12,5 |12 |1,4 |1,0 |2 |0,5 | |Leer |77,7 |34 |10,0 |10,6 |5 |5,0 | |Lüchow-Dannenberg |13,3 |14 |2,0 |0,4 |1 |0,1 | |Lüneburg |37,3 |36 |3,5 |6,0 |7 |2,5 | |Nienburg (Weser) |14,8 |14 |1,3 |2,3 |3 |0,7 | |Northeim |53,9 |35 |6,8 |0,7 |2 |0,3 | |Oldenburg |5,0 |6 |0,4 |- |- |- | |Oldenburg St. |36,9 |15 |2,5 |6,9 |1 |1,4 | |
City/District |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 € | |Osterholz |19,5 |24 |2,4 |4,7 |2 |1,8 | |Osterode (Harz) |137,6 |37 |18,0 |- |- |- | |Peine |6,7 |15 |0,7 |- |- |- | |Salzgitter St. |18,1 |12 |1,9 |0,6 |1 |0,2 | |Soltau-Fallingbostel |20,6 |20 |2,2 |2,5 |3 |1,1 | |Uelzen |27,7 |24 |3,4 |2,2 |4 |1,1 | |Wesermarsch |80,6 |18 |10,4 |23,5 |6 |11,5 | |Wilhelmshaven St. |18,1 |15 |2,9 |5,8 |1 |2,9 | |Wittmund |14,0 |3 |1,1 |0,5 |1 |0,3 | |Wolfenbüttel |9,6 |6 |1,1 |0,5 |1 |0,3 | |Total |1 710,3 |825 |201,5 |229,1 |113 |110,8 | |Regional programme Nordrhein-Westfalen | |Bottrop St. |10,6 |9 |1,3 |- |- |- | |Dortmund St. |189,0 |63 |22,8 |16,3 |1 |10,2 | |Duisburg St. |295,7 |23 |32,3 |21,5 |2 |10,2 | |Gelsenkirchen St. |48,2 |20 |6,1 |3,9 |1 |1,2 | |Hagen St. |73,8 |16 |11,4 |- |- |- | |Hamm St. |142,0 |15 |17,9 |15,5 |2 |6,6 | |Heinsberg |145,2 |37 |23,1 |2,2 |2 |0,3 | |Herne St. |21,6 |11 |3,5 |- |- |- | |Krefeld St. |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Mönchengladbach
St. |7,0 |7 |0,6 |- |- |- | |Oberhausen St. |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Recklinghausen |67,1 |57 |10,6 |44,6 |2 |20,5 | |Unna |383,1 |69 |48,0 |2,7 |1 |0,1 | |Wesel |170,5 |32 |16,9 |10,9 |3 |4,6 | |Summe |1 558,5 |366 |195,1 |117,6 |14 |53,7 | |Regional programme Rheinland-Pfalz | |Bad Kreuznach |11,6 |9 |1,0 |4,1 |1 |0,5 | |Birkenfeld |7,1 |16 |0,9 |- |- |- | |Donnersbergkreis |7,6 |10 |1,1 |- |- |- | |Kaiserslautern |17,2 |10 |2,2 |0,2 |1 |0,1 | |Kaiserslautern St. |36,1 |20 |5,2 |1,9 |1 |1,2 | |Kusel |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Pirmasens St. |80,1 |7 |13,8 |- |- |- | |Südwestpfalz |6,4 |14 |0,8 |- |- |- | |Zweibrücken St. |- |- |- |- |- |- | |Total |168,9 |92 |25,4 |6,2 |3 |1,8 | |Regional programme Saarland | |Merzig-Wadern |77,5 |15 |10,9 |- |- |- | |Neunkirchen |19,6 |16 |2,4 |0,9 |1 |0,7 | |Saarlouis |93,9 |30 |13,4 |0,9 |1 |0,6 | |City Saarbrücken |66,6 |42 |9,7 |- |- |- | |Total |257,6 |103 |36,4 |1,8 |2 |1,3 | |Regional programme Sachsen | |Annaberg |165,5 |157 |46,0 |8,9 |25 |6,9 | |Aue-Schwarzenberg |272,5 |208 |99,7 |12,4 |20 |8,9 | |Bautzen |191,7 |127 |58,3 |29,9 |21 |23,2 | |Chemnitz St. |224,9 |174 |47,9 |11,1 |10 |5,6 | |Chemnitzer Land |224,8 |104 |46,0 |28,3 |9 |24,3 | |Delitzsch |80,0 |51 |17,1 |10,9 |14 |8,2 | |Döbeln |127,2 |87 |45,5 |10,6 |6 |7,7 | |Dresden St. |1 143,0 |234 |178,6 |58,1 |16 |34,1 | |Freiberg |793,9 |198 |123,3 |18,1 |14 |16,0 | |Görlitz St. |34,7 |20 |18,8 |3,0 |2 |2,6 | |Hoyerswerda St. |6,5 |9 |1,8 |3,6 |1 |2,9 | |Leipzig St. |1 572,8 |153 |112,7 |121,0 |25 |82,8 | |Leipziger Land |144,1 |67 |33,1 |39,3 |24 |32,2 | |Löbau-Zittau |227,1 |130 |67,7 |8,9 |14 |7,7 | |Meißen-Radebeul |237,2 |113 |56,3 |15,1 |11 |9,8 | |Mittlerer Erzgebirgskreis |140,7 |228 |43,1 |2,7 |10 |2,0 | |Mittweida |197,2 |140 |50,4 |5,3 |12 |4,1 | |Muldentalkreis |85,9 |72 |23,6 |5,1 |19 |3,1 | |
City/District |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 € | |Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis |49,5 |39 |13,2 |15,6 |17 |11,7 | |Plauen St. |105,9 |54 |25,5 |7,2 |3 |5,9 | |Riesa-Großenhain |148,1 |76 |42,3 |19,8 |14 |14,5 | |Sächsische Schweiz |119,1 |165 |37,3 |33,8 |34 |24,2 | |Stollberg |159,9 |122 |44,3 |24,1 |23 |19,2 | |Torgau-Oschatz |80,0 |61 |22,0 |2,3 |9 |1,8 | |Vogtlandkreis |361,4 |266 |91,9 |18,8 |21 |13,2 | |Weißeritzkreis |117,5 |139 |33,8 |6,6 |16 |4,6 | |Westlausitz-Dresdner Land |312,5 |161 |76,6 |1,7 |6 |1,4 | |Zwickau St. |156,4 |43 |34,3 |3,4 |2 |2,3 | |Zwickauer Land |175,1 |104 |38,1 |2,6 |4 |1,8 | |Total |7 655,1 |3 502 |1 529,2 |528,2 |402 |382,7 | |Regional programme Sachsen-Anhalt | |Altmarkkreis Salzwedel |183,3 |76 |50,7 |26,0 |6 |14,8 | |Anhalt-Zerbst |105,3 |51 |23,5 |5,5 |4 |3,9 | |Aschersleben-Staßfurt |157,9 |66 |39,1 |6,1 |4 |3,5 | |Bernburg |112,2 |25 |28,6 |2,9 |3 |1,4 | |Bitterfeld |830,4 |89 |194,2 |16,5 |2 |9,8 | |Bördekreis |95,0 |34 |14,8 |1,0 |2 |0,6 | |Burgenlandkreis |91,4 |57 |24,9 |17,9 |15 |12,6 | |Dessau St. |61,6 |50 |20,4 |10,4 |2 |9,7 | |Halberstadt |122,6 |63 |32,5 |- |- |- | |Halle (Saale)St. |102,2 |74 |28,5 |90,0 |6 |72,4 | |Jerichower Land |125,4 |74 |31,9 |0,9 |1 |0,5 | |Köthen |88,7 |34 |23,6 |2,1 |1 |2,1 | |Magdeburg St. |172,9 |91 |43,3 |28,2 |4 |13,4 | |Mansfelder Land |80,6 |36 |21,4 |11,6 |4 |8,3 | |Merseburg-Querfurt |335,4 |77 |76,5 |273,7 |7 |181,2 | |Ohrekreis |194,4 |65 |42,7 |6,3 |8 |3,6 | |Quedlinburg |127,0 |81 |33,1 |9,3 |7 |6,5 | |Saalkreis |103,9 |32 |18,0 |2,8 |2 |1,9 | |Sangerhausen |98,7 |47 |18,5 |1,5 |4 |0,8 | |Schönebeck |152,3 |60 |31,4 |38,1 |7 |23,7 | |Stendal |957,6 |68 |139,6 |33,3 |5 |29,5 | |Weißenfels |61,0 |35 |14,3 |14,6 |2 |10,7 | |Wernigerode |367,9 |115 |125,4 |5,7 |9 |3,1 | |Wittenberg |279,5 |101 |46,0 |0,5 |2 |0,5 | |Total |5 007,2 |1 501 |1 122,9 |604,9 |107 |414,5 | |Regional programme Schleswig-Holstein | |Dithmarschen |- |- |- |0,1 |1 |0,1 | |Flensburg St. |24,3 |9 |3,3 |0,2 |1 |0,1 | |Kiel St. |- |- |- |12,4 |7 |8,8 | |Lübeck St. |72,0 |16 |7,4 |28,5 |5 |13,9 | |Neumünster St. |- |- |- |8,5 |4 |5,9 | |Nordfriesland |11,5 |9 |1,5 |2,8 |2 |0,7 | |Ostholstein |22,9 |9 |2,6 |9,5 |7 |4,6 | |Plön |- |- |- |25,4 |4 |12,7 | |Rendsburg-Eckernförde |- |- |- |12,3 |5 |4,9 | |Schleswig-Flensburg |27,4 |13 |3,7 |3,3 |2 |1,8 | |Total |166,0 |60 |19,4 |103,0 |38 |53,5 | |Regional programme Türingen | |Altenburger Land |182,6 |72 |38,1 |17,8 |11 |14,3 | |Eichsfeld |208,7 |161 |50,5 |6,2 |5 |3,9 | |Eisenach St. |41,8 |24 |7,2 |- |- |- | |City/District |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 € | |Erfurt St. |228,8 |87 |51,6 |23,5 |6 |18,6 | |Gera St. |108,5 |66 |26,9 |4,4 |4 |2,6 | |Gotha |358,5 |133 |68,0 |21,2 |4 |13,3 | |Greiz |165,7 |98 |34,5 |1,7 |2 |0,6 | |Hildburghausen |188,8 |89 |47,5 |8,0 |5 |7,1 | |Ilm-Kreis |266,2 |217 |62,5 |28,8 |11 |23,8 | |Jena St. |318,7 |84 |49,6 |15,0 |1 |11,8 | |Kyffhäuserkreis |130,1 |77 |29,8 |6,0 |5 |4,7 | |Nordhausen |128,4 |74 |38,0 |14,7 |9 |11,7 | |Saale-Holzland-Kreis |345,5 |74 |77,0 |11,9 |6 |7,4 | |Saale-Orla-Kreis |125,8 |112 |30,3 |4,4 |4 |3,3 | |Saalfeld-Rudolstadt |140,7 |119 |32,6 |101,4 |14 |82,3 | |Schmalkalden-Meiningen |316,7 |322 |70,7 |16,7 |14 |13,5 | |Sömmerda |370,8 |73 |83,8 |30,0 |11 |24,0 | |Sonneberg |256,7 |116 |48,1 |17,6 |9 |13,3 | |Suhl St. |90,8 |51 |24,4 |1,9 |3 |1,6 | |Unstrut-Hainich-Kreis |111,0 |105 |24,8 |13,3 |8 |9,9 | |Wartburgkreis |446,2 |155 |78,9 |7,7 |6 |6,2 | |Weimar St. |16,6 |21 |2,8 |4,6 |1 |3,5 | |Weimarer Land |195,1 |75 |38,0 |0,7 |6 |0,6 | |Total |4 742,7 |2 405 |16 938 |357,5 |145 |278,0 | |Total Federal level |28 795,0 |12 723 |115 284 |3 192,9 |1 368 |2 187,8 | |
2000-2003:[618]
A-areas
Brandenburg
|Brandenburg, Cottbus, Frankfurt/Oder, Barnim, Berlin, Dahme-Spreewald, Berlin, Elbe-Elster, Havelland, Berlin, Märkisch-Oderland, Berlin, Oberhavel, Berlin, Oberspreewald-Lausitz, Oder-Spree, Berlin, Ostprignitz-Ruppin, Prignitz, Spree-Neiße, Teltow-Fläming, Berlin Uckermark | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
|Greifswald, Neubrandenburg, Rostock, Stralsund, Wismar, Bad Doberan, Demmin, Güstrow, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Müritz, Nordvorpommern, Nordwestmecklenburg, Ostvorpommern, Parchim, Rügen, Uecker-Randow | |Sachsen
|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 Bad-Gottleuba-Berggießhübel,Stadt Bad Schandau,Bahretal,Dohma,Stadt, 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,Hartmannsdorf-Reichenau,Hermsdorf/Erzgeb.,Höckendorf,Malter,Obercarsdorf, Pretzschendorf,Reinhardsgrimma,Schmiedeberg, Zwickauer Land | |Sachsen-Anhalt
|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 | |Thüringen
|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
|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,Dallgow-Döberitz,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,Fredersdorf-Vogelsdorf,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,Bergholz-Rehbrücke,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 | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |Schwerin, Ludwigslust | |Sachsen |Chemnitz, Dresden, Leipzig, Zwickau, Chemnitzer Land, Delitzsch, Kamenz, Arnsdorf 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 | |Sachsen-Anhalt
|Halle (Saale), Magdeburg, Bördekreis, Ohrekreis, Saalkreis | |Thüringen
|Eisenach, Erfurt, Jena, Weimar, Gotha: Apfelstädt,Aspach,Bienstädt, Ebenheim,Emleben,
Ernstroda,Friemar,Fröttstädt,Gamstädt,Stadt Gotha,Grabsleben,Gräfenhain,Günthersleben-Wechmar,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 |Hof, Passau, Cham, Freyung-Grafenau, Hof, Passau. Regen, Wunsiedel, Tirschenreuth | |Bremen |Bremerhaven | |Hessen |Kassel, Hersfeld-Rotenburg, Kassel, Werra-Meißner-Kreis, Schwalm-Eder-Kreis | |Niedersachsen
|Emden, Wilhelmshaven, Ammerland, Aurich, Celle. Cloppenburg. Cuxhaven. Friesland, Göttingen, Goslar, Grafschaft Bentheim, Hameln-Pyrmont, Helmstedt, Holzminden, Leer. Lüchow-Dannenberg, Northeim, Osterode am Harz. Uelzen, Wesermarsch, Wittmund | |Nordrhein-Westfalen |Bottrop, Dortmund, Duisburg, Hagen, Hamm, Herne, Oberhausen, Heinsberg, Recklinghausen, Unna. Wesel | |Rheinland-Pfalz
|Kaiserslautern, Pirmasens, Zweibrücken, Birkenfeld, Donnersbergkreis, Kaiserslautern, Kusel, Südwestpfalz | |Saarland |Saarbrücken, Merzig-Wadern, Neunkirchen, Saarlouis | |Schleswig-Holstein
|Flensburg, Lübeck, Dithmarschen, Nordfriesland, Ostholstein, Schleswig-Flensburg, | |
D-Areas
Bayern
|Bad Kissingen, Kronach, Kulmbach, Rhön-Grabfeld | |Bremen |Bremen | |Hessen |Waldeck-Frankenberg, Vogelsbergkreis | |Niedersachsen |Braunschweig, Delmenhorst, Oldenburg, Salzgitter (with Baddeckenstedt),. Emsland, Hildesheim, Lüneburg, Nienburg, Oldenburg, Osterholz, Peine, Soltau-Fallingbostel, Wolfenbüttel (ohne Baddeckenstedt) | |Nordrhein-Westfalen |Mönchengladbach, Krefeld | |Rheinland-Pfalz |Bad Kreuznach | |Schleswig-Holstein |Kiel, Neumünster, Plön, Rendsburg-Eckernförde | |
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 level
o Concentration and graduation of equalisation payments compared to earlier plans
• Implementation lies exclusively with the Länder
• Budget:
Approved funds by GA in mio DM[620]
(1973-1998: entire grants, to be split appr. 50% Federal level, 50% Länder; 2002: mio € only planned Federal Grants) | |
|1973-1990 |1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |2000[621] |2002[622] mio € | |Baden Württemberg |5.539,058 |372,119 |366,762 |353,722 |331,871 |331,229 |325,775 |271,938 |255,730 |Total: 277, 127
Fed.: 166, 276 |Total: 149, 720
Fed.: 89,832 | |Bavaria |9.940,392 |704,772 |689,239 |665,216 |629,079 |643,883 |604,489 |511,432 |480,927 |Total: 522, 534
Fed.: 313, 522 |Total: 279, 550
Fed.: 167,730 | |Berlin | | | | | | | | | |Total: 0, 611
Fed.: 0, 367 |Total: 0, 544
Fed.: 0,326 | |West |15,032 |0,248 |0,286 |0,515 |0,380 |0,598 |0,904 |- |- | | | |East |- |- |3,560 |6,251 |4,296 |0,463 |0,478 |0,643 |2,654 | | | |Brandenburg |- |180,777 |465,311 |501,415 |494,429 |381,787 |454,837 |356,862 |301,333 |Total: 256, 202
Fed.: 153, 721 |Total: 128, 145
Fed.: 76,887 | |Bremen |221,307 |9,984 |9,992 |8,207 |7,735 |4,853 |5,463 |7,446 |7,275 |Total: 3, 163
Fed.: 1, 898 |Total: 2, 798
Fed.: 1,714 | |Hamburg |276,528 |25,267 |24,469 |27,003 |34,844 |26,251 |26,050 |24,231 |25,310 |Total: 36, 299
Fed.: 25, 075 |Total: 14, 424
Fed.: 9,934 | |Hesse |2.618,798 |169,056 |164,924 |155,896 |146,787 |151,138 |148,957 |123,408 |109,852 |Total: 100, 716
Fed.: 60, 429 |Total: 68, 662
Fed.: 41,197 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |- |270,249 |438,476 |459,703 |452,063 |418,114 |410,419 |300,905 |255,379 |Total: 212, 726
Fed.: 130, 766 |Total: 112, 165
Fed.: 69,143 | |Lower Saxony |8.286,546 |532,604 |525,437 |506,930 |501,797 |470,785 |465,038 |386,310 |359,133 |Total: 370, 369
Fed.: 240, 919 |Total: 177, 691
Fed.: 111,681 | |North Rhine Westphalia |4.142,504
|249,187 |246,062 |237,484 |222,490 |220,229 |205,275 |182,653 |170,453 |Total: 185, 022
Fed.: 111, 013 |Total: 101, 735
Fed.: 61,041 | |Rhineland Palatinate |3.123,190 |199,101 |196,842 |189,714 |177,683 |177,963 |174,851 |146,074 |137,204 |Total: 140, 735
Fed.: 84, 440 |Total: 79, 842
Fed.: 47,905 | |Saarland |360,650 |28,507 |26,428 |24,953 |22,447 |22,354 |22,050 |18,373 |17,342 |Total: 17, 603
Fed.: 10, 562 |Total: 9, 618
Fed.: 5,771 | |Saxony |- |194,819 |304,120 |332,601 |313,402 |292,234 |265,805 |222,223 |189,908 |Total: 158, 768
Fed.: 95, 262 |Total: 85, 148
Fed.: 51,089 | |Saxony Anhalt |- |190,611 |288,285 |319,914 |315,700 |293,001 |264,661 |227,762 |193,700 |Total: 152, 062
Fed.: 91, 238 |Total: 87, 658
Fed.: 52,595 | |Schleswig Holstein |3.767,685 |215,154 |212,004 |205,295 |192,920 |191,637 |177,723 |130,846 |136,067 |Total: 131, 174
Fed.: 85, 289 |Total: 55, 551
Fed.: 36,300 | |Thuringia |- |176,452 |289,344 |306,410 |276,363 |258,159 |247,905 |203,922 |174,584 |Total: 147, 166
Fed.: 88, 298 |Total:
Fed.: 76, 833 46,100 | |Total | | | | | | | | | |Total: 2. 712, 277
Fed.: 1. 659, 075 |Total: 1 430,084
Fed.: 869,245 | |
GA special programme ‘flood’ (‘Hochwasser’)
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
Bayern |1.75 mio € |5% | |Brandenburg |0.35 mio € |1% | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |0.35 mio € |1% | |Niedersachsen |0.35 mio € |1% | |Sachsen |21 mio € |60% | |Sachsen-Anhalt |5.25 mio € |15% | |Thüringen |0.35 mio € |1% | |Riserve |5.6 mio € |16% | |
o Max. support levels:
▪ SME: 75% of eligible costs
▪ Other: 50% of eligible costs
• Supported regions:
Bayern
|Landkreis Passau
|Bad Füssing, Büchlberg, Hauzenberg, Hofkirchen, Hutthurm, Neuhaus, Obernzell, Pocking, Rotthalmünster, Ruderting, Salzweg, Sonnen, Thyrnau, Tiefenbach, Untergriesbach, Vilshofen, Windorf | | |Landkreis Freyung-Grafenau |Freyung, Mauth, Röhrnbach, Waldkirchen | | |Landkreis Regen
|Arnbruck, Bayrisch Eisenstein, Bodenmais, Böbrach, Drachselsried, Langdorf, Regen, Viechtach, Zwiesel, | | |Passau, Stadt | | | |Landkreis Cham
|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 | |Brandenburg |Landkreis Prignitz
|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) | | |Landkreis Ostprignitz-Ruppin
|Neustadt (Dosse), Sieversdorf-Hohenofen, Dreetz, Zernitz-Lohm, Breddin, Stüdenitz-Schönemark | | |Landkreis Havelland |Stadt Rhinow , (OT Kietz, Buchhorst, Florienshof), Strodehne, Gülpe, Hohennauen, Stadt Rathenow, (Gemeinde Semlin) | | |Landkreis Elbe-Elster
|Mühlberg/Elbe, Bad Liebenwerda, Elsterwerda, Herzberg/Elster, Uebigau-Wahrenbrück, Haida, Reichenhain, Saathain, Stolzenhain a.d.Röder | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |Landkreis Ludwigslust |Besitz, Boizenburg, Brahlstorf, Dersenow, Dömitz, Garlitz, Heidhof, Jessenitz, Lübtheen, Neu Gülze, Neu Kaliß, Polz, Pritzier, Rüterberg, Teldau, Vielank, Woosmer | |Niedersachsen |Landkreis Lüchow-Dannenberg
|Gartow, Hitzacker
| |Sachsen |Landkreis Delitzsch |Bad Düben, Doberschütz, Eilenburg, Jesewitz, Laußig, Löbnitz, Zschepplin | | |Landkreis Döbeln |Bockelwitz, Döbeln, Ebersbach, Großweitzschen, Hartha, Leisnig, Niederstriegis, Roßwein, Waldheim, Ziegra-Knobelsdorf | | |Landkreis Leipziger Land
|Borna, Espenhain, Eulatal, Frohburg, Geithain, Groitzsch, Großlehna, Großpösna, Kitzscher, Kohren-Sahlis, Lobstädt, Markranstädt, Narsdorf, Regis-Breitingen, Rötha, Wyhratal | | |Landkreis Muldentalkreis
|Bad Lausick, Bennewitz, Colditz, Grimma, Großbardau, Großbothen, Hohburg, Kühren-Burkhardtshain, Machern, Naunhof, Nerchau, Parthenstein, Thallwitz, Trebsen/Mulde, Wurzen, Zschadraß | | |Landkreis Torgau-Oschatz
|Arzberg, Beilrode, Belgern, Cavertitz, Dommitzsch, Elsnig, Großtreben-Zwethau, Liebschützberg, Mügeln, Naundorf, Oschatz, Pflückuff, Sornzig-Ablass, Torgau, Wermsdorf | | |Dresden, Stadt | | | |Weißeritzkreis
|Altenberg, Bannewitz, Bärenstein, Dippoldiswalde, Dorfhain, Freital, Geising, Glashütte, Hartmannsdorf-Reichenau, Hermsdorf/Erzgeb., Höckendorf, Kreischa, Malter, Pretzschendorf, Rabenau, Reinhardtsgrimma, Schmiedeberg, Tharandt, Wilsdruff | | |Landkreis Sächsische Schweiz
|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 | | |Landkreis Meißen
|Coswig, Diera-Zehren, Heynitz, Käbschütztal, Ketzerbachtal, Klipphausen, Leuben-Schleinitz, Lommatzsch, Meißen, Moritzburg, Niederau, Nossen, Radebeul, Radeburg, Triebischtal/Taubenhain, Weinböhla | | |Landkreis Riesa-Großenhain
|Diesbar-Seußlitz, Ebersbach, Großenhain, Hirschstein, Lampertswalde, Nauwalde, Nünchritz, Priestewitz, Riesa , Röderaue, Schönfeld, Stauchitz, Strehla, Tauscha, Thiendorf, Weißig a.R., Wildenhain, Wülknitz, Zabeltitz, Zeithain | | |Landkreis Annaberg
|Annaberg-Buchholz, Bärenstein, Crottendorf, Ehrenfriedersdorf, Elterlein, Gelenau/Erzgeb., Geyer, Jöhstadt, Königswalde, Mildenau, Oberwiesenthal, Scheibenberg, Schlettau, Sehmatal, Tannenberg, Thum, Wiesa | | |Landkreis Aue-Schwarzenberg |Aue, Beierfeld, Bernsbach, Bockau, Breitenbrunn, Eibenstock, Erlabrunn, Grünhain, Johanngeorgenstadt, Lauter/Sa., Lößnitz, Markersbach, Pöhla, Raschau, Rittersgrün, Schlema, Schneeberg, Schönheide, Schwarzenberg/Erzgeb., Sosa, Stützengrün, Zschorlau, | | |Landkreis Chemnitzer Land,
|Bernsdorf, Callenberg, Gersdorf, Glauchau, Hohnstein-Ernstthal, Lichtenstein, Limbach-Oberfrohna, Meerane, Niederfrohna, Oberlungwitz, Oberwiera, Remse, Schönberg, St. Egidien, Waldenburg, | | |Landkreis Freiberg
|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., | | |Landkreis Mittlerer Erzgebirgkreis
|Amtsberg, Borstendorf, Deutschneudorf, Drebach, Gornau, Großrückerswalde, Grünhainichen, Heidersdorf, Hirtstein, Lengefeld, Marienberg, Olbernhau, Pfaffroda, Pobershau, Pockau, Scharfenstein, Seiffen/Erzgeb., Venusberg, Waldkirchen, Wolkenstein, Zschopau | | |Landkreis Mittweida
|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 | | |Landkreis Stollberg
|Auerbach, Burkhardtsdorf, Erlbach-Kirchberg, Gornsdorf, Hohndorf, Hormersdorf, Jahnsdorf/Erzgeb., Lugau/Erzgeb., Neukirchen/Erzgeb., Niderwürschnitz, Niederdorf, Oelsnitz/Erzgeb., Stollberg/Erzgeb., Thalheim/Erzgeb., Zwönitz | | |Landkreis Vogtlandkreis
|Adorf, Auerbach, Ellefeld, Falkenstein, Grünbach, Hammerbrücke, Heinsdorfergrund, Klingenthal/Sa., Lengenfeld, Morgenröthe-Rautenkranz, Mylau, Neumark, Rodewisch, Schöneck, Steinberg , Tannenbergsthal/Vogtl., Treuen, Zwota | | |Landkreis Zwickauer Land, |Crinitzberg, Fraureuth, Hartenstein, Hartmannsdorf b. Kirchberg, Hirschfeld, Kirchberg, Langenbernsdorf, Langenweißbach, Mülsen, Reinsdorf, Wildenfels, Wilkau-Haßlau | | |Landkreis Kamenz, |Ottendorf-Okrilla, Pulsnitz, Radeberg, Wachau | | |Stadt Chemnitz
Stadt Leipzig
Stadt Plauen
Stadt Zwickau | | |Sachsen-Anhalt |Landkreis Anhalt-Zerbst
|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 | | |Landkreis Bitterfeld, |VG Raguhn, Altjeßnitz, Marke, Raguhn, Retzau, Schierau, Thurland, Tornau vor der Heide, Bitterfeld, Greppin, VG Jeßnitz-Bobbau, Bobbau, Jeßnitz (Anhalt) | | |Landkreis Köthen |Aken | | |Dessau, Stadt | | | |Landkreis Wittenberg |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 Heideck-Prettin, 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 | | | |Landkreis Jerichower Land
|Biederitz, Burg, Gübs, Hohenwarthe, Jerichow, Königsborn, Lostau, Menz, Niegripp, Parchau, Schartau, Elbe-Parey, Wahlitz | | |Ohrekreis |Barleben, Bertingen, Glindenberg, Heinrichsberg, Loitsche, Rogätz, Zielitz | | |LK Stendal
|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 | | |LK Schönebeck
|Barby, Breitenhagen, Glinde, Lödderitz, Plötzky, Pömmelte, Pretzien, Ranies, Schönebeck | |Thüringen |Kreis Altenburger Land Gößnitz |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’
Federal budget for 2001[623]
|1000 € |% of the budget for East / West German Länder | |Baden Württemberg |13519,9 |14,7 | |Bavaria |15937,2 |17,3 | |Berlin (East) |23413,2 |8,8 | |Berlin (West) |4002,6 |4,4 | |Brandenburg |44027,2 |16,6 | |Bremen |1240,0 |1,4 | |Hamburg |2556,7 |2,8 | |Hesse |8265,1 |8,9 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |30387,3 |11,4 | |Lower Saxony |10607,2 |11,5 | |North Rhine Westphalia |24179,8 |26,3 | |Rhineland Palatinate |5756,9 |6,3 | |Saarland |1567,9 |1,7 | |Saxony |79779,3 |30,1 | |Saxony Anhalt |46255,5 |17,4 | |Schleswig Holstein |4297,2 |4,7 | |Thuringia |41714,2 |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 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 1990-1994[626]
|1990
bio DM |1991
bio DM |1992
bio DM |1993
bio DM |1994
bio DM |Total
bio DM | |Borrowing |20,000 |31,000 |24,000 |15,000 |5,000 |95,000 | |Subsidy Länder |2,000 |4,000 |9,900 |14,245 |19,477 |49,622 | |Subsidy Federal level |- |- |- |5,960 |10,123 |16,083 | |Total |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]
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)
|Bund |Länder |Kommunen | |Income tax |42,5 % |42,5 % |15 % | |Corporate tax |50 % |50 % |- | |Capital gains tax |50 % |50 % |- | |
d) Other
(2001: 73,5 Billion DM)
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: ) | |[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.
b.) Federal level and Länder compensate deviations of their fiscal capacities
3. Stage: Specific horizontal equalisation scheme (“Länder-Länder-finanzausgleich”)
The “rich” states compensate the “poor” through financial transfers.
Compensation of shortfalls:
Percentage of average fiscal capacity
Compensation
Up to 92 %
Full
92 to 100 %
37,5 %
Compulsory redistribution of surpluses:
Percentage of average fiscal capacity
Redistribution
100 – 101 %
15 %
101 – 110 %
66 %
> 110 %
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 2001[630]
Purpose |Total yield,
in Billion DM | |Distribution of turnover tax,
deviating from apportionment by population |
+/- |15,3 | |Specific horizontal equalisation scheme |+/- |14,8 | |“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)
|1990 |1994 |1995 |1999 |2000 |2001 |Trend since 1995 | |Hessen |-1,4 |-1,8 |-2,2 |-4,7 |-5,4 |-5,1 |- | |Baden-Württemberg |-2,5 |-0,4 |-2,8 |-3,4 |-3,9 |-4,2 |- | |Bayern |0 |-0,7 |-2,5 |-3,2 |-3,7 |-4,5 |- | |Nordrhein- Westfalen |-0,1 |0,2 |-3,4 |-2,6 |-2,2 |-0,5 |o | |Hamburg |0 |0,1 |-0,1 |-0,7 |-1,1 |-0,5 |o | |Schleswig- Holstein |0,6 |0,1 |-0,1 |0,2 |0,4 |0,1 |o | |Saarland |0,4 |0,4 |0,2 |0,3 |0,3 |0,3 |o | |Rheinland-Pfalz |0,5 |0,7 |0,2 |0,4 |0,8 |0,4 |o | |Bremen |0,6 |0,6 |0,6 |0,7 |0,9 |0,8 |+ | |Mecklenburg- Vorpommern |- |0,0 |0,8 |0,9 |1,0 |0,8 |+ | |Niedersachsen |1,9 |1,0 |0,5 |1,0 |1,1 |1,9 |+ | |Brandenburg |- |0,0 |0,9 |1,1 |1,3 |1,0 |+ | |Thüringen |- |0,1 |1,0 |1,2 |1,3 |1,1 |+ | |Sachsen-Anhalt |- |0,1 |1,1 |1,3 |1,4 |1,2 |+ | |Sachsen |- |-0,1 |1,8 |2,1 |2,3 |2,0 |+ | |Berlin |- |- |4,2 |5,3 |5,5 |5,2 |+ | |Total yield of balancing |4,0 |2,9 |11,2 |14,6 |16,3 |14,8 |+ | |
IV. Recent developments[631]
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 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 two-step 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
Länder receiving equalisation payments
Länder making equalisation payments
2000
2001
2000
2001
2000
2001
Mio €
Volume of equalisation payments
13 339
12 637
8 273
7 588
8 273
7 587
Baden-Württemberg
-
-
-
-
1 957
2 132
Bavaria
-
-
-
-
1 884
2 298
Brandenburg
1 375
1 358
644
500
-
-
Hesse
-
-
-
-
2 734
2 622
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
1 030
1 017
500
436
-
-
Lower Saxony
970
899
568
954
-
-
North Rhine-Westphalia
-
-
-
-
1 141
269
Rhineland-Palatinate
658
550
392
231
-
-
Saarland
750
612
167
146
-
-
Saxony
2 345
2 313
1 182
1 036
-
-
Saxony-Anhalt
1 493
1 473
711
595
-
-
Schleswig-Holstein
406
219
185
59
-
-
Thuringia
1 370
1 352
670
575
-
-
Berlin
1 955
1 925
2 812
2 654
-
-
Bremen
987
870
442
402
-
-
Hamburg
-
-
-
-
556
266
* Preliminary results.
| |
(“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Baden-Württemberg[633]
BW |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |46.016 |109.7 |-2.803 |43.212 |103.0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |43.212 |103.0 | |1996 |46.432 |108.8 |-2.521 |43.911 |102.9 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |43.911 |102.9 | |1997 |46.211 |108.7 |-2.410 |43.801 |103.0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |43.801 |103.0 | |1998 |49.879 |111.3 |-3.477 |46.402 |103.5 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |46.402 |103.5 | |1999* |52.398 |111.0 |-3.426 |48.972 |103.7 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |48.972 |103.7 | |2000* |54.453 |112.0 |-3.873 |50.581 |104.0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |50.581 |104.0 | |2001 |51.958 |113.3 |-4.170 |47.787 |104.2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |47.787 |104.2 | |*) preliminary
Bayern[634]
BY |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |52.432 |107.7 |-2.532 |49.901 |102.5 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |49.901 |102.5 | |1996 |53.786 |108.6 |-2.862 |50.925 |102.8 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |50.925 |102.8 | |1997 |53.936 |109.4 |-3.102 |50.834 |103.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |50.834 |103.1 | |1998 |56.368 |108.6 |-2.907 |53.461 |103.0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |53.461 |103.0 | |1999* |59.699 |109.1 |-3.188 |56.511 |103.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |56.511 |103.3 | |2000* |62.219 |110.4 |-3.749 |58.470 |103.7 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |58.470 |103.7 | |2001 |59.946 |112.3 |-4.495 |55.451 |104.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |55.451 |104.1 | |*) preliminary
Berlin[635]
BE |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |13.692 |72.6 |4.222 |17.914 |95.0 |849 |219 |2.662 |0 |0 |3.730 |18.763 |99.5 | |1996 |13.787 |72.3 |4.336 |18.123 |95.0 |858 |219 |2.662 |0 |0 |3.739 |18.982 |99.5 | |1997 |13.429 |71.4 |4.432 |17.861 |95.0 |846 |219 |2.662 |0 |0 |3.727 |18.707 |99.5 | |1998 |13.737 |70.1 |4.891 |18.628 |95.0 |882 |219 |2.662 |0 |0 |3.763 |19.510 |99.5 | |1999* |14.092 |69.0 |5.316 |19.408 |95.0 |919 |219 |2.662 |0 |0 |3.800 |20.327 |99.5 | |2000* |14.381 |68.6 |5.521 |19.902 |95.0 |943 |219 |2.662 |0 |0 |3.824 |20.845 |99.5 | |2001 |13.446 |68.5 |5.191 |18.637 |95.0 |883 |219 |2.662 |0 |0 |3.764 |19.520 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Brandenburg[636]
BB |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |8.923 |86.6 |864 |9.787 |95.0 |464 |164 |1.985 |0 |0 |2.613 |10.250 |99.5 | |1996 |8.907 |85.1 |1.035 |9.942 |95.0 |471 |164 |1.985 |0 |0 |2.620 |10.413 |99.5 | |1997 |8.935 |85.5 |986 |9.921 |95.0 |470 |164 |1.985 |0 |0 |2.619 |10.391 |99.5 | |1998 |9.474 |85.6 |1.044 |10.518 |95.0 |498 |164 |1.985 |0 |0 |2.647 |11.016 |99.5 | |1999* |9.937 |85.2 |1.147 |11.084 |95.0 |525 |164 |1.985 |0 |0 |2.674 |11.609 |99.5 | |2000* |10.163 |84.5 |1.263 |11.426 |95.0 |541 |164 |1.985 |0 |0 |2.690 |11.967 |99.5 | |2001 |9.723 |86.3 |977 |10.701 |95.0 |507 |164 |1.985 |0 |0 |2.656 |11.208 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Bremen[637]
HB |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |2.948 |80.9 |562 |3.510 |96.3 |121 |126 |0 |80 |1.800 |2.127 |3.631 |99.6 | |1996 |2.917 |79.2 |635 |3.552 |96.4 |120 |126 |0 |72 |1.800 |2.118 |3.672 |99.6 | |1997 |3.144 |86.4 |350 |3.494 |96.0 |130 |126 |0 |64 |1.800 |2.120 |3.624 |99.6 | |1998 |2.724 |71.8 |912 |3.636 |95.8 |142 |126 |0 |56 |1.800 |2.124 |3.778 |99.6 | |1999* |3.136 |79.3 |665 |3.801 |96.1 |139 |126 |0 |48 |1.800 |2.113 |3.940 |99.6 | |2000* |2.990 |73.9 |872 |3.862 |95.5 |164 |126 |0 |40 |1.600 |1.930 |4.026 |99.5 | |2001 |2.830 |74.9 |787 |3.618 |95.8 |144 |126 |0 |32 |1.400 |1.702 |3.761 |99.6 | |*) preliminary
Hamburg[638]
HH |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |9.553 |103.5 |-117 |9.453 |102.2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |9.453 |102.2 | |1996 |10.099 |107.9 |-482 |9.618 |102.8 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |9.618 |102.8 | |1997 |9.753 |105.2 |-273 |9.480 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |9.480 |102.3 | |1998 |10.669 |109.8 |-615 |10.054 |103.5 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |10.054 |103.5 | |1999* |11.242 |110.2 |-665 |10.577 |103.7 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |10.577 |103.7 | |2000* |12.178 |116.0 |-1.099 |11.079 |105.5 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |11.079 |105.5 | |2001 |10.843 |109.3 |-520 |10.322 |104.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |10.322 |104.1 | |*) preliminary
Hessen[639]
HE |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |27.444 |112.2 |-2.153 |25.292 |103.4 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |25.292 |103.4 | |1996 |29.122 |117.2 |-3.240 |25.883 |104.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |25.883 |104.1 | |1997 |28.897 |116.9 |-3.148 |25.749 |104.2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |25.749 |104.2 | |1998 |30.589 |117.6 |-3.439 |27.150 |104.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |27.150 |104.3 | |1999* |33.621 |123.0 |-4.744 |28.877 |105.6 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |28.877 |105.6 | |2000* |35.254 |125.3 |-5.354 |29.901 |106.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |29.901 |106.3 | |2001 |33.266 |125.7 |-5.129 |28.137 |106.4 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |28.137 |106.4 | |*) preliminary
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern[640]
MV |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |6.291 |84.6 |771 |7.062 |95.0 |335 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.978 |7.397 |99.5 | |1996 |6.260 |83.6 |856 |7.116 |95.0 |337 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.980 |7.453 |99.5 | |1997 |6.195 |83.6 |843 |7.038 |95.0 |333 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.976 |7.371 |99.5 | |1998 |6.476 |83.7 |877 |7.353 |95.0 |348 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.991 |7.701 |99.5 | |1999* |6.757 |83.6 |921 |7.678 |95.0 |364 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |2.007 |8.042 |99.5 | |2000* |6.879 |83.1 |983 |7.862 |95.0 |372 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |2.015 |8.234 |99.5 | |2001 |6.446 |83.9 |853 |7.299 |95.0 |346 |164 |1.479 |0 |0 |1.989 |7.645 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Niedersachsen[641]
NI |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) |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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |30.413 |96.2 |0.452 |30.866 |97.6 |678 |0 |0 |507 |0 |1.185 |31.544 |99.8 | |1996 |30.739 |95.4 |0.553 |31.292 |97.1 |830 |0 |0 |456 |0 |1.286 |32.121 |99.7 | |1997 |30.312 |94.4 |0.672 |30.984 |96.5 |1.008 |0 |0 |406 |0 |1.414 |31.992 |99.6 | |1998 |31.772 |93.8 |0.788 |32.560 |96.1 |1.182 |0 |0 |355 |0 |1.537 |33.742 |99.6 | |1999* |32.889 |92.2 |1.037 |33.926 |95.2 |1.556 |0 |0 |304 |0 |1.860 |35.482 |99.5 | |2000* |33.793 |92.0 |1.113 |34.906 |95.0 |1.637 |0 |0 |253 |0 |1.890 |36.543 |99.5 | |2001 |30.972 |89.6 |1.864 |32.837 |95.0 |1.556 |0 |0 |203 |0 |1.759 |34.393 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Nordrhein-Westfalen[642]
NRW |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |78.448 |107.0 |-3.449 |74.999 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |74.999 |102.3 | |1996 |79.253 |106.4 |-3.125 |76.128 |102.2 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |76.128 |102.2 | |1997 |78.854 |106.4 |-3.059 |75.795 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |75.795 |102.3 | |1998 |82.931 |106.3 |-3.096 |79.835 |102.3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |79.835 |102.3 | |1999* |86.242 |105.3 |-2.578 |83.664 |102.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |83.664 |102.1 | |2000* |88.071 |104.6 |-2.201 |85.871 |101.9 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |85.871 |101.9 | |2001 |80.402 |101.7 |-0.525 |79.876 |101.1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |79.876 |101.1 | |*) preliminary
Rheinland-Pfalz[643]
RP |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |15.545 |96.2 |229 |15.773 |97.6 |343 |219 |0 |451 |0 |1.013 |16.116 |99.8 | |1996 |15.824 |96.3 |231 |16.056 |97.7 |347 |219 |0 |406 |0 |972 |16.403 |99.8 | |1997 |15.628 |95.2 |296 |15.924 |97.0 |444 |219 |0 |361 |0 |1.024 |16.368 |99.7 | |1998 |16.169 |93.4 |429 |16.598 |95.9 |644 |219 |0 |316 |0 |1.179 |17.242 |99.6 | |1999* |17.199 |94.5 |379 |17.578 |96.5 |568 |219 |0 |271 |0 |1.058 |18.146 |99.7 | |2000* |17.002 |90.8 |780 |17.782 |95.0 |842 |219 |0 |226 |0 |1.287 |18.624 |99.5 | |2001 |16.377 |93.2 |451 |16.828 |95.7 |676 |219 |0 |180 |0 |1.075 |17.504 |99.6 | |*) preliminary
Saarland[644]
SL |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |4.019 |90.9 |180 |4.199 |95.0 |199 |153 |0 |80 |1.600 |2.032 |4.398 |99.5 | |1996 |4.017 |89.8 |234 |4.251 |95.0 |201 |153 |0 |72 |1.600 |2.026 |4.452 |99.5 | |1997 |4.010 |90.4 |204 |4.214 |95.0 |200 |153 |0 |64 |1.600 |2.017 |4.414 |99.5 | |1998 |4.185 |90.1 |228 |4.413 |95.0 |209 |153 |0 |56 |1.600 |2.018 |4.622 |99.5 | |1999* |4.315 |88.9 |294 |4.609 |95.0 |218 |153 |0 |48 |1.200 |1.619 |4.827 |99.5 | |2000* |4.402 |88.4 |329 |4.731 |95.0 |224 |153 |0 |40 |1.050 |1.467 |4.955 |99.5 | |2001 |4.134 |88.9 |286 |4.420 |95.0 |209 |153 |0 |32 |900 |1.294 |4.629 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Schleswig-Holstein[645]
SH |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |11.317 |102.5 |-141 |11.175 |101.2 |0 |164 |0 |227 |0 |391 |11.175 |101.2 | |1996 |11.201 |99.6 |16 |11.217 |99.8 |24 |164 |0 |204 |0 |392 |11.240 |100.0 | |1997 |11.293 |100.6 |-5 |11.288 |100.5 |0 |164 |0 |182 |0 |346 |11.288 |100.5 | |1998 |11.890 |100.2 |0 |11.890 |100.2 |0 |164 |0 |159 |0 |323 |11.890 |100.2 | |1999* |12.024 |96.3 |174 |12.198 |97.7 |261 |164 |0 |136 |0 |561 |12.459 |99.8 | |2000* |11.932 |92.8 |358 |12.291 |95.6 |513 |164 |0 |114 |0 |791 |12.804 |99.6 | |2001 |11.811 |97.5 |115 |11.926 |98.4 |173 |164 |0 |91 |0 |428 |12.099 |99.8 | |*) preliminary
Sachsen[646]
SN |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |15.938 |85.5 |1.773 |17.711 |95.0 |839 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.497 |18.550 |99.5 | |1996 |15.890 |84.6 |1.965 |17.855 |95.0 |846 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.504 |18.700 |99.5 | |1997 |15.714 |84.7 |1.918 |17.632 |95.0 |835 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.493 |18.467 |99.5 | |1998 |16.436 |84.7 |1.994 |18.430 |95.0 |873 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.531 |19.303 |99.5 | |1999* |17.053 |84.4 |2.149 |19.202 |95.0 |910 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.568 |20.112 |99.5 | |2000* |17.344 |83.8 |2.328 |19.672 |95.0 |932 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.590 |20.604 |99.5 | |2001 |16.234 |84.5 |2.026 |18.260 |95.0 |965 |0 |3.658 |0 |0 |4.623 |19.125 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Sachsen-Anhalt[647]
ST |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |9.510 |85.0 |1.123 |10.633 |95.0 |504 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.876 |11.137 |99.5 | |1996 |9.447 |84.0 |1.241 |10.688 |95.0 |506 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.878 |11.194 |99.5 | |1997 |9.358 |84.4 |1.175 |10.533 |95.0 |499 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.871 |11.032 |99.5 | |1998 |9.775 |84.6 |1.207 |10.982 |95.0 |520 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.892 |11.502 |99.5 | |1999* |10.108 |84.2 |1.300 |11.408 |95.0 |540 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.912 |11.948 |99.5 | |2000* |10.247 |83.5 |1.407 |11.654 |95.0 |552 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.924 |12.206 |99.5 | |2001 |9.590 |84.7 |1.164 |10.754 |95.0 |509 |164 |2.208 |0 |0 |2.881 |11.263 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
Thüringen[648]
TH |Fiscal resources before SHES (in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100)
|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) |Fiscal resources after SHES and Gap-filling grants
(in Mio. DM) |Divergence from national average (balance measurement)
(= 100) | | | | | | | |Gap-filling grants |Compensations for special political costs |Compensations for special burdens
(east Germany) |Transitional grants
(west Germany) |Rehabilitational grants Bremen and Saarland |SFH total | | | |1995 |8.673 |85.0 |1.019 |9.692 |95.0 |459 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.631 |10.151 |99.5 | |1996 |8.629 |84.0 |1.127 |9.757 |95.0 |462 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.634 |10.219 |99.5 | |1997 |8.507 |83.9 |1.123 |9.630 |95.0 |456 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.628 |10.086 |99.5 | |1998 |8.909 |84.0 |1.164 |10.073 |95.0 |477 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.649 |10.550 |99.5 | |1999* |9.289 |84.0 |1.218 |10.507 |95.0 |498 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.670 |11.005 |99.5 | |2000* |9.444 |83.4 |1.320 |10.764 |95.0 |510 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.682 |11.274 |99.5 | |2001 |8.870 |84.3 |1.125 |9.994 |95.0 |473 |164 |2.008 |0 |0 |2.645 |10.468 |99.5 | |*) preliminary
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 Branch |Infrastructure | |Baden Württemberg |- |- | |Bavaria |63,3 |1,1 | |Berlin |326,1 |159,0 | |Brandenburg |755,6 |248,6 | |Bremen |12,9 |32,5 | |Hamburg |- |- | |Hesse |61,3 |27,2 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |472,8 |423,3 | |Lower Saxony |201,5 |110,8 | |North Rhine Westphalia |195,1 |53,7 | |Rhineland Palatinate |25,4 |1,8 | |Saarland |36,4 |1,3 | |Saxony |1 529,2 |382, 7 | |Saxony Anhalt |1 122,9 |414,5 | |Schleswig Holstein |19,4 |53,5 | |Thuringia |1 015,6 |278,0 | |Total |5 222,2 |1 906,1 | |
GA for the support of agricultural structure and coastal protection (‚Förderung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes’)[650]
|2000[651] |2002 (only planned Federal contribution) [652] | |Baden Württemberg |Total: 277, 127
Fed.: 166, 276 |Total: 149, 720
Fed.: 89,832 | |Bavaria |Total: 522, 534
Fed.: 313, 522 |Total: 279, 550
Fed.: 167,730 | |Berlin |Total: 0, 611
Fed.: 0, 367 |Total: 0, 544
Fed.: 0,326 | |Brandenburg |Total: 256, 202
Fed.: 153, 721 |Total: 128, 145
Fed.: 76,887 | |Bremen |Total: 3, 163
Fed.: 1, 898 |Total: 2, 798
Fed.: 1,714 | |Hamburg |Total: 36, 299
Fed.: 25, 075 |Total: 14, 424
Fed.: 9,934 | |Hesse |Total: 100, 716
Fed.: 60, 429 |Total: 68, 662
Fed.: 41,197 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |Total: 212, 726
Fed.: 130, 766 |Total: 112, 165
Fed.: 69,143 | |Lower Saxony |Total: 370, 369
Fed.: 240, 919 |Total: 177, 691
Fed.: 111,681 | |North Rhine Westphalia |Total: 185, 022
Fed.: 111, 013 |Total: 101, 735
Fed.: 61,041 | |Rhineland Palatinate |Total: 140, 735
Fed.: 84, 440 |Total: 79, 842
Fed.: 47,905 | |Saarland |Total: 17, 603
Fed.: 10, 562 |Total: 9, 618
Fed.: 5,771 | |Saxony |Total: 158, 768
Fed.: 95, 262 |Total: 85, 148
Fed.: 51,089 | |Saxony Anhalt |Total: 152, 062
Fed.: 91, 238 |Total: 87, 658
Fed.: 52,595 | |Schleswig Holstein |Total: 131, 174
Fed.: 85, 289 |Total: 55, 551
Fed.: 36,300 | |Thuringia |Total: 147, 166
Fed.: 88, 298 |Total:
Fed.: 76, 833 46,100 | |Total |Total: 2. 712, 277
Fed.: 1. 659, 075 |Total: 1 430,084
Fed.: 869,245 | |
GA special programme ‘flood’ (‘Hochwasser’) 2002-2003
|2002-2003 | |Bayern |1.75 mio € |5% | |Brandenburg |0.35 mio € |1% | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |0.35 mio € |1% | |Niedersachsen |0.35 mio € |1% | |Sachsen |21 mio € |60% | |Sachsen-Anhalt |5.25 mio € |15% | |Thüringen |0.35 mio € |1% | |Riserve |5.6 mio € |16% | |
GA for building and maintenance of Universities (GA ‘Hochschulbau’)
|Federal grants for building and maintenance of Universities, etc (mio €)[653] | | |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 | |Baden Württemberg |143 |149 |131 |142 |157 |140 |162 | |Bavaria |100 |108 |125 |155 |182 |176 |167 | |Berlin |86 |56 |56 |56 |49 |50 |49 | |Brandenburg |44 |40 |43 |42 |40 |33 |40 | |Bremen |14 |10 |10 |7 |13 |13 |17 | |Hamburg |22 |26 |26 |28 |33 |27 |34 | |Hesse |51 |48 |46 |32 |40 |41 |46 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |25 |29 |37 |38 |41 |36 |44 | |Lower Saxony |66 |82 |62 |53 |43 |69 |78 | |North Rhine Westphalia |118 |146 |145 |133 |147 |173 |185 | |Rhineland Palatinate |39 |32 |34 |40 |40 |36 |42 | |Saarland |21 |16 |10 |11 |12 |15 |17 | |Saxony |83 |57 |66 |69 |96 |88 |109 | |Saxony Anhalt |38 |44 |52 |53 |59 |58 |63 | |Schleswig Holstein |30 |37 |37 |26 |27 |26 |29 | |Thuringia |38 |47 |43 |36 |44 |40 |50 | |
Total volume of Federal financial aid to the Länder (mio €)[654]
|Education/Research acc. to Art 91b GG |General financial support law acc. to Art 104a Abs.3 GG [655] |General financial support law acc. to Art 104a Abs.4 GG [656] |Other financial support[657] | | |2001 |2002 |2001 |2002 |2001 |2002 |2001 |2002 | |Baden Württemberg |17,5 |7,1 |228,2 |271,0 |306,6 |272,4 |272,3 |250,7 | |Bavaria |20,7 |7,9 |263,1 |304,8 |354,5 |361,8 |511,8 |501,6 | |Berlin |41,6 |17,8 |222,8 |259,0 |806,7 |223,7 |356,7 |342,5 | |Brandenburg |46,7 |21,5 |120,5 |126,7 |640,2 |198,5 |66,0 |68,5 | |Bremen |1,1 |0,6 |48,3 |53,9 |21,4 |25,6 |23,5 |20,4 | |Hamburg |4,1 |1,7 |100,3 |102,0 |55,6 |48,2 |71,1 |79,9 | |Hesse |10,0 |4,2 |178,8 |221,4 |150,0 |141,7 |250,7 |240,4 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |39,2 |18,6 |99,4 |108,3 |699,9 |220,6 |57,4 |49,7 | |Lower Saxony |12,6 |4,9 |311,6 |347,0 |204,9 |186,4 |267,7 |433,3 | |North Rhine Westphalia |26,0 |12,4 |711,1 |803,7 |465,4 |484,3 |873,5 |711,5 | |Rhineland Palatinate |6,0 |2,6 |110,1 |116,3 |107,6 |97,5 |433,3 |417,5 | |Saarland |1,6 |0,7 |35,6 |40,1 |41,2 |27,1 |22,7 |20,4 | |Saxony |58,4 |25,8 |238,2 |250,5 |- |444,7 |65,0 |110,8 | |Saxony Anhalt |30,7 |18,8 |132,8 |135,0 |731,1 |314,9 |54,9 |49,8 | |Schleswig Holstein |3,6 |1,6 |116,3 |132,0 |72,0 |67,7 |100,4 |102,9 | |Thuringia |31,1 |16,1 |109,7 |113,8 |663,5 |214,4 |39,6 |32,9 | |
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 2001[658]
|1000 € |% of the budget for East / West German Länder | |Baden Württemberg |13519,9 |14,7 | |Bavaria |15937,2 |17,3 | |Berlin (East) |23413,2 |8,8 | |Berlin (West) |4002,6 |4,4 | |Brandenburg |44027,2 |16,6 | |Bremen |1240,0 |1,4 | |Hamburg |2556,7 |2,8 | |Hesse |8265,1 |8,9 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |30387,3 |11,4 | |Lower Saxony |10607,2 |11,5 | |North Rhine Westphalia |24179,8 |26,3 | |Rhineland Palatinate |5756,9 |6,3 | |Saarland |1567,9 |1,7 | |Saxony |79779,3 |30,1 | |Saxony Anhalt |46255,5 |17,4 | |Schleswig Holstein |4297,2 |4,7 | |Thuringia |41714,2 |15,7 | |
Funds German Unification
Budget 1990-1994[659]
|1990
bio DM |1991
bio DM |1992
bio DM |1993
bio DM |1994
bio DM |Total
bio DM | |Borrowing |20,000 |31,000 |24,000 |15,000 |5,000 |95,000 | |Subsidy Länder |2,000 |4,000 |9,900 |14,245 |19,477 |49,622 | |Subsidy Federal level |- |- |- |5,960 |10,123 |16,083 | |Total |22,000 |35,000 |33,900 |35,205 |34,600 |160,705 | |
Total gross expenditure in regions (Länder budgets only)[660]
|1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 | |Baden Württemberg |27.242 |27.804 |26.929 |28.731 |28.620 |30.264 | |Bavaria |29.641 |31.153 |30.713 |31.078 |31.677 |32.410 | |Berlin |22.085 |21.812 |21.423 |21.192 |21.081 |20.895 | |Brandenburg |9.750 |9.855 |9.657 |9.749 |9.834 |9.700 | |Bremen |3.982 |4.006 |4.024 |4.055 |4.100 |4.115 | |Hamburg |9.064 |9.455 |9.420 |9.361 |9.490 |9.729 | |Hesse |15.586 |16.590 |16.533 |16.658 |17.755 |18.213 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |7.149 |7.606 |7.308 |7.330 |7.237 |7.118 | |Lower Saxony |19.719 |19.803 |19.746 |20.101 |20.261 |20.848 | |North Rhine Westphalia |42.488 |43.886 |45.112 |45.033 |45.502 |46.179 | |Rhineland Palatinate |10.330 |10.983 |10.853 |10.947 |11.080 |11.219 | |Saarland |3.129 |3.230 |3.158 |3.193 |3.204 |3.266 | |Saxony |15.535 |16.103 |15.665 |15.375 |15.549 |16.123 | |Saxony Anhalt |10.393 |10.326 |10.809 |10.470 |10.302 |10.454 | |Schleswig Holstein |7.148 |7.240 |7.135 |7.279 |7.442 |7.551 | |Thuringia |9.044 |9.630 |9.604 |9.680 |9. 794 |9.687 | |Total |237.239 |243.121 |241.561 |243.218 |245.268 |249.338 | |
Financial balance of public budgets by Länder [661] 1*
2000
2001
Mio €
Baden-Württemberg
+139
-3 467
Bavaria
+1 091
-1 574
Brandenburg
-475
-714
Hesse
+230
-1 081
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
-592
-648
Lower Saxony
-836
-4 308
North Rhine-Westphalia
-1 914
-7 862
Rhineland-Palatinate
-647
-1 559
Saarland
-3
-101
Saxony
-173
-169
Saxony-Anhalt
-854
-1 170
Schleswig-Holstein
-328
-416
Thuringia
-688
-777
Berlin
-2 546
-5 235
Bremen
-140
-305
Hamburg
-675
-1 413
* 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 Länder[662]
2001
2002
Mioi €
Baden-Württemberg
39 505
40 359
Bavaria
32 069
33 755
Brandenburg
15 326
16 453
Hesse
31 173
33 131
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
10 256
10 815
Lower Saxony
44 770
47 959
North Rhine-Westphalia
111 341
116 603
Rhineland-Palatinate
23 960
25 358
Saarland
7 103
7 469
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 Länder[664] 1
2000
2001
Mio €
Baden-Württemberg
474
2 537
Bavaria
-267
374
Brandenburg
503
560
Hesse
-1 333
-494
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
60
375
Lower Saxony
-355
1 087
North Rhine-Westphalia
426
3 103
Rhineland-Palatinate
420
671
Saarland
-65
-222
Saxony
216
161
Saxony-Anhalt
808
755
Schleswig-Holstein
457
585
Thuringia
729
708
Berlin
1 937
4 896
Bremen
-53
40
Hamburg
-261
-153
* 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 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 | |Baden Württemberg |14.108 |13.518 |13.092 |14.868 |15.695 |16.342 |15.375 | |Bavaria |16.102 |15.814 |15.656 |16.817 |17.890 |18.915 |17.908 | |Berlin |3.874 |3.789 |3.668 |3.866 |3.963 |4.095 |3.544 | |Brandenburg |1.628 |1.252 |1.217 |1.329 |1.334 |1.247 |1.202 | |Bremen |914 |849 |967 |760 |940 |881 |804 | |Hamburg |3.191 |3.265 |3.078 |3.496 |3.706 |4.043 |3.507 | |Hesse |8.437 |8.812 |8.505 |9.329 |10.523 |11.128 |10.216 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |996 |767 |755 |812 |831 |805 |628 | |Lower Saxony |8.811 |8.431 |8.020 |8.703 |8.903 |8.825 |8.328 | |North Rhine Westphalia |24.135 |23.012 |22.312 |24.362 |25.572 |26.340 |22.714 | |Rhineland Palatinate |4.608 |4.451 |4.218 |4.525 |4.931 |4.818 |4.502 | |Saarland |1.081 |1.010 |1.004 |1.011 |1.028 |1.068 |1.042 | |Saxony |2.702 |2.110 |2.013 |2.211 |2.225 |1.946 |1.781 | |Saxony Anhalt |1.430 |1.105 |1.038 |1.149 |1.139 |1.008 |919 | |Schleswig Holstein |3.430 |3.161 |3.148 |3.431 |3.391 |3.337 |3.292 | |Thuringia |1.298 |981 |959 |1.080 |1.107 |959 |876 | |Total |96.744 |92.327 |89.648 |97.749 |103.177 |105.757 |96.638 | |
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 ( 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: 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 (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 | |1. Consumer protection, food and agriculture |1.827 |1.754 |1.510 |1.347 | |2. Trade and industry
(without transport)
2.1. Mining including sales and set-aside
subsidies for the hardcoal industry
2.2. Efficient use of energy and
renewable energy sources
2.3. Technology and innovation
subsidies
2.4. Aid for specific sectors of
industry
2.5. Regional structural
measures
2.6. Trade and industry
in general |
4.308
3.894
38
419
134
999
647 |
3.972
3.712
67
394
139
896
467 |
3.696
3.380
181
416
219
812
283 |
3.050
2.929
123
398
192
700
267 | |3. Traffic |16 |4 |6 |36 | |4. Housing |2.081 |1.922 |1.908 |1.605 | |5. Savings incentives and asset formation |423 |451 |511 |500 | |Total |10.892 |10.065 |9.542 |8.219 | |
Total volume of state aid by Federal Government, Länder und local authorities (bn €)[670]
|1970 |1975 |1980 |1985 |1990 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 | |Federal Government |4,0
|5,2 |6,4 |6,1 |7,3 |9,4 |12,4 |11,7 |11,4 |10,9 |10,1 |9,5 | |Länder |3,0 |3,7 |6,2 |6,2 |7,2 |10,7 |10,9 |11,7 |11,0 |11,3 |11,2 |11,2 | |Local authorities |0,5
|0,5 |0,5 |0,5 |1,1 |1,5 |1,6 |1,7 |1,6 |1,6 |1,6 |1,6 | |
The main areas, in which state aid is relevant, are:[671]
Title of state aid |Planned budget 2002 in mio € | |Marketing of German hard coal |2.929 | |Subsidies for the Eastern Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure |595 | |Subsidies for providers of agricultural accidents insurance |256 | |Interest subsidies to the ‚KfW’ for building modernisation / renovation to avoid CO2-emissions |205 | |Subsidies to take on agricultural employees |171 | |Adaptation support for employees in hard coal mining sector |121 | |Measures to support SME and freelancers as well as to strengthen vocational training |117 | |Subsidies to the Federal monopoly administration for spirits |108 | |Subsidies for the West Länder for investments in industrial companies,
GA of the development of the regional economic structure |105
| |Interest subsidies and reimbursement of loss in loans in the framework of the own capital support programme for self-employment |101
| |Support of the industrial common research and development |88 | |Pension for handing over land (‚Landabgaberente ‘) |87 | |Financial support for selling of civil air plains including power plants |78 | |Total |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 | |Total state aid in billion € |23,3 | |Total state aid less agriculture,
fisheries and transport in billion € |11,9 | |Total aid as % of GDP |1,14 | |Total aid less agriculture, fisheries
and transport as % of GDP |0,58 | |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, .
State aid by sector
|%of total
|Million euro
| | |Manufacturing
|Services
(including tourism,
financial, media and culture) |Transport |Agriculture
& Fisheries |Coal
|Not
elsewhere
classified |Total
| |2001 |33
|0 |40 |9 |18 |0 |23.274 | |Source: European Commission (2003): State Aid Scoreboard, spring 2003 update COM(2003)225 final, p. 13.
Share of State aid by sector
|Manufacturing
|Services
(including tourism,
financial, media and culture) |Transport |Agriculture
& Fisheries |Coal
|Not
elsewhere
classified | |1997-2001 |38 |1 |37 |6 |18 |1 | |1999-2001 |35 |0 |39 |7 |18 |1 | |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
exemptions |Equity
participations |Soft loans |Tax
deferrals |Guarantees | |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
| |Percentage of total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport | |Horizontal Objectives | |63 | | |Research and Development |13 | | |Environment |27 | | |SME |4 | | |Commerce |0 | | |Energy saving |1 | | |Employment aid |1 | | |Training aid |0 | | |Other Objectives |18 | |Particular sectors | |37 | | |Shipbuilding |0 | | |Other Manufacturing Sectors |1 | | |Other Non-manufacturing Sectors |- | | |Coal |35 | | |Tourism |1 | | |Financial Services |0 | | |Media, Cultural sector & services |0 | |Total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport in million € | |11.853 | |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 |Yearly average of aid not
destined to current production
(in million €) | |1997 - 1999 |1999 - 2001 |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.
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]
|1970 |1975 |1980 |1985 |1990 |1991 |1993 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 | |West Länder |7,8 |10,1 |12,5 |11,9 |14,2 |13,0 |11,8 |10,2 |17,1 |15,8 |15,5 |15,2 | |Eastern Länder |- |- |- |- |- |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 |Targets |1999
|2000
|Planned budget 2001 |Planned budget 2002 | |Old Länder:
Bayern, Bremen, Hessen, Saarland, Niedersachsen, Schleswig- Holstein, Rheinland- Pfalz, Nordrhein- Westfalen
|-Subsidies for company related investments
-support for regional investment activities under the GA of the development of the regional economic structure |99,9 |95,6 |115,0 |105,1 | |New Länder:
Mecklenburg- Vorpommern, Sachsen, Sachsen- Anhalt, Brandenburg, Thüringen und Berlin |-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 |898,7 |800,1 |697,4 |594,8 | |Total Regional infrastructural measures | |998,6 |895,7 |812,4 |699,9 | |
Federal state aid granted only to the Eastern Länder[675]
Title of state aid |1999
in mio € |2000
in mio € |Planned budget 2001 in mio € |Planned budget 2002 in mio € | |Subsidies for social housing, modernisation and renovation for the Eastern Länder |376,9 |352,1 |284,8 |238,5 | |Relief of housing companies acc. to the regulation concerning the ‘old debt support act’ (‘Altschuldenhilfegesetz’) |- |- |30,7 |25,0 | |Interest subsidies in the framework of the housing modernisation programme II of the ‘KfW’ |- |- |5,1 |12,8 | |Support of marketing and selling of Eastern German products |9,0 |9,2 |10,2 |9,0 | |Subsidies for the reduction of costs for interests for loans for the support of company related investments |0,5 |0,3 |0,2 |0,1 | |Allocation for interest support from ‘old debts’ concerning the housing sector |0,6 |0,9 |- |- | |
6 Employment policies
Basic outline of the German employment policy[676]
OECD Employment Outlook (table on ‘public expenditure and participant inflows in labour market programmes in OECD countries’)[677]
|Public expenditure as % of GDP |Participants inflows as % of the labour force | | |2000 |2001 |2000 |2001 | |Public employment services and administration |0.23 |0.23 | | | |Labour market training |0.34 |0.34 |1.49 |1.22 | |Training for unemployed adults and those at risk |0.34 |0.34 |1.49 |1.22 | |Training for employed adults |- |- |- |- | |Youth measures |0.08 |0.09 |1.02 |- | |Measures for unemployed and disadvantaged youth |0.07 |0.08 |0.66 |0.66 | |Support of apprenticeship and related form of general youth training |0.01 |0.01 |0.36 |- | |Subsidised employment |0.32 |0.25 |1.24 |1.04 | |Subsidies to regular employment in the private sector |0.03 |0.03 |0.11 |0.12 | |Support of unemployed persons starting enterprises |0.04 |0.04 |0.23 |0.24 | |Direct job creation (public and non-profit) |0.25 |0.19 |0.90 |0.68 | |Measures for the disabled |0.27 |0.29 |0.30 |0.30 | |Vocational rehabilitation |0.11 |0.12 |0.30 |0.30 | |Work for the disabled |0.15 |0.16 |- |- | |Unemployment compensation |1.89 |1.90 |- |- | |Early retirement for labour market reasons |0.01 |0.02 |- |- | |TOTAL |3.14 |3.13 |- |- | |Active measures (1-5) |1.24 |1.20 |4.04 |- | |Passive measures (6-7) |1.90 |1.92 |- |- | |
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 (55-64 years) is close to the EU average, it remains below the very low starting level of 1997” (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. re-integration 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 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):
• 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 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) Improve efficiency of job search assistance and active labour market programmes
2) Systematic review and removal of regulatory barriers; ma work contracts and work organisation more flexible
3) Develop and implement life-long learning strategy
4) Reform of the tax-benefit system; reduction of non-wage labour costs
5) 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 tax-benefit 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),
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?
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
• “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 Action-17-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 coverage[678]
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 |36.182 | |Bavaria |59.784 | |Berlin |260.306 | |Brandenburg |218.422 | |Bremen |26.690 | |Hamburg |20.223 | |Hesse |32.306 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |218.456 | |Lower Saxony |103.656 | |North Rhine Westphalia |203.065 | |Rhineland Palatinate |23.963 | |Saarland |13.991 | |Saxony |568.732 | |Saxony Anhalt |297.687 | |Schleswig Holstein |32.374 | |Thuringia |215.310 | |Support for mobility is higher in the East than in the West
|Expenditure in 2002 (in 1000 €)
| |Baden Württemberg |1.538 | |Bavaria |2.754 | |Berlin |3.239 | |Brandenburg |16.227 | |Bremen |368 | |Hamburg |231 | |Hesse |1.484 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |16.206 | |Lower Saxony |5.276 | |North Rhine Westphalia |6.024 | |Rhineland Palatinate |1.577 | |Saarland |279 | |Saxony |33.925 | |Saxony Anhalt |27.281 | |Schleswig Holstein |2.294 | |Thuringia |12.671 | |
The support for apprenticeship and related forms for disadvantaged young people varies among the Länder.
|Expenditure in 2002 (in 1000 €)
| |Baden Württemberg |53.658 | |Bavaria |64.172 | |Berlin |64.075 | |Brandenburg |100.073 | |Bremen |10.516 | |Hamburg |15.841 | |Hesse |44.648 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |94.640 | |Lower Saxony |77.994 | |North Rhine Westphalia |156.985 | |Rhineland Palatinate |36.353 | |Saarland |14.360 | |Saxony |153.618 | |Saxony Anhalt |83.028 | |Schleswig Holstein |26.272 | |Thuringia |72.550 | |
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 |37.432 | |Bavaria |26.797 | |Berlin |15.215 | |Brandenburg |13.087 | |Bremen |2.808 | |Hamburg |6.100 | |Hesse |26.840 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |8.536 | |Lower Saxony |25.300 | |North Rhine Westphalia |72.587 | |Rhineland Palatinate |12.419 | |Saarland |4.230 | |Saxony |19.374 | |Saxony Anhalt |13.916 | |Schleswig Holstein |8.509 | |Thuringia |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 pacts[680]
• 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)
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
|Total budget (€) |EU funding (€) | |Amberg-Sulzbach |23.306.400 |2.088.000 | |Neukölln |6.567.400 |1.050.000 | |Braunschweig-Peine |43.935.000 |17.763.000 | |Bremen |12.256.360 |4.575.000 | |Chemnitz |47.944.500 |21.811.000 | |Güstrow |10.675.463 |995.000 | |Hamburg |12.976.100 |2.140.000 | |Ruhr |32.597.200 |8.522.000 | |Zeitz |312.105.000 |51.084.000 | |
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 level[681]
|Name of institution (founding
date) |Participants |Main objectives |Main decisions or results (year) | |Baden Württemberg |Alliance for Education and Employment (May 1999)
|- 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
|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) | |Bavaria |Employment Pact Bavaria (June
1996)
|- 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 employment
- dialogue between different branches of industry
- socially acceptable development of EU expansion to the East
- unemployment of severely disabled people
|- 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 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 (1996- 1999): 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. | |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 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 |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.
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. | |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
|Strengthening industry and improving the employment situation in the regions of Brandenburg.
|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. | | |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.
|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. | |Bremen |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
Science and Research
- Associations
- Trade unions
- Chamber
- Employment offices
- Magistrate Bremerhaven
|Working groups:
- improving the situation of the training
market/ reducing youth unemployment
- further development of labour market policy
- Innovative industrial policy to secure and create jobs
|- 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 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) | |Hamburg |Regular discussions with the first
mayor (2002)
|- 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
|1. round of discussions scheduled for April 2002, so no results yet | |Hesse |Meeting with the premier to
discuss the situation of training
vacancies (1996)
|- premier
- Land ministries
- Land employment office
- Associations of
entrepreneurs or employers
- Trade unions
- Chambers
|- combating youth unemployment
- improving the situation of training vacancies
|Annually setting target figures for training contracts and joint actions and recommendations to achieve the targets | | |- 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 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |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
- working groups:
- vocational training of young people
- reduction of youth unemployment
- framework conditions for the start-
up and development of businesses
- new ways in labour market policy
- regional development of Western Pomerania
|- 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- Work- Future (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. V. (2001)
- improving support for start- ups (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) | |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
|- 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 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. | |North Rhine Westphalia |Alliance for Employment, Training
Competitiveness in North
Rhine Westphalia (December
1998)
|- Employers’ associations
- Chamber
- Trade unions
- Land government
Additional participants
during the preparatory
meetings of the Alliance are
representatives of:
- the protestant and catholic
churches
- the Land employment
office
-the Institute for Labour and
Technology
- the Project Ruhr GmbH
and
- other experts
|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 low- skilled workers
- supporting collective bargaining agreements on pre-retirement 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
|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 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) | |Rhineland Palatinate |Oval table
(January 1995)
|- 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
- Chambers
|- 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 |- 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 training
- implementation of JuSoPro (2000): labour market conferences in problematic
areas, targeted contacts with companies and affected people | |Saarland |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
|- Training and Employment Pact for Young People in the Saarland
- various working groups activities | | |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) | |Saxony |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 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. | |Saxony Anhalt |Alliance for Work and
Competitiveness in Saxony Anhalt
(January 1999: first meeting)
|- Land government
- Industry
- Trade unions
- Municipalities
- Employment service
|- 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
|- 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 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 | |Schleswig Holstein |Alliance „Work for Schleswig
Holstein“ (February 1999)
„Kiel Meeting“ (1988)
|Alliance „Work for
Schleswig Holstein“:
- Land government
- Land employment office
- business associations
- chambers
- handcrafts
- Trade unions;
„Kiel Meeting“:
umbrella associations of industry and trade unions as well as the Land government headed by the premier |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 start- ups 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“:
Issues that go beyond current politics; development and discussion of strategic aims of labour market and industrial policy |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“. | | |„Alliance for Training“ (annually)
The first “Alliance for Vocational
Training” was initiated in 1997.
|- Land ministries
- chambers
- associations
- Trade unions
- Land employment office
|- offering a training vacancy for 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.
|results 1997- 2001
- 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 | |Thuringia |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
|- 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 |Initiation and test of „Second Career“ programme in co- operation with Thurinigia’s employment offices | | |Thuringia’s Training Initiative
(2001)
|- Land ministries
- Industry
- chambers
- Trade unions
- employment service
- local umbrella associations |-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 |- review of professional preparation
Extensive information campaign | |
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 1999[683]
|Strengths
|Weaknesses | |Baden-Württemberg |Youth unemployment, low unemployment and female unemployment |Weaker employment rates and higher long-term unemployment | |Bayern |Good marks in all areas |No special weaknesses | |Berlin |Good mark in participation in the labour market, medium marks in long-term unemployment |Very bad performance in terms of youth unemployment, relatively weak in other areas too | |Brandenburg |Good figures in participation in the labour market and long-term unemployment, |Weak performance in unemployment rates, youth and female unemployment | |Bremen |No special strengths, good figures in female unemployment and unemployment |Nearly all figures are weak | |Hamburg |Figures generally in the upper middle field, very good performance in female unemployment |No special weaknesses | |Hessen |Good figures (in comparison to other Länder) in youth and female unemployment and unemployment |Weaker performance in employment rates and long-term unemployment | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |Good figures in participation in the labour market and long-term unemployment |Weak performance in unemployment rates, youth and female unemployment | |Niedersachsen |No special strengths |Comparably low employment rate and high long-term unemployment rate | |Nordrhein-Westfalen |performance in female unemployment and unemployment in the upper middle field |Especially weak performing in employment rate and long-term unemployment | |Rheinland-Pfalz |All figures well except employment rate |Low employment rate | |Saarland |Female employment rate in upper area |Especially weak performing in employment rate and long-term unemployment | |Sachsen |Very good figures in participation in the labour market, medium in long-term unemployment |Weak performance in unemployment rates, youth and female unemployment | |Sachsen-Anhalt |Good figures in participation in the labour market, medium in long-term unemployment |Especially weak performance in unemployment rates, youth and female unemployment | |Schleswig-Holstein |Generally good – upper middle field, esp. female unemployment |No special weaknesses | |Thüringen |Very good figures in participation in the labour market and in long-term unemployment |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 Länder[684]:
• 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 co-ordination 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]
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-Tech-Offensive)
• 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 above-average 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
o important contribution to Bavaria’s labour market with measures of tailor-made 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.
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
• 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
• 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
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
▪ 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
o Combating long-term unemployment
▪ increased use of preventive measures to avoid long-term unemployment
▪ provide additional occupational qualification measures as well as employment
o 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
o Promoting initial vocational training:
▪ especially for low-performing young people
o 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.
o 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
o 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)
• 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
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.
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]
|Baden-Württemberg |Bayern |Berlin |Brandenburg |Bremen |Hamburg |Hessen |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |Niedersachsen |Nordrhein-Westfalen |Rheinland-Pfalz |Saarland |Sachsen |Sachsen-Anhalt |Schleswig-Holstein |Thüringen | |Public employment services (2002) |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 | |Of which are earmarked for: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Labour market training (training for employed adults) |198.268 |263.867 |471.916 |211.762 |36.814 |68.273 |159.202 |163.151 |264.584 |590.282 |112.633 |37.560 |294.484 |289.153 |99.796 |214.660 | |Youth measures (unemployed youth; apprenticeships and related forms) |150.716 |217.930 |206.838 |300.109 |329.212 |49.826 |136.004 |243.673 |232.027 |506.938 |96.244 |32.525 |434.688 |240.611 |106.151 |219.976 | |Subsidised employment (subsidies to regular employment; support for unemployed starting enterprises; direct job creation) |222.056 |309.799 |916.950 |399.425 |57.071 |113.169 |277.937 |342.859 |602.555 |635.632 |745.956 |42.575 |891.567 |593.266 |119.181 |377.990 | |Measures for the disabled (2002) |389.128 |437.119 |554.081 |128.298 |29.689 |52.328 |185.815 |86.208 |271.149 |612.405 |153.653 |43.526 |187.495 |161.438 |26.502 |141.190 | |Unemployment compensation |4.520.962 |4.514.447 |2.770.652 |2.349.865 |465.723 |842.792 |2.303.821 |1.712.912 |3.530.933 |8.286.073 |1.463.395 |436.939 |3.967.562 |3.735.069 |1.307.552 |1.995.224 | |Support for employment creating infrastructure |1.931 |35.663 |52.331 |132.799 |5.022 |9.272 |11.163 |92.731 |24.812 |8.820 |5.745 |2.738 |108.786 |186.599 |6.693 |26.881 | |ESF |16.680 |19.754 |10.991 |16.646 |5.496 |7.366 |12.007 |17.424 |21.328 |52.652 |10.641 |5.164 |28.480 |25.293 |6.620 |21.695 | |
Number of participants affected[687]
|Baden-Württemberg |Bayern |Berlin |Brandenburg |Bremen |Hamburg |Hessen |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |Niedersachsen |Nordrhein-Westfalen |Rheinland-Pfalz |Saarland |Sachsen |Sachsen-Anhalt |Schleswig-Holstein |Thüringen | |Labour market training (training for unemployed adults; training for employed adults) (entrance 2002)[688] |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 | |Subsidised employment (subsidies to regular employment; support for unemployed starting enterprises; direct job creation) (Dec. 2002)[689] |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 | |Measures for the disabled[690] |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 | |Unemployment compensation (Dez. 2002)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 | |a incl. unemployment benefit, reintegration support and pension transition subsidies
Regional differences in paid weekly working hours (h) 2002[691]
|All |Male |Female | |Germany |37,9 |38,0 |37,2 | |Baden-Württemberg |37,5 |37,7 |36,8 | |Bayern |37,3 |37,5 |36,4 | |Berlin |37,5 |37,7 |36,6 | |Brandenburg |39,3 |39,4 |39,2 | |Bremen |36,8 |36,7 |37,1 | |Hamburg |37,5 |37,5 |37,1 | |Hessen |37,6 |37,7 |37,1 | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |39,6 |39,6 |39,2 | |Niedersachsen |37,2 |37,3 |36,6 | |Nordrhein-Westfalen |38,1 |38,2 |36,9 | |Rheinland-Pfalz |37,8 |37,9 |37,2 | |Saarland |38,0 |38,2 |37,0 | |Sachsen |39,5 |39,6 |39,2 | |Sachsen-Anhalt |39,9 |39,9 |39,7 | |Schleswig-Holstein |38,0 |38,0 |37,5 | |Thüringen |39,7 |39,8 |39,3 | |
Regional differences in salaries
|Production Industry |Production Industry, Trade, Financial and insurance services | | |Hourly wage 2002 (€)[692] |Monthly wage 2002 (€)[693] |Monthly wage 2001 (€)[694] | | | |All |Male |Female |All |Male |Female | |Germany |14,56 |2.396 |2.484 |1.837 |3.110 |3.492 |2.455 | |Baden-Württemberg |15,60 |2.544 |2.667 |1.949 |3.258 |3.670 |2.521 | |Bayern |14,72 |2.387 |2.486 |1.849 |3.219 |3.620 |2.498 | |Berlin |14,66 |2.388 |2.455 |2.018 |- |- |- | |Brandenburg |11,05 |1.888 |1.929 |1.619 |2.383 |2.747 |2.046 | |Bremen |16,77 |2.677 |2.737 |1.986 |3.298 |3.683 |2.498 | |Hamburg |16,74 |2.728 |2.783 |2.080 |3.290 |3.661 |2.719 | |Hessen |15,13 |2.471 |2.551 |1.920 |3.270 |3.591 |2.689 | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |10,72 |1.843 |1.894 |1.448 |2.318 |2.647 |2.018 | |Niedersachsen |15,31 |2.477 |2.546 |1.938 |2.946 |3.300 |2.294 | |Nordrhein-Westfalen |15,04 |2.490 |2.560 |1.878 |3.176 |3.522 |2.529 | |Rheinland-Pfalz |15,00 |2.465 |2.537 |1.853 |3.016 |3.379 |2.399 | |Saarland |15,73 |2.601 |2.672 |1.943 |2.873 |3.252 |2.197 | |Sachsen |10,46 |1.797 |1.881 |1.423 |2.414 |2.770 |2.053 | |Sachsen-Anhalt |10,81 |1.874 |1.918 |1.529 |2.369 |2.698 |2.041 | |Schleswig-Holstein |14,36 |2.368 |2.461 |1.820 |2.888 |3.271 |2.289 | |Thüringen |10,30 |1.776 |1.864 |1.471 |2.359 |2.657 |1.993 | |
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,
Bundesregierung (2002): Moderne Dienstleistungen am Arbeitsmarkt - die 13 Module des Hartz-Konzepts,
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 .
de/sozialpolitik/doku/1_politik/ba_hartz_RS29_2002_igm_sopo.pdf, 01.07.2002.
Thiel, Elke (2002): National Report for Germany, GOVECOR project, .
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 |2002 (planned) |2003 (planned) | |Research and development policy |10.667 |11.025 |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 Germany[697]
State level |Tasks | |Regional level |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 | |National level |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 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 Rhine-Westphalia (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&D[700] | | |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 | | |mio € |% |mio € |% |mio € |% |mio € |% | |Baden Württemberg |1 144.4 |15.5 |1 288.5 |17.5 |1 181.5 |16.3 |1 185.4 |15.9 | |Bavaria |1 570.3 |21.3 |1 345.8 |18.3 |1 287.7 |17.7 |1 269.2 |17.1 | |Berlin |721.4 |9.8 |706.6 |9.6 |716.3 |9.9 |738.8 |9.9 | |Brandenburg |243.0 |3.3 |249.2 |3.4 |246.7 |3.4 |245.3 |3.3 | |Bremen |157.8 |2.1 |179.0 |2.4 |198.1 |2.7 |202.3 |2.7 | |Hamburg |314.4 |4.3 |295.7 |4.0 |312.3 |4.3 |324.0 |4.4 | |Hesse |376.8 |5.1 |349.6 |4.8 |361.4 |5.0 |383.9 |5.2 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |99.4 |1.3 |126.4 |1.7 |127.3 |1.8 |126.8 |1.7 | |Lower Saxony |514.6 |7.0 |539.8 |7.3 |543.1 |7.5 |613.4 |8.2 | |North Rhine Westphalia |1 237.0 |16.8 |1 250.2 |17.0 |1 236.6 |17.0 |1 285.3 |17.3 | |Rhineland Palatinate |115.7 |1.6 |122.1 |1.7 |118.7 |1.6 |127.7 |1.7 | |Saarland |38.4 |0.5 |48.8 |0.7 |36.4 |0.5 |41.0 |0.6 | |Saxony |360.0 |4.9 |352.4 |4.8 |394.4 |5.4 |398.0 |5.4 | |Saxony Anhalt |150.0 |2.0 |151.4 |2.1 |156.9 |2.2 |158.9 |2.1 | |Schleswig Holstein |206.9 |2.8 |219.0 |3.0 |211.2 |2.9 |202.2 |2.7 | |Thuringia |124.5 |1.7 |134.9 |1.8 |138.0 |1.9 |136.3 |1.8 | |
Federal financial aid to the Länder according to art 91b GG[701]
|Education/Research acc. to art 91b GG | | |Planning of education measures
(mio €)[702] |Research of supra regional relevance
(mio €) |Support for research institutes
(1000 €) | | |2001 |2002 |2001 |2002 |2001 |2002 | |Baden Württemberg |- |- |17,5 |7,1 |23.139 |23.894 | |Bavaria |- |- |20,7 |7,9 |13.701 |13.346 | |Berlin |24,2 |11,2 |17,4 |6,5 | | | |Berlin (West) | | | | |22.836 |23.189 | |Berlin (East) | | | | |36.735 |41.599 | |Brandenburg |40,3 |18,3 |6,4 |3,1 |43.148 |35.158 | |Bremen |- |- |1,1 |0,6 |1.177 |1.229 | |Hamburg |- |- |4,1 |1,7 |16.713 |18.573 | |Hesse |- |- |10,0 |4,2 |12.932 |14.026 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |35,2 |16,2 |4,0 |2,4 |16.313 |17.153 | |Lower Saxony |- |- |12,6 |4,9 |15.237 |19.086 | |North Rhine Westphalia |- |- |26,0 |12,4 |24.113 |26.445 | |Rhineland Palatinate |- |- |6,0 |2,6 |3.299 |3.436 | |Saarland |- |- |1,6 |0,7 |5.243 |5.410 | |Saxony |44,0 |19,3 |14,4 |6,5 |50.404 |51.993 | |Saxony Anhalt |23,9 |15,3 |6,9 |3,5 |23.760 |24.223 | |Schleswig Holstein |- |- |3,6 |1,6 |26.482 |24.972 | |Thuringia |25,2 |12,8 |5,8 |3,2 |5.021 |4.401 | |Total |192,8 |93,1 |158,1 |68,9 |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 co-financed 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.
|Federal grants for building and maintenance of universities (mio €)[703] | | |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 | |Baden Württemberg |143 |149 |131 |142 |157 |140 |162 | |Bavaria |100 |108 |125 |155 |182 |176 |167 | |Berlin |86 |56 |56 |56 |49 |50 |49 | |Brandenburg |44 |40 |43 |42 |40 |33 |40 | |Bremen |14 |10 |10 |7 |13 |13 |17 | |Hamburg |22 |26 |26 |28 |33 |27 |34 | |Hesse |51 |48 |46 |32 |40 |41 |46 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |25 |29 |37 |38 |41 |36 |44 | |Lower Saxony |66 |82 |62 |53 |43 |69 |78 | |North Rhine Westphalia |118 |146 |145 |133 |147 |173 |185 | |Rhineland Palatinate |39 |32 |34 |40 |40 |36 |42 | |Saarland |21 |16 |10 |11 |12 |15 |17 | |Saxony |83 |57 |66 |69 |96 |88 |109 | |Saxony Anhalt |38 |44 |52 |53 |59 |58 |63 | |Schleswig Holstein |30 |37 |37 |26 |27 |26 |29 | |Thuringia |38 |47 |43 |36 |44 |40 |50 | |Total |918 |927 |923 |921 |1023 |1021 |1132 | |
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 InnoRegios[706]
[pic]
Budgets for the several projects under InnoRegio (mio €)[707]
[pic]
Federal grants for InnoRegios[708] | | |Project |Budget (mio DM) | |Berlin | |Up to 10 | | |Berlin-Buch-AG: Management für innovative Therapieentwicklung |Up to 10 | |Brandenburg | |34 | | |BioHyTec, Biohybrid-Technologien in der Region Potsdam-Luckenwalde |16 | | |RIO, Regionales Innovationsbündnis Oberhavel |8 | | |Firm: Mittelostbrandenburgisches Zentrum für innovatives Recycling zur Entwicklung neuer Verbundprojekte |Up to 10 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania | |95 | | |Maritime Allianz, Ostseeregion |31 | | |DISCO, Diabetes Informations- und Service-Center Ostvorpommern |20 | | |NUKLEUS, Präzisionsmaschinenbau |22 | | |Kunststoffzentrum Westmecklenburg |22 | |Saxony | |99 | | |KONUS, Kooperative Nutzung von Datennetzen für die berufliche Eingliederung von blinden und sehbehinderten Menschen |18 | | |InnoSachs, Hochtechnologien als Initiator für eine zu-kunftsorientierte Regionalentwicklung |35 | | |Textilregion Mittelsachsen Sachsen 31 Mio.
BioMeT, Innovationsnetzwerk Dresden Sachsen 40 Mio. IAW 2010, Industrie- und Automobilregion Westsachsen 2010 |18 | | |RIST, Regionale Innovationsnetzwerke Stoffkreisläufe |10 | | |Musicon Valley |18 | |Saxony Anhalt | |112 | | |INNO PLANTA, Pflanzenbiotechnologie Nordharz/Börde |40 | | |MAHREG Automotive |20 | | |NinA, Naturstoff-Innovationsnetzwerk Altmark |20 | | |Rephyna, Innovationspotenzial Börde |22 | | |INNOMED: Regionales Netzwerk für Neuromedizin-technik |Up to 10 | |Thuringia | |30 | | |Barrierefreie Modellregion für den integrativen Touris-mus |14 | | |INPROSYS, Produktions- und Fertigungstechnik |10 | | |Micro Innovates Macro: Bautronic Konzept 2001 |Up to 6 | |
|Core Growth Area[709] | | |Overall budget of 150 mio DM, single financing per area between 5 and 13 mio DM | |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 policies[710]
Programme name |Programme/project duration |Funding volume (mio €)
| |PROgramm INNOvation skills of small and medium-sized companies (PRO INNO) with the predecessor programme “Research co-operation among small and medium-sized enterprises“ |Predecessor programme:
from 1993 to 1998
PRO INNO: from 1999 to 2003 |1998 –2002: 564 | |Support of innovative networks (InnoNet) |from 1999 to 2003 |1999 –2002: 17.36 | |Industrial co-operative research by small and medium-sized companies (IGF),with the initiative programme “Future technologies for small and medium-sized enterprises“(ZUTECH) |IGF: no ending date defined;
ZUTECH: since 1999, no ending date defined
1999 to 2002 |1998 –2002: IGF: some 442
of this for ZUTECH 21.1 | |Innovation management NEMO (for small companies and crafts companies from the new Länder) |from 2000 to 2004 |2000 –2002: 7.9 | |Technology-oriented visit and innovation programme (TOP) |from 1992 to 2002
|1998 –2002: 1.8 | |Programme to strengthen innovation and technology transfer in small and medium-sized companies (crafts/trades, industry, retail/whole sale, services and liberal professions) |indefinite |1999 –2002: 44.15 | |
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]
|1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 | |Baden Württemberg |16.775 |18.918 |19.838 |23.308 |30.449 |34.836 |51.273 | |Bavaria |11.479 |14.521 |16.770 |17.866 |24.680 |32.868 |32.857 | |Berlin |5.215 |5.420 |5.624 |5.307 |7.031 |6.950 |14.049 | |Brandenburg |349 |460 |614 |1.102 |1.126 |1.123 |1.194 | |Bremen |1.058 |1.278 |1.534 |1.538 |1.904 |1.685 |1.537 | |Hamburg |12.353 |13.805 |12.885 |16.189 |17.687 |26.578 |32.924 | |Hesse |28.427 |31.649 |31.700 |39.576 |51.815 |73.271 |90.563 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |444 |460 |460 |448 |697 |623 |727 | |Lower Saxony |7.612 |7.823 |7.874 |8.472 |10.451 |10.788 |11.448 | |North Rhine Westphalia |33.974 |38.142 |43.767 |49.884 |59.016 |93.133 |222.841 | |Rhineland Palatinate |2.927 |2.812 |3.119 |4.164 |4.134 |5.609 |9.207 | |Saarland |1.418 |971 |767 |848 |1.026 |1.100 |1.110 | |Saxony |441 |409 |409 |750 |948 |1.155 |1.306 | |Saxony Anhalt |700 |1.585 |1.074 |2.492 |2.838 |3.250 |3.432 | |Schleswig Holstein |1.694 |2.454 |2.710 |3.537 |4.095 |4.721 |6.728 | |Thuringia |408 |614 |716 |585 |551 |633 |1.414 | |GERMANY |125.275 |141.372 |149.860 |176.065 |218.449 |298.326 |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 200-499 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 09/2000[712]
| |Total |Less than 50 employees |50-99 employees |100-199 employees |200-499 employees |500-999 employees |1000 and more employees | |Baden Württemberg |Number of firms |8857 |4294 |1939 |1309 |914 |245 |156 | | |Number of employees by firms size |1272299 |123382 |134974 |181856 |277031 |164948 |390108 | |Bavaria |Number of firms |8047 |4018 |1707 |1118 |784 |265 |155 | | |Number of employees by firms size |1222331 |105340 |120006 |155759 |243381 |180604 |417241 | |Berlin |Number of firms |913 |509 |192 |104 |74 |19 |15 | | |Number of employees by firms size |111912 |13528 |13724 |14164 |22030 |13043 |35423 | |Brandenburg |Number of firms |1175 |751 |251 |105 |47 |13 |8 | | |Number of employees by firms size |91448 |18268 |17344 |14619 |14472 |9663 |17082 | |Bremen |Number of firms |351 |193 |64 |45 |25 |17 |7 | | |Number of employees by firms size |65132 |5080 |4518 |5995 |7638 |11339 |30562 | |Hamburg |Number of firms |590 |323 |98 |73 |61 |20 |15 | | |Number of employees by firms size |98490 |8916 |6868 |10125 |19808 |14463 |38310 | |Hesse |Number of firms |3288 |1729 |674 |410 |315 |98 |62 | | |Number of employees by firms size |461887 |46627 |46873 |56647 |95878 |63473 |152389 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |Number of firms |651 |379 |149 |80 |36 |4 |3 | | |Number of employees by firms size |48904 |10188 |10546 |10890 |10481 |2555 |4244 | |Lower Saxony |Number of firms |4182 |2153 |920 |558 |399 |104 |48 | | |Number of employees by firms size |564271 |57940 |64352 |77783 |122911 |69730 |171555 | |North Rhine Westphalia |Number of firms |10673 |5056 |2531 |1493 |1079 |347 |167 | | |Number of employees by firms size |1479308 |145857 |176993 |210174 |324889 |234631 |386764 | |Rhineland Palatinate |Number of firms |2303 |- |- |- |2219 |- |84 | | |Number of employees by firms size |305086 |- |- |- |170860 |- |134226 | |Saarland |Number of firms |535 |274 |114 |63 |42 |21 |21 | | |Number of employees by firms size |106262 |7988 |7734 |8559 |12566 |14973 |54442 | |Saxony |Number of firms |2782 |1613 |627 |342 |158 |33 |9 | | |Number of employees by firms size |222357 |44207 |43525 |47756 |46673 |22429 |17767 | |Saxony Anhalt |Number of firms |1277 |732 |292 |146 |86 |15 |6 | | |Number of employees by firms size |104036 |19910 |20267 |20005 |26388 |9786 |7680 | |Schleswig Holstein |Number of firms |1493 |906 |270 |169 |100 |30 |18 | | |Number of employees by firms size |141939 |22367 |18904 |23474 |30389 |19162 |27643 | |Thuringia |Number of firms |1742 |955 |436 |221 |110 |16 |4 | | |Number of employees by firms size |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 Länder[713]
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 €. | |Baden-Württemberg |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 |3.275 |2.808 |2.800 |3.030 |3.092 |3.299 |3.769 |3.991 | |Hamburg |9.792 |11.412 |11.135 |10.236 |9.635 |9.656 |10.730 |11.692 |11.074 |12.504 | |Hessen |29.874 |30.769 |29.926 |27.318 |29.126 |27.747 |29.357 |30.505 |32.320 |32.649 | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |6.937 |10.715 |12.658 |14.008 |14.525 |13.062 |11.931 |11.129 |10.473 |10.106 | |Niedersachsen |34.144 |34.745 |32.548 |33.195 |33.006 |32.220 |34.000 |35.958 |38.780 |40.176 | |Nordrhein-Westfalen |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 | |Saarland |4.343 |4.478 |4.023 |4.425 |4.769 |4.734 |4.922 |5.846 |5.757 |6.032 | |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 |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 | |Brandenburg |+34,4 |+35,5 |+20,7 |-1,2 |+5,9 |-5,3 |-1,2 |-2,0 |-5,9 | |Bremen |-1,7 |+5,3 |-14,2 |-0,3 |+8,2 |+2,0 |+6,7 |+14,3 |+5,9 | |Hamburg |+16,5 |-2,4 |-8,1 |-5,9 |+0,2 |+11,1 |+9,0 |-5,3 |+12,9 | |Hessen |+3,0 |-2,7 |-8,7 |+6,6 |-4,7 |+5,8 |+3,9 |+6,0 |+1,0 | |Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |+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 | |Schleswig-Holstein |+9,9 |-3,1 |+7,1 |+6,2 |-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 |-1,6 |+5,2 |+0,7 |-1,1 |+0,7 |+2,9 |+3,5 |+2,8 | |
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.
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 |63,3 | |Berlin |326,1 | |Brandenburg |755,6 | |Bremen |12,9 | |Hamburg |- | |Hesse |61,3 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |472,8 | |Lower Saxony |201,5 | |North Rhine Westphalia |195,1 | |Rhineland Palatinate |25,4 | |Saarland |36,4 | |Saxony |1 529,2 | |Saxony Anhalt |1 122,9 | |Schleswig Holstein |19,4 | |Thuringia |1 015,6 | |Total |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 Support[715]
|2000 (mio DM)[716] |2002 (mio €)[717] | |Baden Württemberg |166, 276 |89,832 | |Bavaria |313, 522 |167,730 | |Berlin |0, 367 |0,326 | |Brandenburg |153, 721 |76,887 | |Bremen |1, 898 |1,714 | |Hamburg |25, 075 |9,934 | |Hesse |60, 429 |41,197 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |130, 766 |69,143 | |Lower Saxony |240, 919 |111,681 | |North Rhine Westphalia |111, 013 |61,041 | |Rhineland Palatinate |84, 440 |47,905 | |Saarland |10, 562 |5,771 | |Saxony |95, 262 |51,089 | |Saxony Anhalt |91, 238 |52,595 | |Schleswig Holstein |85, 289 |36,300 | |Thuringia |88, 298 |46,100 | |Total |1. 659, 075 |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 |2002 (estimated) | |Baden Württemberg |3.775.672
|3.862.423
|3.897.772
|3.884.872
| |Bavaria |4.339.786
|4.449.049
|4.497.323
|4.460.020
| |Berlin |1.149.495 |1.155.000 |1.138.977 |1.110.970 | |Brandenburg |838.312 |819.780 |790.236 |771.587 | |Bremen |284.700 |287.918 |289.867 |287.451 | |Hamburg |755.510 |774.388 |782.178 |772.593 | |Hesse |2.162.249 |2.216.728 |2.240.378 |2.214.694 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |609.316 |595.516 |572.243 |554.009 | |Lower Saxony |2.432.369 |2.480.184 |2.463.031 |2.443.161 | |North Rhine Westphalia |5.911.526 |6.014.847 |6.004.180 |5.931.094 | |Rhineland Palatinate |1.199.710 |1.214.968 |1.214.680 |1.209.416 | |Saarland |358.236 |363.714 |363.523 |357.921 | |Saxony |1.575.245 |1.542.279 |1.487.689 |1.450.481 | |Saxony Anhalt |876.704 |844.693 |824.710 |799.715 | |Schleswig Holstein |824.149 |832.907 |830.876 |822.587 | |Thuringia |850.516 |830.651 |807.492 |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, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia a (slight) decrease in job destruction since 1999 can be observed.
Gross job creation (creation of gainful employment)[719]
|1991-1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 | |Baden Württemberg |- |275.969 |271.698 |244.735 |255.402 | |Bavaria |- |422.271 |409.313 |386.309 |408.682 | |Berlin |- |160.495 |159.361 |151.112 |145.632 | |Brandenburg |- |181.514 |179.507 |176.136 |170.228 | |Bremen |- |28.039 |29.136 |27.091 |25.326 | |Hamburg |- |58.881 |57.843 |55.162 |56.757 | |Hesse |- |172.201 |172.154 |158.265 |160.569 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |- |155.653 |143.721 |133.137 |126.481 | |Lower Saxony |- |298.453 |298.995 |284.025 |279.692 | |North Rhine Westphalia |- |523.771 |524.733 |484.776 |496.827 | |Rhineland Palatinate |- |125.019 |123.694 |114.428 |120.103 | |Saarland |- |31.892 |31.981 |29.812 |29.362 | |Saxony |- |334.259 |314.362 |306.273 |298.610 | |Saxony Anhalt |- |211.374 |201.923 |199.289 |183.970 | |Schleswig Holstein |- |108.879 |105.589 |104.015 |101.911 | |Thuringia |- |195.546 |186.475 |174.030 |165.023 | |
Gross job destruction (destruction of gainful employment) [720]
|1991 |1992 |1993 |1994 |1995 |1996 |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 | |Baden Württemberg |234.940 |283.335 |341.434 |326.497 |314.322 |329.936 |309.330 |291.708 |285.774 |260.321 |284.153 |326.605 | |Bavaria |396.814 |414.690 |485.315 |462.417 |474.458 |500.803 |486.850 |457.535 |433.813 |417.148 |452.053 |508.083 | |Berlin |183.455 |181.194 |167.362 |173.151 |162.150 |172.333 |172.488 |161.730 |161.472 |159.994 |161.420 |167.756 | |Brandenburg |226.680 |222.904 |177.234 |159.735 |177.047 |200.721 |196.603 |188.263 |201.881 |185.810 |186.769 |182.307 | |Bremen |28.490 |27.606 |29.717 |28.975 |29.779 |30.215 |29.464 |29.194 |29.144 |29.101 |30.027 |30.009 | |Hamburg |61.170 |63.899 |67.173 |66.145 |64.394 |67.677 |64.947 |61.277 |59.474 |57.089 |61.287 |66.776 | |Hesse |156.714 |173.173 |200.765 |195.625 |193.375 |208.913 |199.581 |187.038 |182.072 |176.463 |184.706 |212.884 | |Mecklenburg Western Pomerania |185.453 |196.977 |144.299 |143.106 |149.111 |166.343 |169.430 |152.267 |159.290 |151.426 |148.033 |142.716 | |Lower Saxony |279.159 |277.821 |327.949 |309.444 |320.602 |353.649 |353.343 |326.594 |310.190 |319.016 |325.044 |338.783 | |North Rhine Westphalia |503.541 |557.554 |636.133 |603.592 |587.548 |617.945 |584.769 |556.925 |557.575 |556.135 |594.766 |653.071 | |Rhineland Palatinate |123.341 |131.850 |150.070 |140.356 |141.980 |150.648 |148.433 |136.974 |131.841 |130.126 |134.328 |149.496 | |Saarland |36.820 |37.249 |43.733 |37.625 |35.405 |38.521 |35.585 |33.178 |33.974 |33.670 |34.182 |36.920 | |Saxony |393.092 |421.682 |338.261 |285.159 |323.882 |362.109 |380.593 |336.562 |354.384 |343.305 |327.666 |314.212 | |Saxony Anhalt |239.270 |240.050 |226.233 |204.934 |223.759 |250.912 |245.700 |219.862 |227.146 |211.454 |199.565 |195.602 | |Schleswig Holstein |108.859 |109.925 |120.414 |119.889 |116.795 |125.599 |123.066 |115.844 |110.800 |110.841 |117.690 |123.178 | |Thuringia |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 |EAGGF | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Eastern part of Berlin |2120.302 |687.558 |517.858 |75.32% |162.663 |23.66% |7.037 |1.02% | |Brandenburg |6733.047 |3090.223 |1639.26 |53.05% |730.66 |23.64% |720.302 |23.31% | |Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania |5493.088 |2455.750 |1100.19 |44.80% |613.47 |24.98% |742.09 |30.22% | |Saxony |11240.40 |4858.610 |3057.598 |62.93% |1098.191 |22.60% |702.821 |14.47% | |Saxony-Anhalt |8697.414 |3360.445 |1908.342 |56.89% |715.254 |21.32% |730.849 |21.79% | |Thuringia |10018.45 |2886.137 |1480.29 |51.29% |866.7 |30.03% |539.147 |18.68% | |
Moreover, also objective 2 regions are relevant under this heading.[722]
|2000-2006 (mio €) | | | |ERDF |ESF |EAGGF | | |Total |EU contribution |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% |EU contribution |% | |Baden-Württemberg |1160.366 |97.769 |97.769 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Bavaria |2200.882 |536.638 |475.804 |88.66% |60.834 |11.34% |- |- | |Western part of Berlin |1179.189 |384.449 |244.125 |63.50% |140.324 |36.50% |- |- | |Bremen |354.659 |113.034 |113.034 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Hamburg |12.384 |6.192 |6.192 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Hesse |542.379 |183.519 |183.519 |100% |- |- |- |- | |Lower Saxony |1492.457 |733.953 |682.254 |92.96% |51.699 |7.04% |- |- | |North Rhine-Westphalia |3598.623 |970.361 |823.62 |84.88% |146.741 |15.12% |- |- | |Rhineland-Palatinate |1402.927 |170.677 |158.877 |93.09% |11.8 |6.91% |- |- | |Saarland |981.785 |171.089 |130.841 |76.48% |40.248 |23.52% |- |- | |Schleswig-Holstein |831.107 |258.319 |221.747 |85.84% |36.572 |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.
|Supplementary federal grants (mio €)[723] | | |2000 |2001 | |Saxony |2 345 |2 313 | |Berlin |1 955 |1 925 | |Saxony-Anhalt |1 493 |1 473 | |Brandenburg |1 375 |1 358 | |Thuringia |1 370 |1 352 | |Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania |1 030 |1 017 | |Bremen |987 |870 | |Lower Saxony |970 |899 | |Saarland |750 |612 | |Rhineland-Palatinate |658 |550 | |Schleswig-Holstein |406 |219 | |Baden-Württemberg |- |- | |Bavaria |- |- | |Hesse |- |- | |North Rhine-Westphalia |- |- | |Hamburg |- |- | |
-----------------------
[1] pre capita at current prices; Source:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit: Arbeitsmarkt in Zahlen 2002, Aktuelle Daten und Jahreszahlen 2002 und Zeitreihen (all civil persons in gainful employment)
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] , 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. p- 10
[23] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[24] , and Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p. 10.
[25] , and Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.10.
[26] ,
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[33] Employees, Source:
[34] Employees, Source:
[35] Employees, Source:
[36] Employees, Source:
[37] Employees, Source:
[38] , ,
[39] ,
investWz932000.asp,
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[50]
[51] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[52] .
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63] .
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[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.
[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]
[76] , 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 Arbeitsmarkt- und Wirtschaftsindikatoren, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 14, Tübingen, p. 7.
[79] ,
[80] .
[81]
[82]
[83] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[84]
[85] , ,
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[92]
[93] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[94]
[95]
[96]: ,
[97]
[98]
[99]:
[100]:
[101] (Denominator is total population, not working age population)
[102]
[103]
[104]: , and
[105]
[106] ,
[107] ,
[108] Excluding payments from the public sphere (taxes,…)
[109] Including education and special budgets
[110].
[111] Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
[112]
[113]
[114]
[115] , ,
[116]
[117] ,
[118]
[119]
[120]
[121] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[122]
[123] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[124]
[125]
[126]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]
[132] ,
[133]
[134]
[135] , , , Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.10.
and
[136] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[137] , , , 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
[138] , , , , Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.10.
and
[139] ,
[140]
[141]
[142] Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
[143]
[144]
[145]
[146]
[147]
[148]
[149]
[150]
[151]
[152]
[153]
[154]
[155] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[156]
[157] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[158]
[159]
[160]: ,
[161]
[162]
[163]:
[164]:
[165]
[166]
[167] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit: Arbeitsmarkt in Zahlen 2002, Aktuelle Daten und Jahreszahlen 2002 und Zeitreihen (all civil persons in gainful employment)
[168] , , ,
[169] Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.41,
[170] ,
[171] 20Steuern%20und%20Finanzen.pdf
[172]
[173] Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
[174] ,
[175] , ,
[176] ,
[177]
[178]
[179]
[180]
[181] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[182]
[183] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[184]
[185]
[186]
[187]
[188]
[189]
[190]
[191]
[192]
[193]
[194]
[195]
[196]
[197] , ,
[198] ,
[199] ,
[200]
[201] Including financial services, leasings/rentals and business consultants
[202] , ,
[203]
[204]
[205]
[206]
[207]
[208] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[209]
[210] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[211]
[212]
[213]
[214]
[215]
[216]
[217]
[218]
[219]
[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] (civil employees)
[224] (all persons in gainful civil employment)
[225] (civil employees)
[226] ibid.
[227] ibid.
[228], ,
[229] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[230], , , 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 Arbeitsmarkt- und Wirtschaftsindikatoren, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 14, Tübingen,p.8.
[231], ,
[232] ,
[233]
[234] , , ,
[235] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[236] ,
[237] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[238] ,
[239] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[240] ,
[241] , , , ,
[242] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[243]
[244]
[245] , ,
[246]
[247]
[248]
[249]
[250]
[251]
[252]
[253]
[254]
[255]
[256]
[257] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[258]
[259] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[260]
[261]
[262]
[263]
[264] (1.22.2)
[265]
[266]
[267]
[268]
[269]
[270]
[271] , , , , Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg (Ed.): Die Bundesländer. 50 Jahre Bundesrepublik, Stuttgart, 1999, p.59.
[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] ,
[275] (1.18.2.1), p.305
[276] (1.9.2), p. 138.
[277] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[278] , p. 210, , p. 146.
[279] , p. 219.
[280] , ,
[281] (1.18.2.1), p.308
[282] , (1.5.5)
[283] , p. 342
[284] , p. 342
[285] , p. 342
[286] , (1.15.8)
[287] , (1.15.9), p. 274
[288] (1.4.2)
[289] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[290]
[291] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[292]
[293]
[294]: ,
[295]
[296]
[297]:
[298]:
[299] (all gainfully employed)
[300]
[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]
[306] , , , ,
[307] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[308] ,
[309] , ,
[310] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[311]
[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]
[342]
[343] , ,
[344] ,
[345]
[346]
[347]
[348]
[349]
[350] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[351]
[352] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[353]
[354]
[355]: ,
[356]
[357]
[358]:
[359]:
[360]
[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.
[366]'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[367] (all employees)
[368]'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=051000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[369]'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=053000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[370]'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=055000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[371]'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=057000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[372]'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[373] , , ,
[374] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[375] ,
[376] ,
[377] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[378] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE= 5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST (DWWZEIT)'?P%23J=01, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWZEIT)'?P%23J=00, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWZEIT)'?P%23J=99
[379] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=051000000&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten
[380] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=053000000&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten
[381] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=055000000&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten
[382] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten
[383] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten.
[384] Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June
[385]'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[386] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=051000000&SUCH= &FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=051000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[387] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=053000000&SUCH= &FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=053000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[388] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=055000000&SUCH= &FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=055000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[389] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=057000000&SUCH= &FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=057000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[390] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=059000000&SUCH=& FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=059000000&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten
[391] , ,
[392] ,
[393] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=01&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=00&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=99&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten, 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWMIX)'?P%23J=98&BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3=Recherche+starten,
[394]
[395]
[396]
[397] hƒ
xhOIm0J\?]?mH sH HYPERLINK "" [pic]
[398] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten
[399] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten
[400] 'D2300.IWWW.CLIST(DWWGES)'?BE=5520&SUCH=&FORT3= Recherche+starten
[401]
[402]
[403] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[404]
[405] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[406]
[407]
[408]
[409]
[410]
[411]
[412]
[413]
[414]
[415]
[416] (alle abhängigen EPs)
[417] , , , ,
[418] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[419] ,
[420] , , , , , ,
[421]
[422] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[423] ,
[424] , , ,
[425]
[426] ,
[427]
[428]
[429]
[430]
[431] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[432]
[433] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[434]
[435]
[436]
[437]
[438]
[439]
[440]
[441] (1).pdf, ,
[442]
[443] , ,
[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 Arbeitsmarkt- und Wirtschaftsindikatoren, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 14, Tübingen, p. 9.
[446] ,
[447] , ,
[448] (1).pdf, (1).pdf
[449] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[450] ,
[451] , ,
[452] , ,
[453] ,
[454]
[455]
[456]
[457]
[458]
[459]
[460]
[461] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[462]
[463] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[464] , , ,
[465] , , ,
[466] , , ,
[467]
[468]
[469]
[470]
[471]
[472]
[473]
[474] , own calculations.
[475] (alle abhängigen EPs)
[476] , , , ,
[477] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[478] ,
[479] einnahmen_2001_ist/index.html, einnahmen_ausgaben/euro/einnahmen_2002_soll/index.html, uebersichten/einnahmen_ausgaben/euro/einnahmen_2003_soll/index.html, ,
[480] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[481]
[482] Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June, , ,
[483] Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June, , ,
[484] Employees obligated to pay social insurance at their residence on 30 June, , , ,
[485] , , ,
[486] ,
,
[487] , ,
[488] ,
[489] , ,
[490]
[491]
[492]
[493] , , ,
[494] ,
,
[495] , , ,
[496] ,
,
[497]
[498] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[499]
[500] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[501] sowie , eigene Berechnungen.
[502]
[503]
[504]
[505]
[506]
[507]
[508]
[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]
[513] , , ,
[514] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[515] ,
[516]
[517]
[518] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[519]
[520] , ,
[521]
[522] Studierende_insgesamt.html
[523]
[524]
[525]
[526]
[527]
[528] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[529]
[530] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[531]
[532]
[533]
[534]
[535]
[536]
[537]
[538]
[539] (alle abhängigen EPs)
[540] , ,
[541] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[542] ,
[543]
Erlass_20_2F_20Verordnung/PDF/Allgemein,property=pdf.pdf
[544]
[545] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[546]
[547]
[548] , ,
[549]
[550]
[551]
[552]
[553]
[554] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG). Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[555]
[556] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[557]
[558]
[559]
[560]
[561]
[562]
[563]
[564]
[565] (all persons in gainful employment)
[566] , , ,
[567] Blancke, S./Hedrich, H./ Schmid, J.: Bundesländer-Benchmarking 2002, WIP Occisional Paper Nr. 19-2002, Tübingen, 2002, p. 39.
[568] , ,
[569]
[570]
[571] Including financial services, leasing/rentals and business consultants
[572]
[573] , ,
[574]
[575] +nach+Kreisen
[576]
[577]
[578]
[579] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG), Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[580]
[581] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 161.
[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.
[583] Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn.
[584] Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn.
[585] European Commission, 2003, Spring Economic Forecasts 2003, European Economy, p. 50
[586] Thorsten Schulten (2002): Development of pay and labour costs in 2001 examined, european industrial relations observatory on-line, DE0201201F,
[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.
[588] Federal Ministry for Economics and Labour (2003): Annual Economic Report 2003, Berlin/Bonn, p. 36.
[589] European Commission, 2003, Spring Economic Forecasts 2003, European Economy, p.49.
[590] Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (2000): Indikatoren und Karten zur Raumentwicklung, Berichte, p. 226.
[591] Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin, p. 13.
[592] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003):
[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.
[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.
[598] , 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.
[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.
[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,
[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.
[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
[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, , , p 19.
[609]
ALL&gv_the=ALL&LAN=EN
[610] , 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.
[611] 32. GA Framework programme, part II, to be downloaded under
[612]
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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,
[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.
[623] , 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).
[625] Liv K. Jacobsen: Die Finanzierung der Deutschen Einheit 1990-1998,
[626] /ep60/60920000.pdf
[627] Bundesergierung (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2001 bis 2005, Berlin.
[628] Bundesergierung (2002): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin.
[629] Source: Lenk, Thomas: Aspekte des Länderfinanzausgleichs, Frankfurt/M., 2001; .
[630] Source: Bayrisches Staatsministerium der Finanzen (Ed.): Informationen und Argumente. Der bundesstaatliche Finanzausgleich, München 2002.
[631] Sources: ;
[632]
[633] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[634] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[635] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[636] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[637] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[638] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[639] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[640] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[641] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[642][643] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[644] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[645] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[646] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[647] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[648] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[649] (“Länderfinanzausgleich”): Specific horizontal equalization scheme (SHES), (“Bundesergänzungszuweisungen”): Supplementary federal grants (SFG)
Sources: 1995-2000: , 2001:
[650] 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.
[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.
[653] 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.
[654] Planungsausschuss für den Hochschulbau (2002): 32. Rahmenplan für den Hochschulbau nach dem Hochschulbauförderungsgesetz 2003–2006, Berlin, p. 29.
[655] Data provided by the central data collection archive of the Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der Landesfinanzminister
[656] This headline covers rental support for social housing, financial support for students and pupils, etc.
[657] This headline covers support for social housing, city infrastructure, communal traffic support measures, etc.
[658] Including consequences of war, special support for Eastern Länder, special support for Berlin, other special financial measures
[659] , 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.
[660] /ep60/60920000.pdf
[661] Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2002): Bund – Länder Finanzbeziehungen auf der Grundlage der geltenden
Finanzverfassungsordnung, Berlin.
[662]
[663]
[664]
[665]
[666] Bundesministerium der Finanzen, homepage.
[667] , p- 6-7.
[668] , p. 4.
[669] , p. 7.
[670] , p- 2.
[671] Ibid., p.4
[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, , , p 19.
[673] 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, , p. 9.
[674] Deutscher Bundestag (1999): Drucksache 14/1500, p. 23.
[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, , p 64.
[676] 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, , , p 28.
[677] Based on Umbach, Gaby (2003): Employment Policies in Germany and the United Kingdom – The impact of Europeanisation, AGF-Project report – Political Sciences, Cologne.
[678] .
[679] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Aktuelle Arbeitsmarktdaten,
[680] European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, and Social Affairs, Unit EMPL/A.1, Employment and European Social Fund, Brussels 2001.
[681] European Commission, Regional Policy, Territorial employment pacts, homepage
[682] Ibid. pp. 120-125.
[683] Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 12, Tübingen, p. 26.
[684] Translated version of Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 12, Tübingen, p. 24
[685] Translated version of Blancke, Susanne / Schmid, Josef (2000): Die Bundesländer in der aktiven Arbeitsmarktpolitik, WIP Occasional Paper Nr. 12, Tübingen, p. 29.
[686] Federal Republic of German: National Action Plan for Policy on Employment 2002, Berlin 2002, pp. 92-104.
[687] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Aktuelle Arbeitsmarktdaten,
[688] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Aktuelle Arbeitsmarktdaten,
[689] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): Teilnehmer/Eintritte in Maßnahmen der beruflichen Weiterbildung nach Ländern,
[690] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003):Arbeitsmarkt in Zahlen, Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahmen, Dezember 2002, . arbeitsamt.de/hst/services/statistik/200212/iiia4/abm_heftd.pdf, p.9.
[691] ibid.
[692] .
[693] .
[694] .
[695] .
[696] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung / Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2002): Innovation Policy - More Dynamic for Competitive Jobs, Berlin/Bonn, p. 52.
[697] Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2001): Finanzplan des Bundes 2002 bis 2006, Berlin, p. 13.
[698] IfW/ISI/NIW/DIW (2000): Regionale Verteilung von Innovations- und Technologiepotentialen in Deutschland und Europa, Karlsruhe, p. 531.
[699] Bundesministerium der Finanzen: Das System der öffentlichen Haushalte, Berlin,
[700] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Facts &Figures Research 2002, p. 297.
[701] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p- 161.
[702] Data provided by the central data collection archive of the Länder finance ministries / Zentrale Datenstelle der Landesfinanzminister
[703] Including action programme apprenticeship East.
[704] Planungsausschuss für den Hochschulbau (2002): 32. Rahmenplan für den Hochschulbau nach dem Hochschulbauförderungsgesetz 2003–2006, Berlin, p. 29.
[705] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Basic and Structural Data 2001/2002, Berlin, p. 288.
[706]
[707]
[708] ibid.
[709] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2001): FÖRDERUNG REGIONALER INNOVATIONSINITIATIVEN
IN DEN NEUEN LÄNDERN - Sachstandsbericht -Stand: 09.10.2001, Berlin, S. 4.
[710] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2001): FÖRDERUNG REGIONALER INNOVATIONSINITIATIVEN
IN DEN NEUEN LÄNDERN - Sachstandsbericht -Stand: 09.10.2001, Berlin, S. 9.
[711] Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2002): Facts &Figures Research 2002, p. 283.
[712]
[713] Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder (2003): Statistik regional 2002. Daten für die Kreise und kreisfreien Städten Deutschlands, CD-Rom.
[714]
[715] 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.
[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.
[718] 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.
[719] Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (2003): .
[720] Number of person entering unemployment from gainful employment, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit:
[721] Number of person entering gainful employment from unemployment, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit:
[722] ALL&gv_the=ALL&LAN=EN
[723] ALL&gv_the=ALL&LAN=EN
[724]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- activity pages for adults
- free printable pages for toddlers
- printable journal pages for adults
- fun activity pages for kids
- printable activity pages for adults
- printable journal pages for women
- free printable coloring pages for kids
- free printable pages for kids to color
- printable journal pages for kids
- free printable christmas coloring pages for toddlers
- 504 plan for nc students for medical form
- scholarships for pt students for 2019