Types of Regional Profiles 2016

Associate Professor Alexander Tsvetkov, Regiostat

 

Types of regional profiles have been established in order to identify similarities and differences among districts for five consecutive years now. For that purpose, indicators characterizing their socio-economic development are analyzed and clusters of districts are formed by means of neural networks.

The clusters are formed on the basis of 63 indicators, organized in the 12 categories of the analysis: income and living conditions, labor market, investment, infrastructure, taxes and fees, administration, demography, education, healthcare, security and justice, environment, and culture.

The types of regional profiles can be used to identify complex positive or negative phenomena, to find out and analyze the causes underlying them, to formulate general or sector-specific policies etc.

Types of Regional Profiles

8 clusters (types) of regional profiles were formed by applying neural networks. This number has remained unchanged in the last four studies. There are certain differences in cluster composition, though the general tendencies have shown no significant changes. The only cluster which has remained unchanged in all studies (from 2012 to 2016) is the one which contains solely the district of Sofia (capital city).

The analysis of the types of regional profiles emphasizes sets of typical features that define the following types of clusters:

Best Social-Economic Condition: Sofia (Capital City)

The district of Sofia (capital city) has formed a cluster of its own, significantly different from those of the other districts, for the fifth successive year. It is the most developed district, both socially and economically: the most developed economy (in terms of income and investment), the best demographic status and the strongest labor market. This district is one of the leaders in infrastructure and social environment (education and healthcare). It is the only district in Bulgaria with such characteristics.

The district of Sofia (capital city) has the highest GDP per capita, the largest average annual income per household member, the highest average salary, and the lowest poverty level.

Its labor market is in the best condition; the district is also a leader in the size of investments, both domestic and foreign.

The average salary in the district of Sofia (capital city) in 2014 was higher by 35% than that in Stara Zagora, the district immediately following, and double the salary in the district that came last, Vidin.

On the other hand, the district of Sofia (capital city) has the worst state in security and justice. Only the district of Burgas has a higher crime rate, judging by the number of reported crimes against persons and property per 1,000 people of the average annual population in 2015, while in the number of criminal cases cleared within 3 months the Sofia district takes the last place.

Good Socio-Economic Condition: Burgas, Varna, Stara Zagora, Plovdiv, and Ruse

The defining characteristic for this cluster is the fact that the included districts take a relative ‘second place’ after Sofia (capital city) in terms of their general socio-economic state. They have profiles similar to Sofia’s: good economy and labor markets, relatively high local taxes and fees, education and healthcare in a relatively good condition – but order and security in a poor condition. Nevertheless, there are considerable differences between them and the capital, and no tendency for these differences to diminish has been observed.

The districts in the cluster have a negative natural population growth and a relatively good age structure. Also, three of the five districts in the cluster have a positive net migration rate: they attract population rather than lose it.

In the average annual number of visits to the cinema and the theatre per 1,000 people, the cluster is a leader after Sofia (capital city).

The greater part of the districts in the cluster have higher than the average tax rates on non-residential property of legal entities, tax on vehicles and cars, and property transfer tax.

Poor Demographic State, Low Local Taxes, the Lowest Infant Mortality: Kyustendil, Pernik, and Gabrovo

What is typical of this cluster is the poor demographic state expressed in a deteriorated age structure of the population, threatened possibilities for reproduction of the workforce, and very low rates of natural growth.

On the other hand, the districts in the cluster have the three lowest rates of infant mortality in the country, but it should be noted that the birth rate in these districts is also the lowest in the country.

The district of Gabrovo has the worst age structure of the population in Bulgaria. The ratio of the population aged 65+ to the population aged 0 to 14 keeps deteriorating, and is by now higher than the country average by 65%.

The districts of Vidin and Montana are the only ones in Bulgaria with lower natural growth than the three in this cluster.

As for the workforce, only the district of Smolyan has a worse rate of demographic replacement (the rate of the population aged 15 to 19 to that aged 60 to 64) than all three districts in the cluster, which shows serious problems in workforce reproduction.

Good Education, Healthcare and Environment: Blagoevgrad and Smolyan

The districts of Blagoevgrad and Smolyan are characterized by good condition of education, revealing a high net rate of enrolment of the population in 5th–8th grade and low shares of repeaters and dropouts from primary and secondary education.

The district of Smolyan has the greatest number of teachers in primary and secondary education per 1,000 high-school students among all districts in Bulgaria.

The two districts have infant mortality rates among the lowest in the country and the highest number of health-insured persons.

The two districts’ levels of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere are among the lowest in Bulgaria.

Poor State of Education, High Infant Mortality: Lovech, Sofia, Pazardzhik, and Sliven

What characterizes the four districts in this cluster is a deteriorated state of education. This is most notable in the district of Sliven.

The districts of Lovech, Pazardzhik, and Sliven have the three highest levels of infant mortality in Bulgaria.

In 2015 the districts of Sliven and Sofia ranked second and third in terms of relative share of high-school repeaters in the country, while Sliven and Pazardzhik came third and fourth in relative share of dropouts from primary and secondary education in 2014. In 2015 the district of Sliven had the smallest number of teachers per 1,000 pupils in primary and secondary education.

Good State of Healthcare, High Local Taxes, Lack of Investment: Veliko Tarnovo, Yambol, Haskovo, Dobrich and Shumen

The districts in this cluster maintain relatively high levels of some local taxes and fees. They are also characterized by a relatively low FDI level.

Haskovo, Veliko Tarnovo, and Yambol are among the six districts that took the last places in cumulative amounts of FDI as of December 31st 2014.

The district of Dobrich has the highest property transfer tax in the entire country.

All districts in the cluster are among the leaders in terms of bed capacity in general hospitals per 1,000 persons of the population, as well as in terms of number of patients who received treatment in such hospitals per 1,000 persons of the population.

Deteriorated Demographic State, Poorly Developed Economy: Vidin, Pleven, Montana, and Vratsa

The districts in the cluster are characterized by a deteriorated demographic state, a weak economy and relatively low levels of investment.

All four of them are located in the North-western region, reflecting the poor economic situation in Bulgaria’s North-west.

The district of Vidin has the lowest average annual gross salary of those employed full-time or part-time in the country. Montana and Vidin rank third and fourth in poverty level. Montana had the lowest income per household member in 2015.

All districts in this cluster have a negative rate of net migration (that is, more people leave than settle there), very low levels of natural growth and deteriorated age structure.

There is not a single college or university in Vidin or Montana.

Very Poorly Developed Economy, Problems with the Workforce and the Labor Market: Kardzhali, Silistra, Razgrad, and Targovishte

This profile is characterized by the worst state of both the economy and the labor market. The levels of income and investment per person of the population are considerably below the national average. The district of Silistra has the lowest GDP per capita (in 2014), and Kardzhali has the highest poverty level.

All four districts have some of the lowest employment levels (age 15 to 64), a low share of the population aged 25 to 64 with higher education, and a high share of people with primary or lower education.

In 2016, the districts of Razgrad, Silistra, and Kardzhali had the lowest average grades at the state matriculation exams in Bulgarian language and literature in the country.

The district of Kardzhali has the highest proportion of grades in Bulgarian language and literature below “average” 3.00 in the country.

In the districts of Razgrad, Kardzhali, and Targovishte general practitioners are the most overburdened in the country (calculated by the number of people served by one general practitioner).

 

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be made based on the analysis. Some of them are also valid for the previous four studies, which means that they indicate clear tendencies:

1. The district of Sofia (capital city) differs from all the other districts in the country and has a leading position socially and economically. It has continued to outperform the rest of the country’s territory.
2. Sofia (capital city) is the only district with an overall favorable socio-economic profile.
3. The range of profiles characterized by a poor socio-economic state remains wider than the range of those in relatively good condition.
4. The problematic socio-economic condition of Northwestern Bulgaria stands out, as well as that of the West-central region, in a more and more clearly discernible way.
5. Regional policies in Bulgaria yield no results. The goals prescribed in strategies and even stipulated in laws have not been achieved; on the contrary: differences have grown even deeper and so have problems.
6. A professional discussion is necessary on the concepts and technology of regional policy making and the means for its implementation. There are numerous questions that need to be addressed, such as:

• Does reliance solely and exclusively on the ‘utilization’ of EU funds guarantee achieving sustainable strategic development?
• Shouldn’t EU funds be considered only a means for the attainment of goals rather than the only framework within which all plans, programs, and strategic documents on all regional levels are designed?
• And if the above holds true, isn’t the ‘absorption’ of EU funds turning into policies’ objective rather than a means for their implementation?
• Are planning and strategic documents on all regional levels really designed in a way that allows for the making and implementation of the right regional policies aimed at overcoming differences?