Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data)"

Tobias Conrad Fletcher
5 years ago
Views:

Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) Hungarian Central Statistical Office May 2011 Contents Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009.

1 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) Hungarian Central Statistical Office May 2011 Contents Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) in Tables Regional distribution of gross domestic product, Per capita gross domestic product (GDP), Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in PPS, Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as a percentage of national and counties average, Classifi cation of per capita gross domestic product of counties according to difference from counties average, Gross value added by industries at current prices, Gross value added by industries at current prices, Methodological notes Contact details

2 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009 Preliminary regional gross domestic product (GDP) data of 2009 indicate a further increase in the regional differences of Hungary s economic development, in the economic advantage of Central Hungary including Budapest, while the performance of the rest of the regions (except Southern ) declined compared to the national average. Figure 1 Regional per capita GDP as a percentage of national average, 1995, 2008, 2009 % Central Hungary Central Western Southern Nothern Hungary Nothern Great Plain Southern Great Plain The gross domestic product was HUF 26,054 billion at current purchasers prices in 2009, 49.6% of which was produced by Central Hungary, 25.2% by, and also 25.2% by Great Plain and North. The share of the central region increased further in 2009 (by 1.5 percentage points), while the contribution of the western and eastern parts of Hungary decreased (by 0.9 and 0.6 percentage point, respectively) compared to the previous year. Budapest, included in the central region, produced 39.5% of the total gross domestic product of Hungary, its weight growing by 1.8 percentage points compared to The signifi cant decrease of the economic performance of in 2009 was caused by the economic crisis, severely hitting the regions of Central and Western. Because of the crisis within manufacturing it was mainly the manufacture of transport equipment that had lower performance than in the previous year. Figure 2 Distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) by regions, 2009 Southern Great Plain 8.7% Nothern Great Plain 9.2% Nothern Hungary 7.3% Southern 6.5% Western 9.2% Central 9.4% Central Hungary 49.6% 2

3 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) The gross domestic product per capita was HUF thousand at national level in 2009, 2.4% less at current prices than a year before. The GDP per capita as a percentage of the national average fell in fi ve regions, of which the most considerably in Western and Central (4.3 and 4.1 percentage points, respectively). In contrast with the above-mentioned regions Central Hungary, still highly at the top of the ranking, showed a growth of 3.1 percentage points, while the per capita GDP of Southern remained at the level of the previous year. Figure 3 Per capita GDP by regions, Central Hungary Central Western Southern Nothern Hungary Nothern Great Plain Southern Great Plain GDP Adatsor2 per capita National average In 2009 the economic differences in terms of GDP per capita continued to increase between the regions, while the ranking of the regions did not change compared to the previous year. The per capita GDP of Central Hungary, remaining the fi rst in the ranking, was 2.8 times higher than the last Northern Hungary s, which has been the highest difference ever. If we leave out of consideration the fi gure of Central Hungary, comprising the capital, the difference between Western, then having the highest GDP per capita, and Northern Hungary is considerably smaller, 1.5-fold. The same ratio was 1.6 in There was no signifi cant change in the order of counties in 2009 compared to the previous year. The majority of the counties (12 counties) kept their positions, while 4 regions moved up and 4 regions moved down one place. The outstandingly high GDP per capita of the capital, increasing year by year, was 2.3 times higher than the national average in 2009, which represented rises of 8.6 and 9.7 percentage points compared to 2008 and 2007, respectively. Komárom-Esztergom and Győr-Moson-Sopron counties continue to exceed the national average, although the GDP per capita fi gure fell by 3.8 percentage points in case of both counties. The position of the counties in the fi rst two places and of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Nógrád counties, having the last two places, did not change in 2009 either. The difference between the most developed Budapest and the least developed Nógrád county increased further: from 4.9-fold in 2008 to 5.2-fold in If we do not take into account the fi gure of the capital, the difference between the GDP per capita of Győr-Moson-Sopron, the county invariably having the highest fi gure, and Nógrád, the county representing the lowest value, was essentially smaller, 2.5-fold in 2008 and 2.4-fold in The global economic crisis had the highest impact on Fejér and Zala counties in 2009, both having fi gures higher than the counties average, where the GDP per capita as a percentage of the counties average fell by 4.3 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively. In 2009 Hungary s gross domestic product per capita was 15,281 PPS purchasing power standards, used in international comparisons, a decrease of 5.4% compared to the previous year and 35.2% less than the EU average. Although declining at current prices, this indicator rose 3

4 slightly, by 0.4 percentage point compared to the EU-27 average. Within this the fi gure for Central Hungary was 9.5% higher, while those for Northern Hungary and Northern Great Plain, the two least developed regions, about 60% lower than the EU average. The performance of the other regions in Hungary did not reach the half of the EU average, except Central and Western (55.6% and 60.2%, respectively). Figure 4 Per capita GDP (in PPS) as a percentage of EU-27 average, 2005, 2008, 2009 EU-27=100 % Central Central Western Southern Nothern Nothern Southern Hungary Hungary Great Plain Great Plain

5 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) Tables 1. Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), Region Gross domestic product at purchasers prices, million HUF Distribution of gross domestic product, % Budapest Pest Central Hungary Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central Győr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain Great Plain and North Total

6 2. Per capita gross domestic product (GDP), Region Gross domestic product per capita a), thousand HUF Order of counties on the basis of GDP per capita Budapest Pest Central Hungary I I I Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central III III III Győr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western II II II Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern IV IV IV Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary VI VII VII Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain VII VI VI Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain V V V Great Plain and North Total a) Calculated with mid-year resident population. 6

7 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) 3. Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in PPS, Region Per capita gross domestic product b) in PPS in PPS, EU-27 = Budapest Pest Central Hungary Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central Győr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain Great Plain and North Total b) Calculated with EU data available in April

8 4. Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) as a percentage of national and counties average, Region Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita c) as a percentage of the national average as a percentage of the counties average Budapest Pest Central Hungary Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central Győr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain Great Plain and North c) Calculated with mid-year resident population. 8

9 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) 5. Classification of per capita gross domestic product of counties according to difference from counties average, County Gross domestic product per capita, thousand HUF, 2008 County Gross domestic product per capita, thousand HUF, 2009 Above 120% of counties average Győr-Moson-Sopron Győr-Moson-Sopron Komárom-Esztergom Komárom-Esztergom Fejér Between 101% and 120% of counties average Vas Fejér Pest Vas Zala Pest Zala Csongrád Tolna Between 91% and 100% of counties average Csongrád Veszprém Veszprém Baranya Baranya Hajdú-Bihar Hajdú-Bihar Heves Heves Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Tolna Below 90% of counties average Bács-Kiskun Bács-Kiskun Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Somogy Somogy Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Békés Békés Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Nógrád Nógrád

10 Region 6. Gross value added by industries at current prices, 2008 Agriculture, hunting and forestry, fi shing Mining and quarrying, manufacturing, electricity, gas and water supply Construction Services (million HUF) Industries, total (at basic prices) A,B C,D,E F G O A O Budapest Pest Central Hungary Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central Győr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain Great Plain and North Total

11 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) Region 7. Gross value added by industries at current prices, 2009 Agriculture, hunting and forestry, fi shing Mining and quarrying, manufacturing, electricity, gas and water supply Construction Services (million HUF) Industries, total (at basic prices) A,B C,D,E F G O A O Budapest Pest Central Hungary Fejér Komárom-Esztergom Veszprém Central Győr-Moson-Sopron Vas Zala Western Baranya Somogy Tolna Southern Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Heves Nógrád Northern Hungary Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Northern Great Plain Bács-Kiskun Békés Csongrád Southern Great Plain Great Plain and North Total

12 Methodological notes The revision and dissemination policy for national accounts data has changed from 2010, the fi nal GDP data are compiled t+21 months. At the time of the preliminary national accounts estimations for 2009 the data sources necessary for the calculations are not fully complete. This publication contains the calculations of the national accounts completed in October Next estimates for 2009 on the basis of comprehensive information will be revised and published in October This release contains data in accordance with the NACE Rev.2 classifi cation, in line with EU regulations. 1) Definitions Data of the HNA presented by this publication correspond to the statistical recommendations of the UN (SNA 93) and the regulations of the European System of Accounts (ESA 95). Gross domestic product (GDP) is a concept of value added. It is the sum of gross value added of all resident producers (institutional sectors or industries) measured at basic prices, plus the balance of taxes and subsidies on products, which cannot be divided among industries or sectors. GDP is an aggregate value at market prices. Gross value added (GVA) is a measure of economic value. It measures the difference between the gross output produced by economic units and the costs of materials and other inputs (intermediate consumption) which were used in production. It is measured at basic prices. Basic price is the amount receivable by the producer from the purchaser for a unit of a good or service produced. It is equal to output minus any tax payable plus any subsidy receivable on that unit as a consequence of its production or sale. Purchasers price is the amount actually paid by the purchaser, excluding any deductible VAT or similar deductible tax (i.e. it excludes taxes on purchased goods and services acquired for intermediate consumption and subsidies on products). Purchasing power parities are the means for estimating PPPs within the framework of the international comparison programme. These parities give the possibility to compare the per capita GDP volumes of different countries. The measurement unit is the PPS, which is roughly equal to 1 euro. The real value of GDP, its value expressed both in PPS and in euro is the same for the European Union as a whole (EU-27). This equation is not true for the GDP of individual countries. 2) Estimating gross value added by sectors Regional Accounts are the regional specifi cation of the corresponding accounts of the total economy. For the regional estimation of gross domestic product (GDP) the production method is used. The exception is the general government sector, where the income method is preferred. According to the available sources the following estimation methods are used in the different sectors. In the non-financial corporations (NFC) sector the gross value added was calculated at individual level using tax declaration fi gures and corporations had local units in more than one county in 2008 and 2009, respectively. In the case of these enterprises the gross value added fi gures were distributed among relevant counties in proportion to the wages and salaries of their local units. Data of the other corporations were recorded in the county where their headquarters were located, supposing that they are engaged in economic activities only in the county of registration. 12

13 Regional distribution of gross domestic product (GDP), 2009 (preliminary data) The gross value added of financial corporations was allocated to regions in the same way as in the case of non-fi nancial corporations. GVA fi gures of multi-regional enterprises were allocated to counties/regions in proportion to their wages and salaries. The gross value added of the general government sector is equal to the sum of the compensation of employees, the balance of other taxes and subsidies on production and gross operating surplus (which is made up of consumption of fixed capital mainly). The first two items can be calculated on institutional level based on the annual report of government institutions. For the institutions that have local KAUs only in one county the data on county level can be compiled as the sum of institutional data. For the institutions that have local KAUs in several counties the split is based on labour data. The consumption of fixed capital is allocated to county level based on the stock of tangible and non-tangible assets at the end of the year. The regional breakdown of GVA in the area of defence and security is estimated according to the regional distribution of total value added of all other activities. In the case of the household sector regional data are obtained by combining different methods. The production indicators of sole proprietors are originally estimated by counties and by classes of NACE, so there is no need for regionalisation there. The regional breakdown of the gross value added by agricultural small-scale production and by the production for own use of households is calculated using proportions from the Regional Agricultural Accounts for the relevant sector. Regarding the regionalisation of output of housing services of owner-occupied dwellings, the number and the average fl oor space of dwellings by counties are used derived from the last census or micro census, and actual market prices per square metre of dwellings by counties, from the survey organised by the Dwellings Statistics Section. The estimation of regional breakdown of own-account construction and renovation of dwellings is based on the number and average fl oor space of built dwellings by counties and the per unit cost of construction, also by counties. The gross value added of renting out private accommodation by counties is calculated with an indirect indicator, namely the number of tourism nights spent in private accommodation units. The regional estimation of gratuity to doctors and nurses is based on data from health statistics, namely the number of treatment cases in outpatient services by counties and nursing days in hospitals by counties. As for illegal activities, the indicator applied for the regional allocation of the estimated GVA of drug production and trade is the number of drug addicts by counties, which derives from health statistics. To regionalise the estimated value of prostitution an indirect indicator from the HCSO s regional statistics is applied. In the case of other unregistered activities of households, like domestic services, educational and artistic activities and other unregistered services no appropriate spatial indicators are available for regionalisation, so in these cases the national GVA fi gures, based on expert estimations, are distributed by counties in the same proportion as the GVA of the recorded production of sole proprietors belonging to the given industry. The majority of units belonging to the sector of non-profit institutions serving households indicate the county code of activities on their statistical report, so the bottom-up method can be applied for estimating their value added fi gures by counties and regions. The value added of the remaining NPISHs for example political parties, which are not obliged to report to the HCSO and whose data are derived from their public reports is distributed across regions in the proportion estimated in the fi rst step for the other NPISHs. The gross value added at basic prices is thus obtained by counties and regions. Net taxes on products are added in proportion to the basic price values by counties and regions. This gives gross domestic product at market prices by counties and regions. 13

14 ISBN Contact details: Responsible editor: Péter Szabó, Head of Department Further information: Mária Bruckner Telephone: +36 (1) , Information service, telephone: +36 (1) , fax: +36 (1)

By making use of SAFRIM (South African Inter-Industry Macro-Economic Model) By Jeaunes Viljoen, Conningarth Economists, 1

By making use of SAFRIM (South African Inter-Industry Macro-Economic Model) By Jeaunes Viljoen, Conningarth Economists, South Africa 10/13/2011 1 1960: The economy experienced high growth rates mining