Bruxelles est-elle une métropole performante, compétitive et attractive en Europe ? Patrick Bisciari et Sarah El Joueidi

1. Is Brussels a performing,
competitive and attractive
European metropolitan region?
Patrick Bisciari and Sarah El Joueidi
NBB webinar, 24 January 2023

2. Brussels: from metropolitan area to metropolitan region
2
Sources: EC, Eurostat, OECD.

3. Selected metropolitan areas
Source: .OECD, metropolitan area database.
3
Metropolitan area Population 2018 Area (km²)
Paris 12 924 097 17 584
Madrid 6 791 667 7 888
Berlin 5 259 440 17 473
Ruhr 5 117 039 4 434
Barcelona 4 985 549 2 625
Milan 4 944 728 3 114
Rome 4 331 571 6 162
Athens 3 544 204 1 930
Naples 3 372 586 1 286
Hamburg 3 296 381 7 197
Brussels 3 260 987 4 824
Warsaw 3 154 440 8 595
Budapest 2 979 468 6 394
Lisbon 2 969 024 4 328
Vienna 2 967 197 9 634
Munich 2 882 464 5 501
Amsterdam 2 838 598 3 312
Stuttgart 2 778 315 3 651
Metropolitan area Population 2018 Area (km²)
Frankfurt am Main 2 693 488 4 296
Katowice 2 505 530 3 940
Stockholm 2 308 143 7 037
Prague 2 216 056 5 756
Lyon 2 113 104 3 606
Cologne 1 994 029 1 624
Copenhagen 1 919 370 3 231
Rotterdam 1 848 449 2 154
Turin 1 742 605 1 700
Valencia 1 733 606 1 737
Dusseldorf 1 550 191 1 201
Seville 1 545 862 4 699
Lille 1 518 544 1 682
Helsinki 1 490 142 4 686
Cracow 1 400 321 3 754
Marseille 1 284 351 2 482
The Hague 1 092 983 417
Luxembourg 598 995 2 593

4. Identifying high performers among metro regions
4
(Real GDP per capita, 2015 prices, in euros)
Luxembourg
Stockholm
Copenhagen
Paris
Amsterdam
Helsinki
Brussels
Munich
Frankfurt
Lyon
Rotterdam
Cracow
Naples
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
80 000
90 000
100 000
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0
Level
in
2019
Geometric mean growth 1997-2019 (in %)
High but Slow
Low but Fast
High and Fast
Low and Slow
Median: 1.34
Median: € 40 781
South
North/West East/Central Capitals
Source: EC, Ardeco.

5. Brussels
Copenhagen
Paris
Amsterdam
Munich
Rotterdam
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Level
in
2019
Geometric mean growth 1997-2019 (in %)
High and Fast
High but Slow
Low but Fast
Low and Slow
Income in Brussels is growing slowly in the core but rapidly in the periphery
5
Core Periphery
(Real GDP per capita, 2015 prices, in euros)
Brussels
Copenhagen
Paris
Amsterdam
Munich
Rotterdam
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
0 1 2 3 4 5
Level
in
2019
Geometric mean growth 1997-2019 (in %)
High but Slow
Low but Fast
High and Fast
Low and Slow
Median: 1.31
Median: € 49 530
Median: € 32 668
Median: 1.45
South
North/West East/Central Capitals
Source: EC, Ardeco.

6. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Munich
Hamburg
Prague
Amsterdam
Copenhagen
Frankfurt
Berlin
Dusseldorf
Rotterdam
Helsinki
The
Hague
Cologne
Warsaw
Budapest
Milan
Ruhr
Lisbon
Vienna
Luxembourg
Paris
Madrid
Turin
Rome
Barcelona
Lyon
Brussels
Marseille
Cracow
Katowice
Valencia
Lille
BCR
Athens
Seville
Naples
Total (median) High performers (median)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prague
Munich
Stuttgart
Hamburg
Frankfurt
Budapest
Warsaw
Stockholm
Dusseldorf
Cologne
Katowice
Cracow
Amsterdam
Luxembourg
Copenhagen
Ruhr
Rotterdam
The
Hague
Berlin
Milan
Helsinki
Lyon
Paris
Brussels
Rome
Turin
Marseille
Lisbon
Lille
Madrid
Barcelona
BCR
Valencia
Naples
Athens
Seville
(Un)employment rates in the Brussels metro area are worse than the median for
the selected EU metro areas
6
Employment rate
(in % of the working-age population)
Unemployment rate
(in % of active population)
(2015-2017 averages, 15-64 years)
72.7
67.2
7.0
6.5
Source: OECD, metropolitan area database.

7. Summary of findings on economic performance of Brussels
Positive
• High GDP per capita (also in the core)
• High GDP per capita growth in the periphery
• Considerable productivity gains
• Employment and population: rather dynamic
over the last decade
• Non-market services (EU, NATO,…)
• Financial and business services
7
Negative
• But only moderate growth in the core
• But moderate job creations over the long run
• But in levels: low employment rate/high
unemployment rate
• But industry

8. 0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
INSTITUTIONS
MACROECONOMIC
STABILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
HEALTH
BASIC EDUCATION
HIGHER EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
LABOR MARKET
EFFICIENCY
MARKET SIZE
TECHNOLOGICAL
READINESS
BUSINESS
SOPHISTICATION
INNOVATION
Brussels High performers (median) Total (median)
Competitive strengths and weaknesses of Brussels
8
Strengths
• Infrastructure, market size business
sophistication
Weaknesses
• Institutions
• (Health)
• Higher education and training
• Labour market efficiency
• Technological readiness
• Innovation
National weaknesses: Institutions,
macroeconomic stability, basic
education
Source: EC, Regional Competitiveness Index 2019.

9. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Road accessibility
(2016)
Railway accessibility
(2014)
Brussels High performers (median) Total (median)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Disposable income
per capita
(2014)
Potential market
size in GDP
(2016)
Potential market
size in population
(2018)
Brussels has a good infrastructure accessibility and a large potential market
Source: EC, RCI 2019.
1 Share of the population in a neighbourhood of 120 km radius.
9
Infrastructure
(lhs: %1, rhs: daily number)
Market size
(indices EU28=100)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1 000
Passenger flights
(2016)

10. But underperforms in terms of institutional quality and lifelong learning
Source: EC, RCI 2019.
10
Institutions
(z-scores, 2017)
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
Quality and
accountability of
government services
Absence of corruption Impartiality of
government services
Brussels High performers (median) Total (median)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Higher
education
attainment
Lifelong
learning
Early
school
leavers
Lower-
secondary
completion
only
Higher education and training
(% of adult population, average 2015-2017)

11. Brussels is weak for most labour market variables
Source: EC, RCI 2019.
11
(%, average 2015-2017)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Unemployment Long-term unemployment Female
unemployment
NEET
Brussels High performers (median) Total (median)

12. Brussels lags behind on the technological and innovation front
Source: EC, RCI 2019.
12
Technological readiness
(in %, 2018)
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Households access
to broadband
Individuals buying
over internet
Households access
to internet
Brussels High performers (median) Total (median)
Innovation
(in % except scientific publications in thousands, average 2015-2017 )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Intramural
R&D exp.
(2015)
HR in Science
and Tech.
Core creative
class
employment
Knowledge
workers
Scientific
publications
Empl. in tech.
& knowledge
sect.

13. Drivers of attractiveness
Positive agglomeration effects
• Density
• Large pool of highly-educated people
Positive aspects of quality of life
• Services (schools, health,…)
• Amenities (culture, leisure,…)
13
Negative agglomeration effects
• Cost of living (rents,…)
• Congestion
• Pollution

14. Certain aspects of quality of life are perceived as unsatisfactory in Brussels
14
0
20
40
60
80
100
Overall
satisfaction
Services
and amenities
Environmental
quality
Public
transport
Trust
Inclusiveness
Safety
and crime
Housing
affordability
Easiness to
find a job
Local public
administration
Brussels High performers (median) Total (median)
(percent of very and rather satisfied respondents in 2019
Source: EC, European Urban Audit, “Perception of Quality of Life in European Cities” survey 2019.

15. Brussels underscores in services and amenities, with the exception of healthcare
15
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Health care Schools Public spaces Green spaces Sport facilities Cultural facilities
Brussels High performers (median) Total (median)
(percent of very and rather satisfied among the persons having provided an answer in 2019)
Source: EC, European Urban Audit, “Perception of Quality of Life in European Cities” survey 2019.

16. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45 Cracow
Warsaw
Athens
Paris
Marseille
Brussels
Rome
Hamburg
Berlin
Budapest
Naples
Lyon
Vienna
Luxembourg
Milan
Prague
The
Hague
Barcelona
Stockholm
Munich
Stuttgart
Cologne
Turin
Lille
Lisbon
Rotterdam
Frankfurt
Copenhagen
Ruhr
Valencia
Seville
Amsterdam
Madrid
Katowice
Dusseldorf
Helsinki
Brussels is one of the most congested advanced metropolitan area
16
(average % of additional time at peak hours relative to normal traffic, 2021)
High performers (median)
Total (median)
Source: Tom tom traffic index 2021.

17. SWOT analysis of Brussels
Strengths
• Positive agglomeration effects
• Large and rich potential market
• Large pool of highly-educated people
(density and higher education attainment)
• Infrastructure (accessibility, affordable and
reliable public transport)
• Cost of living and housing affordability
• Appreciation of healthcare
Opportunities
• Capital of the EU
• Large powers in the Region
17
Weaknesses
• Negative agglomeration effects
• Congestion
• Environmental quality
• Education and training: NEET, Lifelong
learning,…
• Integration on the labour market
• Public transport (satisfaction and frequency)
• Innovation and access & use of Internet
• Perception of trust, inclusiveness and safety
• Perception of amenities and institutions
Threats
• Coordination

18. Conclusions
• Useful to consider metropolitan areas instead of cities and regions
• Brussels may perform better
• Strengths and weaknesses
• Lessons from case studies:
• Geography and history matter
• Maintain a coherent policy-mix
• Coordination matters
18

19. Thank you for your
attention
NBB Economic Review article + data:
Is Brussels a performing, competitive and attractive European metropolitan region?

20. Metropolitan institutions?
• Administrative >< functional boundaries
• “Problem owner” for wider issues
• Metropolitan governance
• Size < metro areas
• In most cities of our sample
• Regional development, transport, urban planning
• From soft coordination to metropolitan bodies
• Joint metropolitan strategy + coordination
20