Demographic sparsity: a structural challenge for the northern peripheries

Demographic sparsity has been recognised as a challenge for sustainable economic and social development by the European Union. Protocol no. 6 of the accession treaties of Sweden and Finland led to the implementation of a specific priority objective in areas with low population densities, known as “Objective 6”, until 1999. Between 2000 and 2006 extensive parts of North Finland, North Sweden, Mid Sweden and East Finland were defined as “Objective 1” areas. In the current structural funds period (2007-2013), a special subsidy of 35 euro per inhabitant per annum was granted the sparsely populated regions of Sweden and Finland. Sparsely populated regions furthermore have a special status with regard to regional state aid[E1]  and .

 Sparsity is generally defined as an average population density below a certain threshold level within each region. Because of the ease with which it was calculated and its apparent objectivity, this indicator has been widely used as a criterion of eligibility, e.g. for regional investment and transport aid[E2] . The degree to which the eligible areas are determined by regional boundaries can be illustrated by applying the same threshold values to municipalities rather than regions[E3] . Quite different areas can then be identified as sparse.

 One can however not conclude from this that one should improve the delimitation of sparsely populated areas by using statistical areas at the most narrow available scale. The degree of sparsity depends upon the number of persons that can be reached within a reasonable distance, rather than within a given locality, municipality or enumeration district. The definition of “reasonable distance” will vary depending on the functions that are envisaged: a shopping mall will for example cater for the needs of the population within a wider area than a primary school. One critical distance is however determined by the time people are generally prepared to spend commuting between their home and workplace every day. Studies show that the time above which the number of commuters decreases rapidly is generally around 45 minutes. This can be approximated to a radius of 50 km. A more coherent and stable measure of sparsity would therefore be the number of persons found within 50 km radius from each points, as illustrated here[E4] .

 Having defined sparsity as a low number of persons within the functional vicinity, the question remains whether this actually has an effect on the potentials for economic and social development. A first obvious answer concerns the lacking economies scale in public and private service provision. These additional costs need to be weighed against the benefits of preserving a human presence in each territory (e.g. current or future resources, ecosystem preservation, cultural or ethnic diversity, military or strategic factors, maintained agricultural production). Secondly, the integration of small labour markets in wider economic contexts is challenging. If they are to be competitive on national or international markets, they need to specialise heavily. This implies a high degree of vulnerability to market fluctuations and economic cycles, whereby economic downturns can lead to the collapse of local communities. Inversely, small communities can under the right conditions provide a significant contribution to national growth. The challenge is therefore to design modes of intervention that alleviate the social effects of industrial crises, without creating cultures of dependency that can affect local entrepreneurship.

 Demographic trends over the last decades show significant depopulation trends in sparsely populated areas. Their intensity tends to increase in periods of growth; depopulation is not so much the result of people moving out, as people not returning. In periods of prosperity, young people will typically be employed directly after graduation in the city where they are studying. The incentive to return to their place of origin is therefore weak. Efficient growth policies lead to increased demographic challenges sparsely populated areas, which in turn requires additional efforts to preserve and promote their attractiveness as living environments.

A number of strategic issues in terms of sparsity for the Nordic peripheries can be identified:

• Sparsity needs to be conceptualised carefully, and not confused with peripherality, to promote a wider understanding of why local labour markets with few people face specific challenges;
• The enlargement of local labour markets, e.g. through improved transport infrastructure, can reduce the degree of sparsity in some regions;
• The long term implications of current depopulation trends in terms of access to resources and evolution of ecosystems need to be highlighted.

 [E1]Link to regional state aid map

 [E2]Link to map of regional investment and transport aid [E2]

 [E3]Link to map sparsity NUTS3 / NUTS5

 [E4]Link to 50km population potential map.