In this edition of the Statistical Report, as in previous editions, a chapter is dedicated to the comparison of Veneto with other Italian and European regions and with groupings for comparison such as Italy and the European Union. Comparisons are made above all with Lombardia, Piemonte, Emilia-Romagna, Toscana, Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Cataluña and Rhône-Alpes. These regions are considered Veneto's competitors as they all have fully developed economies, high incomes and generally quite similar social dynamics. However this chapter has a new ingredient: we have tried to offer an insight into the varied panorama of European regions, which reveals similarities and differences according to certain socio-economic features. The aim is to capture elements which permit the assessment of the quality of life, a multidimensional concept which is difficult to quantify through a single unit of measure. It is conditioned not only by objective features, but also by people's perceptions, i.e. subjective judgements. Even if only the most objectively measurable factors are considered, they represent the multiple facets of the notion of quality, and are difficult to put together into a single indicator of common wellbeing.
Six sectors of interest which are deemed capable of providing an indication of a region's quality of life have thus been identified: the economy, employment and education, innovation, tourist appeal, population and health. Some basic indicators were chosen for each of these sectors, and then through factorial procedure were re-elaborated into synthetic measures (factors). Starting from these synthetic factors and through the statistical procedure of cluster analysis, European regions were grouped together according to internal similarities and characterised by key features which distinguish them from other groups.
The first part of the chapter reports on the results of the cluster analysis. As well as the map of European regions subdivided into the six typological groups identified through clustering, a description of the main characteristics of each group is presented and a map of the characterizing feature, a composite indicator obtained from a combination of several variables.
In the second part of the chapter there is a series of charts relating to the significant indicators also used in the cluster. In each of the indicator charts Veneto is compared with competitor regions, Italy and the European Union.
For each indicator chosen there are three graphs. The first refers to the time series for the last five years; the second to the value for the most recent year available, and the third, which is slightly more detailed, refers to the percentage variation for the five years in question, to the percentage variation and the value of the last year.
For the factor and cluster analyses, the indicators used were calculated from Eurostat and Espon data. Three factors affected the results of the analysis: missing regional data which have been replaced with national averages; difference between regions and indicators in terms of time of available data - so for each European region the most recent year for which data is available has been considered; and lack of information for certain sectors of interest.
As regards processing of the indicator charts, the analysis is based mainly on Eurostat data. For each topic attempts have been made to show trends through the study of the time series. However, as it has not always been possible to reproduce the same years, the most recent updates available are presented. For Veneto, recent data is available for almost all the topics, but to make comparisons, values of the same time period for all the regions analysed have been used. Indeed some differences may be noted between the data presented in the first part of this report and those that follow: this is due to the need to make them conform to each other and to some Eurostat definitions that do not always exactly correspond to the official ones used at a national level.

The mapping of the European territory which emerges from the statistical analysis carried out is generally in line with what one would expect if one knows the territory studied, and also with what was reported by the European Commission in its "4th Report on Economic and Social Cohesion".
The 27-member Europe that we know today is the result of the enlargement process which began in May 2004 with the accession of ten new Member States, and which concluded on 1st January 2007 with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. The new member states, due mainly to their internal differences, have increased the challenges in achieving the Lisbon Strategy Objectives established in 2000, which were revised in 2005 as a strategy for sustainable economic growth, i.e. new and better jobs and greater social cohesion. Indeed there is considerable socio-economic disparity between the member states and between the regions. This disparity in terms of income and development stems from structural weaknesses in some key factors of competitiveness such as investment in material infrastructure, innovation, human resources and sustainable development. As a result, some regions grow at twice the speed of the group's average and others develop at average rates lower than 1% per year. The challenge of the cohesion policy lies in investing in competitiveness to allow the member states and the regions to overcome their respective structural problems. According to the European Commission's fourth report, "as a result of a rigorous approach, cohesion policy has succeeded in making a difference to standards of living and levels of opportunity across the Union." Progress has been made, particularly in new member states, in terms of GDP, GDP per capita, support for investments and creation of jobs, productivity, support for innovation and investment in human capital. However despite this progress there are still significant differences, in absolute terms, between nations and regions. This is due in part to enlargement and in part to the fact that in its early stages, growth tends to be concentrated in the more dynamic parts of nations.
From the analysis carried out, six groups of regions have been identified, whose composition is of no great surprise. They provide evidence of the differences between nations and regions, and highlight the most obvious disparities and delays for new member states and for those of Southern Europe.
The regions with greater economic and social stability belong to the first group of original member states of the European Union, the ex-EU 15; the ten states that acceded in 2004 have made great progress and reached the same level as the rest of Southern Europe; of the latest accessions, Romania and parts of Bulgaria are developing late but with good potential for the future, thanks also to the financial support of the EU's cohesion policy. (Figure 14.1)

The first group, with 111 regions, is the largest and includes territories of nations which made up the original EU 15. The group is made up of Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark and some regions in Ireland, Great Britain, Belgium, France, Austria, Spain, Germany as well as some Scandinavian regions. Italy is divided in two groups, but the regions that fall in this first group are Veneto and the other northern regions (with the exception of Valle d'Aosta and Trentino), as well as Toscana, Umbria and Lazio. All of Veneto's competitors are in this group as well as capital city regions. These may be included even if the rest of the country is not in the same group. This reflects the trend for new urban centres of growth to emerge.
The regions under observation here have solid, structured economies though they have had to face marked cyclical weakness in recent years. They are characterized as having the highest economic well-being in Europe, as the map indicating "factors of wealth" in Fig. 14.2 reveals.
The level reached in secondary and tertiary sectors by these regions, whose natural increase is lower than that of regions going through full economic restructuring, is considerable, as is the level of investment in research and development.
As can be expected, levels of employment and professional training are also high: an educated and qualified workforce is key to a competitive economy.
Population growth in these regions is due mainly to high net migration, which derives from the appeal of these regions' socio-economic features for foreign citizens. People's health is considerably better than the European average, probably due to the reasonably healthy lifestyle. Proof of this is the high life expectancy which makes the elderly account for a considerable part of the population. (Figure 14.2)

This group includes some regions of Finland, France, Belgium, Spain and some from across the Channel.
What is immediately striking is that Nordic areas and Mediterranean areas fall in the same group. What they have in common are above all high demographic growth due to live births and economies based mainly on the primary sector. These characteristics link these regions to a more rural lifestyle than other regions of central-northern Europe. These territories have fairly good levels of well-being and while growth is low in secondary and tertiary sectors, in the primary sector it is good. Some regions in this group are among those European regions with the highest values as regards growth in the agricultural and livestock sector, as can be seen in the map related to the factor "growth in primary sector".
Although education and training of young people and adults is given importance, there are some critical points in these regions regarding the employment sector.
The tourist appeal of these regions is below the European average, as is progress in the sector of research and development.
The demographics are quite dynamic, with good natural increase and young populations.
As regards other features, within this group there are some regions which are more heterogeneous. Regions in the Mediterranean basin have a lower rate of alcohol-related mortality and suicide than those in Northern nations, which demonstrates greater perception of well-being and quality of life. (Figure 14.3)

This is the most difficult group to describe as it does not seem to have a particularly distinctive feature. The regions in this group score well on many indicators linked to economic well-being and would seem to fit in with the economically solid groups previously described. But what makes them differ are some indications of social malaise, hence 'the paradox' (in the title).
The group includes several Swedish regions and a few German ones. These areas invest not so much in agriculture and livestock, but in research and development. Swedish regions in particular spend a great deal on this sector and also invest a lot in terms of human resources. Social indicators such as university education and lifelong learning during employment are also positive.
However it is indicators that describe levels of individuals' "happiness", satisfaction, physical and psychological well-being, that are giving negative signals.
As observed in the 4th Report on Social and Economic Cohesion by the European Commission, there is a strong tendency for outwards migration in these regions. It is young people in particular who are looking for job opportunities elsewhere. Furthermore the incidence of suicide or alcohol-related death is higher than the European average, a negative indication of what might be the degree of life satisfaction on the part of citizens of these north European areas. Finally the population is characterized by a significant elderly component, limited mortality and high birth rates particularly in Scandinavian regions. (Figure 14.4)

This group includes most of the regions in Mediterranean Europe, particularly in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece, some British regions, all regions (except for two) belonging to the ten Member States who joined Europe in 2004 and Bulgaria (except for one region). The Italian regions that belong to this group are those in the south and on the islands, as well as the Marche.
As the European map for the "employment factor" shows, what makes this group stand out is the worrying employment situation particularly in the Mediterranean areas, except for Portugal, and most regions of Eastern Europe, where employment rates are low, even for the younger population, and there is little investment in training.
These regions have modest economic wealth, and still focus on the primary sector, ignoring investment in industry and services and particularly in research and development.
The population structure is quite diversified within the different geographic areas: In Eastern European regions the aged population weighs less than the European average, though this is not true for other regions in the group.
The fact that the ten new member states and almost all of Bulgaria belong to the same group as Mediterranean regions can be seen as a positive result of European economic and social cohesion policy. The Commission reports that "it is the new Member States, particularly those with a low GDP per capita which have shown the greatest growth and have been fastest to bridge the gap". The GDP of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania almost doubled from 1995 to 2005, while growth rates for Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have more than doubled in comparison with the EU average. (Figure 14.5)

This group contains all regions of Romania and some in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Poland.
These are the least rich and sound from an economic point of view. They have very low GDP but it is developing, as revealed by the growing investment in secondary and tertiary sectors.
On the basis of current growth rates, the European Commission believes that these regions will take over 15 years to obtain a GDP per capita equivalent to three quarters of the European average. In order to reach this objective, the regions in this group are focusing on the development of key market sectors, secondary and tertiary sectors, as shown in the map in Fig. 14.6. These territories do not invest enough in training their citizens: not only are employment rates low, but levels of university education and lifelong learning are well below the European average
Companies working in these territories are not yet focusing on research and development, as the low expenditure in this sector reveals. The demographic profile of these regions reveals quite a young population, with average birth rates compared to the rest of Europe, and a tendency to have children at a young age, which makes population change faster.
As well as a health care system which is still developing, this group also has rather high mortality rates compared to the European standard. (Figure 14.6)

This group is made up of a considerable number of regions with good employment levels, which in part explains the high net migration of the area.
Investment in training is limited: there is a low share of graduates and limited investment in lifelong learning
The health of the population is good, mortality is limited, thanks also to an efficient health system. What distinguishes this group is undoubtedly the high development of tourism, which is the main driving force of the economy of these regions, together with activity in the primary sector.
This group includes mainly coastal and mountainous regions, which are different from other regions in that their economy is almost exclusively based on tourism. The tourist density of regions in this group is among the highest in Europe.
Growth in other sectors, such as the service sector, is more moderate, and there is little investment in research and development.
Trentino Alto Adige and Valle d'Aosta are the Italian regions that fall within this group. (Figure 14.7)