The Treasury

Global Navigation

Personal tools

4.4  Summary

The results presented above tell a fairly consistent story. Auckland and Wellington have the highest levels of economic performance based on almost all measures. In particular, both have significantly higher average levels of labour income, hours worked, and wage rates than the three other comparison areas. These differences remain even after controlling for differences in population attributes across the areas, although ‘unadjusted’ differences between Auckland and Wellington, which generally show Wellington to have higher levels of economic performance, are ‘explained’ by differences in characteristics in


Table 4– Mean Economic Performance Across Auckland Zones
  Real Annual Labour Income Real Hourly Wage – Wage/Salary Workers Real Hourly Wage –       All Workers Employment Rate Weekly Hours Worked by the Employed Benefit Receipt Rate Real Annual Labour Income Real Hourly Wage – Wage/Salary Workers Real Hourly Wage –       All Workers Employment Rate Weekly Hours Worked by the Employed Benefit Receipt Rate
v. Northern Unadjusted 1997-2004 Unadjusted Growth Between 1997 and 2004
Western -5,200** -3.63** -3.65** -0.025* 0.64 0.043** 2,803 0.23 -0.71 0.023 4.69* -0.018
(880) (0.45) (0.61) (0.011) (0.56) (0.010) (3398) (1.94) (2.33) (0.037) (2.09) (0.036)
Central -848 -0.46 -0.21 -0.034** 1.89** 0.047** 3,368 0.54 0.37 0.042 2.89 -0.024
(994) (0.46) (0.60) (0.010) (0.55) (0.010) (3882) (1.82) (2.05) (0.036) (1.81) (0.036)
Southern -5,806** -3.01** -3.52** -0.052** 1.13* 0.079** 2,714 0.04 -0.13 0.055 1.81 -0.089
(967) (0.46) (0.60) (0.012) (0.48) (0.013) (3500) (1.68) (1.94) (0.046) (1.86) (0.047)
Observations 27,211 16,106 18,431 27,289 19,952 27,289 27,211 16,106 18,431 27,289 19,952 27,289
R-Squared 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01
v. Northern Adjusted For All Covariates 1997-2004 Adjusted Growth Between 1997 and 2004
Western -864 -1.24** -1.29** 0.014 0.80 0.007 1,765 0.05 -1.44 0.018 4.38* -0.014
(567) (0.31) (0.49) (0.011) (0.57) (0.009) (2121) (1.26) (1.82) (0.035) (2.04) (0.027)
Central 454 -0.26 -0.17 -0.013 1.49** 0.023** 1,654 -0.14 -0.08 0.017 2.68 -0.006
(637) (0.36) (0.53) (0.008) (0.54) (0.007) (2327) (1.25) (1.54) (0.030) (1.70) (0.025)
Southern 114 -0.18 -0.53 -0.003 0.88 0.018* 710 -0.12 -0.29 0.029 2.09 -0.062*
(532) (0.34) (0.49) (0.009) (0.50) (0.007) (2082) (0.92) (1.31) (0.037) (1.78) (0.024)
Observations 27,211 16,106 18,431 27,289 19,952 27,289 27,211 16,106 18,431 27,289 19,952 27,289
R-Squared 0.47 0.26 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.28 0.47 0.26 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.28

Notes: All amounts are in June 2004 Dollars. Standard errors which account for clustering at the PSU level are in parentheses. Coefficients with * are significant at the 5% level and those with ** at the 1% level.

the two areas.[26] One exception is that Auckland has lower employment rates than Wellington, Christchurch, and Rural, but these differences are ‘explained’ by differences in characteristics in these areas. Auckland has also experienced stronger growth in wages, in particular for wage/salary workers, than other regions, but this has been accompanied by slower growth in employment rates (differences in attributes ‘explain’ a fairly limited fraction of these differences).

Wages are generally higher in Auckland (and Wellington) than in the other comparison areas at all points in the wage distribution and the self-employed in Auckland have relatively higher wages than the self-employed in all other areas across the wage distribution. These differences remain even after controlling for differences in population attributes across the areas and are of similar magnitude whether or not the self-employed are included. Auckland has experienced somewhat stronger growth in wages for wage/salary workers across the distribution, but much of this difference is explained by differences in regional attributes. Once self-employed workers are included, wage growth has been similar in all comparison areas (except Wellington where it has been slower).

Within Auckland, Northern Auckland has the highest and Southern Auckland the lowest level of economic performance based on almost all measures. Western and Central Auckland are usually found between these two extremes on most measures. However, differences between Auckland zones are mostly ‘explained’ by differences in the characteristics of the people who live in these zones and economic performance appears to be converging within Auckland with slower growth found in the Northern zones on most measures of economic performance relative to the Central and Western zone and faster growth found in the Southern zone relative to the other zones. It is also worth noting that these differences reflect where people live within Auckland and may not accurately capture the economic performance of businesses in these zones if many individuals commute across zones.

Notes

  • [26]In most cases, differences in educational qualifications and ethnic composition are the main attributes that explain differences in outcomes between Auckland and other regions.  Industry, occupation, and employment type also explain differences in certain models.  This paper only looks superficially at the role of different attributes in explaining differences and thus these findings may not be robust.
Page top