Management of the Kraków Functional Urban Area, in Poland, using a European Union Instrument: Integrated Territorial Investments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15678/ZP.2019.48.2.03Keywords:
metropolitan governance, metropolitan scale, functional urban area, EU cohesion policy, integrated territorial investments, Poland, KrakówAbstract
The objective of this paper is to analyse the ways in which one of the European Union’s Cohesion Policy instrument, i.e. the Integrated Territorial Investment (the ITI), can be used, with specific reference to the example of the Kraków Functional Urban Area (the KFUA). ITI is an instrument of EU policy and was introduced during the 2014–2020 program period. It was designed to promote the development of functional areas, especially on a metropolitan scale, and to strengthen the co-operation ability of local entities.
Research design: The reasoning utilised in this article uses participant observation as the primary research method. The complimentary analytical methods are desk research of documents, written questionnaires and individual direct interviews. It is important to underline the direct involvement of the author in the preparation of the ITI Strategy for the KFUA, participative workshops concerning the introduction of ITIs, and expert reports commissioned by the Kraków Metropolis Association (the KMA).
The findings enable one to clarify mechanisms disclosed in the national scale with specific features also present in the KFUA. The first part of this paper includes a brief review of the literature concerning the nature of the metropolitan scale, management of the development of functional urban areas, and deliberation procedures. In the second part, the author presents the results of his qualitative research revealing the way an instrument of ITI is implemented by the KMA. Tools used by the KMA, taking into consideration juridical and cultural conditioning, demonstrate how the ITI instrument can become, beyond financial support for communities, a real creator of a co-operative ecosystem of entities.
The added value is to show that the ITI instrument, despite some bureaucratic sluggishness, can be, thanks to understanding the essence of “metropolitan governance”, an approach which builds real territorial co-operation.
Downloads
References
Books and journal articles
d’Albergo E., & Lefèvre C. (2018). Constructing metropolitan scales: Economic, political and discursive determinants. Territory, Politics, Governance, 6(2): 147–158, https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.
Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field. Environment & Urbanization, 15(1): 135–147.
Barca, F. (2009). An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Brussels: the Commission of the European Communities.
Blackmond Larnell, T. (2018). Does it matter ‘who governs?’ Governance networks, local economic development policies, and the Great Recession. Local Government Studies, 44(5): 624–648.
Brenner, N. (2003). Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4): 297–324.
Brenner, N. (2004). New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Re-scaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chrabąszcz, R. & Zawicki, M. (2016). The evolution of multi-level governance: The perspective on EU anti-crisis policy in Southern-European Eurozone states. Public Governance, 4(38): 17–31, https://doi.org/10.15678/ZP.2016.38.4.02.
Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin, B. Pettit (Eds.), The Good Polity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Davoudi, S., Evans, N., Governa, F. & Santangelo, M. (2008). Territorial governance in the making. Approaches, methodologies, practices. Boletín de La A.G.E., 48: 33–52
ERDF/CF/ESF Territorial delivery instruments – Implementation progress. (2019). https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/EU-Level/ERDF-CF-ESFTerritorial-delivery-instruments-Imple/i4ed-3nn4 (last accessed 19 February, 2019).
ESS (2016). European Social Survey 2016. Dimensions of Social Cohesion. Poland, https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/country.html?c=poland (last accessed 19 February, 2019).
Fricke, C. & Gualini, E. (2018). Metropolitan regions as contested spaces: the discursive construction of metropolitan space in comparative perspective. Territory, Politics, Governance, 6(2): 199–221.
Gorzelak, G. (2012). The Regional Dimension of Transformation in Central Europe, London: Routledge.
Hausner, J. (2006, 2019). Administracja publiczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Izdebski, H. (2007). Od administracji publicznej do public governance. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 1: 7–20.
Kaczmarek, T. & Kociuba, D. (2017). Models of governance in the Urban Functional Areas – Policy lessons from implementation of Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) in Poland. Quaestiones Geographicae, 36(4): 51–68.
Kattel, R. (2015). What would Max Weber say about public sector innovation? The NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 8(1): 9–19.
Kociuba, D. (2017). Delimitacja miejskich obszarów funkcjonalnych ośrodków wojewódzkich w realizacji zintegrowanych inwestycji terytorialnych w Polsce – teoria versus praktyka (Delimitation of Functional Urban Areas of Voivodeship Centres in the implementation of Integrated Territorial Investments: Theory vs. practise). Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, 3(69): 54–78.
Kociuba, D. (2018). Implementation of Integrated Territorial Investments in Poland: Rationale, results, and recommendations. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(4): 69–86
Kraków Metropolitan Area. 2011–2015 (2016). Kraków: Statistical Office.
Lefevre, Ch. (2009). Gouverner les métropoles. Paris: L.G.D.J.
Lemay-Hébert, N. (2013). Rethinking Weberian approaches to statebuilding (pp. 3–14). In D. Chandler & T.D. Sisk (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of International Statebuilding. London: Routledge.
Mansfield, B. (2005). Beyond rescaling: reintegrating the ‘national’ as a dimension of scalar relations. Progress in Human Geography, 29(4): 458–473.
Mazur, S. (Ed.) (2015). Współzarządzanie publiczne. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Mazur, S. & Kopycinski, P. (Eds.) (2017). Public Policy and the Neo-Weberian State. London: Routledge.
McGregor, D., Simon, D. & Thompson, D. (Eds.) (2006). The Peri-Urban Interface. Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use. London – Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Noworól, A. (2018a). Smart governance and metropolitan dimension, Case for Kraków, Poland. Smart Cities and Regional Development (SCRD) Journal, 2(1): 31–37.
Noworól, A. (2018b). Współpraca gmin Stowarzyszenia Metropolia Krakowska – doświadczenia i perspektywy (Cooperation of Communes of Kraków Metropolis Association. Experiences and Prospects). Report commissioned by the Kraków Metropolis Association.
Noworól, A., Noworól, K., Kudłacz, M., Hałat, P., Potkański, T. & Komża, J. (2018). Analiza skuteczności i efektywności instrumentów terytorialnych wdrażanych na poziomie regionalnym i lokalnym w ramach środków polityki spójności 2014–2020 oraz instrumentów terytorialnych i programów sektorowych wdrażanych w ramach krajowych środków budżetowych – rekomendacje dla systemu wdrażania KSRR 2030”. Raport końcowy (Analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of territorial instruments implemented on the national, regional and local levels in the framework of the Cohesion Policy – recommendations for the system of implementation of NSRD 2030. Final Report). Report commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development.
Olsen, J.P. (2007). Understanding Institutions and Logics of Appropriateness: Introductory Essay. Oslo: Centre for European Studies.
Parks, R. B. & Oakerson, R. J. (2000). Regionalism, localism, and metropolitan governance: Suggestions from the research program on local public economies. State and Local Government Review, 32(3): 169–179.
Pollitt, C. & Bouchaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform (third edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pyka, R. (2016). Ewolucja władzy miejskiej we Francji na początku XXI wieku. Nowe wymiary, nowe poziomy na przykładzie Metropolii Lyonu. Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, 3(65): 31–49.
Reed, M. & Bruyneel, S. (2010). Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: A three-dimensional review. Progress in Human Geography, 34(5): 646–653.
Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Ac countability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Savitch, H. V. & Vogel, R. K. (2000). Paths to New Regionalism. State and Local Government Review, 32(3): 158–168.
Smę tkowski, M., Gorzelak, G. & Rok, J. (2018). Stakeholders’ Perception of Cohesion Policy Implementation and Performance: Dimensions, Determinants and Outcomes. COHESIFY Research Paper. Warsaw: Centre for European Regional and Local Studies (EUROREG) University of Warsaw.
Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3): 195–218.
Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (Eds.) (2007). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York: Palgrave.
Sroka, J. (2009). Deliberacja i rządzenie wielopasmowe. Teoria i praktyka. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
Szafranek, E. (2014). Integrated Territorial Investments as a tool of sustainable regional and local development. Economic and Environmental Studies, 14(4): 485–495.
Szafranek, E. (2015). Cohesion of planning and programming the development of regions in the conditions of a territorially – oriented policy. Studia Regionalia, 41–42: 169–184.
Śleszyński, P. (2013). Delimitacja Miejskich Obszarów Funkcjonalnych stolic województw. Przegląd Geograficzny, 82(2): 173–197.
Visnjic, I., Neely, A., Cennamo, C. & Visnjic, N., (2016). Governing the city: Unleashing value from the business ecosystem. California Management Review, 59(1): 109–140.
Wolański, M., Ledzion, B., Borowczak, A., Kupiec, T., Płoszaj, A., Popis, Z. & Mrozowski, W. (2018). Ewaluacja systemu realizacji instrumentu ZIT w perspektywie finansowej UE na lata 2014–2020. Raport Końcowy (Evaluation of the system of implementation of ITI in programming period 2014–2020. Final Report). Report commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development.
Legal acts and documents
Agreement (2015). Agreement No. IXA/487/ZPO/15 of 10 July 2015 on entrusting the implementation of tasks under the Regional Operational Program for the Malopolska Voivodship for the years 2014–2020.
CSF (2012). Elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014 to 2020 the European Regional Development Fund the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Commission Staff Working Document. SWD (2012) 61. Final, 14.3.2012. Brussels: the Commission of the European Communities.
Europe 2020 Strategy (2010). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
ITI Strategy for KFUA (2015). Strategia Zintegrowanych Inwestycji Terytorialnych dla Krakowskiego Obszaru Funkcjonalnego (Strategy of Integrated Territorial Investment for Kraków Functional Urban Area). Kraków: Kraków Metropolis Association.
PA – Partnership Agreement (2014, 2017). Program of the 2014–2020 financial perspective. Warsaw: Ministry of Infrastructure and Development.
RPO MV (2014). Regional Operational Program for Malopolska Voivodship for 2014–2020. Kraków: Board of Malopolska Voivodship.
Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions (2011). Gödöllő.
Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007.
Principles… (2013). Zasady realizacji Zintegrowanych Inwestycji Terytorialnych w Polsce (Principles for the implementation of the Integrated Territorial Investment in Poland). Warsaw: Ministry of Regional Development.
The Urban Agenda for the EU (2016). Brussels: the Commission of the European Communities.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Open Access, licence: CC-BY 4.0
