City Debugged. How to Reform Polish Cities so They Thrive Socially and Facilitate Sustainable Growth?

Part of the EcoProduction book series (ECOPROD)


Various definitions of the “happy city” utilized in the Western literature on cities and urbanism focus on mutual relations between the citizens and their surroundings. The prescriptions offered based on these aspects do not, however, address the key problems pertinent to Poland’s post-transformation reality. For a vast majority of Polish cities, fighting depopulation is the single most important factor determining their social, economic and spatial perspectives. Thus, demographic trend will be used as the key indicator of a city’s position on the “happiness axis”. While a coordinating and participatory approach to city management is vital to its success, the state’s policies towards self-governments may prevent cities from making the first-best choices when it comes to their organizational arrangements.


Policy Cities City management Self-governments Social participation Governance 


  1. 1.
    For instance findings from city research of scholars such Ian Gehl or Charles Montgomery on the importance of efficient public transport networks, quality public space or natural environment became nearly universally-accepted benchmarks of the well governed cityGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    E.g. Haase A et al (2013), Labus A (2014), Pallagst KM, Schwarz T (2009), Rink D, Rumpel P (2012), Stohr K (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haase A et al (2013) Varieties of shrinkage in European cities. Eur Urban Reg Stud 0(0):1–17Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Trębacz (2013) „Kurczenie się miasta na przykładzie Detroit”, Teka Kom. Arch. Urb. Stud. Krajobr.—OL PAN, IX/3, 84–96Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freedman versus Florida debate on whether globalisation has levelled the playing field for commerce making location less important or whether the opposite has been happening, rapid movement of people to densely populated urban settlements makes locations matter more than ever beforeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bieńkowska E (2013) ”Zarządzanie rozwojem miast o zmniejszającej się liczbie mieszkańców (w kontekście perspektywy finansowej 2014—2020).” conference materials, Kancelaria Senatu, Warszawa 2013, p 14Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    OECD (2011) Urban Policy Country Reviews: Poland, OECD calculations based on data from the UN 2009 World Urbanization Prospects: the 2007 revision. p 41Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bieńkowska E (2013) “Zarządzanie rozwojem miast o zmniejszającej się liczbie mieszkańców (w kontekście perspektywy finansowej 2014—2020).” conference materials, Kancelaria Senatu, Warszawa, str. 14Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szukalski P (2014) “Depopulacja dużych miast w Polsce, Demografia i Gerontologia Społeczna—Biuletyn Informacyjny”, Nr 7Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Szukalski P (2014) Przyszłość miast wojewódzkich w świetle prognozy GUS z 2014 r. Demografia i Gerontologia Społeczna–Biuletyn Informacyjny, Nr, p 11Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lion’s House based on GUS prognosis GUS, (Prognoza dla powiatów i miast na prawie powiatu oraz podregionów na lata 2014–2050),polskie-miasta-beda-sie-kurczyc-urosna-tylko-warszawa-krakow-i-olsztyn.html
  13. 13.
    OECD (2011) Urban Policy Country Reviews: Poland. p 45Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szukalski P (2014) Depopulacja dużych miast w Polsce. Demografia i Gerontologia Społeczna–Biuletyn Informacyjny, Nr, p 7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sagan I (2014) Integrate to compete: Gdańsk-Gdynia metropolitan area. Urban Res Pract 7(3):302–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regulski J (2013) Raport o ekonomicznych stratach i społecznych kosztach niekontrolowanej urbanizacji w Polsce. FRDL, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zarządzanie rozwojem miast o zmniejszającej się liczbie mieszkańców (w kontekście perspektywy finansowej 2014—2020)/” (2013), conference materials, Kancelaria Senatu, Warszawa, p 77Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zborowski A, Soja M, Łobodzińska A (2012) “Population trends in Polish cities—stagnation, depopulation or shrinkage?” Prace Geograficzne, 130. Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej UJ, Kraków, pp 7–28Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    These have to be examined, however, closer as depopulation also changes the social structure. It may lead like in Boston and San Francisco case to citizens’ loss but better economic conditions due to the fact that groups imposing heavy burden for social services (families with children) have been moving out while singles or childless couples, less demanding is terms of services, with ample income have moved inGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olbrycht J (2013) “Shrinking Cities—problem globalny, problem europejski.” in Zarządzanie rozwojem miast o zmniejszającej się liczbie mieszkańców, conference materials, Kancelaria Senatu, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    OECD (2011) Urban Policy Review, Poland. p 25Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Litman T (2016) Understanding smart growth savings evaluating economic savings and benefits of compact development, and how they are misrepresented by critics. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, May 18Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stohr K (2004) Shrinking city syndrome. New York Times, Feb 5Google Scholar
  24. 24.; Cities regrowing smaller—fostering knowledge on regeneration strategies in shrinking cities across Europe (CIRES project)
  25. 25.
    Florida (ed) (2009) Who’s Your city? basic books, place & happiness survey, 1 to 5 scale of importance where 5 is the highestGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Krzysztofik R (2013) „Zagłada miast”—projekt Shrink Smart—The Governance of Shrinkage within an European Context na Uniwersytecie Śląskim in Zarządzanie rozwojem miast o zmniejszającej się liczbie mieszkańców (w kontekście perspektywy finansowej 2014—2020), conference materials, Kancelaria Senatu, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barry M (2016) Conference speech at the CEE summit urban vision & capital markets. Urban Land Institute, Warsaw, June 1stGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ThinkTank (2013) Przyszłość Miast. Strategie i wyzwania innowacje społeczne i tchnologiczne, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Constitution of the republic of poland. (1997) April 2ndGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Act on the Municipal Self-Government, (1990) March 8th. Dz.U. 2016 poz. 446Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kulesza M (2009) How much decentralisation there is in centralisation and the curious habits of learned administrative lawyers. Samorząd Terytorialny no 12:7–12Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kulesza M (2009) How Much Decentralisation there is in centralisation and the curious habits of learned administrative lawyers, Samorząd Terytorialny no 12Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Supervisory decision of Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivod, 5.03.2008 r. (WNiK.IV.PK.0911–41/08), NZS 2008/4, p. 73; RIO Resolution, Opole, 26.07.2010 r. (16/35/10), OwSS 2010/4, p. 96; RIO Resolution, Zielona Góra, 2.07.2008 r. (107/08), OwSS 2008/4, p. 109; Złakowski, Ł. in Hauser, R. Niewiadomski, Z. (eds.), Ustawa o samorządzie gminnym. Komentarz z odniesieniami do ustaw o samorządzie powiatowym i samorządzie województwa, Warsaw 2011, p. 188Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Act on the municipal self-government (1990) March 8th Art. 2.1, Dz.U. 2016 poz. 446Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Forum Od-nowa (2013).”Samorząd 3.0.” Wolters Kluwer, Warsaw, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    In Poland there are 18 percent and 32 tax thresholds. The lower tax rate is paid by 98 percent of citizens and amounts to around 37 billion PLN annually. Annual income from the taxpayers of the higher rate amounts to around 13 billion PLN annuallyGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    NSA resolution from 24 June 2013, no I FPS 1/13Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Main organisation gathering the urban movements from various cities, the Urban Movements Congress was set up in 2011 in Poznań but some of the groups are much more mature. Ochocianie, the Neighbours from Warsaw District of Ochota were set up in 2007Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Putnam RD, Leonardi R et al (1992) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern italy., Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Minton A (2012) Ground Control, Penguin Books, London; Jacobs, J (2014) ”Śmierć i życie wielkich miast Ameryki”, Fundacja Centrum Architektury, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Glusman J (2009) When is EU conditionality effective? the terms of Poland’s accession.” PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Poland in administrative terms is divided into 2479 municipalities, 380 counties and 16 voivodshipsGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    The division of tasks is drawn between the ‘own’ tasks and those assigned by the governmentGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Act from March 27th 2003 on Spatial Planning and Development, Dz.U. 2003 nr 80 poz. 717Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Although it does not impact city areas with densely build-up city areas where no new function is introducedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
    Minton A (2012) Ground control. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Żuber P (2011) ”Krajowa polityka przestrzenna, regionalna i miejska wobec zjawiska Urban Sprawl.” Ministry of Regional Development, conference materials, SopotGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
  51. 51.
    Jan Gehl, Charles Montgomery, Thomas Murphy Richard Florida among the othersGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Warsaw School of EconomicsWarsawaPoland
  2. 2.WarsawaPoland

Personalised recommendations