УДК (438)(045)

Transkrypt

1 УДК (438)(045) Savka O., postgraduate of the department of international relations and external policy, Mariupol state university, lecturer of the department of sociology management, Donetsk state university of management (Mariupol, Ukraine). Institutional provision of state regional policy of Poland Abstract. The article examines the process of reforms of the administrativeterritorial division of the Poland Republic, which began in 1990 and has been developed in 1998 under the leadership of the government of Jerzy Buzek. In fact, the reform provided radical changes in the management and regional development in general, and also decentralization of power in the country. The main goal was full transfer of authority to the low levels. The reform was approved three-tier system in the country under the scheme gmina poviat voivodstvo. In turn, holding territorial reform was also due to the integration processes in the Polish Republic. Changes in the territorial division of the country s accelerated transition of the country to the «European Rails» and actually meet the European system of NUTS. The reform of 1998 has allowed more closely and fruitfully participate in the structures and programs of the European Union. With the formation of a multi-level system, that meets the requirements of NUTS in the EU, integration processes have been strengthened in the country, as well as the program were implemented better in the EU pre-accession period and after accession to the European Union. It should be added that these changes were urgently needed and there was no alternative routes. In other postcommunist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, who have been on the path of modernization, such profound reforms were not carried out. Thus, Poland has become one of the first «locomotive» in the territorial transformations among CEE countries. Polish experience was a visual aid for the other countries in the region.

2 Key words: Poland, regional policy, domestic policy, NUTS, administrativeterritorial reform, European integration. At each stage of development of the state there is a need to establish an effective and reform of regional policy. From the way in which will be carried out state regulation of regional development depends on the quality and speed of implementation of the reforms, both in the regions and in the country as a whole. The decision of problems of regional development, the formation of local selfgovernment and improvement of relations between the "center - regions" depends primarily on the institutional and legal framework for the development and implementation of regional policy, a clear distribution of functions and coordination of activities of state authorities of different levels in the field of territorial development. The problem of the development of the institutional framework of the state regional policy of Poland should be considered in the context of its European integration course. If we talk about the European experience, it is in institutional support of various aspects of regional policy provides a source of successful and effective implementation both in individual countries and at the supranational level, in the framework of the European Union. A characteristic feature of the institutional evolution of regional policy in the EU is the decentralization to the principle of subsidiarity. Regional policy is a multi-level and are monitored by the central government, regions and local authorities. Previously, the main role in the development and implementation of regional policy played a central bodies of executive power, it is now more actively participate in the processes of regional development of local and regional self-government, as well as supra-national authorities, which are represented by the structural funds of the European Union. The role of the central government is increasingly reduced to the development of conceptual frameworks and regulatory framework. For Polish government revolutionary important was the reform of 1990, regained self-government after 40 years of non-existence in the Polish People's Republic for the Polish government. Another fundamental reform of the administration was the

3 continuation and expansion of administrative reform - one of the largest projects of the government of Jerzy Buzek. The main objective of the reform, of course, is the decentralization of the government and the continuation of changes began at the turn of 1989 and To achieve this goal we have been delineated powers between the center and local authorities, defined responsibility for public affairs at the local level. Another objective was to build the territorial organization of the state, in a clear and transparent system. Introduction of successive levels of local self-government was to lead to further democratization of the country and strengthen the fight against communist legacy. An important element of the administrative-territorial structure of the country's proposed reconstruction of the public finance system for more efficient financial management at all levels of government. In fact, the administrative-territorial division exists firmly in the mind of man - in the form of local communities, and is closely linked with the infrastructure needed to fulfill the administrative functions. In 1975, the districts were abolished in the political sense, while administrative structures continued to operate at the regional level (eg, hospitals, schools, police, fire), besides functioning as part of its special units cause confusion and complication of the structure, moreover, they were subordinated to the central government. This complicated and inefficient administrative system was full of various drawbacks, including the inability to manage and perform tasks in the field of crisis management and threats to national security. In this position, the authors of the reform saw the need for a reconstruction of the areas and the transfer of their administration issues related to good governance at the local level [4]. After the regime change in 1989, small and weak provinces not only were able to take over the management tasks of a regional nature, but also any competence in the management of public affairs. There is a clear relationship between the number and size of territorial units, as well as between the policy of centralization and decentralization of power in the country. If structural units are small and weak to perform important tasks, such functions and tasks takes on the central administration a higher level [5]. The same

4 situation is in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe - the small municipalities in the Czech Republic and Hungary are not able to effectively perform local tasks, which subsequently adopt a unit of a higher level [6]. Reform in 1998 was reorganized territorial division of the state, better adapting it to the needs of a modern administration [7]. The new territorial division is largely retained traditional factors and social values, which should create conditions for further economic and social development, as well as to better organize the social life of the entire state. Reformers [9] faced a difficult choice the most favorable new model of territorial division. The first option provided for a three-tier system: the gmine (municipality) - poviat (area) - voivodstvo (region) and, accordingly, the adequate distribution of powers relating to the execution of public tasks. An important element of the reform was a change of government finances in line with the decentralization of planning and accounting of public expenditure [10]. The second option would leave the status quo, ie the territorial-administrative division in the form of state until Such a division would inevitably lead to the blocking of modernization and continued centralization of state power, as well as a system of predominantly institutional control over government control. All this has led to the implementation of the B state regional policy at a lower level and is not allowed to reform the public finance system [11]. Another problem was that in the framework of European integration, Poland's regional system did not meet the requirements of EU regional policy. Decentralization inherently applies to all levels of the system. It is the policy of decentralization leads to a real transformation of the political system, which does not provide for surface changes. The democratization of the political system was based on creating a system of local government, elected by universal suffrage. Poviats received specific responsibilities, including the adoption of local laws, personnel matters, approval of the budget, etc.. Province, in turn, was able to create a regional development strategy, the decision to land management issues, budget and other provinces.

5 An important objective of the reform was the purpose of improving management and economization, as well as the creation of conditions for development of competition and inter-regional development. Legal basis of the territorial reforms were secured by the Constitution of 1997, which enshrined the unitary character of the state, at the same time unity and territorial division were officially fixed - the municipality and the province. The criteria laid down in the Constitution, have left some freedom in the formation of territorial division. Compulsory local authority became commune. Three levels of territorial division of the State has been enshrined in the constitutional model of the state, forming communes of poviats and voivodstvo [18]. Commune, constitutionally recognized as the basic unit of territorial division of the country, has a new management structure and function in relation to other territorial units. Poviats and province have been carried out only functions assigned to them by law [19]. Key competencies districts focused on the public sphere. So poviats solve problems of public education, health, transport and roads, surveying, property, public order and security, unemployment and other issues provided for by the law [22]. It should also be borne in mind that poviats can not violate the jurisdiction of communes. County, at the request of the interested communes, can extend the powers and tasks within their jurisdiction on the basis of an administrative agreement. Since 1975, Poland has 49 provinces, too weak to play an important role in the government. [26] Province constituted administratively - the local administration headed by the Governor, the representative of the Council of Ministers in this area [28]. The volume of the province of functions has been defined so as not to violate the independence of the districts and communes. The powers of the province include the social problems at the regional level, such as health, education, land management, the fight against unemployment. The main task of the province was the problem of determining the strategy and policy development in the region [31]. On September 1, 1999, Poland has as a result of the administrative-territorial reform has been divided into 16 provinces.

6 The administrative reform of 1998 in fact, sold the three elements of reforming the social life of the state. Firstly, there was a change of territorial division and the introduction of a new system of division - the gmina, poviat, voivodstvo. The new division was directed primarily at the organization of the state and territorial adaptation to the functions they perform, as well as to create conditions for the restoration of local bonds. Secondly, the reform is relating to the organization structures and management principles in administrations. Third, in 1998 there was a transfer to a large extent on the independence of the place, as well as responsibility for the management of the country [36]. As a result of the reform of a clearer division of public authority functions it has been introduced between the main segments of the political system. The reform has not only transformed the administrative division of the country, but also led to a restructuring of the entire system and more effective division of powers and responsibilities [38]. The reform has created more favorable conditions for the development of local communities, contributing to the process of their empowerment, increased competition between regional centers and improve management of public affairs reform allowed more closely and fruitfully participate in the European Union structures and programs. [41] With the formation of a multi-level system, which was responsible NUTS system requirements in the EU integration processes have been strengthened in the country, as well as better implemented the EU program both during the pre-accession and post-accession to the European Union. It should be added that these changes are desperately needed, and alternative routes were not. In other post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, who have been on the path of modernization, such deep reforms carried out were not. Thus, Poland has become one of the first "locomotive" in the territorial transformations among the CEE countries. Polish experience was a visual aid for other countries in the region. REFERENCES:

7 1. Bachtler, J. and McMaster, I. (2008) EU Cohesion Policy and the Role of the Regions: Investigating the Influence of Structural Funds in the New Member States, Environment and Planning, 2, P Bardziński, S.L. and Kołodziejski, J. (1997) Reforma administracji publicznej a integracja z Unią Europejską, in Reforma administracji publicznej «Państwo sprawne, przyjazne, bezpieczne», Wybór opinii i ekspertyz, Tom II. - Wyd. Elipsa, Warszawa, s Cohesion Policy Poland, available at: (Accessed: 21 January 2015) 4. Grosse, T. (2006) An Evaluation of the Regional Policy System in Poland: Challenges and Threats Emerging from Participation in the EU s Cohesion Policy, in European Urban and Regional Studies, 2, pp Grosse, T. and Mackiewicz, M. (2003) Zmierzch decentralizacji w Polsce? Polityka rozwoju w województwach w kontekście integracji europejskiej, Instytut Spraw Publicznych, Warszawa. 6. Izdebski, H. (2008) Samorząd terytorialny. Podstawy ustroju i działalności, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze Lexis Nexis, Warszawa. 7. Izdebski, H. and Kulesza, M. (2004) Administracja publiczna, Liber, Warszawa. 8. Izdebski, H. (2008) Samorząd terytorialny. Podstawy ustroju i działalności, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze Lewis Nexis, Warsawa. 9. Jabłoński, Z. and Potoczek, A. (1998) Polska ojczyzn czy regionów, Toruń. 10. Jackiewicz, I. (2004) Budowanie instytucji państwa W poszukiwaniu modelu, Wyd. Sejmowe, Warsawa. 11. Kaczmarek, T. (2005) Struktury terytorialno-administracyjne i ich reformy w krajach europejskich, UAM, Seria Geografia, 70, pp Kiezun, W. & Kubin, J. (2004) Dobre państwo, WSPiZ, Warszawa. 13. Kulesza, M. (2008) Budowanie samorządu, Municipium, Warszawa. 14. Kulesza, M. (1983) Model władzy lokalnej w systemie reformy gospodarczej, T.2, Warszawa.

8 15. Kulesza, M. (1993) Options for administrative reform in Poland, Public Administration, Vol Kulesza, M. (1997) Reforma podziału administracyjnego Polski, Municipium, Warszawa. 17. Kulesza, M. Współczesne dylematy zarządzania publicznego w Polsce, available at: kulesza.pdf (Accessed 21 January 2015) 18. Milewicz, J. and Wołek A. (2000) Reformatorzy i politycy. Gra o reformę ustrojową 1998 roku widziana oczami jej aktorów, Warszawa. 19. Niziołek, M. (2008) Problemy ustroju aglomeracji miejskich ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem Warszawy, Warszawa. 20. Nowacka, E. (2002) Reformy samorządu terytorialnego w Polsce, Wielkiej Brytanii I USA, Wrocław. 21. Operational Program «Infrastructure and Environment», available at: eg=all&gv_ PGM=1212&LAN=7&gv_per=2&gv_defL=7 (Accessed 21 January 2015) 22. Operational Program «Lesser Poland», available at: (Accessed 21 January 2015) 23. Pawelska-Skrzypek, G. (1996) Małopolska regionalna wspólnota interesów, Nowy Sącz. 24. Piekara, A. (2003) Cele i skuteczność reformy administracji publicznej w RP w latach , Warszawa. 25. Piekara, A. (2002) Samorząd terytorialny a jakość administracji publicznej : księga jubileuszowa w dziesięciolecie istnienia Centrum Samorządu Terytorialnego i Rozwoju Lokalnego, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Centrum Studiów Samorządu Terytorialnego i Rozwoju Lokalnego. 26. Płoskonka, J. (2001) Reforma administracji publicznej , MSWiA, Warszawa.

9 27. Reforma administracji publicznej «Państwo sprawne, przyjazne, bezpieczne», Wybór opinii i ekspertyz (1997), Tom II, Elipsa, Warszawa. 28. Regulski, J. (1998) Regionalizacja w Polsce. Problemy, kierunki i koncepcje, FRDL, Warszawa. 29. Rydlewski, G. (2007) Systemy administracji publicznej w państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej, Warszawa. 30. Sochacka, E. and Kraśko, T. (1996) Rzeczpospolita demokracji lokalnej, Warszawa. 31. Ujazdowski, K. (1997) Dobry i sprawny rząd, Warszawa. 32. Zloch, St. (2000) Polens neue Regionen auf dem Weg in die Europäischen Union. Die Beitrittsvorbereitungen auf dem Gebiet der Regional - und Strukturpolitik, Osteuropa, Heft 4, pp Vardomskyi, L. (2002) Rehionalny aspekty rynkovoi transformatsii v Rosii i strnakh Tsentralnoi Yevrop [Regional aspects of market transformation in Russia and Central Europe], Kazanskyi federalist [Kazan federalist], 4, p.14.