Working Papers Faculty of International Business and Economics Poznan University of Economics WP 2013/03 Łukasz Grzesiak The role of the medium-sized city in the regional development in the context of EU cohesion policy theoretical approach Poznan, 8 March, 2013
The role of the medium-sized city in the regional development in the context of EU cohesion policy theoretical approach Łukasz Grzesiak 1 Abstract The aim of this article is to present theoretical aspects concerning the role of medium-sized cities in the development of their surrounding regions, including the ongoing debate over the shape of EU cohesion policy 2014-2020. This issue is determined by the territorial dimension of cohesion policy. Currently it is also being increasingly emphasized in the approach to the problems of regional development formulated in long-term national and EU strategic development documents. The analysis of these issues allows for constructing a model, which depicts the role of the regional growth center defined as a medium-sized city in the regional development in the context of EU cohesion policy. Keywords: regional growth center, city, region, cohesion policy JEL: O21, R11, R12. Introduction Poland and the other EU member states are faced with new challenges related to cohesion policy for the period 2014-2020. What is important is the fact that its territorial (spatial) aspect will be treated equally with social and economic cohesion. This is a direct result of the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. This means that the spatial dimension of implemented EU policies, including 1 Paper accepted for publication by Ewa Małuszyńska. The author would like to thank Ida Musiałkowska for her helpful comments. All remaining errors are those of the author. Łukasz Grzesiak is a Ph.D. candidate at the European Studies Department, Faculty of International Business and Economics, Poznan University of Economics and works as a town planner in a design studio in Gorzow. E-mail address: lucasg@onet.pl 2
cohesion policy, is acquiring particular significance. This is to ensure higher efficiency of cohesion policy, within which issues concerning the role of cities and their functional areas in spreading development are becoming important. This is reflected in the current debate over the new financial instruments for the European Union 2014-2020. The issue related to the role of cities in the development of surrounding regions is additionally determined by the necessity of further, thorough research into regional development. This paper has been divided into three sections and summary. The first section deals with the position of the discussed matters in the system of sciences, as well as indicates basic terms relevant to the presented issue. The next section gives an overview of selected literature, as well as of the current debate on the city and the region, including EU cohesion policy. The third section presents and discusses a model 2 of the role the regional growth center (medium-sized city) plays in the regional development, including the territorial aspect of cohesion policy. The paper ends with a summary. 1. Theoretical background 1.1. The issue of the city and the region in the system of sciences The current trend in studies and research into the city and its role in regional development, as well as city-region relationships, is difficult to define in the system of sciences because of its interdisciplinary character, and because many scientific disciplines systematically meet within the so-called regional studies [Jałowiecki 2008]. Nevertheless, studies into the role of regional growth centers in regional development can be situated at the intersection of economic and geographical sciences. Particular importance can be attached to regional economics, which studies among others city-region relationships, city and region development factors, or governance of cities and regions (economics of cities and regions) [Gorzelak 2008], as well as to geographical sciences, socioeconomic geography in particular, within the studies of settlement geography (geography of cities). On the other hand, the aim of settlement geography is to explain, describe 2 Understood as a simplified view of reality [Silverman 2009] 3
and evaluate city systems. As Johnston [1980] indicates, urban geography deals with structures and relationships between cities and regions (the role of an urban center in the settlement system of a region and a country), between cities with the so-called city networks, as well as phenomena within individual cities. 1.2. Basic concepts While analyzing the issue of the city and the region, it is also necessary to indicate a great number of definitions in the literature on the subject. Gorzelak [2008] notes that the city can be defined as a system consisting of specified elements, which enter specified interactions, being at the same time equipped with a regulatory and control system, and characterized by numerous relations with the environment. Marszał and Ziobrowski [2006] emphasize that there are significant differences between agglomeration and metropolitan area as a region surrounding a particular growth center, understood by Sobala Gwosdz [2005] as a place in the geographical space characterized by economic growth faster in relation to other places, and which is induced in neighboring areas, i.e. is characterized by the spread effect. They also indicate that the term agglomeration should be applied to a contiguous morphological unit created as a result of concentration processes around a regional growth center through mutually interrelated settlement units (separate administrative entities in the form municipalities). The so-called polycentric agglomeration, called conurbation, is a particular case. On the other hand, the emergence of metropolitan areas around biggest cities meeting the criteria of the metropolis 3 is the effect of metropolitanization of space, which is a functional concept, not a morphological one, and implies the necessity of meeting specified functional criteria. A separate issue is the problem of delimitation 4 of such areas. This in turn gives rise to a 3 These include e.g.: an appropriate number if inhabitants; considerable economic potential, including knowledge-based services and innovativeness or metropolitan functions, also in terms of international relations. The concept of global connections of a metropolis is linked to the concept of a metropolis network within Hall s and Friedmann s concept of the world city, as well as Sassen s global city, and Castell s theory of flows. The role of global spatial nodes is also discussed by e.g. Scott, Agnew, Soja and Storper in their articles in Scott A. J. (ed.), 2008, Global City Regions. Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford University Press, New York. 4 In the literature, we cannot find unequivocal and commonly accepted indications of delimitation. Delimitation methods are widely debated. 4
debate on the importance of particular indicators 5, which are to determine the role of regional growth centers in the development of their surrounding region [Kiełczewska Zaleska 1969; Szymańska 2009]. Attention should also be drawn to the concept of functional urban areas [MRR 2011] more and more frequently used in the discussion of new paradigms of Poland s regional development in the adjustment to cohesion policy 2014-2020. Śleszyński [2012] suggests that such areas should be defined as a spatially cohesive zone of the city s influence, characterized by close functional interactions and advanced urbanization processes. This approach should make it possible to indicate a unified set of indicators necessary for the delimitation and description of functional areas, in compliance with the guidelines in National Spatial Development Concept 2030 [MRR 2011]. Therefore, it can be assumed that according to the guidelines included in government documents of national strategic development in relation to the new cohesion policy for 2014-2020, functional urban areas will ultimately constitute the core of agglomeration 6. 2. Regional development and the city and the region in the context of cohesion policy 2014-2020 2.1. Theoretical concepts of growth centers The concepts related to the role of regional growth centers in regional development can be divided into two basic groups [Churski 2008]: neoclassical concepts assuming minimal interventionism and treating the free market as the main regulator of regional development processes, and new Keynesian concepts, where interventionism is an essential mechanism for regulating regional development processes. 5 Different authors approach the importance of particular indicators in various ways, usually on the basis of studies of secondary sources. 6 This issue is currently the subject of the debate between the Ministry of Regional Development and local government units, as well as of numerous expert analyses of links between Poland s socioeconomic and spatial policies in response to the urban globalization process formulated in National Spatial Development Concept [MRR 2011] and National Strategy of Regional Development [MRR 2010a], as well as the Assumptions of National Urban Policy until 2020 [MRR 2012b]. 5
In accordance with the assumptions of the new Keynesian concepts, and because of the subject of the considerations, Perroux s theory of growth poles, and related theories such as Friedmann s core-periphery model or Hirshman s theory of geographical growth centers, as well as Myrdal s theory of cumulative causation acquire particular significance [Kudłacz 2009]. These concepts emphasize particularly the issues of space and the problem of location, and as such they constituted a change in the perception of regional development 7. 2.2. The role of cities in EU cohesion policy The theories indicated above are particularly important in the context of the new approach to the processes of regional development, implemented through EU cohesion policy, as a tool of direct intervention aiming at modification and creation of sustainable regional development [MRR 2009]. The current trend in scientific research into the issues of EU cohesion policy usually concentrates on the importance of structural policy in interregional relationships. To a large degree, this results from the implementation of the objectives of convergence or strengthening competitiveness and innovativeness of regions in the EU [Beschel 2006]. Taking into account the fact that in the literature on the subject [MRR 2010a; MRR 2010b; Pięta Kanurska 2010; Bobowski 2011; Klamut 2011], as well as in the EU s practice it is increasingly emphasized that cohesion policy should be implemented through cities/towns which are regional growth centers [European Commission 2006, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2011; Toledo Declaration 2010; Territorial Agenda of the EU 2020; European Parliament 2011], the analysis of interrelationships between a regional growth center and its region as well as of relationships within metropolis/city networks as internal conditions of region development is acquiring significance. Moreover, in the context of the obligatory territorial dimension of EU cohesion policy, the so-called integrated territorial approach is emphasized [Keating 2008]. The purpose of such an approach is to create integrated and holistic strategies of the development of functional urban areas [European Commission 2012] on the basis of the specific 7 A broader and more comprehensive approach to the issues of regional development theory is included in the publication of Korenik and Zakrzewska Półtorak. 6
(endogenous) advantages of regional development differences [Idczak 2011]. Actions aiming at reorienting EU cohesion policy determine, in turn, the discussion of goals and directions of its activities [Barca 2009], and the issue of cities also becomes part of research within ESPON research projects. The analysis of what role cities play in regional development as growth poles in Europe s settlement network can be found in the studies of ESPON FOCI [2010] and ESPON POLYCE [2011] projects. These studies draw attention to the need for considering specific factors conditioning the development of regions while formulating strategies and policies for cities. On the other hand, within the ESPON SMESTO [2005] research project, the role of small and medium-sized towns in functional areas of big cities is highlighted. The importance of small and medium-sized towns in regional development can also be found in the URBACT [2011] guidelines. 2.3. The role of city in the regional development in selected literature The issue of what role the city plays in regional development has become the subject of research in both Polish and foreign literature, usually, however, reflected theoretically, less often as empirical research. It is also difficult to encounter a broader approach to the above issue in the context of EU cohesion policy. The current research focuses on the impact of a metropolis on the region and the so-called metropolis network, through attempts to verify the hypothesis concerning the backwash of development from the region for the benefit of the metropolitan center, as well as through attempts to indicate the existence of the so-called agglomeration shadow. This is pointed out in the hypotheses proposed by Krugman [1999] (the agglomeration shadow effect), Myrdal [1958] (the effect of absorbing the development from the region for the benefit of the center), Castells [1998] and Sassen [2000] (city networks operate independently of their hinterland), as well as by Friedmann [2008] (intercity networking), and by Gorzelak, Smętkowski, Kozak, Olechnicka, Płoszaj and Wojnar [2005, 2012] (regional surroundings do not play a significant role in the processes of metropolis development). Kudłacz s research [2009] conducted within the doctoral 7
dissertation reveals positive impacts of metropolises on regions. Similar views can also be found in the studies conducted by Wojnicka, Tarkowski and Klimczak [2005]. Kupiec and Truskolaski [2008] in turn point to common areas of cooperation between the urban center and its environment, namely small towns. Theoretical considerations of the city in the development of its surrounding region are also undertaken by Dickson [2007], who, on the one hand, emphasizes the potential of the region in terms of its social resources, economic conditions, as well as the character and functions that the city has in the region, and on the other hand, the necessity of perceiving the city as a seat of human activity and as an organization shaping the character of the whole region. The social role of centers is also highlighted by Knox [1982], who points out that they become organizers of social life in a region through their functions and related migrations of people. On the other hand, Klasik [2001] introduces two types of roles centers play in regional development. This is the role of a promoter and creator of socio-economic situations in regions, as well as the role of an organizer and integrator of regional development factors (in terms of institutional development; the development of human capital, services and economic activity; administration; politics; technological development and innovation; higher education; mobility of human resources and migration; transport and telecommunications, as well as creation of cultural identity). While discussing the processes leading to region creation, in his work, Biderman [1978] proposes a concept of the city as a region creator, which is reflected in the impact of cities on changes in the spatial and socioeconomic structure of an economic region. The issue of the urban center as a regional growth pole is also analyzed by Gaczek [2011], who highlights the conditions underlying the creation of an agglomeration which can become a growth pole, as well as the capability of the regional environment to respond to the stimuli from the center, which are decisive for the possibility of absorbing growth factors and their use in regional development. The similarity of socioeconomic structures as the main factor conducive to strong linkages between the city and the region is also emphasized by Smętkowski [2011]. Parysek [1995], analyzing the polycentric structure of the settlement system in Poland and Europe, also notes that cities will play an increasingly important role in the formulation of territorial policies and in the European 8
Union s future development by ensuring multi-functionality of surrounding regions. In this context, the role of regional growth centers in regional development is also described as a response to the challenges of globalization. Kidokoro, Murayama, Katayama and Shima [2008] point out that central cities will assume a decisive function in regional development as a creator of socioeconomic functions of regions by means of complex development strategies for functional areas. A similar role is attributed to centers also by Tosics [2007]. In the literature, we can also encounter studies related to small towns and their role in spreading development from big cities. Here, the studies, both recent ones - Heffner [2008], Kozłowski and Marszał [2008], or Sołtys [2011], and older ones Regulski [1980] or Biderman [1978], also indicate strong socioeconomic relationships between these centers and their economic environment. Relatively few studies concern medium-sized towns and their socioeconomic potential in the regional development. The role of medium-sized towns is discussed by Adam [2006] and Nowicka [2012]. Such studies can also be found in the work of Suchta, Drońska and Cellmer [2007] in relation to the towns of Warmia-Masuria Province. These studies indicate that towns of medium socioeconomic potential become regional centers of socioeconomic and social linkages, which are constituents of broader socioeconomic arrangements of whole macroregions. From the synthetic overview of the selected literature, it seems that two distinct concepts relating to the general evaluation of city-region linkages can be distinguished, also noted by Miszczak [2012]. Therefore: according to one of them, an urban center can develop without its surrounding region, establishing rather strong linkages with other cities on a global scale (metropolises) at the same time depreciating its direct regional environment, according to the other, there is a close connection between cities (especially small and medium-sized cities) and their regional environment, and cities become main centers of broader socioeconomic arrangements. 9
3. The model of the regional growth center in the regional development in the context of EU cohesion policy The systemization of the issues concerning regional growth centers and their significance for the development of surrounding regions, as well as the character of the new approach to EU cohesion policy emphasizing the importance of cities, have become a base for constructing a model. This model depicts the role of the medium-sized city as a regional growth center in regional development with the support of EU cohesion policy based on new concepts of an integrated territorial approach and a multilevel model of development management (Fig. 1). While constructing the model, it was assumed that: a city of medium socioeconomic potential (which is not a metropolis) is the center of regional socioeconomic development, as well as the new approach of EU cohesion policy places emphasis on the role of regional growth centers in regional development. 10
regional development management territorial cohesion economic cohesion social cohesion Figure 1. The role of the regional growth center in the regional development in the context of EU cohesion policy Region area of economic, social and spatial gravity RESULT effective use of local potentials determining development of whole region (efficiency) strategic goal of EU A rural areas B C area of close urbanization of the RGC (functional urban area) Regional Growth Center (RGC) E rural areas urbanized rural area urbanized rural area D development strategy of the regional growth center and region within urban policy EU cohesion policy rural areas place based policy conditioned by local development advantages multi level governance and development planning by the actions coordination and cooperation of the public and non public institutions (networking) around common goals according to conditionality specific (endogenous) advantages of regional development differences local development coalition political & administrative social economic cultural organizational technical & technological other external (exogenous) conditions external relations (the flow of people, capital and goods) A - E subregional centers A E (smaller towns absorbing the development from the center and affecting rural areas) spread of development from the regional growth center to region Source: author s own model based on: Kudłacz [2009]; Keating [2008]; MRR [2010a; 2011; 2012b] 11
Taking account of the above assumptions, relationships between the center and its region should be analyzed in the context of close urbanization (the closest environment of the city of highest economic, social and spatial gravity) as well as of a broader area (often defined by local governments as an agglomeration area or metropolitan area). Areas of close urbanization are to become the so-called functional urban areas, in compliance with the suggested delimitation, whose guidelines were drawn up in National Spatial Development Concept 2030 [MRR 2011], and which is currently under discussion within the Ministry of Regional Development. They will become the target of direct intervention under the new cohesion policy within specifically designated development programs with clearly set goals of this intervention 8. Irrespective of the above mentioned degree of urbanization, in the literature on the subject it is pointed out that the spread effect of development should encompass both subregional centers (smaller towns absorbing the development from the center and affecting rural areas) and rural areas in the environment of the central city [Sobala Gwosdz 2005]. The National Strategy of Regional Development 2010-2020 [MRR 2010a], while formulating the basic goal of new regional development planning, also places emphasis on: the necessity of fostering competitiveness of regions; creating territorial cohesion and counteracting marginalization in problematic areas (such as, e.g. areas of unequal socioeconomic growth), as well as creating conditions for efficient integration of territorial actions 9. These guidelines refer directly to National Spatial Development Concept 2030 [MRR 2011] and to the Assumptions of National Urban Policy until 2020 [MRR 2012b], of which goal is to combine socioeconomic development planning with spatial aspects in response to the three dimensions of cohesion policy as indicated in the Lisbon Treaty. 8 Through the so-called integrated territorial investments targeted at functional urban areas, constituting the so-called areas of strategic intervention. These objectives are currently under discussion within the Assumptions of the Partnership Contract [MRR 2012a]. 9 Within the main goals of the new approach to the development of cities and regions, National Strategy of Regional Development 2010 2020 [MRR 2010a] is formulating a range of particular objectives, including as the most important from the viewpoint of this article the following: strengthening of metropolitan functions of province centers and integration of their functional areas; creating conditions for the spread of development processes and for increasing their absorption beyond province cities; strengthening of the strategic dimension of regional policy as well as reshaping and strengthening of coordination in the multilevel system of governance. 12
In this context, the necessity of the so-called integrated territorial approach (called also place-based policy) to regional development is indicated. This should constitute a change in the approach of implemented EU policies, including cohesion policy, through the necessity of approaching development processes functionally, not only sectorally as so far. This means, that the new cohesion policy 2014-2020, which the policy of regional development in Poland has become somehow subject to, will require efficient use of local regional development potentials, which Keating [2008] calls local development coalition. Barca [2009], whose report made a significant contribution to the debate over more effective use of financial and organizational instruments of cohesion policy, also points to the need for greater engagement of local development advantages in development processes of urban centers and their environments. He also draws attention to the fact that the polycentric structure of Europe s settlement network constitutes a great potential for creating development. This means that cohesion policy should address local challenges individually each time, and not be treated as a universal instrument of public intervention in all the EU member states. A multilevel system of governance and development planning is to become an instrument in implementing an integrated territorial approach. Its objective will be to create formal and informal networks of linkages between public and non-public entities focused on the implementation of joint enterprises within the set objectives (on the basis of already identified needs and local development advantages of cities and regions). Progress in the implementation of these objectives will be evaluated in accordance with the so-called principle of conditionality (the results of implemented enterprises will influence the level of funding the objectives). This multilevel governance system will be applied on the basis of hard and soft models of regional development management [Ziobrowski 2012] (through institutionalized structures as well as cooperation of entities on a voluntary basis, and on the basis of adopted internal procedures). The identified local development potential on the basis of the above assumptions serving as a response to the territorial aspect of cohesion policy, will provide the foundation for building complex development strategies, a regional 13
growth center and its social, economic and spatial linkages with its region 10. These strategies will be an element of the National Urban Policy [MRR 2012b] and they will have to identify main development axes for a given region and to indicate necessary instruments for implementing them. Such a construction of the system of implementing cohesion policy objectives, which will be obligatory to reach under the Partnership Contract between a Member State and the European Commission [MRR 2012a], is to ensure the implementation of strategic goals important for the European Union as whole, included in the Europe 2020 Strategy. Summary In the literature there is an ongoing debate over the role of regional growth centers in the development of the surrounding region. There is no consensus on research methods, which often results in theoretical approaches to the city-region issues, as well as in a subjective approach to indicators used for determining the significance of cities. There is also the problem of delimitation of metropolitan areas, agglomerations, and functional areas. Different viewpoints in this debate are determined by the adoption of different forms of relationships in conducted research. The currently debated issues are acquiring particular significance in the context of another discussion, this time concerning the shape of EU cohesion policy 2014-2020. This is reflected in new challenges posed by the long-term national strategy of regional development [MRR 2010a] and by strategic documents pointing to the necessity of identifying functional urban areas on the basis of local development advantages. This also results in Polish local governments increasingly common practice of indicating such areas. 10 These strategies are to be implemented with the support of the Association of Polish Cities within the regional program EEA 2009-2014. The Ministry of Regional Development is the operator of the program. 14
References Adam B., 2006, Medium Sized Cities in Urban Regions, in: European Planning Studies, 14(4). Barca F., 2009, An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy. A Place Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations. Independent Report, Brussels. Beschel M., 2006, Challenges of the Cohesion Policy 2007 2013, in: Prawelska Skrzypek G., Noworól A. (ed.), Cohesion Policy and Regions 2006, Wydawnictwo Urzędu Marszałkowskiego Województwa Małopolskiego, Kraków. Biderman E., 1978, Regionotwórcza rola miast. Próba ujęcia systemowego, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań. Bobowski S., 2011, Ewolucja polityki spójności Unii Europejskiej w perspektywie 2014 2020, in: Klamut M. (ed.), Ekonomia Nr 4 (16), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Wrocław. Castells M., 1998, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, t. 2., Oxford: Blackwell Press, London. Churski P., 2008, Czynniki rozwoju regionalnego i polityka regionalna w Polsce w okresie integracji z Unią Europejską, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań. Dickinson R. E., 2007, City Region and Regionalism, Routledge. ESPON, 2005, Small and Medium Sized Towns (SMESTO), Scientific Interim Report, Vienna. ESPON, 2010, Future Orientations of Cities (FOCI), Applied Research 2013/1/1, Final Report, Brussels. ESPON, 2011, Metropolisation and Polycentric Development in Central Europe (POLYCE), Targeted Analysis 2013/2/12, Scientific Interim Report, Vienna. Friedmann J., 2008, Intercity Networks in Globalizing Era, in: Scott A. J. (ed.), Global City Regions. Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford University Press, New York. 15
Gaczek W. M., 2011, Aglomeracja a rozwój regionu, in: Harańczyk A. (ed.), Perspektywy rozwoju regionalnego Polski w okresie programowania po 2013 r., Tom CXL, Wydawnictwo KPZK PAN, Warszawa. Gorzelak G., Smętkowski M., 2005, Metropolia i jej region w gospodarce informacyjnej, Wydawnictwo Scholar, Warszawa. Gorzelak G., 2008, Miasto jako przedmiot badań ekonomii, in: Jałowiecki B. (ed.), Miasto jako przedmiot badań naukowych w początkach XXI wieku, Wydawnictwo Scholar, Warszawa. Gorzelak G., Smętkowski M., Kozak M., Olechnicka A., Płoszaj A., Wojnar K., 2012, Europejskie metropolie i ich regiony. Od krajobrazu gospodarczego do sieci metropolii, Wydawnictwo Scholar, Warszawa. Heffner K., 2008, Zmiana roli i kierunków rozwoju małych miast w strefach metropolitalnych, in: Heffner K., Marszał T. (ed.), Ośrodki lokalne w strefie oddziaływania wielkich miast, Wydawnictwo KPZK PAN, Warszawa. Idczak P., 2011, Wielowymiarowe podejście w definiowaniu potencjału rozwojowego regionów i stymulowaniu ich rozwoju, in: Harańczyk A. (ed.), Perspektywy rozwoju regionalnego Polski w okresie programowania po 2013 r., Tom CXL, Wydawnictwo KPZK PAN, Warszawa. Jałowiecki B., 2008, Wspólne i odrębne płaszczyzny badań nad miastem, in: Jałowiecki B. (ed.), Miasto jako przedmiot badań naukowych w początkach XXI wieku, Wydawnictwo Scholar, Warszawa. Johnston R. J., 1980, City and Society: an Outline for Urban Geography, Penguin Books, New York. Keating M., 2008, Governing Cities and Regions: Territorial Restructuring in a Global Age, in: Scott A. J. (ed.), Global City Regions. Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford University Press, New York. Kidokoro T., Murayama A., Katayama K., Shima N., 2008, New Directions in Urban Regeneration and the Governance of City Regions, in: Kidokoro T., Harata N., Subanu L. P., Jessen J., Motte A., Seltzer E. P. (ed.), Sustainable City Regions: Space, Place and Governance, Springer Press, Japan. Kiełczewska Zaleska M., 1969, Geografia osadnictwa. Zarys problematyki, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa. 16
Klamut M., 2011, Nowe mechanizmy realizacji spójności terytorialnej w Krajowej Strategii Rozwoju Regionalnego do roku 2020, in: Klamut M. (ed.), Ekonomia Nr 4 (16), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Wrocław. Klasik A., 2001, Proaktywna rola metropolii w rozwoju regionów jako wyzwanie strategiczne, in: Szołek K. (ed.), Rola aglomeracji miejskiej w rozwoju regionu, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej, Wrocław. Knox P., 1982, Urban Social Geography. An Introduction, Longman Press, London/New York. Komisja Europejska, 2006, Polityka spójności i miasta. Rola miast i aglomeracji w odniesieniu do wzrostu i zatrudnienia w regionach, Komunikat Komisji do Rady i Parlamentu Europejskiego, Bruksela. Komisja Europejska, 2008, Zielona księga w sprawie spójności terytorialnej, Bruksela. Komisja Europejska, 2010a, Piąty raport nt. spójności gospodarczej, społecznej i terytorialnej. Inwestowanie w przyszłość Europy, Bruksela. Komisja Europejska, 2010b, Cities Delivering Smart, Sustainable and Socially Inclusive Growth. Towards a Strong Urban Dimension of EU Cohesion Policy, Bruksela. Komisja Europejska, 2011, Miasta przyszłości Wyzwania, wizje i perspektywy, Bruksela. Komisja Europejska, 2012, Integrated Sustainable Urban Development. Cohesion Policy 2014 2020, Bruksela. Korenik S., Zakrzewska Półtorak A., 2011, Teorie rozwoju regionalnego ujęcie dynamiczne, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Wrocław. Kozłowski S., Marszał T., 2008, Małe miasta w obszarze metropolitalnym Łodzi, in: Heffner K., Marszał T. (ed.), Ośrodki lokalne w strefie oddziaływania wielkich miast, Wydawnictwo KPZK PAN, Warszawa. Krugman P., 1999, Development, Geography and Economic Theory, The MIT Press, London. Kudłacz M., 2009, Wpływ metropolii na rozwój regionów w Polsce, praca doktorska, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny, Kraków, [maszynopis niepublikowany]. 17
Kupiec L., Truskolaski T., 2008, Wpływ relacji między miastem centralnym i jego otoczeniem na rozwój funkcji metropolitalnych (przykład Białegostoku), in: Heffner K., Marszał T. (ed.), Ośrodki lokalne w strefie oddziaływania wielkich miast, Wydawnictwo KPZK PAN, Warszawa. Markowski T., Marszał T., 2006, Metropolie. Obszary metropolitalne. Metropolizacja. Problemy i pojęcia podstawowe, Wydawnictwo KPZK PAN, Warszawa. Miszczak K., 2012, Dylematy rozwoju regionu ekonomicznego w świetle wyzwań XXI wieku, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego, Wrocław. MRR, 2009, Polska. Raport strategiczny 2009, Warszawa. MRR, 2010a, Krajowa Strategia Rozwoju Regionalnego 2010 2020: Regiony, Miasta, Obszary Wiejskie, Warszawa. MRR, 2010b, Raport EUROREG, Ocena wpływu polityki spójności na rozwój polskich miast w ramach ewaluacji ex post Narodowego Planu Rozwoju 2004 2006, Warszawa. MRR, 2011, Koncepcja Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju 2030, Warszawa. MRR, 2012a, Programowanie perspektywy finansowej 2014 2020. Założenia Umowy Partnerstwa, Warszawa. MRR, 2012b, Założenia Krajowej Polityki Miejskiej do roku 2020. Projekt, Warszawa. Myrdal G., 1958, Teoria ekonomii a kraje gospodarczo nierozwinięte, PWG, Warszawa. Nieformalne spotkanie ministrów UE ds. planowania przestrzennego i rozwoju terytorialnego, 2010, Deklaracja z Toledo, Toledo. Nieformalne spotkanie ministrów UE ds. planowania przestrzennego i rozwoju terytorialnego, 2011, Agenda Terytorialna 2020, Gödölö. Nowicka P., 2012, Subregionalne bieguny w badaniach ankietowych, in: Dziemianowicz W., Szlachta J., Szmigiel Rawska K. (ed.), 2012, Subregionalne bieguny wzrostu w Polsce, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa. Parlament Europejski, 2011, Ekspertyza porównawcza wizji i możliwości w zakresie polityki spójności po 2013 r., Bruksela. 18
Parysek J. J., 1995, Duże miasta Europy i ich rola w procesie urbanizacji, społeczno ekonomicznym rozwoju i integracji europejskiej, in: Przegląd Geograficzny, t. LXVII, Warszawa. Pięta Kanurska M., 2010, Oddziaływanie metropolii na region, in: Słupińska M. (ed.), Innowacyjna metropolia, konkurencyjny region, Folia Oeconomica Nr 246, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź. Regulski J., 1980, Rozwój miast w Polsce. Aktualne problemy, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa. Sassen S., 2000, Cities In a World Economy, Pine Forge Press, London. Silverman D., 2009, Prowadzenie badań jakościowych, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa. Smętkowski M., 2011, Wpływ polityki spójności na dyfuzję procesów rozwojowych w otoczeniu dużych polskich miast, in: Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, Polityka spójności 2004 2006 w dużych miastach Polski, Wydanie Specjalne 2011, Wydawnictwo Scholar, Warszawa. Sobala Gwosdz A., 2005, Ośrodki wzrostu i obszary stagnacji w województwie podkarpackim, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków. Sołtys J., 2011, Przemiany małych miast w województwie pomorskim, in: Bartosiewicz B., Marszał T. (ed.), Przemiany przestrzeni i potencjału małych miast w wybranych regionach Polski z perspektywy 20 lat transformacji, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź. Suchta J., Drońska A., Cellmer A., 2007, Rola dużych i średnich miast województwa warmińsko mazurskiego w procesie rozwoju regionu, in: Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Administratio Locorum, Nr 6 (1), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko Mazurskiego, Olsztyn. Szymańska D., 2009, Geografia osadnictwa, Wydawnictwo PWN, Warszawa. Śleszyński P., 2012, Delimitacja miejskich obszarów funkcjonalnych stolic województw. Ekspertyza dla MRR, Warszawa. Tosics I., 2007, City Regions in Europe: The Potentials and the Realities, in: The Town Planning Review, 78(6). URBACT, 2011, Creative Based Strategies in Small and Medium Sized Cities: Guidelines for Local Authorities, Wydawnictwo INTELI. 19
Wojnicka E., Tarkowski M., Klimczak P., 2005, Przestrzenne i regionalne zróżnicowania ośrodków wzrostu. Polaryzacja a wyrównywanie szans rozwojowych. Przesłanki dla kształtowania polityki regionalnej państwa. Ekspertyza dla Ministerstwa Gospodarki i Pracy, Gdynia/Rzeszów. Ziobrowski Z., 2012, Modele zarządzania gospodarką przestrzenną w obszarach metropolitalnych, in: Ziobrowski Z., Jarczewski W., Kafka K. (ed.), Modele zarządzania gospodarką przestrzenną w obszarach metropolitalnych i aglomeracjach. Kompendium, Instytut Rozwoju Miast, Kraków. 20