This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Masa Djordjevic First Annual Doctoral Conference of the Department of Political Science at CEU April 13-14, 2006
Systemic reforms from the socialist regime towards free-market democracies in the 1990s, produced a radically new context and challenges of collective action for the former socialist cities of Central Eastern Europe. New local public leaders, for the first time democratically elected, were lacking experience in running a fragmented capitalist city. The strategic planning paradigm and methodology entered the practice of city management in the Western European and American cities since the 1980s. It was transferred to the postsocialist cities by the international organisations assisting the reforms, and by the inter-city exchange of experience with Western city leaders and local administrators. One of the dominant aspects of the rationale for undergoing strategic planning is that, as an integrated policy making activity, it is an instrument for building effective local governance in order to overcome the collective action problem that cities face due to economic and political globalisation. The role of this paper is to explore the claim that strategic planning is an opportunity for transitional cities to move faster towards effective urban governance on the example of the city of Warsaw. The link between the institution building aspect of strategic planning and the effective institution building nature of governance processes will be explored through two dominant concerns of both the planning and urban governance literature: the ‘effectiveness’ concern and ‘public participation’ concern. The paper will explore the effects of political deliberations during the strategic planning process in Warsaw on the urban governing arrangement initially characterised as local government rather than governance. The main focus of the empirical research is on how implementation and public participation are dealt with and coordinated during the strategy elaboration. Three possible scenarios are suggested and tested.
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION: STUDYING URBAN GOVERNANCE IN POST-SOCIALIST CITIES.....3 2 MAIN THESIS AND RESEARCH QUESTION...............................................................................5 3 CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES............................................................................................................8 3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND INTERNATIONALISATION OF THE CITY’S ECONOMY.....................................8 3.2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS...........................................................................................................9 3.3 WORKINGS OF THE LOCAL POLITICAL SYSTEM.........................................................................................11 3.4 THE ROLE OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY..........................................................................................................12 4 CHRONOLOGY OF PLANNING EVENTS...................................................................................14 4.1 FIRST ELECTION PERIOD 1990-1994....................................................................................................14 4.2 SECOND ELECTION PERIOD 1994-1998.................................................................................................15 4.2.1 Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010............................................................16 4.2.2 The Study of Conditions and Directions of the Spatial Development of Warsaw Capital City ........................................................................................................................................................21 4.3 THIRD ELECTION PERIOD 1998-2002...................................................................................................29 4.4 FOURTH ELECTION PERIOD 2002-2006.................................................................................................32 4.4.1 Strategy for the Development of the Capital City of Warsaw until 2020.............................32 4.4.2 Preparation of the new Study of conditions and directions for spatial development of the City of Warsaw ..............................................................................................................................38 5 CONCLUSION: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING IN WARSAW...................................................................................................................39 5.1 THE NATURE OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES IN WARSAW...........................................................39 5.2 EFFECTS OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING ON THE LOCAL GOVERNING ARRANGEMENT........................................40 5.3 CONTRIBUTION OF STRATEGIC PLANNING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE URBAN GOVERNANCE?..............43 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................43
Introduction: Studying urban governance in post-socialist cities
Indeed, one of the key questions challenging students of governance is to clarify the role of government in the process of governance. Understanding this process requires an understanding of what drives institutional design and institutional change in the urban political milieu. (Pierre 1998: 6; emphasis is mine)
My basic interest behind undertaking research on the politics of urban planning in the post-socialist transitional city of Warsaw was to understand what drives institutional change in such an urban political milieu. Decentralisation and local democracy were introduced in Poland for the first time in 1990, and since then cities had to manage both the establishment and autonomous development of a local government system, and deal with immediate wider regional, European and global changes and challenges of operating in a constantly changing external environment. Being challenged on both fronts simultaneously – the first one more internal, local and national, the second more external and global – while learning the basic rules of the governing game was coupled with the challenge of managing policy transfer of discourses and methodologies brought about by international organisations and donors that entered Central Eastern Europe (CEE) in the beginning of the transition from the socialist regime. This radically new context of decentralisation of some government responsibilities to the local level and introduction of the free-market economy led to the fast proliferation of governmental and non governmental players in the everyday running and development decisions of cities. The growing body of literature in urban and local politics has been pointing at the development of local governance arrangements rather than local government in Western European and North American cities since the 1980s. The governance perspective stress the interdependence of a growing number of players in the process of governing cities, blurring the boundaries between the public and private sectors, and thus focuses on the continuous processes of interaction and coordination among actors operating at different institutional and sectoral levels in trying to meet economic, political and social challenges of cities (Rhodes 1997; Stoker 1998; Pierre 1998; Pierre 1999; John 2001; Denters and Rose 2004). My
starting assumption about the governing arrangements in post-socialist cities is that, contrary to this shift towards governance in Western Europe, the initial governing arrangement that was developing and expected to develop (by law-makers, local politicians and public at large) by mid-1990s in post-socialist cities of CEE was a local government arrangement rather than a form of local governance. The reason for this can be found in the strong emphasis on local democracy, local autonomy and values of decentralisation in the political discourse of initial democratic reforms in 1990 in CEE countries, in addition to the factors like no experience with the market economy and private sector actors at the city level, and weak organised interest representation of local social groups. Strategic planning paradigm was one among many new ideas, operating frameworks, methods and techniques promoted by international organisations taking part in the transformation processes in the region. Strategic planning, as a management technique used in the private sector since the 1960s, started being applied and adapted to the public sector in the 1980s for the purpose of envisioning development and guiding future actions of public institutions. It ca be defined as developing frames of reference for future action for the purpose of making the favourable development happen, contrary to being a blueprint for future product of development (Mastop 2000; see also Healey et al. 1997). It came as a reaction to the planning failures of the rational approach to planning, and to the challenges of economic competition and political fragmentation of cities. Due to the fact that so many cities around Europe and beyond have been undertaking strategic planning and management since the 1980s, strategic urban planning seemed to be a particularly useful and eventually indispensable tool for large and necessarily fragmented cities such as Warsaw to reconsider their position, problems and opportunities of development in the new national (intergovernmental), Central East European, European and global environment. Strategic planning paradigm brought about the awareness of the importance of institution-building, namely of the political aspect of urban planning for the purpose of achieving greater effectiveness of plans and greater participation of local stakeholders in the developmental interventions in the city. As such, it is widely viewed as a new policy arena and instrument for integrating policy-making at the city
which is 5 . A strategic planning process can develop a greater degree of cooperation. Depending on how implementation possibilities and public participation are dealt with during the strategic deliberations and decision-making on developmental priorities. the basic hypothesis is that strategic planning is an opportunity for transitional cities to move faster towards effective urban governance. These cities were simultaneously faced with the introduction of the local government system. In the same manner it can be a tool for involving local citizens. collaboration. and involve them in securing the implementation of those programs. and strong local leadership for urban development. It can also help linking the city with the wider regional environment. 2 Main thesis and research question Having this in mind. This can be explained by a combination of contextual factors that influence the effectiveness of city governing and development processes in the 1990s in former socialist cities of Central Eastern Europe. It can be a powerful exercise for accomplishing integration of the fragmented local public sector and its various policies. fast proliferation of the new economic actors through the development of the business sector.level. and a sense of mutual accomplishment. various organised social and business interests in order to learn from them. involve them in the search for the best or most effective developmental programs that match strategic vision and goals. and development of the civil society independent from the government sector. strategic planning has a potential of increasing the internal institutional capacity of the local government system and building governance capacity of a network of local public and non-public actors. As a policy tool it can help envisioning the city as a collective actor and in that respect deal with urban fragmentation. and overcoming the collective action problem inherent to the processes of governing fragmented capitalist cities. it has been difficult to build both effective local governance and government. In this text I would like to explore the claim that strategic planning can help the city and its local authorities to deal more effectively with these problems and the resulting collective action challenges. In this context. new economic conditions of a free-market economy opened to the economic globalisation.
To explore the effects of political deliberations and negotiations during the strategic planning process on the (development of) institutional relations of urban governance. towards a governance form? Or was it a step in a long learning process for local public authorities to strengthen the integration and institutional capacity of local government. not governance? Or rather the product is just another document to be used in city-promotion. local public administration and planning experts within and beyond the local public sector. 3. and what are its intended and unintended outcomes? These are important questions because of the big influence of the strategic planning paradigm in the planning and urban policy literature. 2. How has the strategic planning process been organised and used? Has it been used to improve the capacity of the local public sector and local political leaders to deal with the wider society in steering urban development in a preferred direction? Has it involved changes in the institutional setting? Has it produced changes to the existing governing arrangement? Was the change directed towards improving governing capacity.e. or rather consolidation of the already existing governing arrangement through consolidation of the political elite consisting of local politicians. and because of the widespread policy transfer of strategic planning ideas.particularly significant in the wider European context where the EU policies become an important factor. i. 6 . A shift towards not only interest groups’ participation. The main research question of this paper is how strategic planning paradigm and methodology can affect the governing arrangement and governing capacity in a city. presented to investors and visitors. but also towards greater general public involvement and transparency of the process. how has the opportunity been used. I will analyse the developments in city of Warsaw since the beginning of the 1990s. and never used? In general.e. improving local democracy. put on the website. I suggest that strategic planning process can influence the local governing arrangement in three different ways: 1. A shift towards greater involvement of collective interest groups that can secure implementation of programs and projects due to their resources and capacity to influence various aspects of urban development. No change can be detected. i.
It offers a possibility of building long-term coalitions (even if issue. and lead towards greater public ownership of the strategic plan and planned interventions. Considering implementation during the planing process can be a particularly effective activity in terms of extending the institutional capacity for the implementation of objectives beyond the public sector. the case of the city of Warsaw will be presented.or project-driven) and that can lead towards a change in the existing governing arrangement (e. political deliberations and negotiations. Then the details of the ‘thick’ chronology of the planning and relevant political events and developments in the last fifteen years will be given. if at all. Attempts at securing implementation include looking for partners beyond the public sector. elaboration. working of the local political system and the characteristics of the civil society. for building up governance. and final approval of the main strategic document(s) and other relevant planning documents. and their role.These three scenarios of how strategic planing process can influence local governing arrangements are based on the analysis of how implementation (the effectiveness concern or ‘making things done’) and public participation are dealt with and coordinated during the strategic deliberations and plan elaboration. I used two basic research techniques: analysis of various available written documents and semi-structured interviews with public officials and planning experts involved or observing the planning processes In the following sections. can improve the state of local democracy. The case study is designed around a chronology and analysis of urban planning and major political events affecting the local conditions and capacity for building effective governance. It starts with the information and explanation of the context in which the city has been operating since 1990. Important planning processes and 7 . This was also a method used to learn about the way effectiveness of the strategic plans was being understood and how implementation was being considered. intergovernmental relations. namely socio-economic indicators. during the elaboration phase. on the other hand.e. towards more business or non-profit sector involvement). i. significance and expectations given to their involvement by those who initiated the process. Greater participation of citizens.g. The main emphasis was put on the initiation. I paid special attention to the identification of the actors involved in the strategic process.
It is also the capital of the biggest country in the region. and 12% in manufacturing.000 inhabitants). It is situated both geographically and symbolically on the route between Berlin and Moscow. According to the European Cites 1 Warsaw total area is 517 km2. GDP per capita is about 14. 44% were active in retail. 85% of the city was destroyed. 98% of all companies registered in Warsaw are privately owned.documents will be analysed in depth. After 1945. In this polycentric national context.1 Socio-economic indicators and internationalisation of the city’s economy Warsaw is the centre of the agglomeration of more than 2. 4. In 2005 about 18% of the workforce worked in industry. more than 30% of all companies in Poland with the foreign capital were located in Warsaw. but the estimate is that about 600. Among them. It is about three times the national average.000 EUR. three times below the national average. Number of passenger’s cars is 374 per 1000 city inhabitants. 23 % in banking and finance including business services. In the Second World War. With its 1. a twodecade-long reconstruction process took place.7 million inhabitants it is one of the three biggest and only cities (in addition to Budapest and Prague) above one million inhabitants in the post-socialist region usually called Central Eastern Europe. 3 Contextual variables Warsaw is the capital city of Poland. Embarking on a market economy has meant a severe shock for Warsaw’s industry. compared to over 30% in 1989. More than 20 % of the city’s population has the university degree.3% of the Polish population live within the city of Warsaw. 3. including the historical Old Town.000 people have been coming from the surrounding areas daily to work in Warsaw. 8 . The city’s working age population is 75%. It has been slightly loosing population since 1991. Finally. 1 Unemployment rate was 6. a country that has a polycentric structure of cities (with 42 cities above 100. In 2000. even 6 out of 42 above 500.000 inhabitants. main conclusions on the characteristics of the political processes of urban planning in the city will be presented.5 million people.5% in 2005.
and the Union consisted of eight municipalities until the end of the election term. an annual survey of senior managers and board directors of 500 Europe’s top companies on the best places to locate business. The Union had no direct power over its seven municipalities. The City Council (of the Warsaw Union) was to elect the President of the Union (equivalent to the mayor) and 3 vice-presidents. It created a large 2 The basic characteristics of this first local government system of Warsaw can be summarised quoting the words of a planning expert being the close observer and at one time participant in the City government. the richest one had more than six times the income per capita than the poorest one. This new law on the capital city established Warsaw as the Union of seven municipalities of Warsaw. 2 In March 1994 the new Warsaw Act or the Law on the Organization of the Administrative System of Warsaw was passed by the Parliament.Monitor 2005 by Cushman & Wakefield/ Healey & Baker. the structure of the Polish capital was obviously not a good one.2 Intergovernmental relations In March 1990 the newly elected Polish Parliament passed the Local Government Act that started the decentralisation reform by introducing the basic until of local government (gmina in Polish). 9 . In the beginning of 1993. The disputes on how to improve it had begun already a few months after the first local elections [in May 1990]” (Buczek 2001: 6). Warsaw came 20th out of 30 European cities in 2005 (up from 26th rank in 2002) as the overall score calculated on the basis of 12 different location factors. one more municipality was established achieving independence from the rest of the original municipality (the 1990 Warsaw Act allowed the separation). the eighth). 28 (later 32) constituted the indirectly elected Council of Warsaw. The joint funds of their seven budgets were nearly as big as the budget of the City (in 1993). All districts had their executive boards with mayors on the top. 4 of them constitute the Executive Board of the Union. 3. In May 1990 the Law on the Administrative System of Warsaw or so-called Warsaw Act was passed after several much drafted versions. in addition to the Executive Board of the capital City of Warsaw. “These districts were very much different from each other (regardless from the obvious differences in physical shape of their development): the most populated had nearly nine times more inhabitants than the smallest one. All together 345 councilmen were elected for seven district councils (with extra 28 for the additional one. where municipalities kept all right and responsibilities as any other gmina in Poland. For all who were interested in the problems of Polish local democracy.
So. but experience has shown that municipalities tend toward self-interest” (Buczek 2001: 9). Conflicts and jurisdictional disputes were generated mainly because the lack of a precise allocation of duties or financing principles. and introduce some changes at the county level (powiats) did not affect the internal structure of the city of Warsaw. The President of the Union is in the same time the mayor of the Centrum Gmina and as such is elected by the Council of the Centrum municipality and automatically becomes the President of the Union. but with their own councils and budgets. Warsaw’s municipalities have the same authority that all other Polish municipalities have. corresponding approximately to the pre-Second World War boundaries of the city of Warsaw (the land of this territory was nationalized in 1945). These eleven municipalities constituted the Union of Municipalities of Warsaw. of the city of Warsaw. The new Act created ten municipalities around the Centrum Gmina. On the top of this. as the city’s municipalities were established by partitioning a physically and functionally integrated entity. The smallest municipality had less than 2% of the territory of the city. “Planning of physical development and general development strategy created conflicts as the city authorities became weaker than during the first term. while municipalities became stronger (…) The main problem caused by such a structure of self-government was the lack of appreciation of common goals for the city as a whole. i. the Centrum municipality was divided in 7 districts with no legal personality. Conflicts also stem from the imprecisely defined scope of tasks to be performed by the City of Warsaw. and the least populated municipality less than 1% of the population of the whole city. 10 . The division was based on a noble assumption that municipalities would act as parts of a whole (caring for their own interests and the city’s interests).central Municipality (Gmina Centrum with approximately 960. in practice this meant that the city of Warsaw had three administrative levels. The total revenues of the City were equal to 60 % of the total revenues of all 11 municipalities (in 1996). and between the city and the Warsaw-Centrum Municipality. The new 1998 administrative reform of the country that introduced the regional level of government (voivodships). The Executive Board of the City consisted of the President of Warsaw and his three deputies. Conflicts arise mainly between the City of Warsaw and the various municipalities.e. This is problematic.000 people or 58 % of the whole city population).
2002 newly elected national Parliament (elected in September 2001 after the fourth general elections since the systemic change) passed the new and radically different Act on the Structure of the Capital City of Warsaw. and the new local elections immediately followed.On March 15. 3. and in March 1999. the city is divided in 18 districts that have limited powers and resources. Swiecicki stayed the city mayor until a short time after the third local elections in 1998. The indirectly elected Warsaw City Council elected Stanislaw Wyganowski. UW had 24. Thus. Pawel Piskorski from the centrist Freedom Union party (UW). the new mayor of Centrum Gmina was elected by the gmina council. For June 1994 local elections. and AWS (Electoral Action Solidarity. after a political crisis. an architect-planner as the first President of Warsaw or the city mayor. a coalition of rightist post-Solidarity parties) 40 seats in the City Council. the mayor of Warsaw was to be directly elected for the first time since the beginning of decentralisation in 1990. and Warsaw got the new. Marcin Swiecicki became automatically the President of Warsaw.3 Workings of the local political system In May 1990 first democratic local elections took place. the new mayor of Centrum Gmina. Internal division on municipalities as defined by the Polish Constitution ceased to exist. Instead. According to the new law. 11 . The whole Warsaw became one municipality with the powers of the county (powiat). This new law came into force in October 2000. young and politically ambitious President. Another big change came from the 2002 amendment to the Law on elections for municipal councillors that introduced direct elections for mayors (presidents of municipalities) and regional governors (voivod). the new administrative structure was put in place: the city was divided on 11 municipalities with the Centrum Gmina as the biggest and wealthiest municipality. SLD (post-socialist Alliance of the Democratic Left) had 37 seats.
After the new radical administrative reform for Warsaw.In 2001. and the City Council was run by PiS and centrist PO. Political fragmentation of the City Council increased from 1998 to 2002 local elections (Swianiewicz and Klimska 2003). populist right-wing leader of the newly formed and controversial Law and Justice Party (PiS). by the amendment of the Warsaw Act. in 1998 42. Piskorski stood for the national parliament in the general elections in 2001 on the list of the newly formed Civic Platform party (PO). one of the vice-mayors.1% and in 2002 41. when Kaczynski became the President of Poland. PO 13. PiS 40. In terms of the turnout at local elections for the Warsaw City Council.3% (Swianiewicz and Klimska 2003). and won in the second round. especially in Centrum Gmina. the fifth city mayor in four terms. LPR (League of Polish Families) 10. On the same day. and Warsaw citizens punished national parties that were running the city and its municipalities throughout the 1990s. 3. central government appointed a commissioner to be at the top of the City administration until the new local elections in 2006. In December 2005.1%. in November 2002 for the first time a new mayor of Warsaw was directly elected in local elections. run by post-socialist SLD and centrist UW in the third election period. and the Centrum Municipal Council elected a new Mayor for the central municipality.4 The role of the civil society 12 . It was confirmed by the election results: the new elected mayor was Lech Kaczynski. Kaczynski run in the presidential elections. Being elected for the National Parliament. in 1994 local elections turnout was 28. The situation in Warsaw was extremely radicalised after the numerous scandals. he stepped down as the President of Warsaw in January 2002. and Selfdefence party 2 seats in the City Council. Piskorski chose to stay the President of Warsaw. In the fall 2005. SLD has 33 seats. Wojciech Kozak was chosen by the City Council as the new President of Warsaw until the next local elections in the fall 2002. the Polish Parliament separated the roles of the Mayor of the Centrum municipality and the President of the City of Warsaw.
3 So. including Poland. while 37 per cent of Hungarian municipalities also engaged in consultation with NGOs during local decision making” (Pawel 2005: 120. This is even more evident in Hungary. let alone the city of Warsaw. do not think of it as very important for their everyday lives. but rather on the existence and quality of local interest representation in the urban setting. especially at the local level. emphasis is mine). 3 13 . and in 63% municipalities civil society organisations submitted proposals on some questions of public interest. in 60% of municipalities local government decisions were challenged in a court or at a higher administrative authority. where 88 per cent of local governments declared contracts with NGOs. the representation of collective interests of various segments of the civil society is still weakly developed. or even a step further to community involvement into the local decision-making processes. it does not directly lead to better communication between citizens and local authorities.4 As an illustration of the general Polish experience of the role of NGOs in local service delivery.3% of larger municipalities citizens had moderate influence. in 43% there were citizen’s petitions on various local issues. in 69% there were requests for direct meetings between local officials and group of citizens. This is related to the extremely weak tradition of civil involvement in the public affairs in the socialist time. the issue here is not the strength of civil society as such. practical experience in community involvement is extremely limited in CEE countries (2005: 123). In his research on the public perception of local government in Poland in general. and in 25% only small influence (Pop 2005). and prefer to stay almost entirely uninvolved” (Swianiewicz 2001: 219). in 5. 4 In a study based on the survey of chief administrative officials. CAOs in the Polish municipalities over 50. Swianiewicz pointed out that “this picture might be summarised as an sympathetic disengagement – most people like decentralisation. there is very little systematic research done on this aspect of the civil society and its capacity to engage in local politics. In the same study.000 inhabitants (larger municipalities) reported than in about 41% of those municipalities there were public demonstrations concerning local matters. The growing number of NGOs does not directly translate into better representation of citizen interests in dealing with local authorities. However. Furthermore. but do not care very much about local governments. As Swianiewicz pointed out in the recent cross-national study of the complementarily of urban leadership and community involvement. only “about 44 per cent of Polish local governments contracted NGOs to provide some local services. and it cannot be fast overcome. in only 4% of larger municipalities in Poland respondents considered that citizens had a big influence in local decision-making.In spite of the fact that the number of NGOs in the CEE countries is growing.
either of the Warsaw Executive Board or the Warsaw City Council” (Buczek 2001: 7-8). 5 14 .5 Contrary to the fate of the first general strategic document.e. The Warsaw leaders of the day were however aware to some extent of the weaknesses of this master plan.g. the Transportation Policy for the Capital City of Warsaw was prepared in the first election period under the leadership of the same deputy-mayor and approved by the new City Council in 1995. few new bodies independent from the city administration (e. It meant that the basic logic and methods of planning kept in planning regulations remained the same as in the centrally planned economy after the initial introduction of the market economy. The 1984 Physical Planning Act was still effective until the new act in mid-1994 was passed. As a result. and in the resolution adopting the plan pointed out at the necessity of the strategic planning for Warsaw. though not formalised along any legally binding procedures.4 4. Initiated by the city’s deputy-mayor for urban development.1 Chronology of planning events First election period 1990-1994 The regulations for spatial planning – in the form of the law on spatial planning – did not change in Poland in the first four years of transition from the socialist system. The outcomes of this very first strategic thinking process were “presented during a series of meetings involving the representatives of various political. an urban planning agency Warsaw XXI) were established to produce extensive studies on the development of the city. in addition to the Council of Warsaw. social and cultural organisations. (…) In relation to any previous experience concerning socio-economic planning. In September 1992 the Warsaw Council approved the General Development Plan for Warsaw: Warsaw XXI (or the master plan) which development was initiated in the autumn 1991. it was not formally accepted by any official resolution. the Draft Development Strategy of the Warsaw Metropolis was elaborated by the end of May 1994. professional associations and nongovernmental bodies. and the representatives of all municipalities (i. 8 municipalities). the public discussions and elements of participation were considerable. As the document was drafted shortly before the first local democratic government’s term ended.
Preparing the city development strategy has not been a legally required activity for municipalities in Poland.2 Second election period 1994-1998 In July 1994. Regardless of this. in terms of the sequencing having took place in reality. Nevertheless. In March 1996 the competition for the Study for Warsaw was announced. the first post-socialist Spatial Planning Act and the Building Act were passed by the Parliament. the two documents had been coordinated during the preparation. Warsaw city authorities decided to initiate the preparation of the new planning document defining a spatial development policy of the city as required by the new 1994 Planning Act and called the Study of Conditions and Directions of Urban Development of Warsaw. In mid-1996. 6 6 In terms of a logically expected sequencing of planning works. the story about the Strategy preparation should come first. In the same time. lacking any interest in such an endeavour. the preparation of legally-required document of the Study for Warsaw started before a clear decision on whether or not a Warsaw Development Strategy is needed. In the meantime. When the expert team responsible for the design of the Study for Warsaw started their work. the Warsaw mayor Swiecicki independently published and promoted his own strategy for Warsaw called Seven Priorities of Warsaw. however. In May 1997 the preparation of the Warsaw Development Strategy until the year of 2010 started. i.e.4. until 1996 the new City council (elected in 1994). the final preparatory works came about at the same time (during 1997 and early 1998). The only exception in term of legal requirements was the City of Warsaw where the 1994 Act on the administrative organisation of Warsaw introduced the requirement to prepare a development strategy for the whole city. and in June the Study for Warsaw. the Study for Warsaw. Eventually. have already started. In May 1998 the Warsaw City Council approved the Warsaw Development Strategy. it was still not known who would be the designers of the Warsaw Development Strategy. city authorities decided to start the strategic planning for the city once again. at the time when city authorities started thinking again about the preparation of the strategy. the preparatory works on the city spatial development policy. and the final version of the Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010 has been approved and put into force by the Warsaw City Council about two weeks before the approval of the final version of the Study of the Conditions and Directions of the Spatial Development of Warsaw Capital 15 . between the announcement of the competition for the Study and the beginning of the planning work. More importantly in the long-run. aborted all work on developing a strategic document for Warsaw.
made initial inquiry. it was clear that there was not enough time and that the final City Council discussion and approval must have been made before the end of the term. and finally gave up.done by experts. Therefore. the future designers put some conditions before accepting the offer. negotiating with the authorities of each and every Warsaw municipality (knowing the tendency of a number of them towards independence from the City of Warsaw) during the preparatory phase would make the process troublesome and the finalisation impossible. there was no competition organised for selecting the expert team who would do the work on the Warsaw Development Strategy. until the end of the first half of 1998. Finally. of the fast approaching next local elections. Three different teams. Two experts started the work in the beginning of City. The reason behind these conditions was that given the extremely short time remaining for the preparation of the Strategy. and two future general designers of the Strategy – Prof.agreed in February 1997 to undertake the preparatory work. the process of the preparation of the Strategy will be presented first. Alojzy Zalewski and Prof.1 Pre-Preparatory Stage: selecting the chief planners In contrast to the selection of the expert team to prepare the Study for Warsaw. Although in January 1997 it was set up that officially the Warsaw City council should have been presented with the final version of the Strategy by the end of 1997.2. one by one. though one should keep in mind that the commitment to the formulation of a city development strategy came after the preparatory process on the Study for Warsaw started. 16 .1. The City authorities finally agreed with these conditions. Marek Ziolkowski from Warsaw . Each of them took some time to decide. the fourth attempt was successful.e.and not negotiated with Warsaw municipalities. the potential choices were made internally. i. Instead.2. being aware of the previous failed attempts.1 Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010 4. They required that the Warsaw Development Strategy they were to prepare be an expert document .4. were unsuccessfully asked to undertake the work. and knowing well the conflict-ridden situation in the Warsaw local political arena. not politicians . on the basis of personal knowledge of available experts and personal connections of the City Board members and officials in the Land Development Department. However.
The first stage consisted of “assessing the existing situation. the reports were sent to various institutions asking for written opinions.2 Preparation of the Strategy. The outcome of this phase was published in the form of a report A Report on the State of Warsaw (Raport o stanie Warszawy) in November 1997. which included analysing and assessing the structural transformations and tendencies in Warsaw’s socio-economic development between 1990 and 1996” (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 18). cele strategiczne i operacyjne rozwoju Warszawy oraz zadania . and defining the needs and investment priorities regarding technical infrastructure and potential financial sources” (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 18). Since the consultation process for the Warsaw Strategy was not defined in the 1994 Act on Warsaw. namely the Study spelling out spatial development policy. An in-house team from the Department of Land Development was set to assist the chief designers in their work. Consultations took a form of the legally defined 17 Goals of Warsaw Development and Implementation Tasks (Uwarunkowania. the designers and city officials involved in the preparatory process decided to follow the logic of the formally required procedure of public consultations when the preparation of similar documents is in question. It has been also published in a separate report The Conditions. After each stage. preparing scenarios and forecasts of the city’s economic development. 4. defining strategic and operational goals and implementation tasks. and consultations though the opinion-giving process concerning the final version of the document to be presented for approval to the Warsaw City Council.1. done primarily by two chief designers. was divided in two stages. forecasting fiscal revenues available to local authorities.2. This process can be divided in two phases: the planning works undertaken by two chief designers. Strategic and Operational realizacyjne).April 1997. The second stage consisted of “analysing and assessing the environment for Warsaw’s development. The planning work itself. consultation phase and final approval Since April 1997 until mid-May 1998 the elaboration of the Warsaw Strategy took place. and not being legally required for other Polish municipalities.
The Conditions. at the central state level. higher education and scientific institutions also received the draft document. no catch-phrase used to express 18 .2. and one meeting with the members of the Committee on Land Development of the Polish Academy of Science. several meeting were organised to discuss the drafts of two documents: meetings with municipal council chairmen. when the draft of the document is sent to prelisted institutions and their written opinion is asked for. The final document of the Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010 is a synthesis of the outcomes of the two planning stages together with corrections made after the opinion-giving stage. There is no motto. 4. and at the municipal level. The document was sent to and written opinion expected from. Eventually. mayors and officials of Warsaw municipalities and districts. Different municipal agencies. In addition to written opinions.1. one meeting with representatives of social and professional organisations and scientific institutions. Strategic and Operational Goals of Warsaw Development and Implementation Tasks. social. administrative. In the case of the second document produced in the preparation of the Warsaw Development Strategy. the members of the Council of Ministers.procedure of formal opinion-giving. the Chancellery of the Polish President. The council chairman demanded a personal vote by council members in order to push for the document’s approval. The opinion was also asked from the Warsaw Voivodeship administration. spatial. then professional associations. the committees of the Parliament and the Senat dealing with local government and land development issues. infrastructural and ecological potentials and weaknesses.3 Structure and characteristics of the urban development strategy The Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010 is a comprehensive attempt at exploring economic. in the same time giving directions for the future preferable overall development of the city. chambers of commerce (Warsaw City Hall 1999: Introduction). the City Council approved the strategic document. public companies. the members of the Parliament and the Senat coming from Warsaw. from Warsaw municipalities and districts of the Warsaw Centrum municipality. As such the document went to the Warsaw City Council for approval on 25 May 1998. the opinion-giving stage came about in April 1998.
except to become ‘a true European metropolis. 8 Without giving priority to any of them. and (5) Achieving harmonious development within the city as a whole. However. further implementation efforts’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 126). It is probably because these goals were already defined as ‘priority’ goals and ‘the most urgent of all urgent goals. as illustrated by the city’s progress in recent rankings of European cities. the authors stated. they were formulated as the last conceptual step made in the planning work on the Warsaw Development Strategy.) Warsaw’s position in various rankings mainly reflects the city’s potential. the improvement perceptions stem more from foreign experts’ positive assessments of Poland’s economic transformations than on concrete socio-economic development in the city itself (despite clear progress in recent years).’ As for implementation tasks. (. the Strategy sets up the following strategic goals (without ranking them): (1) Improving residential environment and the city’s attractiveness. reads as ‘Warsaw as a European metropolis with a rapidly growing economy and a steadily increasing standard of living. (3) Creating conditions that would stimulate economic growth. (2) Developing and improving the city’s transportation system and ensuring efficient communications links to elsewhere in Poland and points abroad. The city is not expected to become this or that particular type of a city. Warsaw is classified among cities that may very well become first-class European centres (Prague and Budapest are other examples)... (. were specific 7 The authors honestly point out that “Warsaw’s image abroad has improved in recent years. and expected to be the first step towards implementation efforts as the next stage to follow up the preparation and approval of the Strategy document. It was stated that all operational goals are equally important and no prioritisation was offered.the vision of the future city. (4) Creating a proper environment for international economic. What comes next. which will strengthen integration of the metropolitan area.. The general directional goal.’ The general directional goal is then followed by five main strategic goals.) no one expects Warsaw to soon become a European or world financial. scientific and cultural organisations and institutions. and the latter then operationalised further into seventy five implementation tasks. ‘expressing statements of local governments’ intent regarding the city’s development’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 123). consequently. (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 125-6) 19 ..’ 7 A two-level set of strategic goals for future development of the city of Warsaw was formulated. economic. The Warsaw Development Strategy Until the year 2010 is not searching for a new role for the city. ‘which develop more detailed assumptions of the main directional goal’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 123) and are ‘the basic guidelines for future planning efforts and. 8 Main strategic goals were further operationalised into sixteen operational goals. scientific or cultural centre. Its goal is to strengthen Warsaw’s (and its surrounding areas’) diversity and multifunctionality” (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 121).
reactivating the role of the central state in helping city development . selecting strategic solutions to certain development issues after conducting specific studies to assess proposed solutions’ effectiveness.were all listed as missing conditions that hinder effective development of the city and. publicprivate partnerships). 9 20 . “Local and central government bodies will have to coordinate efforts to create the right institutional. the strategic document called for creating conditions for cooperation and coordination of development activities.1. should involve: improving the efficiency of the city-wide administration. and targeted at all interested parties. economic and social conditions for encouraging selectively defined municipal [city] development” (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 154). Improving municipal administration and city-wide development management. developing concrete programmes for implementing specific tasks. as such. especially the improvements in the city’s transportation system. state bodies. 4. as most needed interventions towards improving the institutional capacity for implementation. initiating cooperation not only within the City of Warsaw.2. initiating and coordinating cooperation among the City of Warsaw. Warsaw Metropolitan Area). the transportation system development is called for with the greatest urge. adopting an effective information policy outlining the development strategy’s goals and methods.9 Among the mentioned implementation directions. The Strategy designers asserted that ‘investments in technical infrastructure should be the top investment priority’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 139). NGOs and local residents.4 Giving directions for improving coordination of implementation efforts The authors of the Strategy until 2010 clearly pointed out that the market alone cannot achieve strategic goals of city’s development. Creating right conditions for implementation of the Warsaw development strategy. Warsaw municipalities and neighbouring municipalities belonging to the Warsaw Metropolitan Area. but also within the Warsaw agglomeration (i. the authors emphasised.e. bonds.programmes and an integrated programme for implementing various implementation tasks. creating a (longer-term) financial policy that promotes development and also use external sources of project finance (including loans. organisational. In order to ‘make up for the past investment delays’ and to ‘eliminate development disparities’ in Warsaw.
are all serious obstacles to effective development of the city towards a European metropolis status in future. and on coordination of municipal and sectoral development plans to enable an effective city-wide development. or any serious public discussion on the Strategy visible. “regardless of the efforts of the authors of the strategy and of the city authorities. most probably because of the fact that the whole methodology applied was focused on the experts’ generated evaluations. The other reason was that the Strategy was drafted on the basis of the expectation that the administrative structure of Warsaw will be improved rather sooner than later” (Buczek 2001: 17). That document was to be legally binding and to represent the basis on which detailed local 21 . self-interested behaviour of Warsaw municipalities that has led towards fragmentation in territorial management.2. expertise and goals rather than a wide public participation in an early stage of the planning action.1. coordination and supervision’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 92).2. The lack of clear definition and division of responsibilities between the City of Warsaw authorities and Warsaw municipalities. the lack of coordination in planning and implementation efforts.The functioning of the Warsaw administrative structure as introduced by the 1994 Warsaw Act is recognised as ‘a major hindrance to Warsaw’s development. 4. It prevents the city from fulfilling basic administrative functions. each and every local municipality was required to produce and enact a document defining the spatial development policy of the municipality.2 The Study of Conditions and Directions of the Spatial Development of Warsaw Capital City According to the first post-socialist Physical Planning Law which came into force on 1 January 1995. 4. there was not much of the expected feedback observed. the new administrative structure must be based on much greater cooperation of its various parts. Therefore. As one of the main close observers of the planning policy processes and a planning expert in Warsaw noticed.5 An expert development strategy The Warsaw Strategy is clearly an expert-driven document engaging other expert agents and politicians only as much as it was needed and possible in the given circumstances. especially planning.
hopes and areas of conflict known through the organisations active in their midst. The Warsaw City Council decided in June 1995 that the elaboration of such a legal document should start. In the beginning of the elaboration of the Study the City Board expressed their intention to organise the work on a model of wide participation. By the end of 1995. and later the successive stages of the study. as well as of social and commercial organisations.physical plans were to be prepared. The final decision was announced in December 1996. and required from the City Board to complete the task by the end of the first half of 1998. Zygmund Ziobrowski was the winner. 4.2.1 The Preparation of the Study The process of elaboration of the Study and consultations concerning the final version of policy proposals and implementation tools lasted from the beginning of 1997 until May 1998.e. will be presented widely in various circles to ensure that the professionals are joined in full participation by the city’s inhabitants. it was announced that: “[t]he work on the study will see the widest possible participation of the gmina authorities and those of Warsaw as a whole.2. and a team from Krakow led by Prof. The Board decided that the competition will be organised and run by planning experts. The study concept. and to entrust the winning team further elaboration of the Study itself. who will make needs. by the professional association of Polish urban planners called the Society of Polish Town Planners (TUP).” (The Office of the Warsaw Capital City Board 1997: 109) 22 . the Warsaw City Board decided to organise first a competition for the best Concept for the Study. i. by the end of the term of the local government holding the office at that time The 1994 Physical Planning Act did not say anything on the choice of a team who was to prepare the Study. In the words of the mayor Marcin Swecicki. The document in question is called the Study of the Conditions and Directions of Physical Development of the given municipality.e. In the case of Warsaw it was clear that the preparatory work had to be commissioned to an external group of experts since there was no in-house planners who would do the work themselves. i.
the so-called City Workshop for Spatial Planning and Development Strategy (a body of in-house planners helping the exchange of information between the external expert team under the main designer of the Study and different departments belonging to the Office of the City Board). enabling further information exchange and preliminary formulation of planning proposals.was planned to involve five main groups: environmental associations.In the very beginning of the work on the Study document. the chairman of the Warsaw City Council commission dealing with urban development. the director of the Department of Land Management. municipalities belonging to the Warsaw Voivodeship. Technical coordination was the responsibility of a special body under the Department of Land Development of the Warsaw City Board. The third phase was to collect opinions on the final draft. before the final approval vote by the Warsaw City Board and the City Council.was in charge of the expert work. 10 23 . 11 The steering committee consisted of the following members: a member of the Warsaw City Board (i. agencies dealing with the conservation of historic monuments. However.e.10 The division of responsibilities of the main agents/parties involved in the preparatory work was drawn up.meaning consultative meetings with non-governmental agencies . representatives of Warsaw municipalities and districts of the Centrum municipality.the leader of the team which won the competition . The third phase was. It was agreed that the work would be divided in three general phases with regard to the cooperation with various governmental units and non-governmental agencies.11 In the second phase. based on a legally prescribed procedure of asking different institutions for written opinion on the draft of the Study. The task of the first phase was to make the Study concept done by the team who won the competition discussed in detail with other governmental units and agencies (at the city government level. and economic organisation/business associations. The main designer of the Study . the political and overall coordination and management of the preparatory work was put into the hands of a special steering committee established only for this purpose. Warsaw municipalities level. Only after this formally required stage. the last draft could be finalised and sent to the Warsaw City Council for approval. one of the vice-presidents of Warsaw) acting as the chairman of the committee. associations of urban planners and architects. The task of the second phase was the negotiation of problems during the consultation with various agencies. the rules for the organisation of the work were set up. the wide participation . however. during the negotiations on proposals and problems. and voivodeship level). and the main designer of the Study (Mijeska Pracownia Planowania Przestrzennego i Strategii Rozwoju 1997).
water. a particularly important type of stakeholders in Warsaw development is represented by eleven Warsaw municipalities (gminas).2. and negotiated the final proposals (concerning the road system. As far as the consultations with civil sector. etc) that was to be recommended by the Study. the sewage system. In addition. sometimes in smaller groups of two or three municipalities. Warsaw municipalities were involved in the negotiation process from the very beginning and up to the very end of the consultations on the final draft. and electricity supply. scientific institutions and the business sector are concerned. Additional consultations were made with the planners working on the local physical plans being already in preparation by that time and commissioned by Warsaw municipalities. public transportation. and then a group discussion 24 . gas. Taking into account the administrative structure of Warsaw. NGOs and institutions dealing with environmental protection were consulted at one meeting.4. the consultations were held with the representatives of the Office of the Warsaw Voivodeship (regional level of public administration). Numerous meeting between the designers and the representatives of municipalities were held. railway system. Furthermore. The designers consulted central government ministries and offices.2 Consultations/negotiations Throughout 1997 and the first half of 1998. The designers and city authorities discussed the alternative solutions to the capital city structural weaknesses. numerous meeting were held concerning the preparation of the Study. the municipalities of the (at that time still existing) Warsaw Voivodeship were also invited for discussion. At the city-wide level numerous agencies (often in the form of public communal companies) dealing with technical infrastructure and communal services were consulted and in several rounds. depending on the infrastructure problem. sometimes on the one by one basis. especially the neighbouring municipalities of the City of Warsaw. few meetings with their representatives were held only in the final stage of the Study preparation.2. The existing country-wide sectoral plans were discussed inasmuch as they were to affect the metropolitan area of Warsaw and help ease or solve the problems of the capital city.
the Warsaw City Council approved the Study.2. departments of the Office of the City Board . Further planning and making of concrete programmes for city development. in June 1998. and on the draft version of the document when the preparatory process was approaching the end. especially of the city-owned land. A few meeting between the team working on the Study and the team working on the Strategy for Warsaw until 2010 took place. the decision-making process at the city level included numerous meetings with the City Board. 25 . 4.and few commissions of the Warsaw City Council . Finally. based on statutory regulations and led by the need for development management. primarily central government authorities. 2. and in the selection of the main developmental interventions proposed by experts. Urban marketing.2. there was some coordination of the two documents in the selection of strategic objectives for future city development. Though the preparation of two documents was done as two separate processes.3 Policy Instruments The authors of the Study identified two main types of the spatial policy instruments standing at disposal of the Warsaw authorities. The Study recognises four main groups of instruments belonging to this type: 1. Throughout the whole process of simultaneous expert work on the elaboration of the Study proposals and consultations/negotiations with various stakeholders external to the City authorities. The later discussion focused on the second working version of the Study and the participants were asked for their opinion (Zarzad Miasta Stolecznego Warszawy 1998: Appendix 1). Land management.was organised with the representatives of the scientific and research institutions. 3.especially the Department of Land Development . authorities of the Warsaw municipalities and municipalities outside the city borders. and 4. business associations and foundations for regional development. Cooperation with the authorities at other levels. The first consists of those instruments that belong to the domain of responsibilities of the Warsaw City authorities.especially the Commission for Strategy and Development. The discussions were focused both on particular issues and proposals.
12 This second type of policy instruments came out of the 1994 Act on the Administrative Structure of Warsaw. Binding provisions have been introduced in the 1994 Act on Warsaw as a tool of coordination of development throughout the city and a tool of city-wide control on the planning activities of Warsaw municipalities 26 . Binding provisions represented an instrument of influence of the City of Warsaw authorities on the spatial policy of Warsaw municipalities.4 Priority proposals for future city development As it was already indicated above.12 4.e. It is so because only Warsaw has been the Union of municipalities (gminas).2. binding provisions were to form a (dominant) part of the city master plan. Thus. financial schemes and action plans for implementation of public investments. the Study for the city of Warsaw was meant to be “a set of guidelines encompassing the spatial policy of the city authorities with respect to the area of the Capital City of Warsaw and is considered an act of internal management” (Krajobraz Warszawski 1999: 20). and were supposed to consist of guidelines for municipal authorities to follow in the process of preparation of local physical plans (as being the obligatory responsibility of municipal authorities). all further specification and operationalisation of proposals made in the Study were expected to be made in the time after its formal approved by the Warsaw City Council.The above mentioned first group of instruments includes the preparation of the Spatial Development Plan for the Capital City of Warsaw (which preparation was expected to follow immediately after the Study had been approved). As such the Study is a comprehensive set of proposals concerning the improvements in the spatial structure of the city and its functioning. and as such existed only in the Warsaw spatial planning system. and further operational programmes determining investment priorities in various sectors of activity. The second type of policy instruments is represented by binding provisions for Warsaw municipalities.2. a phase to follow the approval of the plan. It meant that thinking and planning the implementation of proposed interventions was understood as a separate phase from the plan elaboration. i. the Spatial Development Plan for the Capital City of Warsaw. and all other large town in Poland have only one level of government. According to the then valid law.
done previously under the same expert leadership as the Study for Warsaw. Instead. no serious objections were put forward. and (5) protection of cultural and landscape values. 41-46). would provoke faster development of the city zones they belong to. It was first introduced in the Study for the city of Krakow. establishing a developmental agency. For the further analysis I will select the first issue and present it in more detail. i.2.4. The Study designers introduced new spatial categories that explicitly recognise and select spatial elements with pro-development potential. The aim was to improve “basic proportions of the spatial structure of the city as a whole” (Krajobraz Warszawski 1999: 22). The importance attached is based on the principle of concentration of pro-development activities in a limited number of areas throughout the city. housing and cultural functions. in translating these goals into spatial development policy terms. There is no vision-driven image of the future city expressed in a short sentence. 13 27 . a mix of functions (Studium 1998: 35. The idea was new in the Polish context of urban planning. These focal issues and proposals which follow define the developmental agenda set up by the Study for Warsaw. the areas finally selected have different sources of The idea of recognising and selecting strategic areas came from the main designer of the Study. To mention only the first element.1 Strategic areas: concentrating development efforts A novelty that the Study brought about lies in the way the elements of the spatial structure of the city are defined. set up monitoring and special conditions to help investment process. though some of them might also incorporate light production buildings. (3) technical infrastructure of the city. strategic areas were planned to be primarily the areas of concentration of services. multifunctional belts and city gateways.e. The Warsaw City leadership accepted the idea. if attractively developed. The authors name three types of such spatial elements or areas: strategic areas.13 Since different Warsaw municipalities were characterised by a different mix of development potentials and problems. (2) the city’s transportation system. 4.2. or rather when they were presented with the idea. (4) protection of the Warsaw Nature System. the Study focuses on five main issues: (1) improvements in the city spatial structure. The reasoning behind was that a limited number of areas throughout the city. and consequently of the whole city.The general goal and five main strategic goals are the same as stated in the Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010. Their development would require area-based management capacity. There areas would become key areas for private investment activities.
and how? As it was already stated. Poznan Gateway. Since local physical plans. Zeran Harbour. This policy instrument was to cover rather management-related aspects of the development of these areas. All together twelve of them. after being ratified. 15 The expectation was that preparation and ratification of the master plan would secure the fast translation of the planned features for chosen strategic areas into the form of the local regulations of investment activities. Studium 1998: 84). Wilanow Centre. However.2 From an idea to political commitment? What has been done during the process of planning for the Study to secure the realisation of the idea of strategic areas? How was implementation considered. Poludniowy (South) Railway Station. then they ultimately determined what can be and what cannot be built on a site. the Study also urged the preparation of action plans for strategic areas. Warsaw City. It was also stressed that “Strategic areas and multifunctional belts should be the sites of mutual action on the part of [central] government authorities. how much does all this show political commitment to developing strategic areas as conceived by the Study authors? To have binding provisions proposed for The following choice of strategic areas was made: Warsaw’s New Salon. the authorities of the Capital City of Warsaw and the Warsaw municipalities” (Krajobraz Warszawski 1999: 26. Gdansk Railway Station.14 4. Skocznia. In order to complement this instrument of securing the realisation of the planned strategic areas. the Siekierkowska Arch.2.4.e. 14 28 . if at all. starting with the specification of investment priorities.15 Based on this expectation. This was believed to be the best guarantee that the further development of areas chosen for strategic areas would comply with the original idea of such areas. Lopuszanska. represent a law on local spatial development. Praga Centre. and not be taken over by ad hoc development attempts. i. the Study authors urged and consequently expected the fast preparation of the city-wide master plan which would include binding provisions for Warsaw municipalities to follow in the preparation of local physical plans.attractiveness and were seen as being able to develop a different mix of socioeconomic functions and architectural values. the Study document offered proposals for binding provisions to guide Warsaw municipalities in establishing local land-use or zoning regulations concerning each and every strategic area (Studium 1998: 84-90). binding provisions. and Targowek Przemyslowy .2.
new city authorities hardly paid any attention to the Strategy for Warsaw and its goals. When it was announced in October 2000. though amended in numerous occasions. new Warsaw mayor (and the mayor of the Centrum municipality) Pawel Piskorski announced the New Spatial Policy (NPP).those beyond prime locations. The 1992 Warsaw master plan. it was based on two other drafted planning documents. there was no wider consultation. Nobody at first knew what this attempt was about. the representatives of investors or real estate agents were not consulted on this during the preparation of the Study document. was still used as the key policy document for issuing planning and building permits. and the selection of areas for strategic areas was done in consultation with them. In this manner of neglecting the policy work done by the previous government. Namely. especially because it was rather a draft and no legal procedure for the discussion and its approval existed.3 Third election period 1998-2002 After the 1998 local elections. “The first one was the draft of the so-called Warsaw Master Plan. primarily with potential stakeholders other than municipal authorities. local physical plans for these areas have already been in preparation. However. it may have not appear necessary because these areas have been treated as having strategic importance since the beginning of the 1990s.’ The other one was [at that time still] the draft of the Study of Conditions and Directions of Urban Development of the Centrum Municipality” (Buczek 2001: 17). in order 29 . Apart from some research done on the development potentials of these areas.these areas still does not guarantee the commitment to the idea of those who are and will be responsible for its realisation: city and municipal authorities and private investors alike. For the areas with central locations. 4. Warsaw municipal authorities were informed about the proposal. which was some kind of a followup on the selectively enriched ideas of the General Development Plan for Warsaw [master plan] of 1992 transformed into so-called ‘binding guidelines for the local physical development plans of Warsaw municipalities.16 16 The Centrum municipality was created by the 1994 Warsaw Act with the intention to avoid the effects of administrative fragmentation of this historically important are. the same area being nationalised by decree in 1945 after destruction of Warsaw in the Second World War. and the interest of private developers was visible. regarding other areas . the new municipality’s border covered the area that belonged to Warsaw of 1939.
30 . municipalities of the Warsaw Union were also entrusted to develop their own spatial development policies in the form of a Study of Conditions and Directions of Urban Development. Because of this situation. the power to influence gminas in their spatial development decisions through the Study was lost as soon as the Study was approved by the city Council. The document also called for the modification of the legislation related to the system of local government in Warsaw. For instance. So. in the period of 1994-2002 belonging to the Centrum municipality. The specific example of such approach is the work on the Study for Gmina Centrum.18 This document to enable its reconstruction. “It is important to notice that municipalities of Warsaw were conducting their own works on their studies (…) quite frequently without paying much attention to the content of the Study of the City. 17 Although the city of Warsaw now had a strategic development document and the document presenting its spatial development policy. city authorities under the leadership of the Mayor Piskorski decided to prepare a document stating the binding provisions for the gminas in deciding on their spatial policy. and they started doing it on their own. the City of Warsaw lost the power to make legally binding spatial policy in the form of the Study. only the Strategy was required. 18 Among the most important problems of the spatial development policy for Warsaw that were asserted in the Warsaw Development Plan containing binding provisions. For the city level authorities. between the end of 1997-2000 the Centrum gmina undertook the preparation of the Study of Conditions and Directions of Urban Development until 2020 of the Centrum municipality. which was much more favoured later by the authorities of Warsaw during the third term than the Study for Warsaw. and treated them as law. it was pointed out that the lack of participation of government funds in the building of the necessary bypass routes and the metro system is affecting the likelihood of these development being implemented in the needed pace. According to this amendment done by the national parliament. In an act of almost perverse change. This Warsaw Development Plan Including Obligatory Guidelines for the Warsaw Municipalities in Preparing Local Spatial Development Plans was approved in the City Council July 2001. It was approved in mid-2000. had a legal power to influence the spatial decisions of gminas.17 Only city-developed binding provisions for gminas. as a possibility prescribed by from the Warsaw Act. minimal interest of the national authorities in the development of the capital city was also stated. despite the serious discrepancies between two documents” (Buczek 2001: 12). This change was introduced by the Polish Parliament’s amendment on the 1994 Planning law that was prepared almost simultaneously with the approval of the 1998 Study. accounted for 25% of the territory of modern Warsaw of the 1990s.1998 Study for Warsaw could not act as the spatial development policy document because of the administrative structure of Warsaw that required and favoured gmina’s studies. 57% of Warsaw inhabitants lived in this municipality while 72% of all jobs in Warsaw were located there. This area.
though the document was never publicly discussed. mayor Piskorski’s New Spatial Policy (NPP) remained a political vision for city-wide development with little real power over the investment and planning decisions of Warsaw municipalities Although used by Piskorski for his political ambitions aimed towards national politics rather than staying at the level of Warsaw city politics. after his experience as the Mayor of Warsaw. namely binding provisions. His deputymayor Mr. the old Study. it still shows the constant interest of the city leadership then in office to do something favouring overall city development contrary to the fragmented actions of municipalities that were interested mostly in what happened within their borders irrespective of how it affected other Warsaw neighbourhoods. It means that until the beginning of 2006. Finally. Piskorski push the initiative in the national parliament to change the Warsaw Act. by the end of the third term. Due to the system of legal obstacles that finally blocked almost any initiative coming from the City to influence developments at the level of Warsaw municipalities. document has been used in making planning and building decisions. no public consultation process took place. most of the development ideas of the city authorities remained as acts of good will only. drafted and finally approved in March 2002 – all in a few months since the new national Parliament started its work.containing binding provisions became officially the new Study for the city of Warsaw as soon as the new Act on Warsaw was put in force (October 2002) abolishing old gminas. even in terms of the officially preferred consultation process. Kozak was appointed as the new Warsaw Mayor. Piskorski went to the national parliament after 2001 national elections. and making Warsaw one municipality for the first time since 1990. After a long period of anti-Warsaw sentiments in the Parliament that were responsible for the lack of support for a radical reform of the Warsaw administrative system. finally the structure of forces in the new Parliament enabled the new Act on Warsaw to be initiated. since the new Study has not been officially approved yet. Before the binding provisions for gminas were originally approved in 2001. 31 .
including local area plans. Kaczynski’s attitude when elected was “all before me was inappropriate. 18 newly established districts – loosing the status of Warsaw gminas.4. Only in the beginning of 2004. That was the argument put forward by the leadership around the new mayor Kaczynski. contrary to the previous 1994 law. corrupt. According to this new spatial planning law. The new law did not require the preparation of a general strategic document. new mayor. the new Law on spatial planning and management was put in force. In the words of a few interviewed experts. and joining the EU in just a few months – required a brand new strategic document for the city that was soon to become a new EU metropolis. failed to meet the new planning requirements. Under the management of the Office for Development Strategy and European 32 . The new Warsaw authorities were obliged to start the preparation of the new spatial policy document. simply wrong”. did the new City Council of the finally unified city government decided to initiate the development of the new strategic document. In July 2003. Old 1998 Strategy until 2010 was not taken into any consideration when deciding on this new endeavour.1.4. and gaining the weak status of – have no planning power.1 Preparation of the Strategy until 2020 At first.4 Fourth election period 2002-2006 According to the 2002 Act on Warsaw. The Warsaw City authorities are responsible for all planning documents. New circumstances – new unified city administration.1 Strategy for the Development of the Capital City of Warsaw until 2020 4. 4. it looked as if the city did not really know how to go on with the preparation process. the 2001 binding provisions document turned into the Study for Warsaw after the introduction of the new administrative structure for Warsaw in 2002. and for their implementation.4.
but much of the work was also contracted to external experts in order to analyse different aspect of the social. The task of another group was to do the groundwork on the diagnosis of the current situation in Warsaw called the Report on the state of city of Warsaw. and six interdepartmental groups dealing with different issues such as technical infrastructure. and political life of the city. especially the first two with the business representatives and selected NGOs. Parallel to the work of these eight groups. One seminar was organised with the representatives of business organisations. He started the first strategic planning process in Warsaw that ended with no strategic document approved before the second local elections. All together these groups included about 20 city departments and 80 external experts contributing to different aspects of the preparation of new strategy. seeking their ideas about the city development. 8 groups were initiated to do different work on the drafting of the strategic document. The management control was in the hands of the Office for Development Strategy. environmental protection. cultural life. and over a period of 6 months the team came up with an strategic document based on expert knowledge. an urban planner by his background. but not realised). housing and other social issues. started with the presentation of some visions and projects coming from city 20 33 . Those early meetings.20 The reports were made after these 19 Dziekonski.19 He gathered a team of five experts from different fields. a group working on the Report on the state of the city of Warsaw. The formation and coordination of the expert team was entrusted to Roman Dziekonski.Integration. including the state of technical infrastructure and the financial resources available to the city authorities. transport. sport activities. established Warsawa XXI team of planners independent from the City. They included an expert team from outside of city administration. Another seminar was organised with the non-governmental organisations from the spheres of culture. and was also responsible for the initiation and coordination of the preparatory work on the first transport strategy for the city approved in 1995 after the second local elections. education. Yet another seminar was organised with students from different universities in Warsaw. the responsible office organised three seminars between June and October 2004 in order to collect opinions and learn further about the needs of social groups outside to the city hall. was the deputy mayor in the first city government in 1990-1994 period. environment protection and tourism (consulting other sectors was initially planned. and spatial structure of the city. mostly various chambers of commerce and some sectoral organisations. economic.
This exhibition Warsaw of the Future was intended to show the strategy for city development to the wider public.” Discussions started within this office on the SWOT analysis. city councillors. followed by the request for opinions from the invited audience. 4.three meetings with the representatives of various social groups. Another set of meetings followed with city councillors (in several groupings of the various committees of the City Council). selecting the vision. all eight groups finished their work.21 After this initial selection.1. In the words of a participant in this process. strategy. At one point this was a rather long. programmes and finally implementation tasks. and some input from the project proposals being prepared for the application for the EU structural funds.22 departments. and to serve as a consultation process with citizens. A survey on the opinion to the new strategic document for Warsaw was conducted during the one-month and a 34 . and submitted it to the Office for Development Strategy. The purpose of those inter-departmental meetings with city political leader was to discuss what was more and what less important for the city and for various city departments. 22 18.000 copies of the summary version of the draft document were distributes to the city districts. Directors of two departments and representatives of two teams responsible for the preparation of these two documents met a few times in order to synchronise the content of two drafts and the proposed interventions. being used as another input into the final drafting of the strategy.4. operational goals. incoherent document of 3000 pages. in order to make the final selection of goals. it looked as “all sectoral strategies different departments submitted were put together.2 Approval stage: Formal process of opinion-giving and the final vote Until May 2005 the draft of the new strategic document was ready and a shorter version with many illustrations of proposed interventions was prepared for the public exhibition in the early summer. By spring 2005. Draft of the Strategy until 2020 was checked against the draft of the new Study document being in preparation. All those materials were put together. and goals for Warsaw until 2020. other interested organisations and interested public. 21 Until 2020 in order to cover two programming periods for distribution of EU fund: 20072013 and 2013-2020. two meetings were organised for directors of all departments and some staff with the Warsaw Vice-Presidents. Presentations prepared by departments were based on the on-going work of six inter-departmental groups working towards the strategic document.
the final version of the strategic document was approved by the Warsaw City Council. this time including the health care NGOs. Written opinions for the general public were coming to the City Hall throughout the summer and fall 2005. on 24 November 2005. all until the final approval of the document. Warsaw mayor Lech Kaczynski run for the Presidential election in the fall 2005. The meetings were scheduled in the way that first the representatives from the city authorities gave presentations on a selection of issue. starts with a mission of city authorities and their vision for the half of the exhibition. No materials were given in advance so participants could not really prepare their reaction and make systematic and most important comments from their perspective. 35 .23 In the meanwhile.1. The final version included some changes into the spring version of the strategy. “some people from districts were involved in six interdepartmental groups [working on a selection of sectoral issues]. and then comments were asked from the invited audience. As one city official put it. contrary to the 1998 Strategy until 2010. another summary version of the Warsaw Strategy until 2020 was reprinted in 120. 23 No consultation meeting was organised with the representatives from the district councils. This move was seen by many people as a self-promotional gesture in the Kaczynski’s campaign for the Polish President – using the Warsaw strategic document for his personal publicity. In the same time.000 copies and distributed as a special supplement of the daily newspapers Gazeta Wyborcza. and one with non-governmental organisations participating in the special meeting of the regular “Forum for Social Dialogue”. and these changes came as the result of the consultation process. 4. and was elected the new Polish President in the second round.” 24 In October. the third time that the approval of the Strategy until 2020 was on the City Council agenda. and formed a minority central government. his party PiS won most of the seats in the national parliament. but we didn’t plan another meeting with them because they wanted to put many details [into the city’s strategic document].4. This document. The interested public was asked for written opinions.As part of the further consultation process. two meetings were organised: one with the representatives of the business sector.24 Finally.3 Structure and characteristics of the urban development strategy This second strategic document – Strategy for Warsaw until 2020 – contains all the standard elements of a strategic document.
and the best time for implementation estimated.” The vision for the city is that “Warsaw of 2020 is an attractive. outside observers of the preparatory process were rather convinced that in fact ”the Strategy is not related to financial planning of the city” and that “no prioritisation of programmes and tasks was made” in the final stage. Warsaw of our vision is an open and accessible community. developing culture and stimulating social activity. The city administration claimed that some prioritisation was done at the level of tasks. in words of a city official.next fifteen years of city development.a city with the soul. the city of significant standing among the most important European capitals. this was not published as a part of the strategic document.1. The list of tasks for the implementation of the strategic objectives includes many projects intended for EU funding that had already been in the process of preparation by different city departments during the drafting of the Strategy (e. is to achieve the highest possible level of satisfaction of residents’ needs and to place Warsaw among the most important European metropolises. and (5) to achieve lasting spatial order in Warsaw. but rather kept by departments. broken down to twenty-one operational goals and seventy programmes for implementation. the financial centre of Central Europe.4.” The vision is followed by five strategic goals25. However. (3) to develop metropolitan functions strengthening Warsaw’s position on the regional. infrastructure projects like metro construction and tram lines reconstruction and further expansion. 4. “the capital of the Republic of Poland. However.4 Coordination of implementation efforts The city administration claims that financial forecast was done for all tasks. (2) to consolidate the residents’ sense of identity by preserving tradition. not at the level of operational goals and programmes. modern.g. the expected financial sources listed. the city of rich tradition. dynamically developing metropolis with a knowledge-base economy. Multiyear financial plan was ready before the strategic document was finalised “so the parameters were known for the strategy”. an important centre of European culture with well-organised public spaces . a city with the high quality of life. 25 (1) to improve the quality of life and safety of the residents of Warsaw. (4) to develop modern economy based on scientific knowledge research. national and European level. The mission of the City of Warsaw. 36 .
The Office for Development Strategy is responsible for monitoring the implementation efforts under the supervision of the Warsaw City President. assessed the expected impact of the implementation of the projects. Contrary to the expert document for the new strategic document for Warsaw. in the words of an official involved with the document through the preparation process. PKW railway tracks and land in Warsaw). only needs to be updated and the full proposal developed. They made a prioritisation of operational goals and tasks. and introduced indicators for monitoring implementation.5 Remarks The final document was about sixty percent based on the expert’s strategy document. programmes or tasks. but rather belong to the central government (e. Their intention is to revise the Strategy every year.26 Implementation of some listed tasks is not in the power of city authorities.” 26 It also included projects like urban regeneration in the Praga district on the right side of Wistula river that is waiting for the EU funding some time in the future if that type of regeneration projects become eligible for the EU Structural funds.4. A list of indicators for monitoring the change was not prepared together with the strategic document. Expert team’s document contained a list of investments for every task they suggested. “No EU funds for that [type of intervention] now. 4.revitalisation of the Krakowskie Przedmiescie street). The implementation of the Strategy rests with the individual city departments. but will be prepared later.” 37 . The rationale for including all these tasks into the city authorities’ strategic document was that “this is not the city government’s strategy but the strategy for the whole city”. As an external planner told me. but maybe in the future. It looks rather as a comprehensive list of all projects already in preparation and those vaguely planned for. “with a longer perspective of the strategic document. and more items in the basket. the final document did not include any prioritisation of either operational goals. more people can be satisfied – in the shortterm.g. or to the resources of the business sector. So we’ll be able to show that it’s already in our Strategy. but they expected that final financial feasibility and political feasibility will be done afterwards in the City Hall.1.
Since then. and participating at the public debates organised by the Chief Architect’s Office (all in 21 working day). consultations with the general public are held.4. The response was good. Simultaneously with the preparation of the first draft. but in general there was no contracting out of work outside of the City’s public sector. the work on the elaboration of the new Study was done by the Department for Spatial Development of the Chief Architect’s Office. as required by the new spatial planning law. the first full draft of the Study was sent to all units of the city administration. information about the preparation of the new Study was sent out to all local and regional public bodies. Second draft of September 2005 incorporated the comments on the first draft. Some sectoral elements of the Study were done by the sectoral experts. according to the new Planning law. and their significance for the preparation of the new Study was assessed. Public consultations. and only if all required opinions are positive. and to all districts in order to check the facts and correct mistakes.2 Preparation of the new Study of conditions and directions for spatial development of the City of Warsaw In September 2003. have three main phases. as the third phase. In April 2005. 38 . The latest announcement put the expected time is May 2006. five public bodies (including the regional governor and the marshal at the regional level) are legally required to give written opinion on the Study. asking for their opinion of what the Study should contain from their particular perspective. All opinions and complains were put together. First. including sending written opinions. the City Council made the decision to start the preparation of the new Study. Public enterprises and general public were asked to comment existing developments in their area/sphere of interest.4. The expected approval time was postponed several times. that report goes as a supplement to the Study when it is passed to the City Council for approval. because all consulted parties were well-informed of the purpose of the document and its obligatory nature for the local area plans in preparation. The planning office needs to make a report on rejected opinions explaining why they were rejected. the document can pass to the next phase when the written opinion of different organisations is required. and associated City Planning Workshop. Then.
Warsaw authorities undertook about three general strategic planning processes (1992-94. Public participation in the strategic decisionmaking processes was confused with consultations in the form of opinion-giving by a 39 . neither considering nor revising the product of the previous process. started being developed anew. each of them started as completely new endeavour. and 2004-06). the first two ended with the adopted official document. and the third waiting to be approved in 2006. Because of this. completely neglecting to reflect on the previous 1998 document Strategy until 2010. while the second had an unexpected fate due to the radical change in the administrative structure of Warsaw and resulting political change in 2002. and 2004-05) with two of these attempts leading all the way towards the official approval of a strategic document. nor building up on it. 2000-01. 1997-98. Understanding participation of other public bodies. especially in the consultation phase coming at the end of the preparation process. The first strategic document for spatial development had been mostly forgotten.1 The nature of the strategic planning processes in Warsaw In the period from 1990 to the end of 2005. In the same period.5 Conclusion: Characteristics of the political process of strategic planning in Warsaw 5. there has been a tendency to imitate the procedures for spatial development strategic documents. The Strategy until 2020 adopted in 2005. These three strategic processes were unrelated to each other. and consultations with actors outside of the strictly speaking city authorities. citizens and organised interests through the framework of the official consultation process limited the involvement of the actors outside of the City Hall and the circles of contracted external experts in the preparation of strategic documents. there has been three strategic planning processes focusing on the spatial development policy for the entire city (1997-98. There were no legal guidelines on how to organise the process of preparation of general strategic documents.
There was no direct participation of the business representatives and NGOs. The findings on the participation of different actors directly correspond with the evidence suggesting very limited consideration of the implementation prospect of the strategic goals and interventions during the planning process. mostly urban planners. The main actors in the general strategic planning processes and in spatial development planning were the two departments of the City Hall (Department for Development Strategy and European Integration and the Land Management Department. deputy-mayors responsible for strategic development. Regional authorities were consulted only in the very last stage when almost final document was sent for their opinion. 5.2 Effects of the strategic planning on the local governing arrangement 40 . The involvement of the municipal authorities (Warsaw gminas) existing before 2002 and Warsaw districts after 2002 was very limited. The national authorities were not directly involved in any way. and a limited involvement of external experts. and a small number of contracted external experts. later the Chief-Architect’s Office). The Warsaw case demonstrates weak internal public sector integration. in the best case they were only assumed. Assessments of the investors’ interests were hardly ever made. Their involvement was limited to the sporadic meetings in the consultation phase. The empirical evidence shows that the strategic processes in Warsaw have been limited to city authorities.certain number of public bodies external to the City Hall administration and by interested citizens after the strategic directions have been almost fully decided upon. Potential private investors were hardly ever consulted in relation to particular implementation aims and suggested programs during the deliberations on strategic interventions in particular areas. Elaboration of strategies during the preparation of strategic documents has been separated from the implementation phase: considering implementation was left for the phase after the official approval of the strategic documents by the City Council. It is especially poignant with respect to estimating real investment interests of private businesses that have control over much of the resources that can be invested in city development.
In terms of the three scenarios of how strategic planning processes can influence the institutional setting of the local governing arrangement – offered in the second section of this paper – my research findings suggest that strategic planning exercises in Warsaw brought about a limited consolidation of the local public sector and expert elite without any significant involvement either from collective interest groups or citizens. the whole city became one municipality and county.A general conclusion on the effects of strategic planning processes on the local governing arrangement in Warsaw is that there is a limited effect up to now. The President of Warsaw. As contextual variables show. and associated instability of local political leadership. was elected by the City Council. were the main obstacles as far as the organisation of the public sector is concerned. equivalent to the city mayor. The administrative structure directly influenced the instability of political leadership. as the consequence of the radical administrative reform for the city of Warsaw. which ended chaotic administrative divisions and frequent paralysing conflicts. and practically no support for the other two. and from the internal context of the existing institutional capacity of the local public sector to steer urban development in an integrated way. Warsaw had a particularly damaging administrative structure since the first Warsaw Act in 1990 over several new adaptations until a radically new administrative structure was introduced in the 2002 Warsaw Act. with strong independence tendencies of the outer city municipalities (gminas) and weak coordination capacity of the city to set up and enforce an integrated set of policies and rules for the overall development of the whole city. a high degree of administrative and political fragmentation characterising intergovernmental relations between different level of government until the radical reform in 2002. Presented evidence shows empirical support for the first scenario. Obstacles to making a shift towards greater involvement of collective interest groups – both from the business and non-profit sectors – and towards greater involvement of citizens seems to be coming both from the general context of urban governance in this post-socialist city. Only in 2002. and since 1994 it practically meant that the mayor of the biggest and central 41 . It meant that local responsibilities were divided between two levels of government with unclear and often conflicting division of responsibilities and resources.
not to mention cooperation. but rather to the political structures of the central district that elected him. Warsaw has had five mayors in fifteen years. general strategic planning and spatial development policies being the case in point. associations of business interests are still developing. four of which were indirectly elected between 1990 – 2002 before the new administrative reform introduced the position of the directly elected mayor of the City of Warsaw in addition to the new unified administrative structure. On the other side. therefore. The mayor. to be more closely involved in the development of the general policies for city development. Cooperation of any kind is very easily interpreted by citizens in post-socialist countries of CEE as corruption or clientelism (Swianiewicz 2001). remaining disinterested in taking part in general policy development. Though the number and variety of business actors dramatically increased since the introduction of the market economy and opening up of the Polish markets to the global competition. City-wide planning activities and development policies. between the Warsaw city authorities and existing NGOs is still very weak. Communication. were undertaken in such unstable and fragmented political conditions. There is also evidence suggesting the sensitivity of the public opinion when it comes to close relations between local authorities and the business sector. In this manner. and low genuine interest on the side of existing organised interests. and the problem lies on both sides. the lack of understanding of the benefits of having societal actors involved 42 . especially from the business sector. leading to the lack of capable partners on the side of civil society.city district – Centrum Gmina – automatically became the President of Warsaw once he was elected by the Centrum Gmina Council. seem to communicate with city authorities only concerning particular development opportunities. including strategic planning. On the one side. did not have the loyalty to the city as a whole. Investors. there is evidence suggesting still low collective interest representation in the non-governmental sectors. As for the civil society. On the other side. there has been weak organised representation of social interests. there has been only limited development of organised interest groups or NGOs capable of representing in a well-informed and constructive way different social interests. individually or through business associations.
J. and B.in the planning processes in an organised way from the very beginning. no. Motte.’ LGI course material for the Urban and City Management Course. Needham (eds. London: UCL Press.3 Contribution of strategic planning to the development of effective urban governance? The case of urban development planning in Warsaw shows that the governing arrangement in Warsaw is still of a local government type rather than a form or urban governance. ‘On the New Spatial Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. A. John. Cushman & Wakefield/Healey & Baker. and the lack of ideas of how it can be done by designing a more participative planning process. no. P. 2001. Rose (eds). Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe. Mastop. 43 .’ Krajobraz Warszawski. Faludi. 52a (Dec. G. H. Denters. London: C&W/H&B. certainly challenge this belief. “The Performance Principle in Strategic Planning. This belief is not fully supported by the local experience of economic development that shows power of private developers in shaping the urban environment. Healey. Krajobraz Warszawski. Khakee. 2001.. 5. ed. Comparing Local Governance: Trends and Developments. but it is too early to see how the unified city policy-making and management introduced in 2002 will shake this belief in the capacity of the local public sector to steer the development of the city without building partnership arrangements with non-governmental actors. Budapest: OSI/LGI. as far as it took place in the turbulent conflict-ridden local public sector in the city in the end of the 1990s.) 1997. My research shows the existence of a deeply ingrained belief in the public sector in this post-socialist city in the possibility of strong local government and local government-based leadership in urban development contrary to the local governance thesis. By W. London: Sage. 1999. Bas and Lawrence E. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. 2000.. 45. M. Local Governance in Western Europe. A. ‘Case study – The strategic and physical planning of Warsaw. 2001. European Cities Monitor. ‘A Vision of Metropolitan Warsaw’ (special issue). Salet and A. Krajobraz Warszawski.” In The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning. Peter. 2004. 2005. The experience of project implementation management. References Buczek.) Krajobraz Warszawski.
” International Social Science Journal.e-warsaw. ed. Strategia rozwoju miasta stolecznego Warszawy do 2020 roku. Jon. Daniel. Warszawy. 1997. R.A.” Ch. “Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics. “Governance as theory: Five propositions. by Pawel Swianiewicz. 44 . Warsaw. Buckingham: Open University Press.W. Poland and Romania.” Ch. Studium uwarunkowan i kierunkow zagospodarowania przestrzennego miasta stolecznego Warszawy: Problematyka.” Ch. st. Warsaw City Hall. Understanding governance. 155: 17-28. 34 (3):372-396. “Sympathetic disengagement: Public Perception of Local Government in Poland. Rhodes. “Cities in transition: From statism to democracy. London: Macmillan. no. Swianiewicz. 1999. Budapest: OSI/LGI. procedura i organizacja prac. Warsaw. Pierre. in Public Perception of Local Governments. Gerry. 84. Pierre. 2004. “Municipality size and citizens’ effectiveness: Hungary. By Gabor Soos and Violetta Zentai. Warsaw: Mijeska Pracownia Planowania Przestrzzennego i Strategii Rozwoju. (also on www. Stoker. Studium uwarunkowan i kierunkow zagospodarowania przestrzennego m. “Czy wielkie miasta sa sterowalne? Wplym sytuacji politycznej na warunki zarzadzania najwiekszymi miastami Polski “(Are big cities managable? The impact of politics on the management of Poland’s biggest cities). 2001. Warsaw City Hall. Swianiewicz.pl) Warsaw City Hall. Pawel and Ursula Klimska 2003. Pawel. The Concept for a Study on the Preconditions and Directions of the Physical Development of Warsaw Capital City: Results of the Society of Polish Town Planners Competition no. 1998. Swianiewicz. Jon. ed. 2006. 1998. by Michael Haus. Samorzad Terytorialny 3: 12-28 Zarzand Miasta Stolecznego Warszawy. 1999. 1997.” Urban Affairs Review. in Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement.Mijeska Pracownia Planowania Przestrzzennego i Strategii Rozwoju. Hubert Heinelt and Murray Stewart. Budapest: OSI/LGI. Pop. The Office of the Warsaw Capital City Board. 2005. Warsaw: Akapit-DTP. Pawel. New York: Routledge. 1998. 1997. Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience. in Faces of Local Democracy. ed. Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year of 2010.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.