Politics of Urban Development Planning: Building Urban Governance in Post-Socialist Warsaw?

Masa Djordjevic First Annual Doctoral Conference of the Department of Political Science at CEU April 13-14, 2006

Abstract
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

2

1

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

3

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

4

it has been difficult to build both effective local governance and government. As a policy tool it can help envisioning the city as a collective actor and in that respect deal with urban fragmentation.level. These cities were simultaneously faced with the introduction of the local government system. and overcoming the collective action problem inherent to the processes of governing fragmented capitalist cities. collaboration. and involve them in securing the implementation of those programs. 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. and strong local leadership for urban development. It can also help linking the city with the wider regional environment. It can be a powerful exercise for accomplishing integration of the fragmented local public sector and its various policies. Depending on how implementation possibilities and public participation are dealt with during the strategic deliberations and decision-making on developmental priorities. involve them in the search for the best or most effective developmental programs that match strategic vision and goals. 2 Main thesis and research question Having this in mind. and a sense of mutual accomplishment. In the same manner it can be a tool for involving local citizens. various organised social and business interests in order to learn from them. which is 5 . and development of the civil society independent from the government sector. fast proliferation of the new economic actors through the development of the business sector. A strategic planning process can develop a greater degree of cooperation. new economic conditions of a free-market economy opened to the economic globalisation. 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. 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. the basic hypothesis is that strategic planning is an opportunity for transitional cities to move faster towards effective urban governance.

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. how has the opportunity been used. A shift towards not only interest groups’ participation. I will analyse the developments in city of Warsaw since the beginning of the 1990s. To explore the effects of political deliberations and negotiations during the strategic planning process on the (development of) institutional relations of urban governance. but also towards greater general public involvement and transparency of the process. 3. or rather consolidation of the already existing governing arrangement through consolidation of the political elite consisting of local politicians.e. 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. put on the website.particularly significant in the wider European context where the EU policies become an important factor. No change can be detected. improving local democracy. presented to investors and visitors. 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. 6 . i. and never used? In general. i. I suggest that strategic planning process can influence the local governing arrangement in three different ways: 1. 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.e. and because of the widespread policy transfer of strategic planning ideas. local public administration and planning experts within and beyond the local public sector. not governance? Or rather the product is just another document to be used in city-promotion. 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. 2.

during the elaboration phase. 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. the case of the city of Warsaw will be presented.g. on the other hand. elaboration. Important planning processes and 7 . and their role. 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. Greater participation of citizens. It starts with the information and explanation of the context in which the city has been operating since 1990. towards more business or non-profit sector involvement). namely socio-economic indicators. if at all. intergovernmental relations. and final approval of the main strategic document(s) and other relevant planning documents.e.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. The main emphasis was put on the initiation.or project-driven) and that can lead towards a change in the existing governing arrangement (e. I paid special attention to the identification of the actors involved in the strategic process. Attempts at securing implementation include looking for partners beyond the public sector. and lead towards greater public ownership of the strategic plan and planned interventions. 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. significance and expectations given to their involvement by those who initiated the process. working of the local political system and the characteristics of the civil society. It offers a possibility of building long-term coalitions (even if issue. for building up governance. 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. 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. can improve the state of local democracy.

a twodecade-long reconstruction process took place. main conclusions on the characteristics of the political processes of urban planning in the city will be presented.000 inhabitants. GDP per capita is about 14.7 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.000 EUR. 1 Unemployment rate was 6. 23 % in banking and finance including business services. In 2000. After 1945. In 2005 about 18% of the workforce worked in industry. 3.3% of the Polish population live within the city of Warsaw.000 inhabitants). Finally. In the Second World War. compared to over 30% in 1989.1 Socio-economic indicators and internationalisation of the city’s economy Warsaw is the centre of the agglomeration of more than 2. It has been slightly loosing population since 1991.000 people have been coming from the surrounding areas daily to work in Warsaw. With its 1. Number of passenger’s cars is 374 per 1000 city inhabitants. It is about three times the national average. 3 Contextual variables Warsaw is the capital city of Poland. 98% of all companies registered in Warsaw are privately owned. but the estimate is that about 600. three times below the national average.5 million people. and 12% in manufacturing. 4. 44% were active in retail. It is also the capital of the biggest country in the region. a country that has a polycentric structure of cities (with 42 cities above 100.5% in 2005. 85% of the city was destroyed. The city’s working age population is 75%. Embarking on a market economy has meant a severe shock for Warsaw’s industry. More than 20 % of the city’s population has the university degree. It is situated both geographically and symbolically on the route between Berlin and Moscow. Among them. including the historical Old Town. more than 30% of all companies in Poland with the foreign capital were located in Warsaw. 8 . even 6 out of 42 above 500. In this polycentric national context. According to the European Cites 1 Warsaw total area is 517 km2.documents will be analysed in depth.

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). 4 of them constitute the Executive Board of the Union. 28 (later 32) constituted the indirectly elected Council of Warsaw. 3. 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 City Council (of the Warsaw Union) was to elect the President of the Union (equivalent to the mayor) and 3 vice-presidents. 9 . All districts had their executive boards with mayors on the top. and the Union consisted of eight municipalities until the end of the election term. 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. For all who were interested in the problems of Polish local democracy. one more municipality was established achieving independence from the rest of the original municipality (the 1990 Warsaw Act allowed the separation). In the beginning of 1993. The joint funds of their seven budgets were nearly as big as the budget of the City (in 1993). an annual survey of senior managers and board directors of 500 Europe’s top companies on the best places to locate business. the richest one had more than six times the income per capita than the poorest one. In May 1990 the Law on the Administrative System of Warsaw or so-called Warsaw Act was passed after several much drafted versions. the eighth).Monitor 2005 by Cushman & Wakefield/ Healey & Baker. where municipalities kept all right and responsibilities as any other gmina in Poland. the structure of the Polish capital was obviously not a good one. The Union had no direct power over its seven municipalities. 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. “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. The disputes on how to improve it had begun already a few months after the first local elections [in May 1990]” (Buczek 2001: 6). in addition to the Executive Board of the capital City of Warsaw. This new law on the capital city established Warsaw as the Union of seven municipalities of Warsaw. All together 345 councilmen were elected for seven district councils (with extra 28 for the additional one.

10 .e. in practice this meant that the city of Warsaw had three administrative levels. the Centrum municipality was divided in 7 districts with no legal personality. The total revenues of the City were equal to 60 % of the total revenues of all 11 municipalities (in 1996). The Executive Board of the City consisted of the President of Warsaw and his three deputies. i. Conflicts also stem from the imprecisely defined scope of tasks to be performed by the City of Warsaw. and introduce some changes at the county level (powiats) did not affect the internal structure of the city of Warsaw. On the top of this. 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. as the city’s municipalities were established by partitioning a physically and functionally integrated entity. This is problematic.central Municipality (Gmina Centrum with approximately 960. The new Act created ten municipalities around the Centrum Gmina. corresponding approximately to the pre-Second World War boundaries of the city of Warsaw (the land of this territory was nationalized in 1945). The new 1998 administrative reform of the country that introduced the regional level of government (voivodships). Conflicts and jurisdictional disputes were generated mainly because the lack of a precise allocation of duties or financing principles. 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.000 people or 58 % of the whole city population). So. Warsaw’s municipalities have the same authority that all other Polish municipalities have. and between the city and the Warsaw-Centrum Municipality. 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). “Planning of physical development and general development strategy created conflicts as the city authorities became weaker than during the first term. but experience has shown that municipalities tend toward self-interest” (Buczek 2001: 9). and the least populated municipality less than 1% of the population of the whole city. The smallest municipality had less than 2% of the territory of the city. Conflicts arise mainly between the City of Warsaw and the various municipalities. These eleven municipalities constituted the Union of Municipalities of Warsaw.

the mayor of Warsaw was to be directly elected for the first time since the beginning of decentralisation in 1990. and AWS (Electoral Action Solidarity. an architect-planner as the first President of Warsaw or the city mayor.3 Workings of the local political system In May 1990 first democratic local elections took place. For June 1994 local elections. a coalition of rightist post-Solidarity parties) 40 seats in the City Council. and in March 1999. Internal division on municipalities as defined by the Polish Constitution ceased to exist. 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. Instead. The whole Warsaw became one municipality with the powers of the county (powiat). the new mayor of Centrum Gmina. 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. young and politically ambitious President. According to the new law. the new mayor of Centrum Gmina was elected by the gmina council. Marcin Swiecicki became automatically the President of Warsaw. 3. and Warsaw got the new. 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. SLD (post-socialist Alliance of the Democratic Left) had 37 seats. Pawel Piskorski from the centrist Freedom Union party (UW). the city is divided in 18 districts that have limited powers and resources. and the new local elections immediately followed. 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). UW had 24. This new law came into force in October 2000.On March 15. 11 . Thus. after a political crisis.

1% and in 2002 41. In December 2005. Wojciech Kozak was chosen by the City Council as the new President of Warsaw until the next local elections in the fall 2002.4 The role of the civil society 12 . 3. LPR (League of Polish Families) 10.1%. and won in the second round. in 1998 42. After the new radical administrative reform for Warsaw. the fifth city mayor in four terms. when Kaczynski became the President of Poland. On the same day. and the City Council was run by PiS and centrist PO. Being elected for the National Parliament.3% (Swianiewicz and Klimska 2003). PO 13. in November 2002 for the first time a new mayor of Warsaw was directly elected in local elections. central government appointed a commissioner to be at the top of the City administration until the new local elections in 2006. by the amendment of the Warsaw Act. especially in Centrum Gmina. Piskorski stood for the national parliament in the general elections in 2001 on the list of the newly formed Civic Platform party (PO). The situation in Warsaw was extremely radicalised after the numerous scandals. populist right-wing leader of the newly formed and controversial Law and Justice Party (PiS). the Polish Parliament separated the roles of the Mayor of the Centrum municipality and the President of the City of Warsaw. Piskorski chose to stay the President of Warsaw. It was confirmed by the election results: the new elected mayor was Lech Kaczynski. SLD has 33 seats. In terms of the turnout at local elections for the Warsaw City Council. one of the vice-mayors. and Selfdefence party 2 seats in the City Council. run by post-socialist SLD and centrist UW in the third election period.In 2001. In the fall 2005. and the Centrum Municipal Council elected a new Mayor for the central municipality. he stepped down as the President of Warsaw in January 2002. and Warsaw citizens punished national parties that were running the city and its municipalities throughout the 1990s. in 1994 local elections turnout was 28. Kaczynski run in the presidential elections. PiS 40. Political fragmentation of the City Council increased from 1998 to 2002 local elections (Swianiewicz and Klimska 2003).

However. but do not care very much about local governments. and in 25% only small influence (Pop 2005). in 60% of municipalities local government decisions were challenged in a court or at a higher administrative authority. in 43% there were citizen’s petitions on various local issues.3% of larger municipalities citizens had moderate influence. while 37 per cent of Hungarian municipalities also engaged in consultation with NGOs during local decision making” (Pawel 2005: 120. but rather on the existence and quality of local interest representation in the urban setting. 4 In a study based on the survey of chief administrative officials. including Poland. As Swianiewicz pointed out in the recent cross-national study of the complementarily of urban leadership and community involvement. and in 63% municipalities civil society organisations submitted proposals on some questions of public interest. In his research on the public perception of local government in Poland in general.000 inhabitants (larger municipalities) reported than in about 41% of those municipalities there were public demonstrations concerning local matters.3 So. where 88 per cent of local governments declared contracts with NGOs. The growing number of NGOs does not directly translate into better representation of citizen interests in dealing with local authorities. Swianiewicz pointed out that “this picture might be summarised as an sympathetic disengagement – most people like decentralisation. the representation of collective interests of various segments of the civil society is still weakly developed. 3 13 . in 5. let alone the city of Warsaw. CAOs in the Polish municipalities over 50. emphasis is mine). and it cannot be fast overcome. only “about 44 per cent of Polish local governments contracted NGOs to provide some local services. in 69% there were requests for direct meetings between local officials and group of citizens. or even a step further to community involvement into the local decision-making processes. and prefer to stay almost entirely uninvolved” (Swianiewicz 2001: 219). the issue here is not the strength of civil society as such. there is very little systematic research done on this aspect of the civil society and its capacity to engage in local politics. This is even more evident in Hungary. practical experience in community involvement is extremely limited in CEE countries (2005: 123). This is related to the extremely weak tradition of civil involvement in the public affairs in the socialist time. In the same study.In spite of the fact that the number of NGOs in the CEE countries is growing. in only 4% of larger municipalities in Poland respondents considered that citizens had a big influence in local decision-making. Furthermore.4 As an illustration of the general Polish experience of the role of NGOs in local service delivery. especially at the local level. it does not directly lead to better communication between citizens and local authorities. do not think of it as very important for their everyday lives.

it was not formally accepted by any official resolution. an urban planning agency Warsaw XXI) were established to produce extensive studies on the development of the city.g. Initiated by the city’s deputy-mayor for urban development. As a result. 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 1991.1 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.5 Contrary to the fate of the first general strategic document. 5 14 .4 4. few new bodies independent from the city administration (e. the Draft Development Strategy of the Warsaw Metropolis was elaborated by the end of May 1994. The 1984 Physical Planning Act was still effective until the new act in mid-1994 was passed. 8 municipalities). social and cultural organisations. As the document was drafted shortly before the first local democratic government’s term ended. and the representatives of all municipalities (i.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 public discussions and elements of participation were considerable. The Warsaw leaders of the day were however aware to some extent of the weaknesses of this master plan. The outcomes of this very first strategic thinking process were “presented during a series of meetings involving the representatives of various political. 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. in addition to the Council of Warsaw. (…) In relation to any previous experience concerning socio-economic planning. though not formalised along any legally binding procedures. either of the Warsaw Executive Board or the Warsaw City Council” (Buczek 2001: 7-8). professional associations and nongovernmental bodies. and in the resolution adopting the plan pointed out at the necessity of the strategic planning for Warsaw.

When the expert team responsible for the design of the Study for Warsaw started their work. Regardless of this. More importantly in the long-run. the story about the Strategy preparation should come first. In May 1998 the Warsaw City Council approved the Warsaw Development Strategy. the preparatory works on the city spatial development policy. i.2 Second election period 1994-1998 In July 1994. the first post-socialist Spatial Planning Act and the Building Act were passed by the Parliament. it was still not known who would be the designers of the Warsaw Development Strategy. Nevertheless.e. 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. 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. Preparing the city development strategy has not been a legally required activity for municipalities in Poland. In the meantime. aborted all work on developing a strategic document for Warsaw. 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. and in June the Study for Warsaw. in terms of the sequencing having took place in reality. Eventually. have already started. 6 6 In terms of a logically expected sequencing of planning works. between the announcement of the competition for the Study and the beginning of the planning work. until 1996 the new City council (elected in 1994). at the time when city authorities started thinking again about the preparation of the strategy. In March 1996 the competition for the Study for Warsaw was announced. city authorities decided to start the strategic planning for the city once again. lacking any interest in such an endeavour. the Study for Warsaw. the Warsaw mayor Swiecicki independently published and promoted his own strategy for Warsaw called Seven Priorities of Warsaw. In mid-1996. however. In May 1997 the preparation of the Warsaw Development Strategy until the year of 2010 started. the two documents had been coordinated during the preparation.4. In the same time. the final preparatory works came about at the same time (during 1997 and early 1998). 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 .

They required that the Warsaw Development Strategy they were to prepare be an expert document .1 Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010 4.4. made initial inquiry. 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. and knowing well the conflict-ridden situation in the Warsaw local political arena. 16 .agreed in February 1997 to undertake the preparatory work. Marek Ziolkowski from Warsaw . Therefore. 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. until the end of the first half of 1998. one by one.2.and not negotiated with Warsaw municipalities. 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. Finally. 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. were unsuccessfully asked to undertake the work.1. the process of the preparation of the Strategy will be presented first. the fourth attempt was successful. Instead. Three different teams. not politicians . The reason behind these conditions was that given the extremely short time remaining for the preparation of the Strategy. of the fast approaching next local elections.done by experts. i. and two future general designers of the Strategy – Prof. the future designers put some conditions before accepting the offer. being aware of the previous failed attempts.1 Pre-Preparatory Stage: selecting the chief planners In contrast to the selection of the expert team to prepare the Study for Warsaw.2. The City authorities finally agreed with these conditions. Two experts started the work in the beginning of City.e. 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. Alojzy Zalewski and Prof. and finally gave up. the potential choices were made internally. Each of them took some time to decide. there was no competition organised for selecting the expert team who would do the work on the Warsaw Development Strategy.

The first stage consisted of “assessing the existing situation. The second stage consisted of “analysing and assessing the environment for Warsaw’s development. Strategic and Operational realizacyjne). defining strategic and operational goals and implementation tasks.2. Consultations took a form of the legally defined 17 Goals of Warsaw Development and Implementation Tasks (Uwarunkowania.April 1997. Since the consultation process for the Warsaw Strategy was not defined in the 1994 Act on Warsaw. forecasting fiscal revenues available to local authorities.1. the reports were sent to various institutions asking for written opinions. 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). done primarily by two chief designers.2 Preparation of the Strategy. cele strategiczne i operacyjne rozwoju Warszawy oraz zadania . namely the Study spelling out spatial development policy. 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. consultation phase and final approval Since April 1997 until mid-May 1998 the elaboration of the Warsaw Strategy took place. This process can be divided in two phases: the planning works undertaken by two chief designers. and not being legally required for other Polish municipalities. 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. After each stage. was divided in two stages. 4. An in-house team from the Department of Land Development was set to assist the chief designers in their work. preparing scenarios and forecasts of the city’s economic development. and consultations though the opinion-giving process concerning the final version of the document to be presented for approval to the Warsaw City Council. The planning work itself. and defining the needs and investment priorities regarding technical infrastructure and potential financial sources” (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 18).

higher education and scientific institutions also received the draft document. There is no motto.procedure of formal opinion-giving. 4. the members of the Parliament and the Senat coming from Warsaw. 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. In addition to written opinions. public companies. As such the document went to the Warsaw City Council for approval on 25 May 1998. Different municipal agencies. social. Strategic and Operational Goals of Warsaw Development and Implementation Tasks. the City Council approved the strategic document.3 Structure and characteristics of the urban development strategy The Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010 is a comprehensive attempt at exploring economic. the Chancellery of the Polish President. and one meeting with the members of the Committee on Land Development of the Polish Academy of Science. when the draft of the document is sent to prelisted institutions and their written opinion is asked for. the opinion-giving stage came about in April 1998. Eventually. administrative. from Warsaw municipalities and districts of the Warsaw Centrum municipality. spatial. infrastructural and ecological potentials and weaknesses. In the case of the second document produced in the preparation of the Warsaw Development Strategy. the members of the Council of Ministers. The opinion was also asked from the Warsaw Voivodeship administration. at the central state level. several meeting were organised to discuss the drafts of two documents: meetings with municipal council chairmen. The Conditions. chambers of commerce (Warsaw City Hall 1999: Introduction). one meeting with representatives of social and professional organisations and scientific institutions. and at the municipal level.2.1. then professional associations. The council chairman demanded a personal vote by council members in order to push for the document’s approval. the committees of the Parliament and the Senat dealing with local government and land development issues. in the same time giving directions for the future preferable overall development of the city. no catch-phrase used to express 18 . mayors and officials of Warsaw municipalities and districts. The document was sent to and written opinion expected from.

were specific 7 The authors honestly point out that “Warsaw’s image abroad has improved in recent years. they were formulated as the last conceptual step made in the planning work on the Warsaw Development Strategy.. economic. consequently. which will strengthen integration of the metropolitan area. 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. (. However. Warsaw is classified among cities that may very well become first-class European centres (Prague and Budapest are other examples). scientific or cultural centre. The Warsaw Development Strategy Until the year 2010 is not searching for a new role for the city. except to become ‘a true European metropolis. (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 125-6) 19 . the Strategy sets up the following strategic goals (without ranking them): (1) Improving residential environment and the city’s attractiveness. Its goal is to strengthen Warsaw’s (and its surrounding areas’) diversity and multifunctionality” (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 121).the vision of the future city. What comes next.’ As for implementation tasks. further implementation efforts’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 126). the authors stated.. The city is not expected to become this or that particular type of a 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. It was stated that all operational goals are equally important and no prioritisation was offered. (2) Developing and improving the city’s transportation system and ensuring efficient communications links to elsewhere in Poland and points abroad. 8 Main strategic goals were further operationalised into sixteen operational goals. (4) Creating a proper environment for international economic. scientific and cultural organisations and institutions.. (.) Warsaw’s position in various rankings mainly reflects the city’s potential.’ The general directional goal is then followed by five main strategic goals.’ 7 A two-level set of strategic goals for future development of the city of Warsaw was formulated. ‘expressing statements of local governments’ intent regarding the city’s development’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 123). (3) Creating conditions that would stimulate economic growth. reads as ‘Warsaw as a European metropolis with a rapidly growing economy and a steadily increasing standard of living. The general directional goal. and (5) Achieving harmonious development within the city as a whole. and the latter then operationalised further into seventy five implementation tasks.. as illustrated by the city’s progress in recent rankings of European cities.) no one expects Warsaw to soon become a European or world financial. It is probably because these goals were already defined as ‘priority’ goals and ‘the most urgent of all urgent goals. 8 Without giving priority to any of them. 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).

Warsaw municipalities and neighbouring municipalities belonging to the Warsaw Metropolitan Area. the transportation system development is called for with the greatest urge. Creating right conditions for implementation of the Warsaw development strategy.2.were all listed as missing conditions that hinder effective development of the city and. publicprivate partnerships). The Strategy designers asserted that ‘investments in technical infrastructure should be the top investment priority’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 139). especially the improvements in the city’s transportation system. initiating and coordinating cooperation among the City of Warsaw.1. 9 20 . but also within the Warsaw agglomeration (i. NGOs and local residents. creating a (longer-term) financial policy that promotes development and also use external sources of project finance (including loans. bonds. as such. should involve: improving the efficiency of the city-wide administration. 4. initiating cooperation not only within the City of Warsaw. Warsaw Metropolitan Area). reactivating the role of the central state in helping city development . state bodies. adopting an effective information policy outlining the development strategy’s goals and methods. “Local and central government bodies will have to coordinate efforts to create the right institutional. selecting strategic solutions to certain development issues after conducting specific studies to assess proposed solutions’ effectiveness. In order to ‘make up for the past investment delays’ and to ‘eliminate development disparities’ in Warsaw.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. organisational. as most needed interventions towards improving the institutional capacity for implementation.programmes and an integrated programme for implementing various implementation tasks. and targeted at all interested parties. Improving municipal administration and city-wide development management.e. the strategic document called for creating conditions for cooperation and coordination of development activities. the authors emphasised. developing concrete programmes for implementing specific tasks. economic and social conditions for encouraging selectively defined municipal [city] development” (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 154).9 Among the mentioned implementation directions.

That document was to be legally binding and to represent the basis on which detailed local 21 . Therefore. self-interested behaviour of Warsaw municipalities that has led towards fragmentation in territorial management. or any serious public discussion on the Strategy visible. and on coordination of municipal and sectoral development plans to enable an effective city-wide development. The lack of clear definition and division of responsibilities between the City of Warsaw authorities and Warsaw municipalities. coordination and supervision’ (Warsaw City Hall 1999: 92). 4. As one of the main close observers of the planning policy processes and a planning expert in Warsaw noticed. It prevents the city from fulfilling basic administrative functions. 4.1. are all serious obstacles to effective development of the city towards a European metropolis status in future.2.The functioning of the Warsaw administrative structure as introduced by the 1994 Warsaw Act is recognised as ‘a major hindrance to Warsaw’s development.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. the lack of coordination in planning and implementation efforts.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. 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). “regardless of the efforts of the authors of the strategy and of the city authorities. the new administrative structure must be based on much greater cooperation of its various parts. each and every local municipality was required to produce and enact a document defining the spatial development policy of the municipality. there was not much of the expected feedback observed. expertise and goals rather than a wide public participation in an early stage of the planning action.2.

2. the Warsaw City Board decided to organise first a competition for the best Concept for the Study. and required from the City Board to complete the task by the end of the first half of 1998.e. Zygmund Ziobrowski was the winner. will be presented widely in various circles to ensure that the professionals are joined in full participation by the city’s inhabitants. The Warsaw City Council decided in June 1995 that the elaboration of such a legal document should start. 4. i. The Board decided that the competition will be organised and run by planning experts. and a team from Krakow led by Prof. who will make needs. 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 professional association of Polish urban planners called the Society of Polish Town Planners (TUP).physical plans were to be prepared. The final decision was announced in December 1996. 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.e. 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.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. and later the successive stages of the study. i. In the words of the mayor Marcin Swecicki.” (The Office of the Warsaw Capital City Board 1997: 109) 22 . as well as of social and commercial organisations.2. The study concept. and to entrust the winning team further elaboration of the Study itself. hopes and areas of conflict known through the organisations active in their midst. By the end of 1995. 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. The document in question is called the Study of the Conditions and Directions of Physical Development of the given municipality.

The main designer of the Study . The task of the second phase was the negotiation of problems during the consultation with various agencies. 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. and the main designer of the Study (Mijeska Pracownia Planowania Przestrzennego i Strategii Rozwoju 1997). the chairman of the Warsaw City Council commission dealing with urban development. However.was planned to involve five main groups: environmental associations. 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. one of the vice-presidents of Warsaw) acting as the chairman of the committee. before the final approval vote by the Warsaw City Board and the City Council. during the negotiations on proposals and problems. associations of urban planners and architects. the last draft could be finalised and sent to the Warsaw City Council for approval. The third phase was. 10 23 . the director of the Department of Land Management. 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. the wide participation .was in charge of the expert work. based on a legally prescribed procedure of asking different institutions for written opinion on the draft of the Study. the rules for the organisation of the work were set up. and economic organisation/business associations. and voivodeship level). 11 The steering committee consisted of the following members: a member of the Warsaw City Board (i.11 In the second phase. Warsaw municipalities level. enabling further information exchange and preliminary formulation of planning proposals. however.e.the leader of the team which won the competition . Only after this formally required stage. The third phase was to collect opinions on the final draft.In the very beginning of the work on the Study document. 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). representatives of Warsaw municipalities and districts of the Centrum municipality. 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. agencies dealing with the conservation of historic monuments.meaning consultative meetings with non-governmental agencies .10 The division of responsibilities of the main agents/parties involved in the preparatory work was drawn up.

a particularly important type of stakeholders in Warsaw development is represented by eleven Warsaw municipalities (gminas). scientific institutions and the business sector are concerned. and negotiated the final proposals (concerning the road system. water.4. and electricity supply. railway system. the sewage system. the consultations were held with the representatives of the Office of the Warsaw Voivodeship (regional level of public administration). public transportation. etc) that was to be recommended by the Study. 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. sometimes in smaller groups of two or three municipalities. Numerous meeting between the designers and the representatives of municipalities were held. 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. In addition. NGOs and institutions dealing with environmental protection were consulted at one meeting. Furthermore. 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. sometimes on the one by one basis.2 Consultations/negotiations Throughout 1997 and the first half of 1998.2. and then a group discussion 24 .2. gas. depending on the infrastructure problem. The designers consulted central government ministries and offices. numerous meeting were held concerning the preparation of the Study. As far as the consultations with civil sector. especially the neighbouring municipalities of the City of Warsaw. the municipalities of the (at that time still existing) Warsaw Voivodeship were also invited for discussion. few meetings with their representatives were held only in the final stage of the Study preparation. Taking into account the administrative structure of Warsaw. 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. The designers and city authorities discussed the alternative solutions to the capital city structural weaknesses.

2. The Study recognises four main groups of instruments belonging to this type: 1. 3. 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). in June 1998. the Warsaw City Council approved the Study. and in the selection of the main developmental interventions proposed by experts. 2.and few commissions of the Warsaw City Council . business associations and foundations for regional development. departments of the Office of the City Board .2. 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 discussions were focused both on particular issues and proposals. primarily central government authorities. The first consists of those instruments that belong to the domain of responsibilities of the Warsaw City authorities. authorities of the Warsaw municipalities and municipalities outside the city borders. especially of the city-owned land. Cooperation with the authorities at other levels. 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. based on statutory regulations and led by the need for development management. 25 .especially the Commission for Strategy and Development. there was some coordination of the two documents in the selection of strategic objectives for future city development. Urban marketing. Further planning and making of concrete programmes for city development.3 Policy Instruments The authors of the Study identified two main types of the spatial policy instruments standing at disposal of the Warsaw authorities.especially the Department of Land Development .was organised with the representatives of the scientific and research institutions. and on the draft version of the document when the preparatory process was approaching the end. Finally. Though the preparation of two documents was done as two separate processes. and 4. Land management. 4.

The second type of policy instruments is represented by binding provisions for Warsaw municipalities. a phase to follow the approval of the plan. According to the then valid law.e. i. binding provisions were to form a (dominant) part of the city master plan. and further operational programmes determining investment priorities in various sectors of activity. 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).4 Priority proposals for future city development As it was already indicated above. It meant that thinking and planning the implementation of proposed interventions was understood as a separate phase from the plan elaboration. 12 This second type of policy instruments came out of the 1994 Act on the Administrative Structure of Warsaw.2. It is so because only Warsaw has been the Union of municipalities (gminas). and as such existed only in the Warsaw spatial planning system. and all other large town in Poland have only one level of government. 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. 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 . the Spatial Development Plan for the Capital City of Warsaw.2. Binding provisions represented an instrument of influence of the City of Warsaw authorities on the spatial policy of Warsaw municipalities. financial schemes and action plans for implementation of public investments. Thus.12 4. 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). As such the Study is a comprehensive set of proposals concerning the improvements in the spatial structure of the city and its functioning.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).

The importance attached is based on the principle of concentration of pro-development activities in a limited number of areas throughout the city. if attractively developed. (2) the city’s transportation system. To mention only the first element. in translating these goals into spatial development policy terms. or rather when they were presented with the idea. multifunctional belts and city gateways.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. These focal issues and proposals which follow define the developmental agenda set up by the Study for Warsaw.2.2. strategic areas were planned to be primarily the areas of concentration of services. (3) technical infrastructure of the city. would provoke faster development of the city zones they belong to. It was first introduced in the Study for the city of Krakow. There is no vision-driven image of the future city expressed in a short sentence. The authors name three types of such spatial elements or areas: strategic areas. i. 41-46). Instead. establishing a developmental agency. The idea was new in the Polish context of urban planning. Their development would require area-based management capacity.4. The aim was to improve “basic proportions of the spatial structure of the city as a whole” (Krajobraz Warszawski 1999: 22).The general goal and five main strategic goals are the same as stated in the Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010. though some of them might also incorporate light production buildings. The Study designers introduced new spatial categories that explicitly recognise and select spatial elements with pro-development potential. the Study focuses on five main issues: (1) improvements in the city spatial structure. the areas finally selected have different sources of The idea of recognising and selecting strategic areas came from the main designer of the Study. (4) protection of the Warsaw Nature System. no serious objections were put forward. and consequently of the whole city. housing and cultural functions.13 Since different Warsaw municipalities were characterised by a different mix of development potentials and problems. The reasoning behind was that a limited number of areas throughout the city. a mix of functions (Studium 1998: 35. The Warsaw City leadership accepted the idea. done previously under the same expert leadership as the Study for Warsaw. and (5) protection of cultural and landscape values. set up monitoring and special conditions to help investment process. For the further analysis I will select the first issue and present it in more detail. 4. 13 27 . There areas would become key areas for private investment activities.e.

e. Poludniowy (South) Railway Station. In order to complement this instrument of securing the realisation of the planned strategic areas. represent a law on local spatial development. Zeran Harbour. if at all. However. after being ratified. Wilanow Centre. Poznan Gateway. the authorities of the Capital City of Warsaw and the Warsaw municipalities” (Krajobraz Warszawski 1999: 26.4. Lopuszanska. All together twelve of them. and how? As it was already stated. Praga Centre. Gdansk Railway Station. the Siekierkowska Arch. binding provisions. 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. It was also stressed that “Strategic areas and multifunctional belts should be the sites of mutual action on the part of [central] government authorities.attractiveness and were seen as being able to develop a different mix of socioeconomic functions and architectural values. Skocznia.14 4.2. and Targowek Przemyslowy . Since local physical plans. i. and not be taken over by ad hoc development attempts. 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.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. 14 28 .2. the Study also urged the preparation of action plans for strategic areas. then they ultimately determined what can be and what cannot be built on a site. 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).15 Based on this expectation. Warsaw City. 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. Studium 1998: 84). 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. starting with the specification of investment priorities. This policy instrument was to cover rather management-related aspects of the development of these areas.

Nobody at first knew what this attempt was about.’ 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). 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 representatives of investors or real estate agents were not consulted on this during the preparation of the Study document. local physical plans for these areas have already been in preparation. The 1992 Warsaw master plan. though amended in numerous occasions. For the areas with central locations.those beyond prime locations. “The first one was the draft of the so-called Warsaw Master Plan. Namely. it was based on two other drafted planning documents. regarding other areas . the new municipality’s border covered the area that belonged to Warsaw of 1939. Apart from some research done on the development potentials of these areas. new city authorities hardly paid any attention to the Strategy for Warsaw and its goals. especially because it was rather a draft and no legal procedure for the discussion and its approval existed. and the selection of areas for strategic areas was done in consultation with them.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. in order 29 . new Warsaw mayor (and the mayor of the Centrum municipality) Pawel Piskorski announced the New Spatial Policy (NPP). However.3 Third election period 1998-2002 After the 1998 local elections. and the interest of private developers was visible. the same area being nationalised by decree in 1945 after destruction of Warsaw in the Second World War. it may have not appear necessary because these areas have been treated as having strategic importance since the beginning of the 1990s. was still used as the key policy document for issuing planning and building permits. When it was announced in October 2000. Warsaw municipal authorities were informed about the proposal. primarily with potential stakeholders other than municipal authorities. there was no wider consultation. 4. In this manner of neglecting the policy work done by the previous government.

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. So. In an act of almost perverse change. “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. 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. 18 Among the most important problems of the spatial development policy for Warsaw that were asserted in the Warsaw Development Plan containing binding provisions.17 Only city-developed binding provisions for gminas. 17 Although the city of Warsaw now had a strategic development document and the document presenting its spatial development policy. This area. minimal interest of the national authorities in the development of the capital city was also stated. had a legal power to influence the spatial decisions of gminas. For the city level authorities. According to this amendment done by the national parliament.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. The specific example of such approach is the work on the Study for Gmina Centrum. accounted for 25% of the territory of modern Warsaw of the 1990s. despite the serious discrepancies between two documents” (Buczek 2001: 12). and treated them as law.18 This document to enable its reconstruction. in the period of 1994-2002 belonging to the Centrum municipality. as a possibility prescribed by from the Warsaw Act. 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. 30 . 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. only the Strategy was required. For instance. 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 City of Warsaw lost the power to make legally binding spatial policy in the form of the Study. The document also called for the modification of the legislation related to the system of local government in Warsaw. and they started doing it on their own. 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. It was approved in mid-2000. Because of this situation. which was much more favoured later by the authorities of Warsaw during the third term than the Study for Warsaw. 57% of Warsaw inhabitants lived in this municipality while 72% of all jobs in Warsaw were located there. 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.

even in terms of the officially preferred consultation process. Kozak was appointed as the new Warsaw Mayor. 31 . and making Warsaw one municipality for the first time since 1990. by the end of the third term. after his experience as the Mayor of Warsaw. the old Study. His deputymayor Mr. no public consultation process took place. Finally. 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. 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. though the document was never publicly discussed. Before the binding provisions for gminas were originally approved in 2001. 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. 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. namely binding provisions. document has been used in making planning and building decisions. 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. It means that until the beginning of 2006. most of the development ideas of the city authorities remained as acts of good will only. Piskorski went to the national parliament after 2001 national elections. Piskorski push the initiative in the national parliament to change the Warsaw Act. 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.

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. The new law did not require the preparation of a general strategic document. simply wrong”. The new Warsaw authorities were obliged to start the preparation of the new spatial policy document.1.1 Preparation of the Strategy until 2020 At first. The Warsaw City authorities are responsible for all planning documents. including local area plans. Old 1998 Strategy until 2010 was not taken into any consideration when deciding on this new endeavour. New circumstances – new unified city administration. contrary to the previous 1994 law. the new Law on spatial planning and management was put in force. corrupt. 18 newly established districts – loosing the status of Warsaw gminas. it looked as if the city did not really know how to go on with the preparation process. did the new City Council of the finally unified city government decided to initiate the development of the new strategic document. and gaining the weak status of – have no planning power. and for their implementation. Only in the beginning of 2004. In the words of a few interviewed experts.4. In July 2003. According to this new spatial planning law. the 2001 binding provisions document turned into the Study for Warsaw after the introduction of the new administrative structure for Warsaw in 2002.4 Fourth election period 2002-2006 According to the 2002 Act on Warsaw. Under the management of the Office for Development Strategy and European 32 .4. failed to meet the new planning requirements. That was the argument put forward by the leadership around the new mayor Kaczynski. 4. new mayor. Kaczynski’s attitude when elected was “all before me was inappropriate.1 Strategy for the Development of the Capital City of Warsaw until 2020 4.4.

started with the presentation of some visions and projects coming from city 20 33 . and spatial structure of the city.Integration. 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. and six interdepartmental groups dealing with different issues such as technical infrastructure. seeking their ideas about the city development. All together these groups included about 20 city departments and 80 external experts contributing to different aspects of the preparation of new strategy.20 The reports were made after these 19 Dziekonski. sport activities. transport. especially the first two with the business representatives and selected NGOs. Those early meetings. He started the first strategic planning process in Warsaw that ended with no strategic document approved before the second local elections. One seminar was organised with the representatives of business organisations. mostly various chambers of commerce and some sectoral organisations. a group working on the Report on the state of the city of Warsaw. 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.19 He gathered a team of five experts from different fields. environmental protection. The management control was in the hands of the Office for Development Strategy. education. established Warsawa XXI team of planners independent from the City. cultural life. Another seminar was organised with the non-governmental organisations from the spheres of culture. The formation and coordination of the expert team was entrusted to Roman Dziekonski. economic. including the state of technical infrastructure and the financial resources available to the city authorities. environment protection and tourism (consulting other sectors was initially planned. 8 groups were initiated to do different work on the drafting of the strategic document. but much of the work was also contracted to external experts in order to analyse different aspect of the social. but not realised). was the deputy mayor in the first city government in 1990-1994 period. and political life of the city. They included an expert team from outside of city administration. Yet another seminar was organised with students from different universities in Warsaw. Parallel to the work of these eight groups. an urban planner by his background. 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. housing and other social issues. and over a period of 6 months the team came up with an strategic document based on expert knowledge.

In the words of a participant in this process. and to serve as a consultation process with citizens. operational goals. followed by the request for opinions from the invited audience. Another set of meetings followed with city councillors (in several groupings of the various committees of the City Council). A survey on the opinion to the new strategic document for Warsaw was conducted during the one-month and a 34 . two meetings were organised for directors of all departments and some staff with the Warsaw Vice-Presidents. and goals for Warsaw until 2020. being used as another input into the final drafting of the strategy. programmes and finally implementation tasks.three meetings with the representatives of various social groups.22 departments. By spring 2005. incoherent document of 3000 pages. 4. in order to make the final selection of goals. 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.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. and submitted it to the Office for Development Strategy. This exhibition Warsaw of the Future was intended to show the strategy for city development to the wider public. strategy.000 copies of the summary version of the draft document were distributes to the city districts. all eight groups finished their work. 22 18.4. All those materials were put together. At one point this was a rather long.21 After this initial selection. and some input from the project proposals being prepared for the application for the EU structural funds.1.” Discussions started within this office on the SWOT analysis. 21 Until 2020 in order to cover two programming periods for distribution of EU fund: 20072013 and 2013-2020. Draft of the Strategy until 2020 was checked against the draft of the new Study document being in preparation. it looked as “all sectoral strategies different departments submitted were put together. Presentations prepared by departments were based on the on-going work of six inter-departmental groups working towards the strategic document. selecting the vision. other interested organisations and interested public. 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. city councillors.

24 Finally. the final version of the strategic document was approved by the Warsaw City Council. and formed a minority central government.1.3 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.” 24 In October. but we didn’t plan another meeting with them because they wanted to put many details [into the city’s strategic document]. the third time that the approval of the Strategy until 2020 was on the City Council agenda. As one city official put it.23 In the meanwhile. No materials were given in advance so participants could not really prepare their reaction and make systematic and most important comments from their perspective. and these changes came as the result of the consultation process. 4. on 24 November 2005.000 copies and distributed as a special supplement of the daily newspapers Gazeta Wyborcza. Written opinions for the general public were coming to the City Hall throughout the summer and fall 2005. and then comments were asked from the invited audience. Warsaw mayor Lech Kaczynski run for the Presidential election in the fall 2005. and one with non-governmental organisations participating in the special meeting of the regular “Forum for Social Dialogue”. and was elected the new Polish President in the second round. The meetings were scheduled in the way that first the representatives from the city authorities gave presentations on a selection of issue. This document.As part of the further consultation process. 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. his party PiS won most of the seats in the national parliament. starts with a mission of city authorities and their vision for the half of the exhibition. In the same time. “some people from districts were involved in six interdepartmental groups [working on a selection of sectoral issues]. The final version included some changes into the spring version of the strategy. 35 . another summary version of the Warsaw Strategy until 2020 was reprinted in 120.4. this time including the health care NGOs. 23 No consultation meeting was organised with the representatives from the district councils. The interested public was asked for written opinions. contrary to the 1998 Strategy until 2010. all until the final approval of the document. two meetings were organised: one with the representatives of the business sector.

(2) to consolidate the residents’ sense of identity by preserving tradition. Multiyear financial plan was ready before the strategic document was finalised “so the parameters were known for the strategy”. developing culture and stimulating social activity.” The vision for the city is that “Warsaw of 2020 is an attractive.1.next fifteen years of city development. However. modern.a city with the soul. 25 (1) to improve the quality of life and safety of the residents of Warsaw. the financial centre of Central Europe. The mission of the City of Warsaw. 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. this was not published as a part of the strategic document. an important centre of European culture with well-organised public spaces . the city of significant standing among the most important European capitals. a city with the high quality of life. not at the level of operational goals and programmes. in words of a city official. (3) to develop metropolitan functions strengthening Warsaw’s position on the regional. and (5) to achieve lasting spatial order in Warsaw. broken down to twenty-one operational goals and seventy programmes for implementation.” The vision is followed by five strategic goals25. “the capital of the Republic of Poland.4. Warsaw of our vision is an open and accessible community. is to achieve the highest possible level of satisfaction of residents’ needs and to place Warsaw among the most important European metropolises.4 Coordination of implementation efforts The city administration claims that financial forecast was done for all tasks. 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. 4. the city of rich tradition. However. (4) to develop modern economy based on scientific knowledge research. and the best time for implementation estimated. but rather kept by departments.g. the expected financial sources listed. infrastructure projects like metro construction and tram lines reconstruction and further expansion. national and European level. The city administration claimed that some prioritisation was done at the level of tasks. 36 . dynamically developing metropolis with a knowledge-base economy.

but they expected that final financial feasibility and political feasibility will be done afterwards in the City Hall. They made a prioritisation of operational goals and tasks. A list of indicators for monitoring the change was not prepared together with the strategic document. in the words of an official involved with the document through the preparation process. 4. only needs to be updated and the full proposal developed. Their intention is to revise the Strategy every year.1. the final document did not include any prioritisation of either operational goals.” 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. It looks rather as a comprehensive list of all projects already in preparation and those vaguely planned for. Contrary to the expert document for the new strategic document for Warsaw. assessed the expected impact of the implementation of the projects. PKW railway tracks and land in Warsaw). The Office for Development Strategy is responsible for monitoring the implementation efforts under the supervision of the Warsaw City President. As an external planner told me. and more items in the basket. and introduced indicators for monitoring implementation. but will be prepared later. Expert team’s document contained a list of investments for every task they suggested. more people can be satisfied – in the shortterm. but rather belong to the central government (e.” 37 . The implementation of the Strategy rests with the individual city departments. “with a longer perspective of the strategic document.5 Remarks The final document was about sixty percent based on the expert’s strategy document. or to the resources of the business sector.26 Implementation of some listed tasks is not in the power of city authorities. programmes or tasks.g. 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”.revitalisation of the Krakowskie Przedmiescie street). So we’ll be able to show that it’s already in our Strategy. “No EU funds for that [type of intervention] now. but maybe in the future.

as the third phase. Second draft of September 2005 incorporated the comments on the first draft. All opinions and complains were put together. Then. the work on the elaboration of the new Study was done by the Department for Spatial Development of the Chief Architect’s Office. the document can pass to the next phase when the written opinion of different organisations is required. that report goes as a supplement to the Study when it is passed to the City Council for approval. as required by the new spatial planning law. Since then. the first full draft of the Study was sent to all units of the city administration. Some sectoral elements of the Study were done by the sectoral experts. because all consulted parties were well-informed of the purpose of the document and its obligatory nature for the local area plans in preparation. but in general there was no contracting out of work outside of the City’s public sector. Simultaneously with the preparation of the first draft. The expected approval time was postponed several times. 38 . and their significance for the preparation of the new Study was assessed.4. Public consultations. The latest announcement put the expected time is May 2006. The planning office needs to make a report on rejected opinions explaining why they were rejected. and associated City Planning Workshop. have three main phases. In April 2005. and participating at the public debates organised by the Chief Architect’s Office (all in 21 working day). information about the preparation of the new Study was sent out to all local and regional public bodies. including sending written opinions. the City Council made the decision to start the preparation of the new Study. and to all districts in order to check the facts and correct mistakes. 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. and only if all required opinions are positive. consultations with the general public are held. according to the new Planning law. Public enterprises and general public were asked to comment existing developments in their area/sphere of interest. The response was good.2 Preparation of the new Study of conditions and directions for spatial development of the City of Warsaw In September 2003. First.4.

while the second had an unexpected fate due to the radical change in the administrative structure of Warsaw and resulting political change in 2002.1 The nature of the strategic planning processes in Warsaw In the period from 1990 to the end of 2005. the first two ended with the adopted official document. especially in the consultation phase coming at the end of the preparation process. there has been three strategic planning processes focusing on the spatial development policy for the entire city (1997-98. 1997-98. there has been a tendency to imitate the procedures for spatial development strategic documents. and the third waiting to be approved in 2006. Understanding participation of other public bodies. In the same period. and 2004-05) with two of these attempts leading all the way towards the official approval of a strategic document. The first strategic document for spatial development had been mostly forgotten. These three strategic processes were unrelated to each other. The Strategy until 2020 adopted in 2005. each of them started as completely new endeavour. nor building up on it. and 2004-06). 2000-01. There were no legal guidelines on how to organise the process of preparation of general strategic documents. Because of this. completely neglecting to reflect on the previous 1998 document Strategy until 2010. 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. neither considering nor revising the product of the previous process. Warsaw authorities undertook about three general strategic planning processes (1992-94.5 Conclusion: Characteristics of the political process of strategic planning in Warsaw 5. started being developed anew. Public participation in the strategic decisionmaking processes was confused with consultations in the form of opinion-giving by a 39 .

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. and a limited involvement of external experts. 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. There was no direct participation of the business representatives and NGOs.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. mostly urban planners. 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. Regional authorities were consulted only in the very last stage when almost final document was sent for their opinion.2 Effects of the strategic planning on the local governing arrangement 40 . 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. later the Chief-Architect’s Office). The national authorities were not directly involved in any way. 5. Assessments of the investors’ interests were hardly ever made. The Warsaw case demonstrates weak internal public sector integration. 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. deputy-mayors responsible for strategic development. in the best case they were only assumed. and a small number of contracted external experts. 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. The involvement of the municipal authorities (Warsaw gminas) existing before 2002 and Warsaw districts after 2002 was very limited.

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. as the consequence of the radical administrative reform for the city of Warsaw. Presented evidence shows empirical support for the first scenario. 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. were the main obstacles as far as the organisation of the public sector is concerned. the whole city became one municipality and county. and practically no support for the other two. The administrative structure directly influenced the instability of political leadership. equivalent to the city mayor. and associated instability of local political leadership. was elected by the City Council. 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 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. and from the internal context of the existing institutional capacity of the local public sector to steer urban development in an integrated way. and since 1994 it practically meant that the mayor of the biggest and central 41 . The President of Warsaw. which ended chaotic administrative divisions and frequent paralysing conflicts. As contextual variables show. 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. It meant that local responsibilities were divided between two levels of government with unclear and often conflicting division of responsibilities and resources. a high degree of administrative and political fragmentation characterising intergovernmental relations between different level of government until the radical reform in 2002. Only in 2002.

Communication. On the other side. especially from the business sector. remaining disinterested in taking part in general policy development. Investors. seem to communicate with city authorities only concerning particular development opportunities. the lack of understanding of the benefits of having societal actors involved 42 .city district – Centrum Gmina – automatically became the President of Warsaw once he was elected by the Centrum Gmina Council. and low genuine interest on the side of existing organised interests. did not have the loyalty to the city as a whole. On the one side. There is also evidence suggesting the sensitivity of the public opinion when it comes to close relations between local authorities and the business sector. therefore. City-wide planning activities and development policies. leading to the lack of capable partners on the side of civil society. not to mention cooperation. As for the civil society. associations of business interests are still developing. The mayor. On the other side. individually or through business associations. 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. to be more closely involved in the development of the general policies for city development. between the Warsaw city authorities and existing NGOs is still very weak. and the problem lies on both sides. In this manner. there is evidence suggesting still low collective interest representation in the non-governmental sectors. Warsaw has had five mayors in fifteen years. were undertaken in such unstable and fragmented political conditions. Cooperation of any kind is very easily interpreted by citizens in post-socialist countries of CEE as corruption or clientelism (Swianiewicz 2001). there has been weak organised representation of social interests. general strategic planning and spatial development policies being the case in point. but rather to the political structures of the central district that elected him. including strategic planning. 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. 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.

” In The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning. Rose (eds). The experience of project implementation management. 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. 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. John. 2001. ed. Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe. certainly challenge this belief. 43 . Khakee. London: Sage. and the lack of ideas of how it can be done by designing a more participative planning process. and B. Mastop.’ Krajobraz Warszawski. London: UCL Press. ‘On the New Spatial Policy. 2005. Peter. Denters.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. Motte. ‘Case study – The strategic and physical planning of Warsaw. Faludi. 45.) 1997. Krajobraz Warszawski. M. European Cities Monitor.. References Buczek. Salet and A. This belief is not fully supported by the local experience of economic development that shows power of private developers in shaping the urban environment. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. H. no. 2001. A.in the planning processes in an organised way from the very beginning. Healey.’ LGI course material for the Urban and City Management Course. 2001. P. 2004. “The Performance Principle in Strategic Planning. A. ‘A Vision of Metropolitan Warsaw’ (special issue). 2000. no. G. J. Krajobraz Warszawski. By W. Local Governance in Western Europe. 1999. Bas and Lawrence E. Budapest: OSI/LGI.) Krajobraz Warszawski. London: C&W/H&B. 52a (Dec. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Comparing Local Governance: Trends and Developments. 5. Cushman & Wakefield/Healey & Baker. Needham (eds.. as far as it took place in the turbulent conflict-ridden local public sector in the city in the end of the 1990s.

Understanding governance.” Ch. Jon.” Ch. 1997. Pawel. Gerry. 1997. “Municipality size and citizens’ effectiveness: Hungary. Warsaw. 2001. Poland and Romania. Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year of 2010. Budapest: OSI/LGI. 1998. “Sympathetic disengagement: Public Perception of Local Government in Poland. 155: 17-28. 44 . Warsaw. in Faces of Local Democracy. Studium uwarunkowan i kierunkow zagospodarowania przestrzennego m. The Office of the Warsaw Capital City Board. 84. 2005. 1998. By Gabor Soos and Violetta Zentai. 34 (3):372-396. 1998. Warsaw City Hall. Strategia rozwoju miasta stolecznego Warszawy do 2020 roku. Samorzad Terytorialny 3: 12-28 Zarzand Miasta Stolecznego Warszawy. Warsaw: Akapit-DTP. “Governance as theory: Five propositions. Warszawy. (also on www.W. 2006.e-warsaw. Pierre. Pawel and Ursula Klimska 2003. Swianiewicz.A. Swianiewicz. Buckingham: Open University Press. Pawel. Pierre. Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience. in Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement. Pop. Budapest: OSI/LGI. Jon. by Michael Haus. by Pawel Swianiewicz. no. Warsaw City Hall.” Ch. “Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics. London: Macmillan. ed. st. 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. Studium uwarunkowan i kierunkow zagospodarowania przestrzennego miasta stolecznego Warszawy: Problematyka. Stoker.” International Social Science Journal. “Cities in transition: From statism to democracy. ed. 1997.pl) Warsaw City Hall.Mijeska Pracownia Planowania Przestrzzennego i Strategii Rozwoju. 2004. in Public Perception of Local Governments. Hubert Heinelt and Murray Stewart. Daniel. New York: Routledge. R. procedura i organizacja prac. “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).” Urban Affairs Review. ed. Swianiewicz. Rhodes. Warsaw: Mijeska Pracownia Planowania Przestrzzennego i Strategii Rozwoju. 1999. 1999.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.