You are on page 1of 44

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

Systemic reforms from the socialist regime towards free-market democracies in the 1990s, produced a radically new context and challenges of collective action for the former socialist cities of Central Eastern Europe. New local public leaders, for the first time democratically elected, were lacking experience in running a fragmented capitalist city. The strategic planning paradigm and methodology entered the practice of city management in the Western European and American cities since the 1980s. It was transferred to the postsocialist cities by the international organisations assisting the reforms, and by the inter-city exchange of experience with Western city leaders and local administrators. One of the dominant aspects of the rationale for undergoing strategic planning is that, as an integrated policy making activity, it is an instrument for building effective local governance in order to overcome the collective action problem that cities face due to economic and political globalisation. The role of this paper is to explore the claim that strategic planning is an opportunity for transitional cities to move faster towards effective urban governance on the example of the city of Warsaw. The link between the institution building aspect of strategic planning and the effective institution building nature of governance processes will be explored through two dominant concerns of both the planning and urban governance literature: the ‘effectiveness’ concern and ‘public participation’ concern. The paper will explore the effects of political deliberations during the strategic planning process in Warsaw on the urban governing arrangement initially characterised as local government rather than governance. The main focus of the empirical research is on how implementation and public participation are dealt with and coordinated during the strategy elaboration. Three possible scenarios are suggested and tested.

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION: STUDYING URBAN GOVERNANCE IN POST-SOCIALIST CITIES.....3 2 MAIN THESIS AND RESEARCH QUESTION...............................................................................5 3 CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES............................................................................................................8 3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND INTERNATIONALISATION OF THE CITY’S ECONOMY.....................................8 3.2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS...........................................................................................................9 3.3 WORKINGS OF THE LOCAL POLITICAL SYSTEM.........................................................................................11 3.4 THE ROLE OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY..........................................................................................................12 4 CHRONOLOGY OF PLANNING EVENTS...................................................................................14 4.1 FIRST ELECTION PERIOD 1990-1994....................................................................................................14 4.2 SECOND ELECTION PERIOD 1994-1998.................................................................................................15 4.2.1 Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010............................................................16 4.2.2 The Study of Conditions and Directions of the Spatial Development of Warsaw Capital City ........................................................................................................................................................21 4.3 THIRD ELECTION PERIOD 1998-2002...................................................................................................29 4.4 FOURTH ELECTION PERIOD 2002-2006.................................................................................................32 4.4.1 Strategy for the Development of the Capital City of Warsaw until 2020.............................32 4.4.2 Preparation of the new Study of conditions and directions for spatial development of the City of Warsaw ..............................................................................................................................38 5 CONCLUSION: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING IN WARSAW...................................................................................................................39 5.1 THE NATURE OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES IN WARSAW...........................................................39 5.2 EFFECTS OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING ON THE LOCAL GOVERNING ARRANGEMENT........................................40 5.3 CONTRIBUTION OF STRATEGIC PLANNING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE URBAN GOVERNANCE?..............43 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................43



Introduction: Studying urban governance in post-socialist cities
Indeed, one of the key questions challenging students of governance is to clarify the role of government in the process of governance. Understanding this process requires an understanding of what drives institutional design and institutional change in the urban political milieu. (Pierre 1998: 6; emphasis is mine)

My basic interest behind undertaking research on the politics of urban planning in the post-socialist transitional city of Warsaw was to understand what drives institutional change in such an urban political milieu. Decentralisation and local democracy were introduced in Poland for the first time in 1990, and since then cities had to manage both the establishment and autonomous development of a local government system, and deal with immediate wider regional, European and global changes and challenges of operating in a constantly changing external environment. Being challenged on both fronts simultaneously – the first one more internal, local and national, the second more external and global – while learning the basic rules of the governing game was coupled with the challenge of managing policy transfer of discourses and methodologies brought about by international organisations and donors that entered Central Eastern Europe (CEE) in the beginning of the transition from the socialist regime. This radically new context of decentralisation of some government responsibilities to the local level and introduction of the free-market economy led to the fast proliferation of governmental and non governmental players in the everyday running and development decisions of cities. The growing body of literature in urban and local politics has been pointing at the development of local governance arrangements rather than local government in Western European and North American cities since the 1980s. The governance perspective stress the interdependence of a growing number of players in the process of governing cities, blurring the boundaries between the public and private sectors, and thus focuses on the continuous processes of interaction and coordination among actors operating at different institutional and sectoral levels in trying to meet economic, political and social challenges of cities (Rhodes 1997; Stoker 1998; Pierre 1998; Pierre 1999; John 2001; Denters and Rose 2004). My


starting assumption about the governing arrangements in post-socialist cities is that, contrary to this shift towards governance in Western Europe, the initial governing arrangement that was developing and expected to develop (by law-makers, local politicians and public at large) by mid-1990s in post-socialist cities of CEE was a local government arrangement rather than a form of local governance. The reason for this can be found in the strong emphasis on local democracy, local autonomy and values of decentralisation in the political discourse of initial democratic reforms in 1990 in CEE countries, in addition to the factors like no experience with the market economy and private sector actors at the city level, and weak organised interest representation of local social groups. Strategic planning paradigm was one among many new ideas, operating frameworks, methods and techniques promoted by international organisations taking part in the transformation processes in the region. Strategic planning, as a management technique used in the private sector since the 1960s, started being applied and adapted to the public sector in the 1980s for the purpose of envisioning development and guiding future actions of public institutions. It ca be defined as developing frames of reference for future action for the purpose of making the favourable development happen, contrary to being a blueprint for future product of development (Mastop 2000; see also Healey et al. 1997). It came as a reaction to the planning failures of the rational approach to planning, and to the challenges of economic competition and political fragmentation of cities. Due to the fact that so many cities around Europe and beyond have been undertaking strategic planning and management since the 1980s, strategic urban planning seemed to be a particularly useful and eventually indispensable tool for large and necessarily fragmented cities such as Warsaw to reconsider their position, problems and opportunities of development in the new national (intergovernmental), Central East European, European and global environment. Strategic planning paradigm brought about the awareness of the importance of institution-building, namely of the political aspect of urban planning for the purpose of achieving greater effectiveness of plans and greater participation of local stakeholders in the developmental interventions in the city. As such, it is widely viewed as a new policy arena and instrument for integrating policy-making at the city


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

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

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

In this polycentric national context. even 6 out of 42 above 500. 98% of all companies registered in Warsaw are privately owned. compared to over 30% in 1989. 85% of the city was destroyed.3% of the Polish population live within the city of Warsaw.1 Socio-economic indicators and internationalisation of the city’s economy Warsaw is the centre of the agglomeration of more than 2.000 inhabitants). According to the European Cites 1 Warsaw total area is 517 km2. Among them. In 2000.7 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. and 12% in manufacturing. GDP per capita is about 14. 3. With its 1. After 1945. Finally. three times below the national average. 44% were active in retail.000 people have been coming from the surrounding areas daily to work in Warsaw. In 2005 about 18% of the workforce worked in industry.000 EUR. 23 % in banking and finance including business services. In the Second World War. a country that has a polycentric structure of cities (with 42 cities above 100. 3 Contextual variables Warsaw is the capital city of Poland. It is about three times the national average. main conclusions on the characteristics of the political processes of urban planning in the city will be presented. but the estimate is that about 600. It is also the capital of the biggest country in the region. including the historical Old Town. 4. It is situated both geographically and symbolically on the route between Berlin and Moscow.documents will be analysed in depth. a twodecade-long reconstruction process took place.5 million people. It has been slightly loosing population since 1991. more than 30% of all companies in Poland with the foreign capital were located in Warsaw.000 inhabitants. More than 20 % of the city’s population has the university degree. Embarking on a market economy has meant a severe shock for Warsaw’s industry. Number of passenger’s cars is 374 per 1000 city inhabitants. 8 . 1 Unemployment rate was 6.5% in 2005. The city’s working age population is 75%.

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

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

an architect-planner as the first President of Warsaw or the city mayor. after a political crisis. and AWS (Electoral Action Solidarity.On March 15.3 Workings of the local political system In May 1990 first democratic local elections took place. 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). 3. Thus. Swiecicki stayed the city mayor until a short time after the third local elections in 1998. the mayor of Warsaw was to be directly elected for the first time since the beginning of decentralisation in 1990. For June 1994 local elections. The whole Warsaw became one municipality with the powers of the county (powiat). young and politically ambitious President. 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. Internal division on municipalities as defined by the Polish Constitution ceased to exist. According to the new law. Instead. and in March 1999. and the new local elections immediately followed. a coalition of rightist post-Solidarity parties) 40 seats in the City Council. the new mayor of Centrum Gmina. the city is divided in 18 districts that have limited powers and resources. The indirectly elected Warsaw City Council elected Stanislaw Wyganowski. SLD (post-socialist Alliance of the Democratic Left) had 37 seats. 11 . and Warsaw got the new. Pawel Piskorski from the centrist Freedom Union party (UW). 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. UW had 24. This new law came into force in October 2000. Marcin Swiecicki became automatically the President of Warsaw. the new mayor of Centrum Gmina was elected by the gmina council.

On the same day. The situation in Warsaw was extremely radicalised after the numerous scandals. PO 13. LPR (League of Polish Families) 10. the Polish Parliament separated the roles of the Mayor of the Centrum municipality and the President of the City of Warsaw.1%. and Selfdefence party 2 seats in the City Council. SLD has 33 seats. 3. In terms of the turnout at local elections for the Warsaw City Council. Being elected for the National Parliament. one of the vice-mayors.3% (Swianiewicz and Klimska 2003). In the fall 2005. in 1998 42. and won in the second round.1% and in 2002 41.In 2001. In December 2005. and the City Council was run by PiS and centrist PO. populist right-wing leader of the newly formed and controversial Law and Justice Party (PiS). Piskorski chose to stay the President of Warsaw. in November 2002 for the first time a new mayor of Warsaw was directly elected in local elections. the fifth city mayor in four terms. central government appointed a commissioner to be at the top of the City administration until the new local elections in 2006. he stepped down as the President of Warsaw in January 2002. Kaczynski run in the presidential elections. when Kaczynski became the President of Poland. Wojciech Kozak was chosen by the City Council as the new President of Warsaw until the next local elections in the fall 2002. Political fragmentation of the City Council increased from 1998 to 2002 local elections (Swianiewicz and Klimska 2003). PiS 40. It was confirmed by the election results: the new elected mayor was Lech Kaczynski. in 1994 local elections turnout was 28. and Warsaw citizens punished national parties that were running the city and its municipalities throughout the 1990s. Piskorski stood for the national parliament in the general elections in 2001 on the list of the newly formed Civic Platform party (PO).4 The role of the civil society 12 . and the Centrum Municipal Council elected a new Mayor for the central municipality. After the new radical administrative reform for Warsaw. especially in Centrum Gmina. by the amendment of the Warsaw Act. run by post-socialist SLD and centrist UW in the third election period.

do not think of it as very important for their everyday lives.000 inhabitants (larger municipalities) reported than in about 41% of those municipalities there were public demonstrations concerning local matters. in 60% of municipalities local government decisions were challenged in a court or at a higher administrative authority. In his research on the public perception of local government in Poland in general. 4 In a study based on the survey of chief administrative officials. the issue here is not the strength of civil society as such. while 37 per cent of Hungarian municipalities also engaged in consultation with NGOs during local decision making” (Pawel 2005: 120. it does not directly lead to better communication between citizens and local authorities. 3 13 . in 69% there were requests for direct meetings between local officials and group of citizens. In the same study. including Poland. and prefer to stay almost entirely uninvolved” (Swianiewicz 2001: 219). especially at the local level. CAOs in the Polish municipalities over 50. However. and it cannot be fast overcome. This is even more evident in Hungary. where 88 per cent of local governments declared contracts with NGOs.3% of larger municipalities citizens had moderate influence. Furthermore. emphasis is mine). Swianiewicz pointed out that “this picture might be summarised as an sympathetic disengagement – most people like decentralisation. As Swianiewicz pointed out in the recent cross-national study of the complementarily of urban leadership and community involvement. there is very little systematic research done on this aspect of the civil society and its capacity to engage in local politics. in only 4% of larger municipalities in Poland respondents considered that citizens had a big influence in local decision-making. This is related to the extremely weak tradition of civil involvement in the public affairs in the socialist time. or even a step further to community involvement into the local decision-making processes. practical experience in community involvement is extremely limited in CEE countries (2005: 123). and in 63% municipalities civil society organisations submitted proposals on some questions of public interest. but rather on the existence and quality of local interest representation in the urban setting. The growing number of NGOs does not directly translate into better representation of citizen interests in dealing with local authorities.In spite of the fact that the number of NGOs in the CEE countries is growing. only “about 44 per cent of Polish local governments contracted NGOs to provide some local services.4 As an illustration of the general Polish experience of the role of NGOs in local service delivery. in 5.3 So. in 43% there were citizen’s petitions on various local issues. the representation of collective interests of various segments of the civil society is still weakly developed. but do not care very much about local governments. and in 25% only small influence (Pop 2005). let alone the city of Warsaw.

4 4. The 1984 Physical Planning Act was still effective until the new act in mid-1994 was passed. and in the resolution adopting the plan pointed out at the necessity of the strategic planning for Warsaw. and the representatives of all municipalities (i. the public discussions and elements of participation were considerable. it was not formally accepted by any official resolution. professional associations and nongovernmental bodies. 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. social and cultural organisations. 8 municipalities). (…) In relation to any previous experience concerning socio-economic planning. either of the Warsaw Executive Board or the Warsaw City Council” (Buczek 2001: 7-8). few new bodies independent from the city administration (e. in addition to the Council of Warsaw. the Draft Development Strategy of the Warsaw Metropolis was elaborated by the end of May 1994.e. 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.g. As the document was drafted shortly before the first local democratic government’s term ended. The Warsaw leaders of the day were however aware to some extent of the weaknesses of this master plan. an urban planning agency Warsaw XXI) were established to produce extensive studies on the development of the city. As a result.5 Contrary to the fate of the first general strategic document. though not formalised along any legally binding procedures.1 Chronology of planning events First election period 1990-1994 The regulations for spatial planning – in the form of the law on spatial planning – did not change in Poland in the first four years of transition from the socialist system. the 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. Initiated by the city’s deputy-mayor for urban development. 5 14 . The outcomes of this very first strategic thinking process were “presented during a series of meetings involving the representatives of various political.

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

Two experts started the work in the beginning of City. the future designers put some conditions before accepting the offer.agreed in February 1997 to undertake the preparatory work. not politicians . and two future general designers of the Strategy – Prof. The reason behind these conditions was that given the extremely short time remaining for the preparation of the Strategy. Marek Ziolkowski from Warsaw .1.4. 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. 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. i. and finally gave up. until the end of the first half of 1998. 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. Finally. Each of them took some time to decide. the process of the preparation of the Strategy will be presented first. there was no competition organised for selecting the expert team who would do the work on the Warsaw Development Strategy. were unsuccessfully asked to undertake the work. Alojzy Zalewski and Prof. However. on the basis of personal knowledge of available experts and personal connections of the City Board members and officials in the Land Development Department. made initial inquiry.1 Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010 4. Three different teams. and knowing well the conflict-ridden situation in the Warsaw local political arena.1 Pre-Preparatory Stage: selecting the chief planners In contrast to the selection of the expert team to prepare the Study for Warsaw. the fourth attempt was successful. The City authorities finally agreed with these conditions.2.2.and not negotiated with Warsaw municipalities. 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. 16 . Therefore.e. being aware of the previous failed attempts. one by one. of the fast approaching next local elections. Instead. the potential choices were made internally.done by experts. They required that the Warsaw Development Strategy they were to prepare be an expert document .

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

procedure of formal opinion-giving.2. higher education and scientific institutions also received the draft document. then professional associations. and at the municipal level. spatial. administrative. one meeting with representatives of social and professional organisations and scientific institutions. The Conditions.1. at the central state level. The council chairman demanded a personal vote by council members in order to push for the document’s approval. 4. social. Strategic and Operational Goals of Warsaw Development and Implementation Tasks. the members of the Council of Ministers. and one meeting with the members of the Committee on Land Development of the Polish Academy of Science. In addition to written opinions. the City Council approved the strategic document. In the case of the second document produced in the preparation of the Warsaw Development Strategy. mayors and officials of Warsaw municipalities and districts. when the draft of the document is sent to prelisted institutions and their written opinion is asked for. The opinion was also asked from the Warsaw Voivodeship administration. the members of the Parliament and the Senat coming from Warsaw. the opinion-giving stage came about in April 1998. in the same time giving directions for the future preferable overall development of the city. Eventually. no catch-phrase used to express 18 . chambers of commerce (Warsaw City Hall 1999: Introduction).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 document was sent to and written opinion expected from. There is no motto. public companies. the committees of the Parliament and the Senat dealing with local government and land development issues. 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. Different municipal agencies. As such the document went to the Warsaw City Council for approval on 25 May 1998. from Warsaw municipalities and districts of the Warsaw Centrum municipality. several meeting were organised to discuss the drafts of two documents: meetings with municipal council chairmen. infrastructural and ecological potentials and weaknesses. the Chancellery of the Polish President.

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

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

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. or any serious public discussion on the Strategy visible. As one of the main close observers of the planning policy processes and a planning expert in Warsaw noticed. 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). expertise and goals rather than a wide public participation in an early stage of the planning action.The functioning of the Warsaw administrative structure as introduced by the 1994 Warsaw Act is recognised as ‘a major hindrance to Warsaw’s development. “regardless of the efforts of the authors of the strategy and of the city authorities.1. 4. Therefore. That document was to be legally binding and to represent the basis on which detailed local 21 . self-interested behaviour of Warsaw municipalities that has led towards fragmentation in territorial management. are all serious obstacles to effective development of the city towards a European metropolis status in future.2. there was not much of the expected feedback observed. 4. most probably because of the fact that the whole methodology applied was focused on the experts’ generated evaluations.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. each and every local municipality was required to produce and enact a document defining the spatial development policy of the municipality.2. the lack of coordination in planning and implementation efforts. the new administrative structure must be based on much greater cooperation of its various parts. It prevents the city from fulfilling basic administrative functions. 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). and on coordination of municipal and sectoral development plans to enable an effective city-wide development.

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

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

scientific institutions and the business sector are concerned. NGOs and institutions dealing with environmental protection were consulted at one meeting.2 Consultations/negotiations Throughout 1997 and the first half of 1998. sometimes on the one by one basis. 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.2. 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. public transportation. and electricity supply.4. Furthermore. and negotiated the final proposals (concerning the road system. especially the neighbouring municipalities of the City of Warsaw. numerous meeting were held concerning the preparation of the Study. depending on the infrastructure problem. railway system. sometimes in smaller groups of two or three municipalities. water. Taking into account the administrative structure of Warsaw.2. As far as the consultations with civil sector. a particularly important type of stakeholders in Warsaw development is represented by eleven Warsaw municipalities (gminas). gas. the sewage system. few meetings with their representatives were held only in the final stage of the Study preparation. etc) that was to be recommended by the Study. the municipalities of the (at that time still existing) Warsaw Voivodeship were also invited for discussion. In addition. The designers consulted central government ministries and offices. 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. 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. The designers and city authorities discussed the alternative solutions to the capital city structural weaknesses. and then a group discussion 24 . the consultations were held with the representatives of the Office of the Warsaw Voivodeship (regional level of public administration).

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

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

establishing a developmental agency. a mix of functions (Studium 1998: 35. The idea was new in the Polish context of urban planning. (3) technical infrastructure of the city. though some of them might also incorporate light production buildings. 4. To mention only the first element. no serious objections were put forward. and consequently of the whole city. The aim was to improve “basic proportions of the spatial structure of the city as a whole” (Krajobraz Warszawski 1999: 22). There is no vision-driven image of the future city expressed in a short sentence. 13 27 .e. Instead.13 Since different Warsaw municipalities were characterised by a different mix of development potentials and problems. would provoke faster development of the city zones they belong to. For the further analysis I will select the first issue and present it in more detail. housing and cultural functions. the areas finally selected have different sources of The idea of recognising and selecting strategic areas came from the main designer of the Study. in translating these goals into spatial development policy terms. The Study designers introduced new spatial categories that explicitly recognise and select spatial elements with pro-development potential. (4) protection of the Warsaw Nature System. if attractively developed. and (5) protection of cultural and landscape values. The authors name three types of such spatial elements or areas: strategic areas.4.2.The general goal and five main strategic goals are the same as stated in the Warsaw Development Strategy Until the Year 2010. strategic areas were planned to be primarily the areas of concentration of services. Their development would require area-based management capacity. i. The reasoning behind was that a limited number of areas throughout the city. (2) the city’s transportation system. or rather when they were presented with the idea. the Study focuses on five main issues: (1) improvements in the city spatial structure. 41-46). The Warsaw City leadership accepted the idea. It was first introduced in the Study for the city of Krakow. set up monitoring and special conditions to help investment process.2. done previously under the same expert leadership as the Study for Warsaw. There areas would become key areas for private investment activities. These focal issues and proposals which follow define the developmental agenda set up by the Study for Warsaw.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. The importance attached is based on the principle of concentration of pro-development activities in a limited number of areas throughout the city. multifunctional belts and city gateways.

This policy instrument was to cover rather management-related aspects of the development of these areas. represent a law on local spatial development. the Siekierkowska Arch. Praga Centre. 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).2 From an idea to political commitment? What has been done during the process of planning for the Study to secure the realisation of the idea of strategic areas? How was implementation considered. Poludniowy (South) Railway Station. Since local physical plans. 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.14 4. Lopuszanska. and not be taken over by ad hoc development attempts.15 Based on this expectation. the authorities of the Capital City of Warsaw and the Warsaw municipalities” (Krajobraz Warszawski 1999: 26.2. after being ratified. i. Gdansk Railway Station. and how? As it was already stated. However. 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. In order to complement this instrument of securing the realisation of the planned strategic areas. Studium 1998: 84). Zeran Harbour.e. 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. Wilanow Centre. 14 28 . All together twelve of them. then they ultimately determined what can be and what cannot be built on a site. 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. and Targowek Przemyslowy . binding provisions.attractiveness and were seen as being able to develop a different mix of socioeconomic functions and architectural values. Skocznia. if at all.4.2. the Study also urged the preparation of action plans for strategic areas. starting with the specification of investment priorities. Warsaw City. Poznan Gateway. It was also stressed that “Strategic areas and multifunctional belts should be the sites of mutual action on the part of [central] government authorities.

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. especially because it was rather a draft and no legal procedure for the discussion and its approval existed. However. “The first one was the draft of the so-called Warsaw Master Plan. Nobody at first knew what this attempt was about. there was no wider consultation. 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. though amended in numerous occasions. it may have not appear necessary because these areas have been treated as having strategic importance since the beginning of the 1990s. it was based on two other drafted planning documents. 4. new Warsaw mayor (and the mayor of the Centrum municipality) Pawel Piskorski announced the New Spatial Policy (NPP). in order 29 . local physical plans for these areas have already been in preparation. When it was announced in October 2000.3 Third election period 1998-2002 After the 1998 local elections. primarily with potential stakeholders other than municipal authorities. For the areas with central locations. and the selection of areas for strategic areas was done in consultation with them. regarding other areas .’ 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). the same area being nationalised by decree in 1945 after destruction of Warsaw in the Second World War. Namely. new city authorities hardly paid any attention to the Strategy for Warsaw and its goals. the representatives of investors or real estate agents were not consulted on this during the preparation of the Study document.those beyond prime locations. the new municipality’s border covered the area that belonged to Warsaw of 1939. In this manner of neglecting the policy work done by the previous government. Apart from some research done on the development potentials of these areas. was still used as the key policy document for issuing planning and building permits.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. and the interest of private developers was visible. The 1992 Warsaw master plan. Warsaw municipal authorities were informed about the proposal.

and they started doing it on their own. The document also called for the modification of the legislation related to the system of local government in Warsaw. accounted for 25% of the territory of modern Warsaw of the 1990s. despite the serious discrepancies between two documents” (Buczek 2001: 12). This change was introduced by the Polish Parliament’s amendment on the 1994 Planning law that was prepared almost simultaneously with the approval of the 1998 Study.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. as a possibility prescribed by from the Warsaw Act. Because of this situation. For instance. minimal interest of the national authorities in the development of the capital city was also stated. So.17 Only city-developed binding provisions for gminas. 30 . It was approved in mid-2000. In an act of almost perverse change. 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. in the period of 1994-2002 belonging to the Centrum municipality. 57% of Warsaw inhabitants lived in this municipality while 72% of all jobs in Warsaw were located there. 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. This Warsaw Development Plan Including Obligatory Guidelines for the Warsaw Municipalities in Preparing Local Spatial Development Plans was approved in the City Council July 2001. it was 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.18 This document to enable its reconstruction. This area. 17 Although the city of Warsaw now had a strategic development document and the document presenting its spatial development policy. The specific example of such approach is the work on the Study for Gmina Centrum. which was much more favoured later by the authorities of Warsaw during the third term than the Study for Warsaw. 18 Among the most important problems of the spatial development policy for Warsaw that were asserted in the Warsaw Development Plan containing binding provisions. “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. the City of Warsaw lost the power to make legally binding spatial policy in the form of the Study. had a legal power to influence the spatial decisions of gminas. For the city level authorities. and treated them as law. 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. 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. According to this amendment done by the national parliament. only the Strategy was required.

Before the binding provisions for gminas were originally approved in 2001. Kozak was appointed as the new Warsaw Mayor. the old Study. 31 . after his experience as the Mayor of Warsaw. by the end of the third term. no public consultation process took place. 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. 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. His deputymayor Mr. It means that until the beginning of 2006. most of the development ideas of the city authorities remained as acts of good will only.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. document has been used in making planning and building decisions. since the new Study has not been officially approved yet. 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. and making Warsaw one municipality for the first time since 1990. though the document was never publicly discussed. drafted and finally approved in March 2002 – all in a few months since the new national Parliament started its work. even in terms of the officially preferred consultation process. 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. Piskorski push the initiative in the national parliament to change the Warsaw Act. finally the structure of forces in the new Parliament enabled the new Act on Warsaw to be initiated. Finally. namely binding provisions. Piskorski went to the national parliament after 2001 national elections.

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

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

other interested organisations and interested public. strategy. programmes and finally implementation tasks. The purpose of those inter-departmental meetings with city political leader was to discuss what was more and what less important for the city and for various city departments. 22 18. By spring 2005. 21 Until 2020 in order to cover two programming periods for distribution of EU fund: 20072013 and 2013-2020. operational 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.1.” Discussions started within this office on the SWOT analysis. it looked as “all sectoral strategies different departments submitted were put together. and goals for Warsaw until 2020. At one point this was a rather long. and some input from the project proposals being prepared for the application for the EU structural funds.000 copies of the summary version of the draft document were distributes to the city districts. This exhibition Warsaw of the Future was intended to show the strategy for city development to the wider public. two meetings were organised for directors of all departments and some staff with the Warsaw Vice-Presidents. A survey on the opinion to the new strategic document for Warsaw was conducted during the one-month and a 34 . Another set of meetings followed with city councillors (in several groupings of the various committees of the City Council). In the words of a participant in this process. Draft of the Strategy until 2020 was checked against the draft of the new Study document being in preparation.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. All those materials were put together. followed by the request for opinions from the invited audience. city councillors. being used as another input into the final drafting of the strategy.three meetings with the representatives of various social groups. incoherent document of 3000 pages. and submitted it to the Office for Development Strategy.22 departments. all eight groups finished their work. and to serve as a consultation process with citizens.21 After this initial selection. selecting the vision. in order to make the final selection of goals.4. 4. Presentations prepared by departments were based on the on-going work of six inter-departmental groups working towards the strategic document.

all until the final approval of the document. 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. 4. the third time that the approval of the Strategy until 2020 was on the City Council agenda. Warsaw mayor Lech Kaczynski run for the Presidential election in the fall 2005. and then comments were asked from the invited audience. but we didn’t plan another meeting with them because they wanted to put many details [into the city’s strategic document]. Written opinions for the general public were coming to the City Hall throughout the summer and fall 2005. and was elected the new Polish President in the second round.” 24 In October.000 copies and distributed as a special supplement of the daily newspapers Gazeta Wyborcza. contrary to the 1998 Strategy until 2010.1.As part of the further consultation process.24 Finally. “some people from districts were involved in six interdepartmental groups [working on a selection of sectoral issues]. In the same time. As one city official put it. The interested public was asked for written opinions. and these changes came as the result of the consultation process. The meetings were scheduled in the way that first the representatives from the city authorities gave presentations on a selection of issue. and one with non-governmental organisations participating in the special meeting of the regular “Forum for Social Dialogue”.4. the final version of the strategic document was approved by the Warsaw City Council. this time including the health care NGOs. another summary version of the Warsaw Strategy until 2020 was reprinted in 120. No materials were given in advance so participants could not really prepare their reaction and make systematic and most important comments from their perspective.23 In the meanwhile. 23 No consultation meeting was organised with the representatives from the district councils. and formed a minority central government. 35 . starts with a mission of city authorities and their vision for the half of the exhibition. two meetings were organised: one with the representatives of the business sector.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. The final version included some changes into the spring version of the strategy. on 24 November 2005. This document. his party PiS won most of the seats in the national parliament.

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

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

The latest announcement put the expected time is May 2006. 38 . Public consultations. consultations with the general public are held. and only if all required opinions are positive. the first full draft of the Study was sent to all units of the city administration. but in general there was no contracting out of work outside of the City’s public sector. The response was good. and participating at the public debates organised by the Chief Architect’s Office (all in 21 working day). the document can pass to the next phase when the written opinion of different organisations is required. according to the new Planning law. as required by the new spatial planning law. Second draft of September 2005 incorporated the comments on the first draft. the City Council made the decision to start the preparation of the new Study. The expected approval time was postponed several times. five public bodies (including the regional governor and the marshal at the regional level) are legally required to give written opinion on the Study. including sending written opinions. asking for their opinion of what the Study should contain from their particular perspective. Public enterprises and general public were asked to comment existing developments in their area/sphere of interest. Simultaneously with the preparation of the first draft. Then. and associated City Planning Workshop. and their significance for the preparation of the new Study was assessed. and to all districts in order to check the facts and correct mistakes. the work on the elaboration of the new Study was done by the Department for Spatial Development of the Chief Architect’s Office. have three main phases. that report goes as a supplement to the Study when it is passed to the City Council for approval. The planning office needs to make a report on rejected opinions explaining why they were rejected. because all consulted parties were well-informed of the purpose of the document and its obligatory nature for the local area plans in preparation. information about the preparation of the new Study was sent out to all local and regional public bodies. In April 2005. Since then. as the third phase. Some sectoral elements of the Study were done by the sectoral experts.4.2 Preparation of the new Study of conditions and directions for spatial development of the City of Warsaw In September 2003.4. First. All opinions and complains were put together.

Understanding participation of other public bodies. especially in the consultation phase coming at the end of the preparation process. and the third waiting to be approved in 2006. Public participation in the strategic decisionmaking processes was confused with consultations in the form of opinion-giving by a 39 . Because of this. each of them started as completely new endeavour. while the second had an unexpected fate due to the radical change in the administrative structure of Warsaw and resulting political change in 2002. started being developed anew.5 Conclusion: Characteristics of the political process of strategic planning in Warsaw 5. and 2004-05) with two of these attempts leading all the way towards the official approval of a strategic document.1 The nature of the strategic planning processes in Warsaw In the period from 1990 to the end of 2005. 1997-98. The first strategic document for spatial development had been mostly forgotten. These three strategic processes were unrelated to each other. and 2004-06). citizens and organised interests through the framework of the official consultation process limited the involvement of the actors outside of the City Hall and the circles of contracted external experts in the preparation of strategic documents. there has been three strategic planning processes focusing on the spatial development policy for the entire city (1997-98. 2000-01. Warsaw authorities undertook about three general strategic planning processes (1992-94. In the same period. the first two ended with the adopted official document. there has been a tendency to imitate the procedures for spatial development strategic documents. There were no legal guidelines on how to organise the process of preparation of general strategic documents. The Strategy until 2020 adopted in 2005. neither considering nor revising the product of the previous process. and consultations with actors outside of the strictly speaking city authorities. nor building up on it. completely neglecting to reflect on the previous 1998 document Strategy until 2010.

deputy-mayors responsible for strategic development. The Warsaw case demonstrates weak internal public sector integration. 5. 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. mostly urban planners. There was no direct participation of the business representatives and NGOs. Assessments of the investors’ interests were hardly ever made. 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. Regional authorities were consulted only in the very last stage when almost final document was sent for their opinion. later the Chief-Architect’s Office). Their involvement was limited to the sporadic meetings in the consultation phase. 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 empirical evidence shows that the strategic processes in Warsaw have been limited to city authorities.certain number of public bodies external to the City Hall administration and by interested citizens after the strategic directions have been almost fully decided upon. Potential private investors were hardly ever consulted in relation to particular implementation aims and suggested programs during the deliberations on strategic interventions in particular areas. in the best case they were only assumed. and a limited involvement of external experts. The national authorities were not directly involved in any way. 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. The involvement of the municipal authorities (Warsaw gminas) existing before 2002 and Warsaw districts after 2002 was very limited.2 Effects of the strategic planning on the local governing arrangement 40 .

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

four of which were indirectly elected between 1990 – 2002 before the new administrative reform introduced the position of the directly elected mayor of the City of Warsaw in addition to the new unified administrative structure. On the other side. and low genuine interest on the side of existing organised interests. there is evidence suggesting still low collective interest representation in the non-governmental sectors. but rather to the political structures of the central district that elected him. Cooperation of any kind is very easily interpreted by citizens in post-socialist countries of CEE as corruption or clientelism (Swianiewicz 2001). individually or through business associations. Communication. 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. seem to communicate with city authorities only concerning particular development opportunities. therefore. associations of business interests are still developing. to be more closely involved in the development of the general policies for city development. There is also evidence suggesting the sensitivity of the public opinion when it comes to close relations between local authorities and the business sector. especially from the business sector. were undertaken in such unstable and fragmented political conditions. In this district – Centrum Gmina – automatically became the President of Warsaw once he was elected by the Centrum Gmina Council. On the one side. City-wide planning activities and development policies. remaining disinterested in taking part in general policy development. not to mention cooperation. there has been weak organised representation of social interests. Investors. between the Warsaw city authorities and existing NGOs is still very weak. Warsaw has had five mayors in fifteen years. As for the civil society. leading to the lack of capable partners on the side of civil society. and the problem lies on both sides. general strategic planning and spatial development policies being the case in point. 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. did not have the loyalty to the city as a whole. including strategic planning. On the other side. the lack of understanding of the benefits of having societal actors involved 42 . The mayor.

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

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