LIVING IN CITY-REGIONS, IGNORING METROPOLITICS?1
Marta Lackowska-Madurowicz
1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Intensification of the metropolitanisation processes (Brenner 2004) and urban sprawl have contributed to
turning metropolitan governance into one of the most popular subjects among students of local governments
and administration. Usually scholars undertake the issues of a proper institutional setting for these specific
regions (e.g. Collin, Robertson 2007; Kaczmarek, Mikuła 2007; Heinelt, Kübler 2005; Ludwig et al. 2003),
remaining in the rich body of literature on metropolitan reform, public choice perspective and – to a lesser
extent – governance. Less attention in empirical studies has been paid to the questions (mentioned in
theoretical argumentation of both old and new regionalism) of democratic mechanisms, citizens‟ territorial
identification and behaviour in metropolitan regions (see e.g. Heinelt et al. 2011, Swianiewicz, Lackowska
2008). It seems that especially neglected matter is the unquestioned linkage between politico-organisational
form of a MA and its social dimension.
In most of other European countries (also in Poland), metropolitan areas are geo-politically fragmented, with
several municipal jurisdictions operating on an area which to large extent is a functional unity. There is also
no government (administration) which would cover the territory of the whole MA and which would provide
functions, which are vital for the agglomeration as a whole. Services are delivered either by municipalities
(typically by central cities) or by regional (or national) governments which leads to problems related to both
under-bound and over-bound catchment areas (Bennet, 1997).
At the same time, significant proportion of residents of the area lives in the spatial scale of the whole
metropolitan area. They have their homes, jobs, relatives and friends to visit, schools of their children,
shopping centres in different parts of agglomeration (different municipal jurisdictions). This phenomenon is
quite wide-spread, but it especially concerns “new metropolitan class” – young, educated and relatively
affluent citizens, who “escape” from the city centre to the suburbs in order to avoid high price of land,
congestion, noise and pollution. One may expect that their spatial identity is first of all with agglomeration
(metropolitan area) as a whole, perhaps also with a small neighbourhood they live in, but not with the
municipality where they build or bought a house. This group of people reminds to some extent the “creative
class” (Florida 2002) – they are creative, educated, open, tolerant, looking for social diversity, but at the
same time they are “de-localized” - since they commute, change jobs and place of residence very often, their
identity with “small fatherland” is rather weak.
The fact that metropolitan territory is not only an economic but also a social construct, has serious
consequences for local political life (Lefèvre 1998). Suburb population commutes to central city, consumes
public services in various places of the municipal area and therefore one may expect that (1) it has often very
limited emotional and functional links with the inhabited suburban municipality and (2) that their interest in
local government is relatively low. They may be more interested in metro-wide services, which cannot be
provided by their municipality. Yet, they find no institutional structure which would correspond to their
every-day spatial behavior (unless MA exists as an abstract construct in the national political system, which
is rare), so they distant themselves from opaque and functionally split local governments (HoffmannMartinot & Sellers, 2005). Preteceille (2000: 92-93) provides examples of such a phenomenon in France.
This lower interest in local politics is not a consequence of lower interest in politics in general. Metropolitan
areas are inhabited by voters which are (more often than in other parts of the country) affluent, educated and
1
Parts of the paper come from the following elaborations:
Swianiewicz P., Lackowska M. (2008) “Cosmopolitans of small fatherlands”, Miscelanea Geografica, vol. 13, p. 197-208.
Lackowska M. (2009) “Why is voluntary co-operation condemned to failure? Reflections on the Polish German and background”, Lex Localis, vol.7
no 4, p. 347-369.
Lackowska, M., Swianiewicz P. (2010) “Metropolitan Discourse in Poland and Germany: So Near Yet so Far?” [in:] G. Soos, M. Temmes (eds.)
Metropolitan CEE: Big Cities, Capitals and City-Regions in Central and Eastern Europe, Bratislava: NISPACee, p. 87-112.
they potentially have good access to information. These are all factors, which according to classic
sociological models of voting (eg. Lipset 1981) may positively influence turn-out in elections. But this logic
works for national elections only, while for local elections dis-incentive logic described above prevails.
Moreover, metropolitan initiatives (if undertaken by local governments) are usually hidden from the
habitants, as in the common opinion of local authorities metropolitan matters are too abstract and too distant
for citizens. The fact that these regions do not exist on administrative maps in most of the countries
facilitates such practices and contributes to the lowering of the potential interest of the habitants in
metropolitics.
In the light of these arguments, it becomes clear that a more interesting group in empirical terms is the one
which inhabits suburban zone of the MA. Citizens of the core cities reveal lower mobility (and therefore
weaker relations with suburbs), as most of their needs (every-day ones and more extraoridinaty ones) can be
fulfilled within the city limits.
The aim of this paper is an empirical verification of the theoretically expectations formulated above. The
relationship between institutional form and citizens‟ spatial and political behavior is investigated on the
example of two Polish MAs, where the habitants survey were conducted. The paper gives also an overview
of the institutional setting for operating of metropolitan areas in Poland, discusses law proposals and briefly
describes the most frequent forms of metropolitan governance, focusing on the status quo of the two selected
regions.
2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF METROPOLITAN DEBATE IN POLAND
In Poland the debate on the appropriate steering structure for metropolitan areas is relatively new. First
voices raising the question of metropolitan reform date back to the 1990s (e.g. proposal for Gdansk
Metropolis reform by Mażewski 1997, reforms of the status of Warsaw – see: Lackowska 2009b). During the
administrative reform in 1999, the negligence of the metropolitan question in the new legislative framework
was seen as a mistake (Izdebski, Kulesza 2004). But the significant enlivenment – or rather, development –
of the discussion has taken place only since circa 2003 (triggered i.a. by a debate on the creation of
operational programmes for Poland). In fact, taking into account that self-government in Poland was formed
after 1989 (followed by regional reform carried out in 1999), metropolitan actors themselves are very
young2. Currently there is no specific legal regulation for governing metropolitan areas in Poland. Also an
official definition of metropolitan areas is missing3, which causes problems with their mere delimitation. As
a result, Polish metropolitan discussion and practice have very little tradition to lean on. The first
organisation which brought the issue of metropolitan governance to the public debate was the Union of
Polish Metropolises (Unia Metropolii Polskich – referred to later as UMP, established in 1990). Although the
Union‟s members are only 12 core cities of the largest Polish agglomerations, the organisation has tried to
identify and recognise wider “metropolitan areas”, whose boundaries have been defined in a very
controversial way (covering a very wide area and including municipalities with very weak ties with the
central city)4. The debate was triggered to a large extent by accession to the EU and the perspectives for
access to European financial assistance (Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2007). In 2005 there was a proposal to
establish a special Operational Program for metropolitan areas, which would function in parallel to the 16
Regional Operational Programs. This plan triggered a vivid discussion among those of the biggest cities,
which were not sure of their “metropolitan status” (according to the new KPZK). Trying to prove their status,
the cities promptly incepted agreements on metropolitan cooperation. Also UMP was very active in fighting
both for Metropolitan Operational Program and for metropolitan status for eastern cities (Rzeszów,
Białystok, Lublin). The whole enlivenment died down when the government decided to establish an
Operational Program for Eastern Poland (i.e. for the least developed regions of the EU) instead of a
Interesting contribution here are the words of the former mayor of Wroclaw: “in the early 1990s the small rural suburban municipalities were
neither equal partners for the core cities, nor were they eager to cooperate – they would rather enjoy their freshly gained autonomy”.
although the Law on Spatial Planning obliges regional government to prepare special plans for metropolitan areas (revealing inconsistency of the
legal documents)
4
For the discussion of metropolitan boundaries in Poland see: Swianiewicz, Klimska 2005.
2
3
metropolitan one. By this means the regional policy supporting convergence was strengthened. Cooperation
agreements launched in some metropolitan areas at that time have not been abolished, but their activity is
usually next to non existing. Another factor contributing to the enlivenment of the debate was the proposal of
a new version of the national planning documents (KPZK – The Concept of Spatial Management of the
Country), which would distinguish metropolitan areas and pass a law on the planning obligation for them.
But, until 2007, this idea remained relatively weak and was not concluded in the official governmental
proposal of the new legislation5.
2.1. Metropolitan governance practices in Poland
The debate on the optimal solution remains open, its intensity fluctuates and metropolitan-wide problems
have been dealt with by the means acceptable within the general legal framework. One of the possible
solutions is annexation of suburb villages by growing central cities. This solution (popular in the mid 20th
century and now disputable from the local democracy point of view and quite difficult to conduct) remains in
occasional usage6. The only city realizing a consequent long-term annexation policy now is Rzeszów, which
since 2006 has increased its surface over twice. As we can see from the figure 1, this mode of metropolitan
governance finds no wide recognition/acceptance, yet in the informal talks some authorities of the biggest
cities are far from criticizing it. Second possibility of metropolitan arrangement under the existing law is an
official municipal or county association. Most of such associations are neither metropolitan-wide nor multipurpose. Up till now, there is only one case of a formal metropolitan body which covers a coherent
metropolitan area and deals with various tasks. In 2007 in Katowice region (Upper Silesia) 14 cities of a
county status launched Upper Silesian Metropolitan Association. Among its task we can find spatial
planning, environmental protection, public transport, joint promotion and attracting new investments
(www.gzm.org.pl). Yet, the Association claims that its competence are far too narrow and wants to lobby for
a special metropolitan status. It is important to note that in this highly urbanized region there was a tradition
of intermunicipal (or rather intercity) cooperation – since 1991 Association for Public Transport in Upper
Silesian Industrial Region operated in the area, building the habit of collaboration. The third and most
popular solution for metropolitan governance in Poland is a – usually ineffective – voluntary cooperation of
municipalities and counties (see: Lackowska 2009a). At the moment more or less active forms of loose
metropolitan cooperation operate in most of the biggest urban regions in Poland (Poznań, Gdańsk, Szczecin
and Kraków belonging perhaps to the most active ones). A general problem of these arrangements is the lack
of sanction apparatus, which would mobilize partners and help avoid free-ridding or even withdrawals. What
is more, loose cooperation does not provide for an adequate set of competence, which is why they usually
remain the mere dialogue forums with few clearly visible achievements (for an analysis of the voluntary
cooperation in Poland see: Lackowska 2009a). Nonetheless in the light of the lack of tradition of
metropolitan governance in Poland, such loose discussion forums should be appreciated.
2.2. Law proposals
The ineffective character of many informal metropolitan initiatives contributes to the debate on a special
legal solution for metropolitan areas. Law proposals come both from the local actors (eg. Cybulski connected
to Wrocław region) and from central government. In early 2008 when government announced the draft law
on “Development of Cities and Metropolitan Areas”, a year later the last proposal was issued. The last draft
of 2009 allows for establishing metropolitan body for metropolitan areas with at least 500 000 habitants
(there are also some other conditions as for the density of population and the number of the cities of county
status). Among the responsibilities of the body we find mainly tasks related to the old regionalism (spatial
planning, infrastructure, development strategy), but also promotion of the region, searching external funding
and fostering cooperation between the units of the region. The body can take over other tasks if its Assembly
decides so. Assembly is composed of representatives of all self-government units building metropolitan area
5
6
For an extensive discussion of the debate on metropolitan government in Poland before 2006 see Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2007.
For instance in 2008 Warsaw carried out incorporation of a suburb municipality of Wesoła.
(indirect legitimation). The structure of the Board raises yet more doubts, as the domination of the core
city/ies is clearly marked. Board brings together all mayors and representatives of counties belonging to the
metropolitan body. The president of the Board is the mayor of the biggest city or – if there are a few cities of
county status – the presidency rotates. Income of the body is composed mainly of the contributions of its
members, neither a specific metropolitan tax nor any other independent source of income is foreseen. As we
see, autonomy and discretion of metropolitan body is rather limited, moreover scrutiny of the regional
authorities over its undertakings is assured by various means. According to the law proposal the boundaries
of the metropolitan body can be modified, inclusive the body‟s abolition, yet the procedure is complex
enough to prevent too dynamic movements. to conclude one has to stress that the proposal calls for creation
of a multilevel metropolitan structure, in which the metropolitan body has no territorial unit status.
Moreover, composition of the Assembly implicates problems typical for two-level games (Putnam 1988),
and the composition of the Board implies domination of the biggest cities over the suburban municipalities.
Many aspects are left to the decision of the metropolitan actors – the method which usually results in donothing option (see: Goldsmith 2005). Regardless these problematic elements, the draft remains forgotten.
This official proposal can be compared with the voices of the biggest cities presented on the figure 1. As we
see, very formal modes of metropolitan arrangements are preferred, whereas the draft provides quite a lot of
voluntary character and flexibility as for creation of the body, its tasks and changes in its boundaries. The
opinion presented on the figure (coming from the survey to the 12 UMP member cities, carried out in 2007)
supports the thesis that the loose, informal structures of voluntary cooperation provide no sufficient
framework for metropolitan governance. The call for formal solutions is clearly visible.
Prefered organisational solutions for metropolitan areas
annexation
voluntary cooperation of LGs
metropolitan county
obligatory association of municipalities
additional level of self-government
0
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 1. Opinion on best organisational solutions for metropolita areas by Polish core cities; N=10
Source: Lackowska 2009b: 145.
2.3. Citizens’ opinion on the forms of metropolitan cooperation
There is little information on the citizens opinion on metropolitan issues. Local authorities tend to treat
metropolitan arrangements as a mere technical matter, which only aim is to make governing of the supramunicipal issues easier for them. Habitants, according to this line of consideration, are not interested in these
organizational details (they are hardly interested in local politics) and therefore there is no need to inform
them on the undertaken steps (if any).
One of the few research on the citizens opinion in this matter is the survey conducted by the UMP (Lex
metropolis… 2006)7. Respondents could choose among five main models of metropolitan governance:
1. Metropolitan area under the central scrutiny;
2. Metropolitan area governed by a municipal level (or by a city of a county status), as a region of the
core city influence, having no separate authorities;
3. Metropolitan area governed by a specific gathering of cities, municipalities and counties;
7
Unfortunately the elaboration by UMP gives no precise methodological note on the research, except that it was carried
out among the habitants of the core cities and suburbs.
4. Metropolitan area as a metropolitan county, i.e. a self-government unit;
5. Metropolitan area as a regional self-government unit.
Respondents chose the last option most frequently, what can be linked to the supra-local character of the
metropolitan tasks and problems. Moreover, respondents often claimed that metropolitan arrangement should
have its proper authorities, calling for its strong, independent character. An important observation from the
survey is that the subject was difficult for the citizens. Many answers were inconsistent, proving the need for
social consultations regarding the discussed lex metropolis.
Low knowledge of the matter shines also through the results of another research (CBOS Warszawa
Metropolią… 2007). Questions on the institutional framework and metropolitan leader or financial system
for metropolises occurred too difficult for habitants of Warsaw metropolitan region, what resulted in a lot of
„don‟t know” answers. Yet, for the considerations on the social and democratic aspects of MA it is important
to note that respondents definitely voted for direct elections for metropolitan leader, revealing the need for
democratic control over metropolitan governance.
In this way we come close to the question on the citizens role in metropolitan governance, their opinion on
functioning of their regions as well as their own spatial behavior and preference.
3. METROPOLITAN CITIZENS? – SURVEY RESULTS IN GDAŃSK AND WROCŁAW MAS
3.1. Metodological note and case studies presentation
For the in-depth analysis two metropolitan areas have been chosen – Wrocław and Gdańsk.
Wrocław metropolitan area is a monocentric agglomeration in the south-eastern Poland, with a core city
(Wrocław) of about 623 thousand habitants, where the first metropolitan-wide, multipurpose initiative in
Poland was launched. In 1999 Wrocław together with 6 neighbouring counties and their 43 municipalities
established an informal arrangement – the Committee of the Strategic Plan of Wrocław Agglomeration. The
initiative aimed at fostering the metropolitan cooperation so as to provide for coherent land use planning and,
in general, for strengthening the position of the metropolis in the – newly created at that time – region. the
main leader and initiator of the metropolitan cooperation was the core city. Even if the formal leadership was
never established, the suburban partners naturally saw Wroclaw as such, always waited for its initiatives and
acted totally passively. Within the committee six working groups were established to deal with the specific
issues (like planning, transport, labour market, tourism, agriculture). For six years the whole committee had
gathered every six months, then the initiative faded down. Due to the lack of real power of the informal
committee, no concrete effects of „„cooperation‟„ were visible and so the partners became discouraged. In the
meantime (2005) another organisation was established – Agency for Development of Wrocław
Agglomeration (ARAW). Many actors of the region and some academics (Kaczmarek 2010: 57-58) tend to
treat the Agency as a formalised metropolitan arrangement, some see it as a successor of the Committee.
This is true only to a certain degree. Indeed, due to the growing number of the member-municipalities,
ARAW looks more and more like a metropolitan-wide arrangement (at the beginning there were only 8
members – municipalities surrounding Wrocław; now the number has increased up to 27). Moreover, among
the members of the ARAW Council we can find a few persons who were engaged in creating the Committee.
On the other hand the Agency is a single-task association, aiming at attracting the investors to the region by
presenting a joint offer of all its members. Therefore it is difficult to call it a form of complex metropolitan
governance. What is more the members do not form a coherent spatial region (www.araw.pl), what poses an
obstacle to cohesive governing practices in the area.
The survey was conducted in September 2006 on a sample of 417 respondents from the central city and 872
suburb residents (in 16 suburb municipalities).
Second case study region – Gdańsk is a polycentric agglomeration situated on the cost of Baltic sea, with the
central area divided into three cities: Gdańsk (with 451 thousand habitants), Sopot (38 thousand) and Gdynia
(250 thousand); therefore it is also called Tri-city agglomeration. Since 2003 the Metropolitan Council of the
Gdansk Bay operates in the region. The informal body was initiated by the marshal of the region (head of the
regional self-government in Poland) and the mayor of Gdansk and brings together the three main cities and
seven municipalities. The active support of the regional self-government is exceptional not only in the Polish
context, but also when we look at the usually reluctant attitude of the regional authorities against the creation
of new powerful units within their territories (see e.g. Heinz, 2007). The fact that the then-marshal was a
former mayor of Sopot may serve as an explanation – as such he was more strongly bonded to the
metropolitan structure than regional authorities usually are. Moreover, the tense situation within the
metropolitan area required the upper-tier interference. Gdansk and Gdynia “traditionally” compete with each
other hindering metropolitan-wide cooperation. Under the marshal‟s supervision, the cooperation progresses
slowly but steadily. The regular monthly meetings are attended by the mayors of all the membermunicipalities. In some problematic fields agreement has been reached (e.g. the question of homogenizing
and coordinating public transportation within the three cities area), nonetheless the members seem sceptical
about the future performance of an informal initiative, stressing that the Council does not have necessary
competences. All in all however, Tri-City example seem more positive than Wrocław and many other
metropolitan informal and inactive initiatives. The survey was conducted in July 2007 on a sample of 855
habitants of the central cities and 768 suburb residents (10 suburb municipalities).
The questionnaire included above all questions on spatial behaviour (frequency and aims of the travels across
the region), attitude towards the mayors of the core-city(cities) and suburban municipalities, interest in local
politics, perception of metropolitan cooperation and conflicts as well as territorial identity.
3.2. Everyday life a cross the administrative boundaries
Investigating into the supramunicipal dimension of the spatial behaviour in both MAs we paid the attention
to the three aspects: (1) place of working or studying, (2) location of a school attended by a respondent‟s
child and (3) using various services out of respondent‟s municipality.
It turns out that in both MAs their boundaries (drawn after the two forms of metropolitan cooperation,
described above) encompass basic activities of their citizens. Respondents working or studying out of their
MA constitute only 4.6% in case of Wrocław and 10.7% in case of Gdańsk (the difference can be a mere
result of a much narrower delimitation of the Gdańsk region). Not surprisingly, the polycentric metropolitan
core of Gdańsk concentrates more employees and students of the suburban area than does Wrocław. The fact
that in a sub-wrocławian municipality declaration of working in other suburban municipality was relatively
frequent can be explained by the high concentration of the new investments in the suburban zone of Wrocław
(eg. LG Philips LCD, LG Electronics, Toyota, Prolongis).
The answers of the citizens of the core cities present a very different picture of functional relations. Only
1,8% of respondents from Tricity and 1,5% from Wrocław work or study in a suburban municipality! The
vast majority work/study in the central city(ies), what indicates the difference in the spatial bonds of
suburban and central citizens. One may venture a thesis that suburban citizens are more metropolitan ones –
living in the whole MA, not just in its one part. This may also reveal the underdevelopment of
suburbanization in Poland, which usually refers mainly to the residential function.
Fig. 2 and 3. Place of working, studying or attending children to secondary schools
percentage of answers
percentage of answers
Place of working/studying of suburban
citizens
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Wrocław MA
core city
suburbs
Gdańsk MA
out of the MA
Source: Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2008: 200.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Location of a suburban citizens' children
secondary school
Wrocław MA
Gdańsk MA
core city of MA municipality of living out of MA
Talking about school location, we focused on secondary schools, but even in case of primary education
facilities (which are more often attended by children living nearby) the proportion of pupils commuting to
the central city is quite high (among respondents having children in relevant age such declarations were
made by 18% in Wrocław and 11.5% in Gdańsk suburbs). Considering secondary schools we notice a similar
pattern like in case of a working/studying place. Declarations of sending children to Gdańsk central cities are
about 20 percent points more frequent than in case of Wrocław MA, where more teenagers attend secondary
schools in their home municipalities. Perhaps the difference derives from the spatial shape of the two MAs.
Due to the oval shape of the Gdańsk polycentric core, schools in that core are relatively close to more
children from the suburban zone then it is in case of a circular core of the Wrocław MA. Opinions of those
parents whose children learn in the home municipality speak volumes. Asked if they would like their
children to attend a school in the core city the respondents from Wrocław suburban zone answered “yes”
more frequently (30% of them) then in those from the Gdańsk suburbs (18%). So it seems that the “demand
for central city schools” is similar, but it may be more easily met in case of Gdańsk.
We asked the citizens of suburban zone weather and how often they use services 8 in the core of MA. It is
most popular in case of shopping – in both MAs above 60% of the respondents from suburban municipalities
declared frequent and very frequent use of shops in Wrocław (65%9) and in Gdańsk central area (63%).
Prevailing answer is “a few times a month”, whereas for cultural services it is rather “rarely”. Frequency of
both the usage of shops and cultural services in the center of the MA is negatively correlated with age and
positively with education.10
Fig. 4. Frequency of shopping in the core city
Fig. 5. Frequency of using cultural services in the core city
Usage of shops in central city by the
suburban citizens
50
30
10
-10
Usage of cultural services in central
city by the suburban citizens
60
40
20
0
a few times a few times
a week
a month
Wrocław MA
rarely
Tricity MA
never
a few times a few times
a week
a month
Wrocław MA
rarely
never
Gdańsk MA
Own elaboration
The answers of the citizens of the core cities give the picture of an underdeveloped suburbanization (fig. 6
and 7). 66% of Tricity habitants and 56% of Wrocław habitants do not use suburban shopping facilities at all.
For cultural services this percentage is even higher (79% and 74,5% respectively). As we see from the
figures 6 and 7, there are more Wrocław citizens, frequently visiting shops in the suburbs than Tricity
citizens. For cultural services this difference is smaller, but also true, what can be explained by the structure
of the MAs. Joint offer of the three core cities can cover a higher percentage of the habitants needs than
Wrocław alone. Moreover, on the southern outskirts of Wrocław a big shopping area has been opened
(Bielany Wrocławskie), what also could influence these answers.
To conclude, not only place of work/study but also usage of different facilities proves that citizens of core
city are less mobile, less connected to the MA as a whole than their suburban neighbours. This is coherent
with a preliminary assumption that it is the suburban zone, which poses the most interesting empirical
laboratory for patters of spatial and political behavior. A separate question is that leaning on the people‟s
8
Shopping, cultural and administrative services.
Reasonably enough, in the municipalities adjacent to Wrocław the average use of the services is more frequent than in
the further municipalities, what illustrates the differentiation in the strength of the functional ties within a broadly
delimited MA.
10
Both correlations significant on 0.001 level; values of correlation coefficients vary from 0.230 to 0.450.
9
answers, we do not know about the actual spatial behaviour, but only about its perception. An important
element, which influence the analyzed results and which we cannot control, is the respondents‟ knowledge
on the local boundaries.
Fig. 6. Frequency of shopping in the suburbs
80
Fig. 7. Frequency of using cultural services in the suburbs
Usage of suburban cultural services by
the citizens of the core cities
Usage of suburban shops by the citizens
of the core cities
100
80
60
40
20
0
60
40
20
0
a few times a few times
a week
a month
Wrocław MA
rarely
never
a few times a few times
a week
a month
Tricity MA
Wrocław MA
rarely
never
Tricity MA
Own elaboration
Another element significantly contributing to the picture of the spatial behavior of the citizens is travelling
across the area, especially using public transport.
Figures 8 and 9 leave no doubt about the most frequently used means of transport in metropolitan area – it is
a private car, what gives rather a negative certificate to the quality of public transport system (the issue
which e.g. in German MAs was solved already in the 1960‟s and 70‟s). Nonetheless, in Tricity, perhaps due
to its polycentric character, buses are equally popular. In general, more frequent a usage of the typically
urban means of public transport (trolleybuses, trams) reflects the structure of the polycentric region, where
the urban core is relatively bigger and better accessible. In Wrocław MA more popular means of transport
are various trains, suburban public and private buses, indicating more rural character of the region.
Fig. 8 and 9. Usage of the means of transport in both studied regions
100%
Usage of means of transport by suburban habitants in
Wrocław MA
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
never
seldom
often
Usage of means of transport by suburban habitants in
Tricity MA
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
never
seldom
often
Own elaboration
Interesting observations come from the evaluation of public transport (fig.10). In both regions the evaluation
was more positive among the habitants of the suburban municipalities. In case of Wrocław MA the
difference becomes very clear when we distinguish between adjacent municipalities and the more peripheral
ones (in Tricity region there are only two municipalities which do not neighbour with any of the three core
cities, therefore the distinction was not made). This gives a valuable hint both on the quality of the
connections in the peripheral parts of the MAs and on the ideas on delimitation of such regions.
Fig. 10. Evaluation of public transport in the investigated areas
Evaluantion of public transport in the MA
4,6
4,4
4,2
4
3,8
3,6
3,4
3,2
Tricity
Tricity
suburbs
status quo
Wrocław
Wrocław further from adjacent to
suburbs
Wrocław Wrocław
change in recent years
Own elaboration
To conclude one can state, that habitants of suburban minucipalities are generally well embedded in the
metropolitan region, due to the numerous functional linkages (especially economic ones). The reverse
relation, i.e. habitants of the core city using services on the suburbs is less developed, indicating a creeping
suburbanization in Poland (mainly the residential function, sub-local services concentrate in the core of an
MA). If at all, such links refer to big shopping malls situated on the outskirts of the central city and their
clients often are not conscious of crossing local boundary (especially that cities tend to use such facilities as
a part of their own marketing strategy).
3.3. Metropolitan identity or local displacement?
We wanted to check if “delocalization” of life and shifting it to the scale of the whole MA, which is clear in
relation to the everyday functioning, is also reflected in the consciousness of metropolitan citizens. For the
first stage serve the answers on territorial identity. We asked i.a. about the strength of the relation towards
own municipality and the whole metropolitan areas. Analysing relative strength of emotional relations of
suburb residents, we discover that there is no prevailing answer (see fig. 11). One third of the respondents
reveal stronger identification with their own municipality than with the whole MA, and similar group gives
the opposite answers. The most numerous group (37% in both MAs) has the same level of self-identification
with the whole agglomeration and their suburb municipality. These results seem very positive for
“metropolitan areas/agglomerations”, when considered that these notions represent functional regions, not
existing either on administrative maps or in the form of any formal institution (existing metropolitan
institutions were not know to the public, see section 3.7). Identification with MA is strong, despite legal
negligence of its existence. Moreover, 17% of citizens of Gdańsk suburbs and 10% of Wrocław suburbs treat
their suburb municipality as “part of central city” and another 16% around Gdańsk and 11% around Wrocław
choose “my municipality is part of the Wrocław/Gdańsk metropolitan area” as the best description of their
place of living.
Fig. 11. Strength of subjective self-identification with whole metropolitan area and home suburb municipality (answers of suburban
citizens).
stronger identification with
the whole MA
the same level of
identification
Gdańsk suburbs
Wrocław suburbs
stronger identification with
suburb municipality
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Own elaboration
A different situation is among the citizens of the core cities. As we see, there is only a very small group
which feel stronger about the whole MA than about the core city, they live in. Interestingly, this group is
bigger in Gdańsk region, which may indicate a strength of metropolitan bonds, but also a blurred
identification in a polycentric region. In both cores more than one third of the respondents reveal stronger
identification with the city. The group of the respondents for whom self-identification with the city and MA
is on the same level, is substantially bigger than in case of suburban citizens. This may mean that for the core
city citizens MA is identical with their city.
Fig.12. Strength of subjective self-identification with whole metropolitan area and home core city (answers of core city citizens).
stronger identification with the
whole MA
the same level of identification
Tricity
Wrocław
stronger identification with
core city
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Own elaboration
To identify the strength of the “metropolitan identity” (identification with the MA as a whole rather than
with units of other territorial scale) we have created an index, composed of the following variables:
 subjective feeling of the strength of the emotional relation to the MA,
 choice of the utterance „my municipality is a part of Wrocław/Gdańsk” or „my municipality is a part
of Wrocław/Gdańsk MA” or “my municipality is a part of Wrocław/Gdańsk agglomeration” among a
few descriptions of the place of living,
 declared having friends in Wrocław /Gdańsk or in other municipalities of MA,
 knowledge of the name of the mayor of Wrocław, and in case of Gdańsk MA - knowledge of the
names of at least two of the three mayors of the cities of the central area.
Values of the index vary from 0 to 4 and variables composing the index have the same importance. The
index applies only to the respondents from the suburban areas, not only because some of its elements do not
apply for the core cities, but also due to the already confirmed higher metropolitan mobility of suburban
habitants.
Comparing the mean value for the two MAs we notice a higher level of the metropolitan identity in a
polycentric region. The mean value of an index in Wrocław suburbs is 1.66, while in Gdańsk suburbs it is
2.05. From the regression model (tab. 1) we see that the determinants of the index‟s value are the same in
both MAs.
It turns out that the metropolitan identification depends on the education (positive correlation) and on the
length of living in a respondent‟s municipality (negative correlation, i.e. new migrants into the metropolitan
suburbs have higher metropolitan identity). Opposite to our expectations, formulated in the introductory
section, the impact of age has not been confirmed. It means that the typical member of our “de-localised
metropolitan class” is educated, has moved to the suburb recently, but is not necessarily young.
Table 1. Factors explaining variation of “metropolitan identity” – regression model.
R
Age
Education
Lenght of living in one‟s municipality
Standarised Beta coefficients
Gdańsk MA
Wrocław MA
0.30
0.34
0.017
-0.051
0.264***
0.215***
0.124***
0.225***
Note: *** - variable significant on 0.001 level.
Source: Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2008: 202.
3.4. Consequences of a big city neighbourhood
Yet another element depicting attitude of the habitants to the jurisdictions of the MA is their opinion on what
the neighbourhood of a big city means for the suburban citizens. It is especially important for the discussion
on metropolitan governance, as it is the central city, which is usually considered a natural leader of
development and cooperation in the region and a potential head of a metropolitan body. Taking into account
numerous signs of a tense relations between big city and its small neighbours11 as well as dominant role of
the core in the existing metropolitan arrangements, one may expect that suburban habitants would not be
enthusiastic about the vicinity of a big city. Surprisingly though, in the results of our study positive
consequences generally outrage negative ones (fig. 12). The only exception to this rule is formed by the
“high traffic”, which is clearly the most often mentioned result of vicinity of the core city. Among other
negative aspects, environment pollution comes next. It is interesting to note that in Gdańsk region all
negative elements score more answers than in Wrocław, whereas for the positive ones there is no such a
regularity. The biggest difference between the results for the two case study regions refers to the question on
the higher loans – this factor is mentioned more frequently in Gdańsk MA. All in all, one should say that
11
One can mention general tensions due to the lack of communication resulting from a authoritarian, arrogant policy of
big city; arguments about suburban public transport in Warsaw MA; and finally (as the most vivid example) annexation
policy of Rzeszów.
vicinity of a big city seem to have much more advantages than disadvantages for the suburbs‟ habitants.
Subordination of the municipality‟s development to the development of the core city was – surprisingly –
rarely mentioned as a problem. The most frequently complained issue – traffic results unfortunately from the
decades of negligence under the socialist regime and is a common problem for most of the MAs in Poland.
Fig. 12. Opinion of suburban citizens on the consequences of vicinity of the big city
Consequences of vicinity of a big city
subordination of the lg's development to the …
environment polution
higher criminal rates
high trafic, jams
higher loans
good access to the servises
interesing cultural life/offer
a lot of investments, places of work
higher pace of economic development
0
Wrocław MA
20
40
Gdańsk MA
60
80
100
Own elaboration
3.5. Interest in local public affairs measured by electoral turn-out, trust to local politicians
One of the assumptions of the study, mentioned in the introduction, was that the population of metropolitan
areas reveals specific patterns of political behaviour. This has been proved by Swianiewicz and Lackowska
(2008: 203-204), who show that electoral turn-out in local government elections is in metropolitan suburbs
lower than in other municipalities of comparable size. Differences are not very big, but they are statistically
significant.
Fig. 13. Comparison of the turn-outs in local elections in metro and non-metro municipalities
Turn-out in local elections (mean from 1994,1998 and 2002) in metro and
non-metro municipalities
52
50
48
46
44
42
non-metro
municipalities
40
metro suburbs
38
36
up to 7,000(*)
7-10,000(*)
10-15,000(*)
15-20,000(**)
20-50,000(*)
population size
Note: (*) – difference significant on 0.05 level, (**) – difference significant on 0.01 level.
Source: Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2008: 203.
Fig.14. Comparison of the turn-outs in parliamentary elections in metro and non-metro municipalities
Turn-out in 2005 parliamentary elections in metro and non-metro
municipalities
44
42
40
38
36
non-metro
municipalities
34
metro suburbs
32
30
up to 7,000(*)
7-10,000(***) 10-15,000(***) 15-20,000(**) 20-50,000(***)
population size
Note: (*) – difference significant on 0.05 level, (**) – difference significant on 0.01 level., (***) – difference significant on 0.001
level.
Source: Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2008: 204.
When we look at the turn-out in national (parliamentary) elections, the pattern is opposite – turn-out is higher
in metro than in non-metro municipalities of comparable size (fig. 14) . Moreover, authors claim that the
significance of this difference systematically growths (it is bigger when more recent data are taken into
account), what may means, that Polish metropolitan areas have became recently “more metropolitan” – i.e. in
recent few years one may find more features of political behaviour which are expected by “metropolitan
theory” than it was a case in the previous decade (ibidem: 204). Therefore, lower participation of
metropolitan suburbs in local elections is not a result of lower interest in politics in general, but derives from
the specific features of local politics in metropolitan areas.
3.6. Trust and interest in local politics – survey results
A specificity of political behavior of suburban citizens finds confirmation also in the results of the survey.
Asking about trust we check indirectly, what is the level of legitimacy of the metropolitan political system.
As presented in the table 2, in both metropolitan areas trust in mayor of own municipality is higher in central
cities than in suburb communities. This picture is opposite to a general rule saying that trust in Polish local
governments is usually higher in small than in bigger local governments – such a rule finds confirmation in
numerous empirical results (see: Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2008). Trust in suburban mayors is lower than
average for communities of comparable size – in spring 2007 average trust in local governments with less
than 20,000 residents was around 70% (“Opinie o…” 2007), but only about 50% in suburb municipalities of
comparable size. This reflects lower “local identity” of suburb residents as well as their dissatisfaction with
services provided by functionally split and territorially fragmented governments. On the other hand, trust in
mayors of central cities (Wrocław, Gdańsk, Gdynia and Sopot) is higher than average for cities of similar
size. It reflects the fact that we have chosen for empirical research agglomerations with strong, extremely
popular mayors. It is worth to note, that in two subsequent local elections (2006 and 2010), mayors of
Gdynia and Wrocław got the highest voters‟ support among all candidates from major Polish cities (over
80% of votes in the first round of mayoral elections in 2006; in 2010 Dutkiewicz‟s score slightly lower –
72%; comp. Swianiewicz, 2006). It is meaningful that also residents of suburb municipalities express high
trust in mayors of central cities – if we disregard relatively numerous “don‟t know” answers, it is even higher
than trust towards their own suburb mayors.
Both theory and earlier empirical results (Swianiewicz, 2001; Szymiel, 2005) suggest that interest in local
government activity should be strongly (and negatively) correlated with population size. Taking this into
account, data in the table 2 show surprisingly small difference between suburbs and central cities. It is
because the declared interest of suburb citizens is significantly lower than in “non-metropolitan”
municipalities of comparable size.
Table 2. Trust and interest in local governments in Wrocław and Gdańsk metropolitan areas
Wrocław suburbs
Gdańsk suburbs
Wrocław central city
Gdańsk central city
% declaring trust in:
Mayor of own
Mayor of the
suburb
central
city(*)
45
37 (61)
55
35 (61)
NA
67
NA
76
% of declaring no
interest in local
government
activity
35
29
47
34
% knowing
name of the
mayor of the
central city
40
58
65
82
Note: trust in Gdańsk central cities – (weighted by population) mean of values for Gdańsk, Sopot and Gdynia
(*) in brackets – result if “don‟t know” answers treated as missing values.
Source: Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2008: 205.
Table 3 illustrates impact of two independent variables – education and length of time of living in the suburb
– on trust and interest in local governments of metropolitan areas. Opposite to our initial expectations, we
found no relationship with the age of respondents (therefore age variable has been omitted in the table 3), but
correlations with other two variables are significant. Interestingly, considered variables are not correlated
with trust towards own suburban mayors, but they have an impact on trust towards mayors of central cities.
“New migrants” in the suburbs know more about central cities government, for example they know names of
city mayors more often. They also trust city mayors more frequently. Similarly, name of central mayors is
more often known by suburb residents with higher education. This follows the classic pattern of citizens
interest in politics (Lipset, 1981), but interestingly enough, in case of Wrocław suburb, the same pattern is
not repeated as regard their own community. It reflects the fact that many educated, new-migrants in the
Wrocław suburbs, are more interested in politics of the city of Wrocław than in the politics of the
municipality of their formal residence. The same pattern applies to “new migrants” in the suburbs of Gdańsk
metropolitan area.
Table 3. Factors explaining trust and interest in local governments – Pearson correlations.
Trust in:
Mayor of
Mayor of the
own suburb
central city
-
-
Level of education
Wrocław suburb citizens
Gdańsk suburb citizens
Wrocław central city
Gdańsk central cities
Short time of living in the same
municipality (“new migrants”)
Wrocław suburb citizens
Gdańsk suburb citizens
Declared interest
in local
government
activity
++
+++
NA
NA
+
+++
+++
+++
Know name
of the mayor
of the central
city
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
Notes: + - positive correlation significant on 0.05 level, ++ - significant on 0.01 level, +++ - significant on 0.001 level. Blank spaces
mean insignificant correlations
Source: Swianiewicz, Lackowska 2008: 206.
3.7. Knowledge about metropolitan governance initiatives
We asked the habitants if they had heard of cooperation or conflicts among municipalities of their
metropolitan areas. The results can also be interpreted as an indication of interest in metropolitics. Looking
at the data in the table 4 one can make two observations. First, knowledge on cooperation and/or conflict is
in general higher among the citizens of Gdańsk MA than of Wrocław MA (even circa 20 percentage points
of difference!). Second, citizens of core cities are clearly better informed about the specific relations between
the metropolitan jurisdictions than suburban habitants. This difference is bigger in Gdańsk MA (even 11
percentage points). High percentage of respondents who had heard neither of cooperation nor of conflicts,
can reflect possible low interest in local politics, but also low supply in such information by local authorities
or press (I come back to this argument at the end of this section).
Tab. 4. Citizens‟ knowledge about conflicts and cooperation between the metropolitan municipalities
Has heard of both cooperation and conflicts among
the metropolitan municipalities
Has heard neither on cooperation nor on conflicts
among the metropolitan municipalities
Wrocław
MA
6%
Wrocław (core
city)
11,8%
Gdańsk MA
14,9%
23%
67,3%
61,1%
54%
42,6%
Tricity
Own elaboration
Analyzing the answers of those who heard about specific relations between jurisdictions of the MAs, we find
a surprising pattern: in both selected regions respondents from the core cities more often heard of conflicts
than of cooperation whereas among suburban habitants the answers were opposite. Much bigger differences
are observed between the answers of the two groups in Gdańsk region: 12 percentage points in case of
cooperation and 11 in case of conflicts. In Wrocław bigger difference between the answers of the two groups
refers to the conflicts perception (10 percentage points).
Fig. 15. Structure of the respondents knowing about specific relations between metropolitan municipalities
Respondents who heard of cooperation/conflict
between local governments of the MA
50
40
30
20
10
0
Gdańsk
suburbs
Tricity
cooperation
Wrocław
suburbs
Wrocław
conflicts
Own elaboration
Among those, who have heard of cooperation between the metropolitan municipalities, the knowledge about
the initiatives of metropolitan cooperation, described in the section 3.1 is scarce. Council of Gdańsk Bay is a
bit better known, especially among the citizens of the core cities, whereas Wrocław Committee was not
known at all (at the moment of a survey it had operated for 7 years, the cease in functioning was about to
happen).
Fig. 16. Structure of the respondents knowing the name of the metropolitan institution
percentage
Respondents knowing the name of the Metropolitan
Association
5
4
3
2
1
0
Wrocław
suburbs
Wrocław
Gdańsk
suburbs
Tricity
Own elaboration
This phenomenon should not be treated as a prove against the thesis on the interest in metropolitan affairs
being higher that in local matters. Lack of knowledge on the existence of the metropolitan bodies speaks
rather of their low activity and of a mentioned technical attitude towards metropolitan governance among the
local elites. Treating metropolitan arrangement as a political concept is very seldom (interviews). Moreover,
local authorities were not willing to inform the citizens about their engagement in a metropolitan initiative,
because it is more comfortable for them. In case of failure of an initiative or just lack of effects of
cooperation they do not have to explain the reasons for these problems. On the other hand though, potential
success cannot be presented as an achievement of local authorities, as the citizens had not been informed
about an undertaking. This mechanism proved destructive for creation of metropolitan solidarity.
Participation in metropolitan initiative was never presented as a success of authorities in local elections
campaign, which results in strengthening local particularisms rather than metropolitan solidarity (Lackowska
2009b).
4. CONCLUSIONS
The aim of the paper was to investigate into the patterns of spatial and political behavior of specific group of
citizens – habitants of functional regions which do not exist on the administrative maps. The issue was
analysed keeping in mind the existing legal regulations, so as to identify a potential links between democratic
and institutional dimension of the MAs‟ functioning.
The results indicate the creation of the metropolitan identify among the habitants, which proceeds despite the
institutional discrepancy of the arrangements in the majority of Polish city-regions. The high territorial
mobility in investigated urban areas aggravates the free-riding problems in the regions. Yet the
consciousness of this issue remains low, both among the citizens and the authorities of the adjacent
municipalities, who use the benefits coming from the proximity of a big city as a natural gratis advantage.
Core cities, fighting against externalities and additional costs of central functions, claim for the special
politico-administrative solutions for city-regions (e.g. in the forum of the core cities called Union of Polish
Metropolises). From time to time the issue of metropolitan reform gains a lot of public attention, especially
when new law proposals are elaborated. Great majority of those treat the citizens‟ participation in
metropolitan governance as unnecessary element (usually not mentioning this matter at all: no metropolitan
elections are foreseen, all bodies are composed of the representatives of the jurisdictions). The pure
technocratic attitude towards the metropolitan arrangements prevails – they are supposed to help the
governments deal with supra-local problems, not to foster metropolitan identity among the habitants.
Citizens are seen as not interested in the metropolitics (which finds no support in the results of the citizens
surveys) and not familiar with the possible solutions (which was confirmed by the study of the UMP, yet it
should be rather interpreted as a call for more transparent and informative campaign on this matter). The
survey has shown functional interrelations in the MAs, which clearly exert influence on the citizens political
behavior and territorial identity. These issues should find recognition among central-level politicians and
local authorities.
LITERATURE
Bennett R. J., 1997, “Administrative systems and economic spaces”, Regional Studies no 31 (3).
Brenner N., 2004, New State Spaces. Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Collin J.P., Robertson M. (eds.) (2007) Metropolitan Governance: Issues and Depictions of Experiments on Four
Countries, Montreal: Les Presses de l‟Universite Laval.
Heinelt H., Kübler D. (eds.) (2005) Metropolitan Governance. Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place, Oxon:
Routledge.
Heinelt H., Razin E., Zimmermann K. (eds.) (2011) Metropolitan Governance. Different Paths in Contrasting Contexts:
Germany and Israel, Frankfurt/New York: Campus
Heinz W. (2007) “Intermunicipal cooperation in Germany: the mismatch between existing necessities and suboptimal
solutions” [in:] R. Hulst, A. van Montfort (eds.) Inter-municipal Cooperation in Europe, Springer, p. 91-115.
Izdebski H., Kulesza M. (2004) Administracja publiczna. Zagadnienia ogólne, Liber: Warszawa
Kaczmarek T. (2010) „Proces integracji metropolitalnej – „od dołu‟ i „od góry‟” [in:] A. Lutrzykowski, R. Gawłowski
(eds.) Metropolie. Wyzwania polskiej polityki miejskiej, Toruń: Adam Marszałek Press, p. 45-61.
Kaczmarek T., Mikuła Ł. (2007) Ustroje terytorialno-administracyjne obszarów metropolitalnych w Europie
[Administrative and territorial setting of European metropolitan areas], Poznań: Bogucki Press.
Lackowska M. (2009a) “Why is voluntary co-operation condemned to failure? Reflections on the Polish German and
background”, Lex Localis, vol.7 no 4, p. 347-369.
Lackowska M. (2009b) Zarządzanie obszarami metropolitalnymi w Polsce. Między dobrowolnością a imperatywem
[Metropolitan governance in Poland], Warszawa: Warsaw University Press
Lackowska, M., Swianiewicz P. (2010) “Metropolitan Discourse in Poland and Germany: So Near Yet so Far?” [in:] G.
Soos, M. Temmes (eds.) Metropolitan CEE: Big Cities, Capitals and City-Regions in Central and Eastern Europe,
Bratislava: NISPACee, p. 87-112.
Lefèvre C. (1998) Metropolitan Government and Governance in Western Countries: A Critical Review, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers, p. 9-25
Lex metropolis 2007 (2006) Materials from the conference of the secretaries of the UMP cities, Lublin, 4 and 5
September 2006.
Lipset, S.M., 1981, Political Man: The Social Basis of Politics, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ludwig, J., Mandel, K., Schwieger, C. & Terizakis, G. (eds.) (2003) Metropolregionen in Deutschland, Baden-Baden:
Nomos.
Mażewski L. (1997) „Samorządowy region Gdańska”, Samorząd Terytorialny, no 11, p. 20-31.
“Opinie o działalności instytucji publicznych” [Opinion on functioning of public institutions], Biuletyn CBOS no
86/2007.
Preteceille, E., 2000, “Segregation, Class and Politics in Large Cities” [in:] Bagnasco, A. & Le Gales, P. (eds.), Cities
in Contemporary Europe, Cambridge University Press.
Swianiewicz P., Lackowska M. (2007) From doing nothing to metropolitan government institutions? Governing
metropolitan areas in Poland, [in:] J.P. Collin, M. Robertson (eds.) (2007) Metropolitan Governance: Issues and
Depictions of Experiments on Four Countries, Les Presses de l‟Universite Laval: Montreal, p. 317-343.
Swianiewicz P., Lackowska M. (2008) “Cosmopolitans of small fatherlands”, Miscelanea Geografica, vol. 13, p. 197208.
Swianiewicz, P., 2006, “Zmiana krajobrazu po wyborach” [Change of the landscape after the elections], Wspólnota no
47, p. 16.
Swianiewicz P. & Klimska U., 2005, „Polish Metropolitan Areas: Vanilla Centres, Sandwich Suburbs” [in:] HoffmannMartinot V., Sellers J. (eds.) Metropolitanization and Political Change, Opladen: Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften
p. 303-334.
Szymiel, K., 2006, Czynniki różnicujące postrzeganie samorządu lokalnego przez opinię publiczną w latach 2002-2005
[Factors differentiating the perception of the local governments by the public opinion between 2002 and 2005],
Warszawa: WGiSR Uniwersytet Warszawski, MA dissertation.