Publication » Opinion
Send
Print
Key findings from the diagnosis of
Executive summary "Governance of the Metropolitan Area"
Mirosław Grochowski, Tomasz Brodzicki, Marcin Wołek
Key Findings
1. The Case of
the Metropolitan Area (henceforth MA) is unique on a national scale. This
is reflected, inter alia, by a lack of institutionalized monocentric
metropolitan core. The metropolitan area
is polycentric, and de facto bipolar acknowledging the role of Gdańsk and
Gdynia as two central cities. Complement to the core is centrally located
Sopot. These three key cities lead autonomous development policies,
although in some subject areas, close territorial or thematic cooperation at
the subregional level in various configurations is visible.
2. The
metropolitan issues appear in all three strategic documents of core cities, but
are only declared and signalized. Actions which could lead to the
consolidation of the core in the most important dimensions of political action,
namely:
§ emergence
of leadership,
§ definition
of acceptable objectives for the necessary partnership,
§ and
ways to implement actions leading to achieving the goals
are not
indicated.
3. Implementation
of solutions leading to institutionalization of the management processes at
metropolitan level may be difficult because of the strong position of municipalities in the political system and the scope
of their competence and approach to managing the institutionalization of the
development of the MA. Another problem is the division of competences between the municipalities and counties and the
lack of possibility of registration of community-county associations. The lack of general or detailed central regulation
of metropolitan management (apart from Warsaw metropolitan area) is visible.
4. In spite
of the many positive examples (see main text), the contemporary state of metropolitan cooperation is unsatisfactory.
Metropolitan cooperation in the MA occurs, but is generally insufficient: not
visible in all necessary areas, some of them are ineffective. This generates
significant costs related to, for instance, duplication of actions or lack of
coordination and integration of activities leading to the increase of real
costs for the residents of the MA. Such basic elements as the exchange of
information (especially in the field of spatial planning) and coordination of
the calendar of cultural events is clearly lacking.
5. Since the restoration of local government, initiatives
in the MA are undertaken to improve the process of territorial development. It
is a largely self-taken response to the lack of comprehensive regulations on
the development of agglomerations or metropolitan areas. These initiatives
are carried out in collaboration with many partners and their effects cannot be
overestimated. The effectiveness of the activities taken so far should be attributed
to their grassroots origins and intended partnerships between public
authorities and partners to carry out specific projects (pragmatism).
6. Rationality and justification for the
undertaken initiatives is mainly due to the increasing complexity of functional
and spatial structures in the MA. In the absence of common management
development opportunities may be lost or conflicts in development process could
increase. Operational efficiency of the MA will be augmented by among others
solutions in the field of management or investments in infrastructure,
especially related to transportation. Without a robust management system in the
field of public transportation, these actions, however, will be ineffective in
the long run, providing only temporary solutions to existing problems.
7. Several
different entities whose purpose is to influence the course of the development
of the Metropolitan Area are currently active. Association Gdańsk Metropolitan Area (GOM) and Forum NORDA (NORDA) are
two leading organizations that formulate metropolitan or subregional
challenges and point out the necessary solutions, while implementing a number
of soft actions.
8. Establishment of GOM and NORDA is a
reflection of the natural, bottom-up efforts to define and solve common
problems at local and sub-regional level. Their emergence should be
considered, as the next step in the process of cooperation, which was formerly
initiated by formation of inter-commune associations until 1999 at a time when
local government operated in the one-stage model (municipality).
9. An important role is played by the Marshal
Office of the Pomeranian Region responsible for coordinating and stimulating
the development of the whole of the region including the core of the MA, its
complementary areas as well as areas of the region beyond the MA. The
unique situation MA judging from national perspective is its active involvement
in various undertaken initiatives. It seems that in the current situation, the
role of the Office, as an initiator and a catalyst can be crucial to the
success of attempts to deepen cooperation in the development of the MA in
particular in working out an acceptable to all stakeholders’ form of
institutionalization of the management the area.
10. The existence of two separate
intercommunal organizations within the functional area of Tricity acting on
the basis of different values and assumptions cannot be judged as an integrating
factor. Therefore, attempts to consolidate the spatial arrangement (the
problem of delimitation) with the participation of municipalities and counties
from within the wider MA can be perceived as premature or promising little
chance of success.
11. It
should be emphasized that a major challenge is the lack of or limited opportunities for real impact on the decision making
of supra-local or central institutions responsible for the actions taken in the
metropolitan area with relevance to the Metropolis such as the Ministry of Treasury
(seaports), Polish Agency for Entrepreneurial Development (PARP), Polish
Information and Foreign Investment Agency (PAIIZ), National Research and
Development Center (NCBiR), the General Agency for National Roads and Motorways
(GDKiA) – trustees of powers and resources, responsible for allocation of
significant resources at the regional level. Other metropolitan areas in
Poland, however, act within similar framework conditions and environment.
12. Problems with closer cooperation appear
already at the stage of formulation of the name (and therefore brand) of the
MA. The Marshal Office and Gdynia in their analyses and strategic documents
use the term Tricity Metropolitan Area (TOM, or Tri-City). Gdańsk uses the term
Gdańsk Metropolitan Area (GOM) or the Gulf of Gdańsk Metropolitan Area (OMZG).
This last name appears in the name of the Metropolitan Communication
Association of Gulf of Gdansk (ZKZG) created in 2007. According to Sagan and
Canowiecki (2011) 'dispute over the name shows a fundamental conflict inhibiting
metropolitan integration process, which it is not, as can seem of only
symbolic, but pragmatic nature - reflecting the fundamental differences in the
vision of the metropolitan community.
13. The idea of institutionalization of
cooperation in the framework of the MA is not new. Despite of several years of implementation various
activities failed to create a conceptual
basis for the management of the area,
which would take into account different approaches to the concept of
management. The absence of metropolitan issues in planning documents of
most municipalities can be perceived as diagnostic in itself.
14. The need for institutionalization of the MA
in the form of management structures is not universal. Justification for
the institutionalization is shared by municipalities closest to the core of the
MA, although in their documents records showing fears associated with the
operation of the Metropolis can be identified. The situation is further complicated by evident competition between
enterprises or entities related to parties involved or located in the core
cities (seaports, airports).
15. In the atmosphere of conflict, the question on the legitimacy of the discussion on specific management solutions in this stage of development of the MA should be asked. Irrespective of what form will be adopted, it may be the subject of contestation by some municipalities. On the other hand, it should be emphasized that awareness of the need for cooperation and the real will for metropolization, at least in the declarative dimension, is clearly visible.
Recommendations
1. The
metropolis is a complicated system. Different direct and indirect stakeholders should be included in the institutionalized
cooperation activities. These include in particular: local government units
from the core and the complementary area, institutions and regional agencies,
representatives of the business sector, representatives of science and
education, non-governmental organizations. Metropolis
must have a broad base.
2. Due to the lack
of a common vision for the future, it is advisable to take organic actions aimed
at building understanding for the need to institutionalize the Metropolis,
indicating benefits of institutionalization and associated costs in the
form of, among others, necessary reduction of powers of municipalities in
planning and of budgetary consequences resulting from deeper integration of
public transport. This will open the way for subsequent, phased introduction of new management solutions and avoiding
conflicts associated with "violation" of competences or particular
interest.
3. The
actual progress in the process of metropolization should be made only after a
positive cost-benefit analysis in the medium and long term (economic pragmatism
and rationality).
4. Acceptance
by municipalities and counties -
potential members of the institutionalized MA of the need to reduce their
competences in some selected areas key to functioning of the entire MA is a
prerequisite for building of more or less formal structure of cooperation.
A priori statement by some municipalities that the reduction of competences is
happening to the detriment of themselves means that there is a lack of
information on the nature of the proposed changes, and municipalities do not
have a sense of community of interest with the initiators of actions taken for
improved management of the MA.
5. The key
to success is a fundamental change in quality of cooperation. Most of
people, and thus groups of people or governments, oppose change, especially
radical one. In the search for management solutions for the MA the following
elements seem to be important: defining
initial conditions for change, specification of methods of introduction of
changes description of the desired functioning of new solutions. We recommend
the use of a participatory process, involving major participants and
stakeholders, which should lead to the identification and implementation of
acceptable management solutions. This
method also legitimizes the worked out solutions.
6. The
foundation of effective management and planning in the MA is the assumption of
the primacy of the common good in the activities of the various levels of
government. In this case, spatial planning activities should not be
perceived as separate projects run by individual municipalities, but should
become an instrument of lawmaking and oversight of its implementation in the
sub-regional scale, including the metropolitan scale. Effective planning
systems are in positive sense restrictive systems: they limit the possibilities of action of
individual actors for the common good. For public institutions, and in practice
for the municipality, transferee on the Competences for zoning adjustments and
responsibility for development are transferred to public institutions – in
practice the municipality. Coordination activities are carried out at the subregional
level.
7. Introduction
of new management systems should be extended in time, appropriately phased and
preceded by actions engaging all stakeholders of the MA.
8. On the basis of analysis and consultation, we
propose for the moment to adopt
multi-level governance model for the Metropolitan Area (MLG).
9. We
recommend the establishment of a single metropolitan forum for cooperation
through integration of GOM and Forum NORDA (one association or association
governed by analogy to the GZM).
10. We recommend the implementation of a number of specific actions, some of them already in
the framework of the strategic phase of this project. These include in
particular:
§ Setting the range of the metropolitan area
(delimitation) - linked to area of the so-called ZIT (Zintegrowane
Inwestycje Terytorialne) as well as the area of influence crossing in some
directions the borders of the Pomeranian region (vide Elbląg);
§ Addressing
the problem the name (brand) of the Metropolitan Area;
§ Stakeholders
identification for metropolitan cooperation, including, apart of
self-governements business, research and development and NGO sectors.
§ Identifying
the purposes of metropolitan cooperation and effective communication of
these objectives and justification in order to gain the support of various
stakeholders;
§ Identifying
targeted areas of metropolitan cooperation - and thus of voluntary
reduction of autonomy and governance of municipalities and counties (explicit
declarations of individual actors in the MA and overall consensus);
§ Setting
the targeted level of advancement of cooperation in various identified areas;
§ Providing
justification for creating management structures in different thematic areas
and at a general level, together with the analysis of the costs and
benefits of the governance system and desired institutionalization of the MA
(evidence-based policy);
§ Adoption
of a strategy for the development of the MA and policies implementing it;
§ Phased
deepening and strengthening of cooperation within specific thematic areas
(task);
§ Gradual
transition, if necessary, to more
institutionalized (less flexible) forms of cooperation in specific areas,
§ Bottom-up
lobbying for financial support from the state budget and for the elaboration of
favorable rules and regulations taking into account the specific features
of the MA.
11. Taking into account the multi-axis development
problems for the MA identified in other specific diagnoses one can assume that
the sphere of management should cover
the whole spectrum of activities, which were presented in the recommendations
including inter alia, the coordination and execution of infrastructure projects
essential for the cohesion of the area, the integration of municipal systems,
upgrading quality of education system and
increasing the efficiency of the metropolitan labor market.
12. The success of the metropolization process
will ultimately depend on political willingness and cooperation of its key
actors and stakeholders and in particular the presidents of Gdansk, Sopot and
Gdynia, as the natural leaders of the heart of the Metropolis and the Marshall
of the Pomerania representing the interests of the whole regional community.
Recent publications by this author:
- Innovation and internationalization. Evidence for Poland from a firm-level survey
- __undefined_title_en__
- The role of openness in economic growth of regions
- __undefined_title_en__
- What really determines Polish exports? Semi-mixed effects gravity model for Poland
- Territorial Cohesion
- Presentation of ID within the scope of OECD - LEED Report on Pomorski
- ERSA 2017 - presentation of the Institute
- Analysis of the Polish foreign trade in the light of recent theoretical concepts
- Analiza handlu zagranicznego Polski w świetle najnowszych koncepcji teoretycznych
- Wrażliwość polskich regionów
- Territorial dimension of growth and development
- Creativity pays off Innovation, innovation strategy, and internationalization
- Determinants of HIIT and VIIT of Poland
- Determinants of export activity of Polish manufacturing firms
- Analysis of branches with the highest export potential in the Pomeranian Voivodeship
- Extended gravity model of Polish trade. Empirical analysis with panel data methods
- Key findings from the diagnosis of Innovation and enterpreneurship
- Key findings „Internationalization of the Metropolitan Area"
- Key findings from the diagnosis of
- Key findings from the diagnosis of
- Technological backwardness and the level of development.
- The model of territorial optimum
- Deflation risk in the euroozone increases
- The Impact of Trade Integration with the EU on Porductivity in a Post-Transition Economy. The Case of Polish Manufacturing Sectors
- The British Economy: Before the Storm
- ON OPTIMALITY OR NON-OPTIMALITY OF THE EUROZONE
- Investment atractiveness ranking
- __undefined_title_en__
- Marginalized or not - the dilemmas of the macroregion of Western Poland
- Poland in Europe - the economic periphery, or a leader?
- Territorial Cohesion of the EU: an opportunity or a threat?
- What is the state of the ICT sector in Poland?
- Spatial cohesion
- Innovations of space
