Polskie Towarzystwo Socjologiczne (Polish Sociological Association)

Territorial Decentralization - a Stumbling Block of Democratic Reforms in East-Central Europe?

Author(s): MICHAL ILLNER
Source: Polish Sociological Review, No. 117 (1997), pp. 23-45
Published by: Polskie Towarzystwo Socjologiczne (Polish Sociological Association)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41274638
Accessed: 14-12-2015 16:30 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Polskie Towarzystwo Socjologiczne (Polish Sociological Association) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Polish Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 polish i(ii7)'97
sociological
review
ISSN 1231-1413

MICHAL ILLNER
oftheCzechRepublic
ofSciences
Academy

Territorial Decentralization - a Stumbling Block

of Democratic Reforms in East-Central Europe?*

decentralization
Abstract:Territorial ofgovernment hasbeenan important component part
ofthedemocratic reformsin East CentralEuropeafter1989.In thepaper,someaspectsof
thedecentralization in CzechRepublic,Hungaryand Polandare discussed- their
efforts
politicalandintellectual
background, theyhavecaused,results
expectations theyhaveso far
delivered and problemstheyhavecreatedorvisualized. Territorial
decentralization
ofgov-
ernment didnotmaterializeas expected in thethreecountries,andthereforms werehalted
half-way. Whiledecentralizationto thelocallevelwasmostly itis pendingon the
successful,
regionalleveland recently morecentralist policieshave beenre-introduced.The author
arguesthatbothan insufficient as wellas an excessive
decentralization
aretheproblem.

Introduction

Transformation of the territorialstructureof government- its decentraliz-

ation, particularly the introduction of territorialself-government, was con-
sidered an essential task in the process of re-buildingpolitical and administra-
tive systemsin East Central Europe after 1989. Indeed, reformsof territorial
governmentfollowed closely after collapse of the Communist regimes and
afterthe transformationsof the constitutionalbodies and of the central gov-
ernmentin 1990.
In this contributionI shall discuss the decentralizationdimension of the
reformsin threeEast Central European countries- Czech Republic, Hungary
and Poland. I shall focus on some aspects of its intellectual and political
background, on expectations it has caused, resultsit has so far delivered and
problems it has created or visualized. The issue is highly relevant in the
context of post-Communist development because territorialdecentralization

* Thispaperisbasedona study "Theterritorial

dimensionofpublicadministration
reforms
inEastCentralEurope"preparedbytheauthorfortheCentre forEuropeanStudies,Nuffield
withina projectcoordinated
College,OxfordUniversity, byProfessor J.J.Hesse,and to be
publishedbytheNuffield
College.ItwasalsosupportedbygrantNo. 403/96/0258ofthegrant
AgencyofCzechRepublic.Forpublication inthePolishSociological
Reviewtheoriginal text
was substantially
abbreviated,
complemented and modified.
Author'sAddress:Institute
of Sociology,Academyof SciencesoftheCzechRepublic,
Jilska1,11000 Praha,CzechRepublic.
Fax: 4202/24
220278;e-mail:socmail@mbox.cesnet.cz

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 MICHAL
ILLNER

of government,a cornerstoneof the firsttransformationalprograms, did not

materialize as expected. The decentralizingreformswere halted half way and
recentlymore centralistpolicies have been introducedin the region. A debate
is under way in the East Central European countries, both theoretical and
political, on the meritsand feasibilityof territorialdecentralizationand on the
emergingre-centralization.
As far as possible, I shall approach the situation in the three countries
summarily although, in the reality, three individual, not entirelyidentical
national reformsand discourses are concerned.1For the sake of brevity,and
with a certain licence, the three countries will be referredto here as "East
Central Europe"; this is obviously inaccurate as there are more countries in
the region which, anyhow, is poorly defined.
In administrativereformsanywhere,the search for an optimum vertical
territorialstructuringof government and for optimum government areas
has always been a highlyrelevantissue. As a rule, institutionsof government
are designed so as to act at more than just one geographical level - they are
organized into several territoriallydefined tiers. Beside the national adminis-
trativeinstitutions,thereexist also institutionsoperatingat sub-national levels
- typicallya regional (intermediary)level and local level. The need of such
a multi-tierstructurehas been supported by two lines of arguments,each
referringto a differentaspect of a modern state (Taylor 1993 : 317-318).
Firstly,governmentsas bureaucratic organizations,have to deconcentrate
some of their functionsalong the geographical scale in order to attain higher
efficiency, both internaladministrativeefficiencyand efficiencyof servicepro-
vision. By deconcentration is understood a process whereby governmental
functions are shifted downwards within the hierarchical system of state
bureaucracy, yet without weakening the vertical hierarchyof the system:de-
concentratedunits remain to be verticallysubordinated to central authorities.
It is argued that deconcentrated governmentunits, being nearer to the field
of their operation than the core units, can act with a better knowledge of
situation, can better communicate with the parties involved and are better
disposed to implementadministrativedecisions.
Secondly, central governmentsdecentralizesome of theirfunctionsto sub-
national governments,primarilyin order to support theirlegitimacy.Decen-
tralization means devolution of functionsof state to autonomous territorial
governmentswhich can act, within the scope of decentralized functions,on
their own behalf, without recourse to higher-standingauthorities.Decentra-
lization may be based on two alternativetheoreticalmodels, each expressing
a different philosophy of state-building.One kind of arguments(eg. the classi-
cal 19th century conservative ideologies) is the top-down reasoning which
views local and regional governmentas derived fromcentral authority,enjoy-
ing only that much autonomy as was granted to it by the central state and

1 Thisapproachis reasonablyjustifiedas all threecountriessharesimilarlegaciesofthe

Communist past- and also somelegaciesof a moredistanthistory - and theyhavebeen
facingsimilartasksof post-Communist transformation. Some culturalcommonalities be-
tweenCzechLands,Hungary andGalicia- thesouth-eastern partofPoland- canbe traced
back to theearliertimes.Until1918,theseterritories belongedto theAustro-Hungarian
empire,sharingsimilarinstitutions
and elements ofa similarcultural
climate.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 25

promotingstate interestson a local level. Alternatively,the existenceof "local

state" can be explained and supported by federalistbottom-up arguments:
local state as a political formof local or regional communityis primary,while
any higher-levelgovernmentsare derived fromit and enjoy discretionsceded
to them frombelow (eg. liberalisttheories of government).
Decentralizationis usually underpinedby functionalarguments,drawn again
fromdifferent theoretical/ideologicalcontexts:it is maintainedthatdecentralized
governmentpromotes citizen participation, it is more responsive to citizen
concernsand flexibleto findsolutionsacceptable to them,it provides opportuni-
ties for the development of new elites, it preventsoverload developing at the
center;decentralizedgovernmentis a counterweightto the authoritarianstate,it
givesan opportunityto experimentwithnew structuresand policies (Baldersheim
et al. 1996 : 4), it is most effectiveand efficient
in deliveringservicesto meet local
needs, creates a sense of place or community(Goldsmith 1992), is an elementof
the "civil society" or a bridge linkingcivil societyto the central state etc.
It is, therefore,both the efficiency , the effectivenessand the government
legitimacyconcerns which stand behind territorialdeconcentrationand decen-
tralization.
In practical terms,irrespectiveof its theoretical and political underpinn-
ings, territorialdecentralization and deconcentration are manifested in the
way the following two principal issues concerning the territorialaspect of
governmentare dealt with:
1) Number, character, competences and mutual relations of territorial
tiers of government.
2) Character, number and concrete delimitationof governmentareas rep-
resentingeach tier.
It is the approaches towards solution of these two issues, as well as the
political embedding of such approaches which are the focus of decentraliz-
ation debate in East Central Europe.
To understand the dispute, one has to be aware of the contexts of the
recent decentralization effortsin the post-Communist countries. Three sets
of socio-political contextual factors influenced in particular the territorial
reforms:1. legacies of the Communist era - political, administrative,psycho-
logical, 2. expectations toward decentralization,and 3. political context of the
reforms.In some respects they were common to the three countries,in other
respects theywere country-specific.

The CentralistLegacies of the CommunistEra

Communistregimesin East Central Europe consideredit a prioritytask to seize

political control of territorialgovernmentswhen theywere coming to power in
the 40s. In the process, territorialgovernmentswere re-moulded according to
the 'soviets' model to become Councils. Territorial governmentswere estab-
lished on the local level (rural and urban municipalities), districtlevel and
regional (provincial) level. Their organizational structurewas much the same in
all East Central European countries:an elected Assembly,an executiveBoard
elected by the Assembly and headed by a Chairman, Committeescomposed of
the deputies, and a administrativeapparatus. At each level, executive Boards

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 MICHAL
ILLNER

and the apparatuses were subordinatedsimultaneouslyto the respectiveorgans

of the higher territorialtier and to their own Council - the principle of dual
subordination.
As integralpart of the systemof communistpolitical power in East Central
Europe, thenew territorial governments respectedtwo basic doctrinalrulesof this
system: the principle of democratic centralism and that of homogeneousstate
authority. Main features of the system can be characterized as the following
(cf.Vidlakova and Zarecky 1989,Illner 1991a : 23-24, Swianiewicz1992, Coulson
1995b : 5-9, Baldersheim and Illner 1996a, Elander 1995 : 5-7):
- It was undemocratic.The elected bodies were created more by nomina-
tion than by true elections. Although elections were held regularly and
a democraticfacade was maintained,in realitytheywere a formalaffair,more
a manifestationof political loyaltythan voters' choice. There were no compet-
ing candidates and the way the ballot was organized renderedthe secretvoting
impossible.
- Real decisionmakingpower resided with the CommunistParty bureau-
cracy. Territorial governments,their functionariesand personnel were under
the permanent control of Communist Party. The posts of councillors and
territorialgovernmentofficialsbelonged to the nomenklatura , which meant
that the persons occupying them had to be approved by the responsible
Communist Party authorities.
- The systemwas centralist , any authentic territorialselfgovernmentwas
excluded. Importantissues of local and regional developmentwere decided and
financedby higher-level territorialadministrationsor by centralministries.
Higher
levels of authoritycould suspend decisions or even dissolve a local council.
- Territorialgovernmentlacked economic and
financial foundation. Local
financeswere part of the state budget, the bulk of local revenues represented
central grants and the powers and financial resources left in the hands of
territorialgovernmentswere extremelyrestricted.Communal propertydid not
exist - lands, buildings and infrastructurewere just part of state property
administeredby territorialgovernments.
- Public administrationand selfgovernment were amalgamatedinto a single
systembased on the ideology of "democratic centralism." According to this
ideology, no contradictionscould, by definition,arise between the "real inter-
ests" of the state and of its territorialsubsystems,because they were all
supposed to express the interestsof the working class. A single political and
administrativebody the local version of the soviets - was, therefore,made
locally responsible for advocating both local and central interests.
- Horizontal integrationwithinand among administrativeareas was weak.
This was due to preponderance of vertical relationshipsboth in politics and
in economy where also a sectorial perspectivewas far the most important.
As the result,a territorialunit was administeredmore as an aggregateof local
or regional outposts of individual economic and administrativeagencies than
as a complex socioeconomic organism.
As it was pointed out by some authors (cf. Illner 1993, Elander 1995 : 6-7,
Coulson 1995b: 9), there was a differencebetween the official ideological
model of territorialgovernmentunder Communism and its real-lifeface. An
example is the erosion of territorialgovernmentby economic organizations.In
spite of the formal competences of territorialgovernmentswho, by law, were

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 27

responsible for a "complex economic and social development of their terri-

tories," the verticallyorganized and centrallycontrolled economic structures
(industrial and other enterprisesand their associations as well as economic
ministries) assumed a strong and sometimes decisive influence in local and
regional issues. Enterprises,which frequentlycommanded much greater re-
sources than territorialgovernments,assumed a wide range of public-sector
responsibilitiescommonly belonging to the territorialadministration.In some
places enterpriseseven became the main sponsors of local development,mak-
ing territorialauthoritiesultimatelydependent upon them. The political and
economic relevance of territorialgovernmentwas thus underminednot only
by centralismbut also by the increasing strengthand patronage of the econ-
omic organizations (cf. Illner 1992, Benzler 1994).
Another example concerns degenerationof the centralistcommandsystem
into a clientelisticstructure.As elsewhere,the bureaucratic systemof vertical
subordination in territorialgovernmentproved ineffectiveand degenerated
into a systemof networkingand negotiationwhere lines of personal influence
and negotiatingskills played an importantrole (Coulson 1995b : 9). 2 As noted
by Illes (Illes 1993), there has been a widespread way in Hungary of repre-
senting local and regional interestswithin the Communist Party and state
apparatus throughfellow townsmen and through othermethods of extensive
lobbying. In all East Central Europe contributionsto municipal and regional
infrastructureand services were usually negotiated informally,either within
the local nomenclature as a trade-offbetween its various groups, or with the
higher-levelpolitical and administrativebosses (Tarkowski 1983 : 47-73, Illner
1992:42). Although theoreticallythere should have been no room for local
and regional interestrepresentationwithinthe system,in the realityit consti-
tuted its major characteristic(Illes 1993).
Neither was the systemof territorialgovernmententirelystatic during the
fortyyears of communist rule. In each of the countries several reformsteps
were introduced, intended to adapt the system of territorialgovernmentto
a shiftingpolitical climate as well as to newly emergingfunctionalneeds. The
reformsfeaturedboth centralistand decentralisttendencies.For example, the
Czechoslovak reformof 1961, the Polish reformof 1973-1975 and the Hun-
garian reformof 1984 have fundamentallychanged the territorialstructureof
public administration,contributingto its centralization.3On the other hand,
some other reformsintroduced modest elements of decentralization and de-
mocratization. Yet the changes were never such that would touch upon
fundamentals of the system. Still, discussions on the contours of a serious

2 Coulson remarkedthat "The centralized Stalinistsystemgraduallycollapsedinto

something moreakinto a network ofbaronialfiefs,
consistingofparty bosseseachengaged in
thepursuitoftheirownends."This,inhisopinion,reflects a politicalculture
thathas older
rootsthancommunism in somecountriesofEast and CentralEurope(Coulson1995b: 9).
J lhe Czechoslovak relormoi 1960introduced a newadministrative of
regionalization
thecountry, reducing thenumberofregional -levelunits(districts
and regions)and increas-
ing theirsize, and shiftedmanycompetences to the ministries.The Polish reformof
1973-1975and the Hungarianreformof 1984 abolishedtheintermediary units,i.e. the
and introduced
districts, a two-tiersystemof territorialadministration. Also in Czecho-
slovakiaa possibility
ofintroducinga two-tier
system wasdiscussed inthe80sbutwasnever
broughtto life.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 MICHAL
ILLNER

systemicreformof territorialgovernmentwere underway in all threecountries

already some time before 1989. It would thus be misleading to view the forty
years of the Communist regime as a monolithic period without any internal
dynamismand differentiation as faras the territorialgovernmentis concerned.4
Beside this institutionaland political legacy of the Communist systemof
territorialgovernment,the post-1989 reformsfaced also a legacy of political
culturecharacterizedby
- separation of the private and the public spheres, popular distrust of
institutions,of any political representation,and of formalprocedures as well
as an unwillingnessof citizens to get involved in public matters and to hold
public office,
- paternalism consistingin the belief that local needs should be and will
be taken care of by extra-local actors, usually by higher standing authorities
- the state or the region - and that the proper strategyto have the needs
attended is to mobilize support of externalpatrons,
- the popular feeling of being chronically disadvantaged, of one's own
communitybeing neglectedby authorities,be theycentral,regional or which-
ever, and handicapped vis-a-visthe neighbors.5
This set of attitudes,in its time a functionalspontaneous reaction to the
pressures of the authoritarianregime,became a difficultheritagewhich com-
plicated the democratic reformsafter 1989 (cf. Rose et al. 1995 for its mani-
festationin local politics). It receded temporarilyduring the 1989-1990 wave
of public participation,but was partlyrestoredthereafter.
Beside the legacies of the Communist system,also the older,pre-Commu-
nist traditionsof public administrationplayed some role in the 1990 reforms.
Territorialgovernmenthas quite a long historyin all threeEast-Central Euro-
pean countries and the pre-Communistsystemhas been an inspirationfor the
reformers.In the territorieswhich belonged to the formerAustro-Hungarian
monarchy(Czech Lands, Hungary, Galicia), modern territorialadministration
was founded in 1862. With modifications,this systemwas maintained in both
countriesuntil 1945 and it served again as the point of referencein the recent
reforms.In Poland, which was partitioneduntil 1918 between the threeneigh-
boring imperialpowers, elementsof the Austro-Hungarian,Prussian and Rus-
sian legal systems co-existed after re-unificationuntil the 30s. And it were
mostly the Austrian and the German systems of territorialadministration
which inspired the reformof 1990.

4 Theterritorialstructureofpublicadministration inEastCentralEuropein 1989,at the

end oftheCommunist era,was thefollowing: In CzechRepublic thereexisteda three-tier
system ofterritorial
government - villagesandtowns,
(1. Municipalities altogether 4,104units,
- 75 units,3. Regions- 7 unitsplusthecapital).Hungary
2. Districts had a two-tier system
- villages,
(1. Municipalities jointvillages,greatvillages,jointgreatvillages,towns,joint
town-villagemunicipalities,countytowns,jointtowns,altogether 1,542units),.2. Regions
- counties,19 units).In Polandthereweretwotiers(1. Municipalities - rural,urban,joint
urban-rural,2,383units,2. Regions- "voivodships," 49 units.
5 Thispoliticalcultureis theproductofa muchlongerdevelopment thanjusttheforty
yearsof the Communist regime.In the Czech Lands, it was also shapedby the Nazi
occupation, by theinter-war democraticregimeand by thelongexperience of suppressed
nationalexistencewithintheHabsburgempire.A greater partofthishistorical experience
consistedin copingwithexternal ofsomekindand adaptingto them.
pressures

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 29

Expectations Toward Decentralization

The years 1988-1990 when the reformswere contemplatedand theirfirststage

implementedwere the time of euphoric expectations concerning democratiz-
ation, reparation of earlierinjusticeand the fulfillment of diverse political and
social ideals and ambitions. Many such expectations and values were asso-
ciated with the reformof public administrationand some of them influenced
its concept.6
Localism, regionalismand communitarianism were among such influential
streams.Their roots were different:
- localism7, regionalism and communitarianismwere an ingredientin the
thinkingof some groups among anti-communistopposition who had conceiv-
ed the futurepost-communistsociety as composed of differentkinds of self-
-governingunits applying direct democracy and thus escaping bureaucratiz-
ation as well as the traps of party politics;
- some anti-Communist opposition groups, particularlyin Poland after
Jaruzelski'scoup of 1980, had hoped that the change of the regimemay start
from the local level, because the top-down process seemed forlorn;
- localism was reaction of the population and of the local elites to the
centralismapplied by the pre-1989 regime,particularlyto its effortto stream-
line the settlementstructureby a reckless application of the central place
system;8many rural municipalitieslost theiradministrativestatus since the 60s
as amalgamations were forced upon them from above antagonizing their
inhabitants;
- localism,regionalismand otherformsof
stressingthe territorialdimension
of social organizationwere as well a reactionto the tendencyof the Communist
regimeto enforcethe economic organizations as the backbone of social life;
- old territorialfeuds9and perceivedinjustices
(many of themoriginatedstill
in the pre-Communisttimes)concerningthe acknowledgementand boundariesof
administrativeareas, the seats of local and regional governments,fuelled the
localisticand regionalisticattitudes.The reformwas viewedby local and regional
elites as an opportunityto re-open and re-negotiatesuch old issues;
- one root of localism was a (conservative) reaction to the modernization
processes and their concomitants; this reaction has been expressed in the
6 Bothforideologicalandpragmatic reasons,theprojectofa "self-governingRepublic"
was one ofthekeyconcepts in theprogram ofthePolish"Solidarity" movement in the80s.
Self-governing structureshad to be establishedwhereverpossible- in theenterprisesas well
as in theterritorialunits- thesubjectivity of whichhad to be strengthened (cf.Benzler
1994:315-317).Based on a morephilosophical thiskindofthinking
grounding, was close
to thegroupofCzechoslovak dissidentintellectuals
groupedaroundVaclavHavel.
7 Highexpectations towardthesocialand politicalimpactof localismwerefrequently
expressed in thelate 80s and early90s by Polishsocialscientistsgroupedin theresearch
program"Local Poland."Cf.thecontributions in Jalowiecki
1989.
8 In the Czech Republic,all settlements werecategorized in 1971 accordingto their
centrality intofivecategories and foreach categorya certainlevelof development was
foreseen. Housingconstruction was regulated to complywiththecategorization.In thecase
oftheleastpreferred category of settlementstheirdevelopment had to be suppressed and
gradualdepopulation was expected.
9 B. Jalowieckiin hisstudyon the1990Polishlocalelections mentions severalexamples
ofsuchancientand persistent territorial
feuds(Jalowiecki1990:136-137).

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 ILLNER
MICHAL

radical ecological thinkingand the social movementsassociated with it, in the

"small is beautiful" ideology, anti-urbanand ruralistvalues etc.
- among expectationswhich shaped attitudestoward the reformwere also
those concerningits supranational "European" dimension.All threecountries
of East Central Europe endeavor to be integratedinto West European inter-
national and supranational institutions,the European Union in the firstplace.
It is acknowledged that structuraladaptation of these countries to the West
European standards is one of the most importantprerequisitesto successful
integration.As far as the territorial-administrativestructuresof these coun-
tries are concerned, it has been frequentlymentioned that particularly the
regional level should be designed so as to be compatible with the regions in
West Europe and to have the discretionsto associate and compete with them
in transnational structuresof inter-regionalcooperation and to participate in
European regional programmes.These "European" ambitions and the vision
of the future"Europe of the regions" have thus produced another strong set
of expectationsconcerningthe decentralizingeffectsof the reform.
Localism and regionalismwere manifestedby strong desire for local and
regional autonomy10 and self-government, by the high value attributed to
local communityand thingslocal and territorialin general. After 1989, local-
ism and regionalism generated high (and often unrealistic) expectations to-
ward the potential benefitsof decentralization,particularlyof local self-gov-
ernment(cf. below about the "myths" of local self governmentas theywere
identifiedby G. Gorzelak).

Political Context of the Decentralization

As already mentioned, the democratizingand decentralizingreformsof terri-

torial government,or rather their firststage,11were an essential component
part of the over-all political transformationin East Central Europe after1989
and theyfollowed closely afterthe regimechange. Expediencywas an import-
ant situational factorin the implementationof the reformmeasures: the need
to build a new system of territorialadministrationin the post-communist
countriesof East Central Europe was viewed as a political task that cannot be
postponed. A delay would have inflictedupon economic and political compo-
nents of the transformation.
The reformsand the new local elections were intended to facilitate dis-
placement of the old local and regional political elites and thus to undermine

10In theCzechRepublic,theissueofregionalautonomy wasraisedafter1989byMoravian

politicalmovements and parties.Moraviais theEasternpartof theCzechRepublicthat
usedtohaveconsiderableautonomy within
theformer CzechKingdom. Thebackground ofthe
notethnic.
claimis regional, In discussions
concerningthereformofregional-level
government,
thesepartiesdemandedthatMoraviabecomesan autonomous administrative
andpolitical
unit
andthatitshouldbe calleda "land."Thiswassupposedto restorethehistorical
statusofthis
region.Suchaspirationshavenotfoundsympathy inthegovernment whichfearedthatthe
Czech-Slovak schismmaybe replayed in thecase ofMoravia.
11We prefer to viewthemeasuresof 1990as thefirststageof a morecomprehensive
reform ofterritorial
administrationwhichcontinued inthesubsequent yearsandhasnotyet
beenfinished.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DECENTRALIZATION
TERRITORIAL 31

remnants of the Communist power in the provinces.12Also, the reformshad

a strongsymbolical meaning, as theywere a way to legitimizethe new power,
to demonstratethat "things have moved away fromthe previous circumstan-
ces." Little or no time was, therefore,afforded for testing optimum sol-
utions,13and the risk of wrong steps was consequentlyhigh. Political concerns
were primaryand the administrativeand economic rationalitywere of second-
ary importance in this context.
While the over-all function which the reforms fulfilledin the political
transformationwas more-or-lessthe same in the individual East Central Euro-
pean countries, the more immediate situational contexts of the reformwere
differentin each of them.
In Hungary the reformwas preceded by several years of discussions and
preparatorylegislativework that took place since 1987, still under the Com-
munist regime, and was supported by the reformwing of the Communist
Party (Peteri and Szabo 1991, Wollmann 1995: Chapter III), as well as by
relativelybold reformattemptsof the regime.The post-Communistreformof
territorialgovernmentwas a continuous, negotiated and relativelywell pre-
pared one, implementedmostlyby consensus. It was marked by a well elabor-
ated economic component.
Differentwas the situationin Poland where the reformwas a battleground
between the opposition and the Communist authorities.Establishing a "self-
-governingRepublic" was a programmaticgoal of the "Solidarity" movement
in its struggle against the Communist regime in the 80s - cf. Benzler
1994 : 315-317. It was the strategyof the opposition to erode the regimefrom
the bottom level. The ideas concerning the system of local self-government
were developed in the discussions among intellectualsduringthe 80s and were
supported by numerous empirical studies undertakenwithinthe research pro-
gramme "Local Poland." Democratization of local governmentsand freelocal
elections were among the key issues in the 1988/89 "Round Table" negoti-
ations between Solidarity and the Communist authorities.While the negoti-
ations on this issue ended in a stalemate, they helped to clearly define the
position of "Solidarity." This helped to prepare agenda for the new Senate
which was democraticallyelected in mid-1989 and immediatelybegan to draft
the new legislation on local self-government (Benzler 1994 : 318).
A stilldifferentcase was the Czech Republicwhere any serious steps toward
decentralization were taken only after the fall of the Communist regime in
November 1989. Before that time,discussions among expertsand intellectuals
took place, criticallymotivated researchof the local administrationwas under-
taken (cf. Illner and Jungmann 1988, Premusova 1989), some half-hearted

12Abolitionof theprovincialtierofgovernment in Czechoslovakia

in 1990mayserve
as an example.Its mainpurposewas political- to uprootthestrongCommunist establish-
mentin theprovinces. In termsofadministrative thisstepwasnotjustified.
rationality The
regionaltierof government is missing as a properlevelfortheimplementation of several
publicadministrationagendas(e.g. theprotection of environment,regionalplanning, ad-
ministrationofhigher-orderhealthservices and others).
As mentioned, therewas a difference betweenthethreecountries in termsof the
preparationofthereform.In Hungary, withitsrelatively
liberal serious
atmosphere, discussions
aboutthereform beganas earlyas 1987,inPolandthediscussion followedoneyearlater.In
Czechoslovakia,thereform had to be preparedwithina fewmonthsin 1990.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 MICHAL
ILLNER

ameliorations of the territorialgovernmentwere made by the Communist

authorities, yet no consistent reform policy was either formulated or im-
plemented. The reason was the rigidityof the regime which, after the oc-
cupation of the country by the Warsaw Pact armies in 1968, was much
more hardline than regimesin the other two countries.There was no thawing
period after 1968 which would allow to open the decentralization issue.
It has been stated that among the three countries of East Central Europe
Czechoslovakia was the least prepared for institutionalreformin 1989 (Davey
1995a: 42) and its preparation had to be compressed into the nine months
between the fall of the Communist regime and the new local government
legislation of September 1990.

The UnfinishedTerritorialReforms

The post-Communistreformsof territorialgovernmenttook place in all East

Central European countries in 1990 and several completing steps have fol-
lowed since then. Main aim of the reformswas to break away from the
soviet-typesystemof territorialadministrationand to institutea democratic
local government.Decentralization, deregulation and de-etatizationof public
administrationwere theirdeclared dominant aims. Territorialself-government
was introduced in urban and rural municipalities (in Hungary also on the
regional level) and separated from public administration.The reform has
instituteda new structureof municipal organs and a new regulation of re-
sources. Democratic local elections were held in 1990 and new local govern-
ments were formed.14

14The newsystemofterritorial government in theCzechRepublicwas described and

analyzedbya numberofsocialscientists, notablybyBaldersheim etal. 1996c,Davey1995a,
Dostal and Kara 1992,Dostal and Hampl1993,Hendrych 1993,Hesse 1995a,b, c, Hesse
and Goetz 1993/1 994b,Illner1991a,b, Kara and Blazek1993,Local Governments 1994,
Pomahac 1993,Vidlakova1993,Wollmann1994. As forthe pre-1990systemof local
administration seethebriefinformation in Dostal and Kara 1992,Diner1991a,Vidlakova
andZarcky1989.Someoftheabovecontributions belongto the"greyzone"literature that
is notdistributed through commercial networks.
Socialscienceliterature on theHungarian reform ofterritorial
government is abundant,
although- just as in the case of the CzechRepublic- a partof it are the"greyzone"
publications. Withoutany ambitionto be exhaustive, we list some of the Englishand
Germanwritten sources:Agh and Kurtan1995. Balderheim et al. 1996,Davey 1995b,
Hajdu 1993,Hesse 1993,1995a,1995b,Hesseand Goetz1992/93, Horvath1991and 1994,
Hies1993,Kaltenbach1990,Lengyel1993,Local 1994,Navracsics1995,Peteri1991b,Peteri
and Szabo 1991,Szabo 1990and 1992),Wollmann1994,Wollmann forthcoming.
In literature,
thePolishreform ofterritorialgovernment is probably themostfrequently
analyzedand commented upon amongthepostcommunist reforms in East CentralEuro-
pean countries. Thisis due moreto thedramaticcircumstances underwhichthechanges
werefirstnegotiated duringtheRoundTable discussions, to theimportance attributedby
Solidarity's to transformation
strategists on the local-leveland to the largenumberof
scholars(bothdomesticand foreign)monitoring the Polishscene,thanto a particular
comprehensiveness or consistence of the Polishreform(in thisrespectthe uncontested
primacy belongsto Hungary).We mentionsomesocialsciencecontributions commenting
on thePolishdevelopments: Baldersheim et al. 1996c,Benzler1994,Cieleckaand Gibson
1995,Gorzelak1995,Gorzelakand Mularczyk1991,Grochowski and Kowalczyk1991,

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DECENTRALIZATION
TERRITORIAL 33

The three territorialreformshad many common traits, but they as well

differin many respects.It is the parallel effortof all threecountries to get rid
of theircommon totalitarianheritageand to establish a democratic territorial
administration,theircultural and social proximityand also theirpartlyshared
historieswhich explain the commonalties. It is the differentgeographies, dif-
ferentnational brands of Communism,different circumstancesof exitingfrom
Communism and also the divergent elements of their cultures and social
systemswhich account for the differences.
In all three countriesthe most successfulpart of the public administration
reformwas that concerning local government.Establishment of local self-
-governmentsin villages and towns, two rounds of democratic local elections
(in 1990 and again in 1994), increased local activism as well as the generally
approving attitudesof citizenstoward the new local authoritieswitnessto this
fact. Sociological surveysindicated that confidence in the new local govern-
ments and satisfactionwith their activitywere rather strong (at least during
the firstyears afterthe reform).15Yet, two major issues have been leftunresol-
ved by the reformmeasures: extendingdecentralizationto the regional level
(particularlyin Czech Republic and Poland) and dealing with territorialfrag-
mentation on the local level (particularlyin Czech Republic and Hungary):
1. While that part of the reformwhich dealt with the local governments
was a success, the same cannot be said about the reform of the regional
(intermediate) level government.Much fewer innovations were introduced
here and the old administrativestructuresand areas were mostly preserved.
Without this issue being solved, territorialdecentralization cannot be con-
sidered as completed.
2. Another problematic aspect of the decentralizationhas been territorial
fragmentationin Czech Republic and Hungary. The splittingof existingmu-
nicipalities into smaller independentunits fulfilledlocal ambitions, enhanced
local initiatives and local feelings. It was an understandable and, perhaps,
unavoidable component of the democratizationprocess. But fragmentation,at
the same time, became or can soon become a source of major problems and,
unless compensated, may jeopardize the success of the reform.
Let us brieflylook at the situation in the three individual countries of the
region as far as the two above problems are concerned.

Hesse 1993,1995a,1995b,Hesse (ed.) 1993,Hesse and Goetz 1993/94a, Jalowiecki 1989,

Jalowiecki and Swianiewicz1991,Local Governments 1994,Maurel1989,Regulska1993a,
1993b,1995,Regulskiand Kocon 1994,Swianiewicz 1991a,1991c,1992,Taras 1993,Wol-
lmann1994,Wollmannforthcoming.
15In spiteof some fluctuations, citizenstendto have confidence in the new local
authoritiesandhavebeenmostlysatisfied withtheiractivity.In CzechRepublictheratioof
thosewho have confidence in local governments to thosewho havenotwas 59: 26 at the
end of 1995.Local governments enjoya relatively highconfidencecomparedwithother
politicalinstitutions
(thedata arefromthecurrent surveysoftheCzechInstitute forPublic
OpinionResearch).In Polandthe sameindicatorwas about 65: 30 and self-government
authoritieswereamongtheinstitutions thatenjoyedthegreatest publicconfidence(data of
the Polish State Centrefor Public OpinionInvestigations, quoted afterCichockiand
Cielecka1995:190,timeof thesurveys is not indicated).As forsatisfaction,
Czechdata
indicated thattheratioofthosesatisfied withlocal authorities
to unsatisfied
was 50: 26 in
1994(datafromtheCzechpartoftheISSP 1994module).

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 MICHAL
ILLNER

Czech Republic16

The most importantmissingcomponent in the transformationof public sector

is the still absent reform of the intermediatelevel of governmentand the
establishmentof the regional (provincial) governmentsand administrations
(Hesse 1995c, Baldersheim and Illner 1996b). While formerregional (provin-
cial) governmentsand administrationswere abolished in 1990 (a step that, in
the retrospective,seems too hasty and, perhaps, not quite inevitable), the old
systemof districtstate administrationhas remained largelyintact.The admin-
istrativebodies of the former "District National Committees" now operate
under the new label of "district offices," but with no elected counterparts.
District officesthus tend to become uncomfortablystrongarms of the central
governmentand vehicles of centralism.On the other hand, the higher-level
regional government(of the order of the formerregions (provinces) is missing,
although the establishment of "higher-level territorialgovernment units"
- "provinces or lands" has been foreseen by the Constitution of the Czech
Republic of 1992.
It was argued (Hesse 1995c: 7-16, Zarecky 1996) that the absence of re-
gional (provincial) governmentis detrimentalboth for functional as well as
normative reasons: 1. There is a number of regional problems which cannot
be properlytreated at the districtlevel and need a wider territorialframework
- for instance many environmentalissues and issues of
spatial planning.
2. The absence of regional-leveladministrationjustifiesexistence of the "de-
cos" (deconcentrated agencies of the central government)which complicate
the inter-governmental relations and partlyduplicate the existingdistrictoffi-
ces (Hesse 1995a). 3. Moreover, the reform of public administrationwas
designed as a systemincluding also the upper tier of territorialself-govern-
ment, and without this element its architectureis incomplete. 4. The provi-
sional situation when an integralpart of the Constitutionfails to be enacted
questions the authority and legitimacyof the present arrangement,creates
a state of lability and may induce legal nihilism. 5. The absence of regional-
-level self-governmentcontributes to the growth and over-load of central
bureaucracies and to excessive etatization of the public sphere. 6. Unsatisfied
regional interestsaccumulate, creatinga politicallyexplosive situation.
While options have already been formulated,their analyses performed
and several alternativepieces of legislationdrafted,all the above issues are still
contested on the political arena, without conclusive results. Political will has
been missingto make a decision.

16Thereform oflocal governmentandterritorialadministrationwasperformed in 1990

andlocalelectionswereheldinNovember 1990.Mainaimofthereform wasto breakaway
fromthesoviet-type system ofterritorial
administrationand to institute
a democraticlocal
government. Publicadministrationwas separatedfromthe self-government of territorial
units.The existing
three-levelsystemoftheNationalCommittees was abolishedand sub-
stituted
bya two-tier divisionoftheCzechRepublic,withthethirdtierpending.In urban
and ruralmunicipalities
territorial
self-governmenthas beenintroduced are
(municipalities
theonlylevelonwhichtheterritorialself-governmenthas beenestablished).Thereform has
a newstructure
instituted ofmunicipal organsand a newregulation ofresources.Firstlocal
elections
afterthefallofthecommunist regimetookplacein November 1990,thesecondin
1994.The electoral
system followedtheruleofproportional representation.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 35

Czech Lands have always had a highlyfragmentedsettlementstructureand

a correspondingly fragmentedstructureof local government. The numberof local
governments(municipalities)was more-or-lessstable duringthe firsthalf of this
centuryuntil the 50s when it began to fall, due to depopulation of rural areas,
territorialexpansion of citiesand, mainly,to forcedadministrative amalgamation
of smallerplaces. This process has been radicallyreversedsince the beginningof
the 1990s. The post-1989localism (see above), togetherwiththeliberalprovisions
of the new 1990 Act on Municipalities(enablingan easy separationof thoseparts
of the existingmunicipalitieswhichhave decided foradministrative independence)
contributedto a farreachingspontaneousfragmentation of the existingterritorial
administrativestructure.Many municipalitieswhich had been amalgamated in
the earlieryears splitagain into theiroriginalparts.The previous amalgamation
was rejected as an act of centralismby the municipalities involved and the
renewalof theirpoliticaland administrative identitywas viewedas a prioritytask
in the restorationof local democracy. Criteriaof economic and organizational
rationalitydid seldom play any role in such decisions. Table 1 shows thisrather
dramatic and uneven change. The number of municipalitiesincreased by 51%
during the period of 1989-1993 and reached 6,196 on January 1, 1993. The
process of fragmentationhas continued also after1993 (the last year forwhich
have data), though at a slower pace.

Table 1
Numberofmunicipalities
in theCzechRepublicin 1950-1993

Numberof municipalities
Year index
(previousyear=100)
1950 11,459
1961 8,726 76.1
1970 7,511 86.1
1980 4,778 63.6
1989 4,104 85.9
1991 5,768 140.5
1993 6,196 107.4
Sources:
Obyvatelstvo, a bytovy
bydlenf fondv uzemichCeskerepubliky
1961-1991.
Definitivm Scitdni
vysledky domu
lidu, a bytu
1991.
Obce-
Praha:
-analyza. Terplan Table1.
1994,
Illner
1991a:
Table1(datafor1989).

Hungary17

The Hungarian reformof territorialgovernmentwas the best prepared, the

most comprehensiveand also the most liberal among the territorialreforms
in the post-Communist East Central Europe. It was the only reformwhich

17The reformof territorial

governmentin Hungaryis the outcomeof a relatively
continualand systematic
long-lasting, workwhichcommenced
preparatory alreadybefore
1989and was madepossibleby theHungarianbrandof reform communism. The reform

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 MICHAL
ILLNER

introduced self-government on both the local and regional levels.18In spite of

that, several issues remained outstanding.
Again, as in the Czech Republic (but different in its nature),a set of problems
is clustered around the intermediary , i.e. regional-leveladministrationand the
inter-governmental coordination.Competencesof thepresentcounties,a product
of political compromise,are clearlyinsufficient and ill-defined.The competences
are substantiallysmallercomparedto what countycompetencesused to be before
the 1990 reform.This seemsto be a real problemgiventhefragmentation of local
governmentsthat counties should, at least partly,compensate by coordination
and by takingover responsibility forsupra-localservices.Moreover,theprolifer-
ation of deconcentratedstate agencies withinthe power vacuum leftafterthe
withdrawal of county governmentsstrengthensthe central state power and
contributesto segmentationof territorialadministration.
Also, similarlyas in the Czech case (see above), overcoming the conse-
quences of territorialfragmentationis one of the outstanding issues. Many
settlementsreassertedtheirrightsto local self-government in 1990, so that the
number of municipalitiesnearly doubled in a short time (from 1,607 munici-
palities prior to the reformto 3,108 in 1993). Also the causes of fragmentation
were the same as those already mentioned for the Czech case; the splittingof
municipalities was mainly reaction to the earlier forced amalgamation19To
visualize the motion of the amalgamation - separation pendulum, Table 2
shows the changing numbers of villages with own councils in 1962-1991.
For the first 25 years, the number of villages with own councils was
decreasing - most sharply at the end of the 60s; the trend was completely
reversedafter1990 and withina shorttimethe numberof independentvillages
was back where it used to be in 1962. In Hungary, settlementswere completely
freeto forma self-government authorityif theyso decided. As the result,more
than one half of the total number of municipalitiesare now small places with
less than 1,000 inhabitants.

itselfwas institutedin 1990anditsmainprinciples weresameas thosementioned abovein

thecase of CzechRepublic.However,theHungarianreform was morecomprehensive and
wentfarther thananalogicalreforms in CzechRepublicandPoland.In Davey'sopinionthe
local government legislationin Hungaryis themostliberalin Europe(Davey 1995b:58).
The reform triedto establisha systemof local government thatis non-hierarchical
and
decentralized, similarto theBritishor Scandinavian models(Szabo 1992:7-8). Anyhier-
archicalrelationshipsbetween tiersofgovernment wereabolished, powersofthe
supervisory
highertierswererestricted and local governments weregiventherightto levytheirown
taxes.It was particularly thesystem oflocal financewherethereform was veryadvanced
and elaborate.
18Davey concludedhis accountof theHungarianreform by theopinionthat"Local
government reform has gonefasterandfurther - a greatdeal further
- in Hungarythanin
the otherformersocialistcountries of Europe.Indeed,it couldbe said to be the only
country in Centraland EasternEuropewitha fullyfledgedsystemof local government
alreadyin operation"(Davey1995b: 74).
19PeteriandSzabo stressed thattheoriginalideaofamalgamation wasrational:
to create
moreefficient localadministration.
Yet,theamalgamation wasimplemented bytheCommunist
regime in a wrongwayand mistakes weremadewithgravepoliticalconsequences. The seat
villagesof joint Councilsweretoo dominantat the expenseof othersettlements. They
developed, whilethesmallvillagesdeclinedand weredepopulated, whichantagonized their
inhabitants againsttheconsolidation scheme.Cf.Peteriand Szabo 1991:74.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DECENTRALIZATION
TERRITORIAL 37

Table 2
Numberof villageswithownCouncilsin Hungary1962-1991

Numberof municipalities
Year index
(previousyear=100)
1962 2,854
1966 2,292 80.3
1973 984 42.9
1977 747 76.9
1988 663 88.7
1991 2,902 437.7
Source: andSzabo1991
Peteri :73

The difficulties caused by fragmentation are describedbelow - one can doubt

ifthe small municipalitiesare reallycapable of performing all thefunctionswhich
theywere assigned by the generousreform.Hungarian legislationprovided for
severalmethods how to cope withfragmentation(Davey 1995b : 69-70) through
inter-municipalcooperation. One of them is compulsory (the smallest local
authoritiesare requiredto set up joint administrative officeswhich are obliged to
employ qualified notaries), others are optional. It seems, however, that these
instrumentsare not applied as theyshould and that local governmentsdisplay
a rathernegative attitudetoward inter-municipalcooperation and integration
(Illes 1993 : 6). Administrative
fragmentation thusremainsto be a major problem.

Poland20

Most commentators agree that the Polish reform of territorialgovernment

was halted half-wayand that its continuation is pending (Hesse 1995a: 254).
While on the local level, the transformationof governmenthas been mostly
completed and the new local governmentscan be considered successful, the
situation on the intermediarylevel needs furtherattention.
The sore point of the Polish reformis the intermediarylevel where two
main mutually interconnectedissues are on the agenda. One is the reformof
contemporaryprovinces (voivodships) established in 1975 by the Communist
government,mainly for political reasons, and more-or-lessuntouched by the
1990 reform.21Reduction of theirnumberand increase of theirterritorieshave

20As elsewhere inEastCentral Europe,alsoinPolandthemainthrust ofterritorial

reform
wasto establishlocalself-government
onthemunicipal level.Thispriority
wassupported bythe
"Solidarity's"programmatic idea ofa "self-governing
society"thathadtobe builtinPoland
bottom-up, beginning at thelocallevelandproceeding therefromto theregionalandcentral
levels(Benzler1994:315-316,322-323).The reform was instituted
by theAct on Local
Self-Government fromMarch1990,and a packageof otherbillsthatfollowed.
21The Polish 1990 relormol territorial government was a half-reform" sincethe
beginning: its focuswas local self-government,whileprovincialadministration was left
aside.S. Benzlerexplainsthatthiswas causedbytheconstraints whichtheopposition faced
duringthe "Round Table" talkswiththe Communist government. This halfheartedness
constitutesup to nowthemainweaknessofthereform process(Benzler1994: 322-323).

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 MICHAL
ILLNER

been proposed (Hesse 1995a). In re-drawingboundaries of provinces, it is

recalled that more attentionshould be paid to historical traditionsand terri-
torial economic relations. The other issue is a plan to re-introducedistricts
(powiats) as a second level of territorialself-governmentand as another tierof
territorialdivision of the state. Their establishmentwas already announced in
1993 but later on, afterparliamentaryelections,withdrawnby the new govern-
ment, togetherwith the pilot programmeintended to introducethe firststage
of the reform.This, understandably,caused an outcryamong adherentsof the
reformand created an atmosphere of instabilityas far as furtherdevelopment
of territorialadministrationis concerned. Recently (in 1995/96), the district
issue was re-opened during the draftingof a new constitution,so far without
conclusive results.In addition, contradictionsand ambiguitiesexist in legisla-
tion as far as the delimitation of responsibilitiesand cooperation between
municipalitiesand provinces are concerned (Benzler 1994 : 323-324).
Unlike in the Czech Republic and Hungary, fragmentationof local gov-
ernmentshas not been much of a problem in Poland. The number of munici-
palities remained more-or-lessstable during the last twentyyears (2,452 units
in 1993 compared to 2,375 units in 1975) and a wholesale disintegration
did not accompany the reform.Also, the size of municipalitiesis much larger
than in the two other countries and is more acceptable in terms of the sus-
tainabilitycriteria. Poland, a countrywith the population four times larger
than that of the Czech Republic, had less than one half of the Czech number
of municipalities.

The Decentralization- CentralizationCleavage

In all three countries it was understood that a second stage of the territorial
reformwill follow which will tackle the regional government.Yet, this has not
happened and the continuation of the reformis still pending. The extended
provisoriumas far as the regional-leveladministrationis concerned, does not
permitto finalizethe over-all architectureof the territorialgovernmentreforms
and perpetuatesthe existenceof many gaps and vague points in the legislation
as well as a mess in inter-governmental relations.As mentioned,it also creates
political tension fuelled by dissatisfiedregional elites.
At least fourreasons of thisdevelopmentcan be mentioned:1. The intermedi-
ary authoritieswere the most discreditedelementof the Communistterritorial
governmentand were the targetof fiercestcriticismafterthe regimecollapsed;
resentmentsstillblock theirreconstruction.2. The momentumof the territorial
reformwas lost aftermost of thepost-revolutionaryenthusiasmhad been spent
on the reformof local governments;timeis no more on the side of decentraliz-
ation. 3. The reformof regional-leveladministrationhas been perceived by
political actors as more relevantforthe distributionof politicalpower than was
the local reformand it became, therefore,much more disputed; conflictshave
lead eventuallyto a political stalemate that blocked fartherprogress. 4. It is
difficultto designtheregionaltierof public administration unlessthe shape of the
local tierhas been stabilized. Given the highlyfragmentedand, therefore,still
unstablestructureof local government in Czech Republic and Hungary,itmay be
premature to fix the regional-tier administration in these two countries.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 39

Decentralists would argue, in addition, that the new central governments,

irrespectiveof their political shade, intentionallydelayed or even torpedoed
continuation of the reformon the intermediarylevel because of fearsthat they
will have to give up some of their prerogatives and will lose control of the
country's development (cf. Regulska 1995). As noted by Baldersheim and
Illner in the case of Czech Republic, the resentmentof the Czech ruling
conservative party against continuation of the territorialreformand against
institutingregional-level governmentshas a deeper political and ideological
background: Pragmaticallymotivatedfears of societalfragmentationand loss of
central control in a still transformingsociety have been mixed with ideological
argumentscastingdoubts on the relevanceof anypolitical institutions thatstand
between a citizen and the state, apart from political parties (Baldersheim and
Illner 1996b). Fears that extension of territorialself-government to the inter-
mediate level could pose a challenge to the currentdistributionof political
power in the countryis one of the factorsthat stand in the background of the
apprehensiveattitude(Hesse 1995a : 15). Some authors, as well as some politi-
cians (eg. J. Regulski and M. Kulesza in Poland, J. Jezek and J. Kalvoda in
Czech Republic) view the missing regional-leveldecentralizationin East Cen-
tral Europe as a real "stumbling block" in the progress of post-Communist
transformation.
However, a tendency towards maintaining some degree of centralism or
even towards certain re-centralizationcan be observed in the region. Beside
doctrinal arguments,and the not-so-surprisingbehavior of bureaucratic struc-
tures,this tendencyhas likelythe followingfourmain reasons stemmingfrom
the specific situation of the transformingcountries(cf also Elander 1995):
- the need of the central governmentto maintain control of the economic
and political development in the still volatile situation of post-Communist
transformation,
- the need to control distributionof scarce resources in the circumstances
of transformationalrecession or outrightcrisis,
- specifically,the need to control economic and social differences
among
territorialunits so as to prevent marginalization of some regions and the
resultingsocial and political tensions endangeringthe new regime,
- policies aiming at maintaining of national
integrationin the general
atmosphere of societal fragmentation,concomitant of the transformation
processes.
Neither of the above factorscan be easily dismissed and the argumentsfor
maintaining a certain level of centralismand even applying some corrective
re-centralizationin East Central Europe seem to be founded. Its rationale can
be well supported by illustratingthe negative consequences of the fragmenta-
tion of local governmentsthat took place in Czech Republic and Hungary
after 1989 (see also above).
Exaggerated and romantic localism (and regionalism) of the pre-1989
movements as well as exaggerated ambitions of local elites during the early
transitionperiod generatedmany unrealisticexpectationstoward the potential
benefits of territorialdecentralization,territorialautonomy and self-govern-
ment and contributedto fragmentationof the territorialstructureof govern-
ment that took place particularlyin the Czech Republic and in Hungary (see
above) after1990. Commentingon the Polish situation,G. Gorzelak identified

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 MICHAL
ILLNER

six "myths" on local governmentin the post-socialist countries (Gorzelak

1992) which contributedto false expectations: 1. the myth of local autonomy
(unrealisticexpectations toward the potential of local autonomy, rejection of
any central inferencein local affairs),2. the myth of prosperity(belief that
economic autarkywill guaranteeprosperityof local communities),3. the myth
of property(belief that restorationof municipal propertywill in itselfguaran-
tee local development),4. the mythof omnipotence (beliefthat municipalities
are both entitled and capable of deciding all local problems by themselves),
5. the myth of eagerness (belief that zeal can compensate for knowledge and
skills in local politics and administration),6. the mythof stabilization (belief
that stable conditions is what local governmentsshould and can attemptto
reach). Gorzelak's observations, inspired by the Polish scene, can be easily
generalized to all three countriesof the region.
As pointed by Illner 1991b, Barlow 1992, Hesse 1993 and 1995a, Davey
1995a, Erlander 1995 and others,the tiny local governmentswhich were the
resultof the spontaneous "explosion" of the pre-1989 territorialstructure(see
above for figures)are as a rule too small to functionproperlyas political and
as economic units. They cannot develop a differentiated political systemwith
a plurality of interestsand actors and are, therefore,prone to clientelism.
What in the small communitiesseems to be a positive neighborhood integra-
tion, might in realitybecome an oligarchic rule of few families or of a small
bunch of local influentials. Small communities cannot, as a rule, mobilize
sufficientpolitical and organizational resources to launch more ambitious
developmental projects and they are far too weak partners in negotiations
with regional state offices.Their weakness facilitatescentralisttendencies.Still
more problematic is the small size for socio-economic development.Economy
of scale cannot be achieved withinthe frameworkof verysmall communities,
too narrow municipal boundaries constrain or impede provision of municipal
serviceswhich are thus frequentlyduplicated and difficultto coordinate. With
a fragmentedstructure,inter-municipaldifferencesin the provision of services
increase and it is difficultto attain equity (Barlow 1992:62-63).
Overcomingterritorialfragmentationof local governmentswill be probably
one of theprerequisitesto further successof the reform.The effectivenessof local
authoritiesin the provision of services and stimulationof local development,
which depends on their size, may prove criticallyrelevant for this success.
However, consolidation of local governmentsinvolving some degree of re-
-centralization cannot be achievedwithina shortperiod and it cannot be decreed;
any externallyimposed amalgamationwould be politicallyuntenable.Territorial
administrativesystemsin East Central Europe have to put up with a prolonged
existence of small local governments.The issue is to strike a proper balance
betweentheparticipatoryaspect of local government whichspeaks forthe smaller
municipalities,and the aspect of economic and administrativeefficacyof local
governmentsas well as representativedemocracy which favours larger units.
A feasible way to overcome the extremefragmentationis to design, encourage
and supportinter-municipal cooperation (cooperationtargetedon specificgoals,
establishmentof common organs,of special districtsetc.) whichmightlaterlead
to genuine amalgamation and to stimulatesuch cooperation by state subsidies,
fiscal policy, advice etc. Some of these methods can be made obligatory.
Hungarian legislation is quite inspirativein this respect.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 41

Conclusion

Neither decentralizationnor centralizationof governmentare, of course, ab-

solute values in post-communisttransformation.One-sided approaches - the
centralists one, be it a legacy of the formerregime,or a temptationof the new
power-holders,or the decentralisticones, be it dreams of the communitarians
and greens, or a war cry of localists and regionalists,are hardly acceptable.
The levels of decentralization and centralizationhave to be weighed against
functionaland contextualfactorsand theiroptimum,ratherthan maximum or
minimum,is to be sought.
Decentralization is, indeed, a stumblingblock of the post-communisttrans-
formationin East CentralEurope, yetin a more complex sense than it is usually
assumed: both an insufficientas well as an excessive decentralizationare the
problem. On the regional level, decentralization is still an issue and further
decentralizingreformsare expected.On the local level,the excessesof decentrali-
zation should be corrected.

References

Agh, A., S. Kurt an. 1995."'Parliaments' and 'OrganizedInterests'"in CivilSociety:

Local Government Legislationand Electionsin Hungary(1990-1994)."Budapest
PapersonDemocratic TransitionNo. 153.HungarianCenterforDemocracyStudies
Foundation.
Baldersheim, H., M. Illner, A. Offerdal, L. Rose, P. Swianiewicz, (eds.).
1996. Local Democracyand theProcessof Tranformation in East-Central Europe.
Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press.
Baldersheim, H. and M. Illner. 1996a."Local Democracy; The Challenges ofInsti-
tution-Building." In: H. Baldersheim et al. (eds.).Local Democracy and theProcess
ofTransformation inEast-Central Europe.Boulder-SanFrancisco-Oxford: Westview
Press,Chapter1.
Baldersheim, H. and M. Illner. 1996b."VirtuousCircles:Local Democracyin
a Post-Communist Environment." In: H. Baldersheim et al. (eds.).Local Democracy
and theProcessof Tranformation in East-Central Europe.Boulder-SanFrancisco-
-Oxford:Westview Press,Chapter7.
Baldersheim, H., P. Swianiewicz, G. Blaas, Horvath, and M. Illner. 1996.
"The New Institutions of Local Government in East-Central Europe:A Compari-
son." In: H. Baldersheim, M. Illner,A. Offerdal, L. Rose, P. Swianiewicz (eds.).
Local Democracy andtheProcessofTranformation inEast-Central Europe.Boulder-
- San Francisco-Oxford: Westview Press,Chapter2.
Barlow, M. 1992. "Government in Transition: Some Commentson the Czechoslovak
Situationin the Contextof Practicesand Conceptsin WesternDemocracies."In:
P. Dostal etal. (eds.).Changing TerritorialAdministration inCzechoslovakia. Amster-
dam: University of Amsterdam, CharlesUniversity, Czech Academyof Sciences,
pp. 61-70.
Bennett, R.J. 1992. "EuropeanAdministrative Reforms:DimensionsforAnalysisof
Diversity."In: P. Dostal,etal. (eds.).Changing Territorial
Administration inCzechos-
lovakia.Amsterdam: UniversityofAmsterdam, pp. 139-148.
Bennett, R.J. 1993. Local Government in theNew Europe.London and New York:
BelhavenPress.
Bennett, R.J. (ed.). 1994.Local Government andMarketDecentralization: Experiences in
Industrialized
, Developing, andFormerEasternBloc Countries. UnitedNationsUni-
versityPress:Tokyo.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 MICHAL
ILLNER

Benzler, S. 1994."Transformation als Dauerzustand? Die Entwicklung derterritorialen

Selbstverwaltung in Polen,"In: U. Bullmann(Hrsg.).Die Politikderdritten Ebene.
Baden-Baden: NomosVerlagsgesellschaft. S. 310-330.
Cichocki, R. and A. Cielecka. 1995."Local Communities and Local Self-Govern-
mentin Poland:A RegionalCase Study."In: A. Coulson(ed.). Local Government in
EasternEurope.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar,pp. 186-197.
Cielecka, A. and J. Gibson. 1995."Local Government in Poland." In: A. Coulson
(ed.). Local Government inEasternEurope.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar,pp. 23-40.
Coulson, A. (ed.). 1995a.Localgovernment inEastern Europe.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar.
Coulson, A. 1995b."FromDemocratic Centralism to Local Democracy." In: A. Coulson
(ed.). Local Government inEasternEurope.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar,pp. 1-56.
Davey, K. 1995a."The Czechand the SlovakRepublics."In: A. Coulson(ed.). Local
Government inEasternEurope.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar,pp. 41-56.
Davey, K. 1995b."Local Government in Hungary."In: A. Coulson(ed.). Local Govern-
mentinEasternEurope.Cheltenham: EdwardElgar,pp. 57-75.
Dostal, P., M. Hampl. 1993."Territorial Organization ofSociety:Czechoslovak Devel-
opments."In: R.J.Bennett(ed.), 1993.Local Government in NewEurope.London
and NewYork:BelhavenPress,pp. 259-277.
Dostal, P., M. Illner, J. Kara, M. Barlow (eds.). 1992. ChangingTerritorial
Administration in Czechoslovakia.International Viewpoints. Amsterdam: University
ofAmsterdam.
Dostal, P., J. Kara. 1992."Territorial Administration in Czechoslovakia: an Overview."
In: P. Dostal,M. Illner,J.Kara, M. Barlow(eds.). Changing TerritorialAdministra-
tionin Czechoslovakia. International Viewpoints. Amsterdam: University ofAmster-
dam,pp. 17-32.
Elander, I. and M. Gustafsson (eds.).TheRe-emergence ofLocal Self-Government in
CentralEurope:theFirstExperience. Orebro:Hogskolani Orebro.
Elander, I. 1995. "BetweenCentralism and Localism.On the Development of Local
Self-Government in Post-Socialist Europe." Paper presentedat the Conference
"Democratization and Decentralization: Four Years of Local Transformation in
Centraland EasternEurope,"Krakow,August2-6, 1995.Forthcoming in Samorzqd
Tervtorialnv.
Goldsmith, "M. 1992."The FutureofBritish Local Government: Old Wine;EvenOlder
Bottles? Unpublished paperpresented at theFourthCopenhagen Conference onthe
FutureofLocal Government. February1992.
Gorzelak, G. 1992."Mythson Local Self-Government in Post-Socialist
Countries." In:
P. Dostal,M. Illner,J.Kara, M. Barlow(eds.). 1992.Changing TerritorialAdminis-
tration in Czechoslovakia:International Viewpoints. Amsterdam: University of Am-
sterdam, pp. 205-209.
Gorzelak, G. 1995. Transformacja systemowa a restrukturyzacjaregionalna[System
Transformation and theRestructuring of Regions].Warsaw:University ofWarsaw
and The UNESCO ChairofSustainable Development.
Gorzelak, G. and K. Mularczyk. 1991.PolishLocal Government Reform. Warsaw/
The Hague: Foundationin Supportof Local Democracy/International Union of
Local Authorities.
Grochowski, M. and A. Kowalczyk. 1991."EasternEuropein Transition - The
Case ofPoland."In: I. ElanderandM. Gustafsson (eds.).TheRe-emergence ofLocal
Self-Government in CentralEurope: the First Experience.Orebro: Hogskolan
i Orebro,pp. 25-49.
Hajdu ,Z. 1993."Local Government Reformin Hungary."In: R.J.Bennett. 1993.Local
Government intheNewEurope.LondonandNewYork:BelhavenPress,pp. 08-224.
Hendrych, D. 1993."Transforming Czechoslovakian PublicAdministration; Traditions
and Challenges."In: J.J.Hesse (ed.). Administrative Transformation in Centraland
EasternEurope.Oxfordand Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers,pp. 41-54.
Hesse, J.J. 1993."FromTransformation to Modernization: Administrative Changein
Centraland EasternEurope."In: J.J.Hesse (ed.). Administrative Transformation in
Central andEastern Europe.Oxford andCambridge: BlackwellPublishers,pp.219-258.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 43

Hesse,J.J.(ed.), 1993.Administrative transformation in Centraland EasternEurope.Ox-

fordand Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Hesse, J.J.1995a."PublicSectorReform in Centraland EasternEurope."In: Rebuilding
theState:PublicSectorReform inCentralandEasternEurope.Baden-Baden: Nomos
Verlagsgesellschaft.Forthcoming.
Hesse, J.J.1995b."PublicSectorReform in CentralandEasternEurope"- An Overview.
Unpublished paper.
Hesse, J.J. 1995c."Administrative Reform in theCzechRepublic."Reportpreparedfor
theGovernment oftheCzechRepublic.Oxford:CentreforEuropeanStudies,Nuf-
fieldCollege,OxfordUniversity.
Hesse, J.J., K.H. Goetz. 1992/93."Public SectorReformin Centraland Eastern
Europe III: The Case of Hungary."In: T. Ellwein,D. Grimm,J.J.Hesse,
G.F. Schuppert, (Hrsg.).Jahrbuch zurStoats- undVerwaltungswwisenschaft. Band 6,
192/93. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft,pp. 325-364.
Hesse, J.J., K.H. Goetz. 1993/94a."PublicSectorReformin Centraland Eastern
EuropeI: The Case ofPoland."In: T. Ellwein, D. Grimm, J.J.Hesse,G.F. Schuppert
(Hrsg.).Jahrbuch zurStaats-undVerwaltungswwisenschaft. Band 6, 192/93.Baden-
-Baden:NomosVerlagsgesellschaft, pp. 237-282.
Hesse, J.J., K.H. Goetz. 1993/94b. "PublicSectorReformin Centraland Eastern
EuropeII: The Case of Czechoslovakia."In: T. Ellwein,D.Grimm, J.J.Hesse,
G.F. Schuppert (Hrsg.).Jahrbuch zurStaats- undVerwaltungswwisenschaft. Band 6,
192/93.Baden-Baden: NomosVerlagsgesellschaft, pp. 283-323.
Horvath, T. 1991."The Structure oftheHungarianLocal Government: Past and Pres-
ent." In: I. Elanderand M. Gustafsson(eds.). The Re-emergence of Local Self-
-Government in CentralEurope:theFirstExperience. Orebro:Hogskolani Orebro,
pp. 85-93.
Horvath, T. 1994.PublicAdministration in Hungary. Budapest:HungarianInstitute of
PublicAdministration.
Hies, I. 1993."Efforts and Tendencies in theControlofRegionalDevelopment in Hun-
garyuntil2005."Unpublished background studyfortheEast CentralEurope2000
research project.Budapest:East CentralEurope2000project.
Illner, M. 1991a."ProblemsofLocal Government in theCzechRepublic(Past,Present
and Future)."In : G. Peteri(ed) "Eventsand Changes.The FirstStepsof Local
Transition in East-Central Europe."Local Democracy andInnovation ProjectWork-
ingPapers, pp.19-31.
Illner, M. 1991b."FirstStepsTowardLocal Democracyin the Czech Republic."In:
I. Elanderand M. Gustafsson (eds.),TheRe-Emergence ofLocal Self-Government in
CentralEurove:TheFirstExverience. Orebro.Universitv ofOrebro1991_nn.94-109.
Illner, M. 1992."Municipalities and Industrial Paternalism in a 'Real Socialist'Society."
In: P. Dostal,M. Illner,J.Kara, M. Barlow(eds.).Changing Territorial
Administra-
tionin Czechoslovakia: International Viewpoints. Amsterdam: Universityof Amster-
dam,pp. 39-48.
Illner, M. 1993."Continuity and Discontinuity. PoliticalChangein a CzechVillageafter
1989,"Czechoslovak Sociological Review, SpecialIssue,pp. 79-91.
Illner, M. and B. Jungmann. 1988.Vyzkum mestskych ndrodnich vyboru[Investigation
ofMunicipalCouncils!.Praha:Institute forStateAdministration.
Jalowiecki, B. 1989.Rozwojlokalny [Localdevelopment]. Warszawa:The University of
Warsaw,Institute forSpaceEconomv.
Jalowiecki, B. 1990.Narodziny demokracji wPolscelokalnej [TheBirthofDemocracy inthe
Local Poland].Warszawa:The University ofWarsaw,Institute forSpaceEconomy.
Jalowiecki, B., P. Swianiewicz (ed.). 1991.Migdzynadziejq. i rozczarowaniem. Samo-
rzqdterytorialny rokpo wyborach. Warszawa:Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Kaltenbach, J. 1990."Die Entwicklung derkommunalen Selbstverwaltung in Ungarn."
Jahrbuch fuerOstrecht 31, 1, pp. 77-93.
Kara, J.,J. Blazek. 1993."Czechoslovakia: regionalandlocalgovernment reform since
1989."In: R.J.Bennett(ed.). Local Government in NewEurope.Londonand New
York:BelhavenPress,pp. 246-258.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 MICHAL
ILLNER

Kuklinski, A. and Z. Jalowiecki (eds.).Local Development in Europe.Experiences

andProspects. RegionalandLocal StudiesVol. 5. Warsaw:University ofWarsaw.
Lengyel, I. 1993. "Development oflocalgovernment finance inHungary." In: R.J.Bennett.
Local Government in theNew Europe.London and New York: BelhavenPress,
pp. 225-245.
Local Governments intheCEE and CIS, 1994.1994.Budapest:Institute forLocal Govern-
mentand PublicService.
Maurel, M. C. 1989. "Administrative Reformsin EasternEurope:an Overview."In:
R. Bennett(ed.) Territory andAdministration in Europe.London:PinterPublishers,
pp. 111-123.
Navracsics, T. 1995.PublicSectorReform in HungaryIII. Changesin theIntergover-
nmental Relations(1990-1995).Budapest:HungarianCenterforDemocracyStudies
Foundation,BudapestUniversity of Economics.BudapestPaperson Democratic
Transition.
Peteri, G. (ed.). 1991a.Eventsand Changes.TheFirstStepsofLocal Transition in East-
-Central Europe.Budapest:Local Democracyand Innovation Foundation.
Peteri, G. 1991b. "Local Governments in Hungary."In: G. Peteri(ed.). Eventsand
Changes.TheFirstStepsofLocal Transition inEast-Central Europe.Budapest:Local
Democracyand Innovation Foundation, pp. 32-41.
Peteri, G., G. Szabo. 1991."LocalGovernment inHungary: Transition, RenewalandPro-
spects."In: I. ElanderandM. Gustafsson (eds.).TheRe-emergence ofLocalSelf-govern-
mentinCentral Europe:theFirstExperience. Orebro:Hogskolani Orebro,pp. 67-84.
Pomahac, R., 1993."Administrative modernization in Czechoslovakia between constitu-
tionaland economicreform." In: J.J.Hesse (ed.). Administrative Transformation in
CentralandEasternEurope.Blackwell Publishers, pp. 55-64.
Premusova, J. 1989. "LinksBetweenEnterprises and theRegionin theFramework of
Local Reproduction." Sociologicky casopis1989,No. 2, pp. 170-182(in Czech).
Regulska, J. 1993a."Local Government Reformin Centraland Eastern-Europe." In:
R.J.Bennett(ed.). Local Government in theNew Europe.Londonand New York:
BelhavenPress,pp. 183-196.
Regulska, J. 1993b."Rebuilding localgovernment inPoland."In: R.J.Bennett (ed.).Local
Government intheNewEurope.LondonandNewYork:Belhaven Press.t>t>. 197-207.
Regulska, J. 1995."Decentralization orDeconcentration: Struggle forPoliticalPowerin
Poland."Unpublished paper.
Regulski, J. and W. Kocon. 1994."FromCommunism TowardsDemocracy:Local
Government Reform in Poland."In: R.J.Bennett (ed.). Local Government andMar-
ketDecentralization: Experiences in Industrialized, Developing , and FormerEastern
Bloc Countries. UnitedNationsUniversity Press:Tokyo,pp.41-66.
Rose, L., S. Buchta, G. Gajduschek, M. Grochowski, and O. Hubacek. 1995.
Culture
"Political andCitizen Environment." In:H. Baldersheim, M. Diner, A. Offerdal,
L. Rose,P. Swianiewicz (eds.).LocalDemocracy andtheProcessofTranformation in
East-Central Europe.Boulder-SanFrancisco-Oxford: Westview Press,Chapter3.
Swianiewicz, P. 1991a."Local Government in Poland."In: G. Peteri(ed.). Eventsand
Changes.TheFirstStepsofLocal Transition inEast-Central Europe.Budapest:Local
Democracyand Innovation Foundation, pp. 42-50.
Swianiewicz, P. 1991b."Reforms ofLocal Government in CentralEuropeanCountries:
SomeDifferences and CommonIssues."In: I. ElanderandM. Gustafsson (eds.).The
Re-emergence of Local Self-government in CentralEurope:theFirstExperience.
Orebro:Hogskolani Orebro,pp. 110-116.
Swianiewicz, P. 1991c."The ReformofLocal Financesin Poland."In: G. Peteri(ed.).
Eventsand Changes.The FirstStepsof Local Transition in East-Central Europe.
Budapest:Local Democracyand Innovation Foundation, pp. 51-72.
Swianiewicz, P. 1992. The PolishExperience of Local Democracy: is Progressbeing
Made?" PolicyandPolitics20: 2, pp. 87-98.
Szabo, G. 1990."TheHungarianLocal Government inTransition." In: A. Kuklinski and
Z. Jalowiecki (eds.). Local Development in Europe.Experiences and Prospects. Re-
gionalandLocal StudiesVol. 5. Warsaw:University ofWarsaw,pp. 397-401.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TERRITORIAL
DECENTRALIZATION 45

Szabo, G. 1992."The FormsofDecentralization in a UnitaryStatewithSpecialRegard

to the Role and Functionsof Local Self-Government." PaperpreparedforIPSA
conference on Local governmental developments in Centraland EasternEurope.
Helsinki,October23-26,1992.
Tar as, W. 1993."Changesin PolishPublicAdministration 1989-1992."PublicAdminis-
tration71,pp. 13-32.
Tarkowski, J. 1983."Wladzeterenowe po reformie" [TheField Authorities Afterthe
Reform]. In: J.Wiatr.Wladzalokalnau progukryzysu [Local Government on the
Threshold ofCrisis].Warszawa:University ofWarsaw,pp. 23-76.
Taylor, P.J. 1993.PoliticalGeography. Harlow:Longman.Thirdedition.
Terplan,1994.Obyvatelstvo, bydlerna bytovy fondv uzemfch Ceskerepubliky 1961-1991.
Definitivni
vysledky scftanilidu,domua bytu.Obce - analyza[Population, Housing
and theHousingStockin theTerritories ofCzechRepublic1961-1991.Analysisof
municipalities!.
Prague:Terplan.
Terplan.1995.Obyvatelstvo, bydlerna bytovy fondv uzemichCeskerepubliky 1961-1991.
Definitivnivysledky sci'tamlidu,domua bytu1991. Sidla - analyza[Population,
Housingand the HousingStockin the Territories of Czech Republic1961-1991.
AnalysisofSettlements]. Prague:Terplan.
Vidlakova, O. 1993. "Optionsfor administrative reformin Czech Republic."In:
J.J.Hesse(ed.).AdministrativeTransformationinCentral andEasternEurope.Oxford
and Cambridge: Blackwell pp. 65-74.
Publishers,
Vidlakova, O. and P. Zarecky. 1989"Czechoslovakia: The Development of Public
Administration." In: R. Bennett(ed.) Territory
andAdministration in Europe.Lon-
don and NewYork:PinterPublishers.
Vidlakova, O. 1994."Evolutionrecente de rautonomie localeen Republiquetcheque."
In: Changements administratifset territoriaux
dansla nouvelleEurope.Bulletin de la
SocieteLanguedociene de Geographie.pp.99-110.
Wollmann, H., H. Wiesenthal and F. Bonker (eds.)1995.Transformation sozialis-
tischer AmEndedesAnfangs.
Gesellschaften. Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.
Wollmann, H. 1994.Systemwandel undStadtebauinMittel-undOsteuropa. Basel-Boston-
-Berlin:Birkhauser.
Wollmann, H. 1995. "Variation en institutioneller
Transformation in sozialistischen
Laendern:Die (Wieder-)Einfuehrung der kommunalen Selbstverwaltung in Ost-
deutschland, Ungarn,Polen und Russland."In: H. Wollmann, H. Wiesenthal and
F. Bonker(eds.). Transformationsozialistischer AmEndedesAnfangs.
Gesellschaften.
Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.
Zarecky, P. 1996. "Vyvojreformy verejnespravyv Ceske republicepo roce 1989"
[Development ofPublicAdministration Reformin theCzechRepublicafter1989).
Statnispravaa samosprava 96,No. 12/1996, pp. 20-24.

This content downloaded from 129.115.103.99 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:30:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions