IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN POLAND – RATIONALE, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Main Article Content

Dagmara Kociuba

Abstract

The objective of the article is the presentation of the practical aspect of implementation of one of the new tools of Cohesion Policy 2014–2020, namely Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) in functional urban areas (FUAs) in Poland. In the context of general rules of implementation of the instrument resulting from statutory provisions and ministry guidelines, the article presents the practical aspects of that process, including the establishment of an ITI union, the delimitation of the support area, development of the ITI strategy, and thematic and substantive scope of projects designated for financing. Moreover, the paper presents the degree of advancement of the implementation of ITIs as at the end of May 2018. The analyses permitted the identification of areas that will receive the most support and development of a catalogue of predominant investments and their beneficiaries, as well as a level of contracting of dedicated allocation of ITIs in particular FUAs. Finally, the article includes recommendations of what should be changed in the institutional, governance, and strategic programming aspect for the implementation of ITIs in the future perspective to be more effective.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kociuba, D. (2018). IMPLEMENTATION OF INTEGRATED TERRITORIAL INVESTMENTS IN POLAND – RATIONALE, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(4), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018-0038
Section
Articles

References

  1. Barca F., 2009. An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy, A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectation. Independent Report for DGRegio, European Comission, Brussels.
  2. Barca F., McCann P., Rodríguez-Pose A., 2012. The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science 52(1): 134–152.
  3. Beauchamp M., Krysztofak-Szopa J., Skala A., 2018. Polskie startupy. Raport 2018 (Polish startups. Report 2018), Fundacja Startup Poland, Warszawa.
  4. Binek J., Opravil Z., Chmelar R., Svobodova H., 2016. Cooperation and mutual relationships of cities and their hinterlands with regard to the operation of EU integrated development instruments. Quaestiones Geographicae 35(2): 59–70.
  5. Camagni R., Capello R., 2015. Rationale and design of EU Cohesion Policies in a period of crisis. Regional Science Policy & Practice 7(1): 25–47.
  6. CEC 2012. Elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014 to 2020 the European Regional Development Fund the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Part I. Commission Staff Working Document. SWD(2012) 61. Final, 14.3.2012. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels (accessed: 10 May 2018).
  7. Chłoń-Domińczak A., Dębowski H., Holzer-Żelażewska D., Maliszewska A., 2016. Vocational education and training in Europe – Poland. Cedefop ReferNet VET in Europe reports (accessed: 18 October 2018).
  8. Churski P., Kociuba D., Ochojski A., Polko A., 2017. Towards policy–place-based policy and smart specialisation. In: Kopczewska K., Churski P., Ochojski A., Polko A. (eds), Measuring regional specialisation. New approach. Palgrave Macmillan. Springer: 267–380.
  9. Europe 2020. Strategy for intelligent and sustainable growth promoting social inclusion. Commission Communication, Brussels, 3.3.2010, COM(2010) 2020 final. Online: www.ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/1_PL_ACT_part1_ v1.pdf. (accessed: 26 May 2018).
  10. European Commission. Integrated Territorial Investment, 2014. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/ sources/docgener/informat/2014/iti_en.pdf (accessed: 6 May 2018).
  11. European Commission. Education and Training Monitor 2016. Poland. Online: https://ec.europa.eu/education/ sites/education/files/monitor2016-pl_en.pdf (accessed: 20 October 2018).
  12. Farole T., Rodríguez-Pose A., Storper M., 2011. Cohesion Policy in the European Union: Growth, geography, institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies 49(5): 1089–1111.
  13. Gonciarski W., Mazurek I., 2014. E-administracja w Polsce – główne założenia, stan aktualny i kierunki rozwoju (E-administration in Poland – main assumptions, current status and directions of development). Nowoczesne Systemy Zarządzania 9(1): 263–290.
  14. Gorzelak G., 2014. Wykorzystanie środków Unii Europejskiej dla rozwoju kraju – wstępne analizy (Application of European Union funds for country development – preliminary analysis). Studia Regionalne i Lokalne 3: 5–25.
  15. Kaczmarek T., Kociuba D., 2017. Models of governance in the urban functional areas – policy lessons from implementation of Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) in Poland. Quaestiones Geographicae 36(4): 51–68.
  16. Kociuba D., 2017. Zintegrowane Inwestycje Terytorialne jako narzędzie zarządzania terytorialnego w miejskich obszarach funkcjonalnych (Integrated Territorial Investments as a tool of territorial governance in functional urban areas). Studia KPZK PAN 174: 144–153.
  17. Kociuba D., 2017a. Delimitacja miejskich obszarów funkcjonalnych ośrodków wojewódzkich w realizacji Zintegrowanych Inwestycji Terytorialnych w Polsce – teoria versus praktyka (Delimitation of functional urban areas of voivodeship centres in Poland – theory vs. practice). Studia Regionalne i Lokalne 3(69): 54–78.
  18. Kociuba D., Matacz A., 2018. The real estate market in the context of municipal management. Example of the Lublin functional area. Barometr Regionalny. Analizy i Prognozy 16(1): 67–80.
  19. Kociuba D., Szafranek E., 2018. New tool for measuring sustainable development in functional urban areas. European Spatial Research and Policy 25(2): 61–79.
  20. Kryteria delimitacji miejskich obszarów funkcjonalnych ośrodków wojewódzkich (Delimitation criteria of functional urban areas of voivodeship centres), 2013. Ministry of Regional Development, Warsaw.
  21. Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, 2007.
  22. Markowski T., 2013. Territorial dimension of integrated development policy – Expectations and challenges concerning planning and institutional systems. Studia Regionalia 35: 51–64.
  23. McCann P., Ortega-Argilés R., 2013. Some practical elements associated with the design of an integrated and territorial place-based approach to EU Cohesion policy. In: Crescenzi R., Perocco M. (eds), Geography, institutions and regional economic performance. Springer, New York: 95–118.
  24. Mendez C., 2012. The Lisbonization of EU Cohesion Policy: A successful case of experimentalist governance? European Planning Studies 19(3): 519–537.
  25. Mendez C., 2013. The post-2013 reform of EU Cohesion Policy and the place-based narrative. Journal of European Public Policy 20(5): 639–659.
  26. OECD 2001. Territorial outlook, Paris.
  27. OECD 2009. Regions matter: Economic recovery, innovation and sustainable growth. Paris.
  28. OECD 2011. OECD Regional outlook: Building resilient regions for stronger economies. Paris.
  29. Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council No 1303/2013 of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repeal Council Regulation (EC). No 1083/2006.
  30. Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 1301/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and the specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC). No 1080/2006.
  31. Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council No 1304/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing of Council Regulation (EC). No 1081/2006.
  32. Pietrzyk I., 2004. Polityka regionalna UE i regiony w państwach członkowskich (EU regional policy and regions in the member states). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
  33. Rodríguez-Pose A., Fratesi U., 2002. Between development and social policies: The impact of European Structural Funds in objective 1 regions. Regional Studies 38(1): 97– 113.
  34. Storper M., 1997. The regional world. Territorial development in a global economy. The Guilford Press, New York.
  35. Szafranek E., 2015. Cohesion of planning and programming the development of regions in the conditions of a territorially-oriented policy. Studia Regionalia 41–42: 169–184.
  36. Szlachta J., Zaucha J., 2012. For an enhanced territorial dimension of the cohesion policy in Poland in the 2014–2020 period. Instytut Rozwoju, Sopot.
  37. Śledziewska K., Zięba D., 2016. E-administracja w Polsce na tle Unii Europejskiej. Jak z niej (nie) korzystamy (E-administration in Poland against the background of the European Union. How we (do not) use it). Digital Economy Lab UW, Warszawa.
  38. Śleszyński P., 2013. Delimitacja miejskich obszarów funkcjonalnych stolic województw (Delimitation of the urban functional areas of voivodeship capitals). Przegląd Geograficzny 85(2): 173–197.
  39. System Szkolnictwa Zawodowego. Informacja o wynikach kontroli (Vocational education system. Information on audit results), 2016. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, Warszawa.
  40. Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions, 2011. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011. Gödöllő, Hungary.
  41. The System of Education in Poland 2018, 2018. Kolanowska E. (ed.), Foundation for the development of the education system, Warsaw.
  42. Tödtling F., Trippl M., 2005. One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy 34: 1203–1219.
  43. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007, OJ C306, 17.12.2007.
  44. Umowa Partnerstwa (Partnership Agreement) 2014. Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, Warsaw.
  45. Urban Agenda for the EU ‘Pact of Amsterdam’ Agreed at the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers Responsible for Urban Matters on 30 May 2016 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Online: http://www.eukn.eu/fileadmin/Files/EUKN_ Documents/05_Paper__1_.pdf (accessed: 15 May 2018).
  46. van der Zwet A., Miller S. and Gross F., 2014. A first stock take: Integrated territorial approaches in Cohesion Policy 2014–20. IQ-Net Thematic Paper 35(2). European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
  47. van der Zwet A., Bachtler J., 2018. New implementation mechanisms for integrated development strategies in ESIF, EStIF 1: 3–12.
  48. Zasady realizacji Zintegrowanych Inwestycji Terytorialnych w Polsce (Principles for the implementation of the Integrated Territorial Investment in Poland) 2103. Ministry of Regional Development, Warsaw.
  49. Zasady uwzględniania wymiaru miejskiego polityki spójności UE, w tym realizacja Zintegrowanych Inwestycji Terytorialnych (Principles of accommodating the urban dimension of the EU’s Cohesion Policy, including Integrated Territorial Investments) 2013. Ministry of Regional Development, Warsaw.