RECENT POPULATION DEVELOPMENT OF VERY SMALL MUNICIPALITIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Main Article Content

Andrea Lešková
Antonín Vaishar

Abstract

The problem of municipalities under 200 inhabitants is discussed. There are 1,500 such municipalities (24%) in the Czech Republic. Many of them came to existence after 1989 when the independence of communes was considered part of the democratisation process regardless of the population number. This paper aims at a statistical evaluation of municipalities with fewer than 200 inhabitants and presents their geographical distribution, demographic development and analysis of their aging. In general, 70% of these very small municipalities have been growing since 2001. The smallest of them have the highest percentage of the population decline and are the most endangered by aging. Very small municipalities with the highest population growth are situated mainly in the vicinity of larger towns, the ones with the highest population decline are located mainly in peripheral areas at the border of regions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Lešková, A., & Vaishar, A. (2019). RECENT POPULATION DEVELOPMENT OF VERY SMALL MUNICIPALITIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC. Quaestiones Geographicae, 38(4), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2019-0034
Section
Articles

References

  1. Bel G., Fageda X., 2013. Why do municipalities cooperate to provide local public services? An empirical analysis. Local Government Studies 39(3): 435–454. DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2013.781024
  2. Blaeschke F., 2014. What drives small municipalities to cooperate? Evidence from Hessian muncipalities. Universität Marburg.
  3. Blom-Hansen J., Houlberg K., Serritzlew S., Treisman D., 2016. Jurisdiction size and local government policy expenditures: Assessing the effect of municipal amalgamation. American Political Review 110(4): 812–831. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055416000320.
  4. Bolgherini S., 2011. Local government and inter-municipal cooperation in Italy and Germany. Justus-Liebig-Universität, Gießen.
  5. Bryson P.J., Cornia G.C., Wheeler G.E., 2004. Fiscal decentralization in the Czech and Slovak republics: A comparative study of moral hazard. Environmental and Planning C: Politics and Space 22(1): 103–113. DOI: 10.1068/c0247.
  6. ČSÚ – Český statistický úřad (Czech Statistical Office), 2017. Small lexicon of municipalities in the Czech Republic – 2017. Municipalities of the Czech Republic as at 1 January 2017. Online: czso.cz/csu/czso/maly-lexikon-obci-ceske-republiky-2017 (accessed: 8 January 2019).
  7. ČSÚ (Czech Statistical Office), 2016a. Size groups of municipalities – number of municipalities. Online: vdb.czso. cz/vdbvo2/faces/cs/index.jsf?page=vystup-objekt&pvo=RSO08a&z=T&f=TABULKA&skupId=746&katalog=30829&pvo=RSO08a&str=v394 (accessed: 8 January 2019).
  8. ČSÚ (Czech Statistical Office), 2016b. Size groups of municipalities - territorial comparison. Online: vdb.czso.cz/vdbvo2/faces/cs/index.jsf?page=vystup-objekt-parametry&pvo=RSO02&sp=A&pvokc=&katalog=30829&z=T (accessed: 8 January 2019).
  9. ČSÚ (Czech Statistical Office), 2009. Position of rural areas in regions of the Czech Republic. Online: czso.cz/csu/czso/ postaveni_venkova_v_krajich_cr (accessed: 8 January 2019).
  10. Fialová D., 2001. Druhé bydlení a jeho vztah k periferním oblastem (Second housing and its relation to peripheral areas). Geografie 106(1): 36–47.
  11. Filipe M., de Mascarenhas J.M., 2011. Abandoned villages and related geographic and landscape context: Guidelines to natural and cultural heritage conservation and multifunctional valorization. European Countryside 3(1): 21–45. DOI: 10.2478/v10091-011-0002-3.
  12. Haartsen T., Venhorst V., 2010. Planning for decline: Anticipating on population decline in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 101(2): 218– 227. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2010.00597.x.
  13. Hampl M., Müller J., 1998. Jsou obce v České republice příliš malé? (Are municipalities too small?) Geografie – sborník České geografické společnosti 103(1): 1–12.
  14. Holzer M., Fry J., Charbonneau E., Ryzin G., Wang T., 2009. Literarure review and analysis related to optimal municipal size and efficiency (research report). Rutgers University, Camden.
  15. Jakešová L., Vaishar A., 2012. Sustainable inner peripheries? A case study of the Olešnice micro-region (Czech Republic). Moravian Geographical Reports 20(4): 13–25.
  16. Kadeřábková J., Jetmar M., 2010. Selected issues of the development of small municipalities in the Czech Republic, financing of municipalities. European Countryside 2(2): 102–117. DOI: 10.2478/v10091-010-0008-2.
  17. Karder B., 2014. Incorporation of municipalities and population growth: A propensity score matching approach. Papers in Regional Science 95(3): 539–554. DOI: 10.1111/ pirs.12148.
  18. Klimovský D., Mejere O., Mikolaityte J., Pinterič U., Saparniene D., 2014. Inter-municipal cooperation in Lithuania and Slovakia: Does size structure matter? Lex Localis – Journal of Local Self-Government 12(3): 643–658. DOI: 10.4335/12.3.643-658.
  19. Lorvi K., 2013. Unpacking administrative capacity for the management of EU Structural Funds in small and large municipalities: The Estonian case. Administrative Culture 13(1): 98–124.
  20. Martins M.R., 1995. Size of municipalities, efficiency, and citizen participation: A cross-European perspective. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 13(4): 441–458. DOI: 10.1068/c130441.
  21. Matějová L., Němec J., Soukopová J., 2016. “Small is beautiful”. Pros and cons of territorial fragmentation on the example of the Czech Republic. In: Sadioglu U., Dede K. (eds), Comparative studies and regionally focussed cases examining local governments. IGI Global, Hershey, PA: 113–134.
  22. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, 2016. Report on the State of Agriculture of the Czech Republic for 2015. “Green Report”. Online: eagri.cz/public/web/file/481729/ ZZ15_V4.pdf (accessed: 8 January 2019).
  23. Musil J., Müller J., 2008. Vnitřní periférie v České republice jako mechanismus sociální exkluze (Internal periphery in the Czech Republic as a mechanism of social exclusion). Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 44(2): 321–348.
  24. Nam C.W., Parsche R., 2001. Municipal finance in Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Hungary: Institutional framework and recent development. MOST: Economic Policy in Transitional Economies 11(2): 143–164. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012218012967.
  25. Provazníková R., 2007. Financování měst, obcí a regionů, teorie a praxe (Financing of cities, municipalities and regions, theory and practice). GRADA Publishing, Praha.
  26. Reingewertz Y., 2012. Do municipal amalgamations work? Evidence from municipalities in Israel. Journal of Urban Economics 72(2–3): 240–251. DOI: 10.1016/j. jue.2012.06.001.
  27. Reinöhlová E., 2005. Informační a komunikační technologie pro rozvoj periferních oblasti – zkušenosti ze zahraničí (Information and communication technologies for the development of peripheral areas - experience from abroad). In: Novotná M. (ed.), Problémy periferních oblastí (Problems of peripheral areas). Praha: 36–44.
  28. Schnaubert J., 2016. Možnosti řešení velkého počtu malých obcí v ČR (Possibilities of solving large number of small municipalities in the Czech Republic – diploma thesis). Masaryk University, Brno.
  29. Swianiewicz P. (ed.), 2002. Consolidation or fragmentation? The size of local governments in Central and Eastern Europe. Open Society Institute, Budapest.
  30. Úřad vlády ČR (Office of the Government of the Czech Republic), 2017. Strategic Framework Czech Republic 2030. Polygraphy of the Office of the Government of the Czech Republic, Prague. Online: www.cr2030.cz (accessed: 8 January 2019).
  31. Váchalová H., 2010. Rozvojový potenciál velmi malých obcí: Na příkladu velmi malých obcí na Domažlicku (Development potential of very small municipalities: On the example of very small municipalities in Domažlice – diploma thesis). Charles University, Praha.
  32. Vaishar A., Pavlů A., 2018. Outmigration intentions of secondary school students from a rural micro-region in the Czech inner periphery: A case study of the Bystřice nad Pernštejnem area in the Vysočina Region. Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Geographica 53(1): 49–57. DOI: 10.14712/23361980.2018.5.
  33. Vaishar A., Zapletalová J., 2010. Sustainable development of the Moravian countryside. Revija za geografijo 5(1): 43–54.
  34. Vajdová Z., Čermák D., Illner M., 2006. Autonomie a spolupráce: důsledky ustavení obecního zřízení v roce 1990 (Autonomy and cooperation: Consequences of the municipal establishment in 1990). Sociologický ústav AV ČR, Praha.
  35. Zafra-Gómez J.L., Pérez Muñiz M.A., 2010. Overcoming cost-inefficiencies within small municipalities: Improve financial condition or reduce the quality of public services? Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 28(4): 609–629. DOI: 10.1068/c09118.
  36. Zimmerbauer K., Paasi A., 2016. When old and new regionalism collide: Deinstitutionalization of regions and resistance identity in municipality amalgamations. Journal of Rural Studies 30: 31–40. DOI: 10.1016/j. jrurstud.2012.11.004.