CEU eTD Collection In partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Public Policy TERRITORIAL REFORMS IN C WHY SIMILAR CHOSE DIFFERENT CHOSE COUNTRIES SIMILAR WHY ONTRASTING THEADMINISTRATIVE Supervisor: Professor Kalman Mizsei DECENTRALIZATION PATHS DECENTRALIZATION Central European University European Central Department of Policy of Public Department Oleksandra Romanovska Oleksandra U Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Submitted to Submitted KRAINE 2012 by : P OLAND AND - CEU eTD Collection application application foreign of in experience (French) Ukraine. simple the and – citizens Polish to services public deliver efficiently that top to down; and (3) the properly chosen focus of reforms in – creating the strong less actorswho from professional privately and voluntary power the oriented decentralized and chances to democracy; (2) the existence in Poland and absence of Ukraine of more explained by existence(1) the of historicalappropriate conditions in Poland –more pluralism Ukraine are to in ascompared Poland successof governance and the reforms decentralization of paths thevarying between thedifferences that argues in not paper The but Ukraine. in implemented Poland were reforms decentralization particular why question: these research Actors Participating in Reforms and Nature and Goals of Reforms this paper answers the the present, as well as through a comparison analysis of Historical Context of Reforms, means of contrasting the administrative-territorial reforms of the two countries from 1990 to and why Poland is more successful compared to Ukraine in its decentralization reforms. By they faced just after its fall - have achievedabsolutely resultsdifferent in their governance, substantially similar in terms of their history, size, experiences with socialism and challenges The primary focus of this thesis is to analyze why Poland and Ukraine - two countries that are Abstract: ii CEU eTD Collection Bibliography ...... 45 Conclusion 42 ...... Chapter1. Administrative-territorial Reforms in Poland ...... 7 Introduction 1 ...... TableContentsof ...... iii Abstract:...... ii Table ofContents Chapter3. Comparative Analysis of Paths of Reforms in Poland and Ukraine ...... 29 Chapter2. Administrative-territorial Reformsin Ukraine ...... 19 1.1. Structure of the paper...... 5 Methodology ...... 4 3.3 Nature and Goalsof Reforms ...... 35 3.2 ActorsParticipating inReformation ...... 33 3.1 Context of Reforms and Historical Conditions ...... 30 2.2 Critical review of Ukrainian administrative-territorial reform ...... 26 2.1 Administrative-territorial system of Ukraine ...... 21 1.2 Critical review of the Polish administrative-territorial reform ...... 16 3.3.2 Ukraine3.3.2 ...... 38 Poland3.3.1 35 ...... 2.1. 3Functions, Tasksand Financial Sourcesof Settlements ...... 24 2.1.2 Functions,Tasks and Financial SourcesofDistricts ...... 24 2.1.1 Functions, Tasks and Financial Sources of ...... 22 1.1.3 Functions, Tasks and Sources of Funding of Regions ...... 14 1.1.2 Functions, Tasks and Sources of Funding of ...... 13 1.1.1 Functions, Tasks and Sources ofFunding of Municipalities ...... 11 Administrative-territorial system ofPoland ...... 10 iii CEU eTD Collection paths of of paths sincePolandthat countries Ukraine two and have clearly 1991the demonstrates of reform the The comparison arecountry-specific. governance to better ways the However, staff member of Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI): isgovernance limited tothemain in outlined characteristics interview by the Antonio Levitas, efficiency and accountability. In scope andfor thepurposes of paperthis concept the of good transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness and law, of rule participation, has 8major goodgovernance characteristics: (http://www.unescap.org) the definition given by United Nations Commission of Asia and Pacific, Singh (2002), Agere (2000),whostarted itto analyze from perspectives. different According to interest many scholars, governance” as Hood (2011), the of such of concept attracted “good countries in terms of their transition from socialist practices to new standards of governance. The The period of lastthe twentyyears became (1990topresent) crucial for many Eastern European Introduction 3. 2. 1. autonomy autonomy and predictable revenues formed rules; by clear localStrong possess governments inautonomy as decision-making well budgetary as they represent; people and tothe local that accountable aredemocratically Strong elected governments meaningful services”public (Levitas, 2007). governments must be of sufficient scale to actually assume a reasonable number of governments thatefficiently publicprovide services tothecitizens close -“local governance”“Better is performed through developedthe system of localstrong 1 CEU eTD Collection Rahmanin, administrative-territorial 2007).The system of Ukraine is andconfusing inconsistent (Mostova, established never were governance state of levels different the between distinction functioningSoviet according to Union models and – most importantly - aproperand clear eliminated until now. The majority of the norms and standards of the social sphere are still been not have problems these however, in 1991; systems administrative and education Ukraine, as well as other post-soviet states, faced serious challenges in health-care, pension, state. become European Poland to amodern systems along with the creation of efficient and powerful system localof governance enabled services. This increased competiveness of administrative, health care, pension and education social of quality the improved significantly authorities administrative with levels these of communities (), counties () and regions (wojewodztwos) – and the consolidation governance (Regulski, 2003, pp 86-89). The introduction of a clear system of territorial units – interrelated simultaneous reforms: the reform of the territorial structure and the reform of local educational systems. These deep structural changes of the state, in fact, consisted of two and andconcerned care and1997-1998 territorial of structure the administration pension, health T.M.Horvath, J.Regulski and other recognize the success of Polish reforms that were initiated in Poland has built the system of efficient governance. Many scholars such as P.Swianiewicz, successinits administration. not demonstrated Ukraine has whereas governance better developed similar patterns and achieved similar results. However, Poland has reformed towards it if would beeach logical other Ukraine between and relations Poland and good diversification Slavic ancestry and history, the similar size of the states, the scale of governance, national after the fall of communism these two states faced the same challenges. Considering the common achieved absolutely results in opposite their efficient transition to and governance. good Just 2 CEU eTD Collection why these specific reforms were implemented in Poland and were not implemented in Ukraine – – research toanswerquestion In order the reforms. in itsUkraine decentralization to compared have achieved absolutely different results in their governance and why Poland is more successful Therefore, the research aim of this paperis to analyze why two countries with such similarities would explain why two similar countries have chosen opposite directions towards governance. and reforms pathsadministrative-territorial of of different nature would the analyze that work is Ukrainethere little levels lessons canlearnfrom that the and Poland. However, municipal researchers 1999;Wolczuk, (Burant, 2006)analyze the ideas of strategic partnership on the Poland andUkraine, suchas inter-budgetary Somerelations. international, Polish and Ukrainian P.Swianiewicz (2006), focus on the comparison of specific details internalof characteristics of between the two countries from different perspectives. Some scholars, for example, Kataryna(2003), Wolczuk Wolczuk andRoman (2002)andothersanalyze thedifferences researchers suchas Peter P.SwianiewiczJ. (2006), Potichnyj 1997), Timothy (1980, Snyder Many puzzle. interesting is an Ukraine and Poland between mismatch significant This governance. notgoals term leaveand anddo successful for populist smooth chance transition towards the power (Mostova, Rahmanin, 2007). All political, economic and social tasks are adjusted to short- of elements and stateapparatus the is governance performed in of a hierarchical deconcentration as peripheral of the governments act all tiers system. Local level of administrative-territorial the legislation that would establish a clear distinction between the functions and tasks of different sufficient isno there Additionally, (Radas). councils administrative hierarchical the through (rayon), , of the cities (rayon of the cities), , and – are governed because the territorial units - of Crimea, regions (), districts 3 CEU eTD Collection reforms. implemented differently about not research question answerthe do shared characteristics all in commonly these Therefore, Ukraine. innever they occurred both countries, expected networking and exchanging of successful transitional practices. Although similar reforms were between thecountries have improvedonly andmany wereevents dedicated tothedeveloping of ratifiedthat Ukraine Independent in for thelast1991. Third, twenty years therelations ancient times and often acted as political and economical partners. In fact, Poland was the first Poland and Ukraine. Second, both states have had tight economic and social connections since and historians highlighta high degree ofnational, religious and cultural betweendiffusion countries on impacts both hadsimilar between ) of borders reconsiderations wars or had also been developing under similar historical and ethnic conditions. Many events (such as they but governance of scale their and size their continent, in European location their of terms in only similar arenot countries these First, inpaper. ofthis thescope arecontrasted countries between these two states are mentioned above, it is still necessary to emphasize why these two transition and decentralization reforms between Poland and Ukraine. Although similarities Comparative analysis is as used mainthe for contrasting methodological tool paths the of Methodology in werenotperformed Ukraine. changes These administrative-territorial local effect on of governments levelsall andhadled an to increased quality social of services. In the case of Poland the chosen path of administrative-territorial reforms had a direct positive this paperlooks at the essence of Polish reforms and compares them with the Ukrainian situation. 4 CEU eTD Collection and Ukraine the actual reforms and their results are described accordingly. The third chapter – Reforms and Conclusion. In the chapters that analyze administrative-territorial reforms in Poland Ukrainian and Polish of Paths of Comparison in Ukraine, Reforms Administrative-territorial The paper is divided into five Introduction, parts: Administrative-territorial in Reforms Poland, paper of the Structure of andA.Levitas. contributions P.Swianiewicz and points talking magazines; Ukrainian and in Polish professionals and politicians journalists, both countries, laws and normative acts; articles and internet blogs of Ukrainian and Polish in Eastern European countries; legislation from Poland and Ukraine, such as the Constitutions of reports and working plans of decentralization andadministrative-territorial reforms and projects books of Polish, Ukrainian and other Eastern European scholars; analytical documents such as as such on Polishtransitions Ukrainian and include literature paper mainthe of The sources conclusions. drawing basis for the and paperpresent the of research question answer factors the of groups three these countries can explain a lotin terms why Poland is more successful than Ukraine. All together, the expected goals of reforms – the initial aims of administrative-territorial reforms in the two mismatch between the chosen paths. The same is also relevant for the comparative analysis of well the actors who were participating in the processes of transformation can explain the The Nature and Goals of Reforms. Contrasting details of the historical context of reformation as Context of Reforms and Historical Conditions, (2) Actors Participating in Reformation and (3) between Polish andUkrainian reforms thepaper compares threemain factors: groups of (1) The Thus, the differences between the states should be analyzed. In order to identify the differences 5 CEU eTD Collection governance in Poland anddidnot in occur Ukraine. nature of the final goals of these reforms. The conclusion summarizes the factors that led to good contextual and historical conditions of reforms, actors participating in the reformation and the reforms were performed in Poland and were notimplemented in Ukraine through contrasting: the Comparison of Paths of Polish and Ukrainian Reforms - directly analyzes why these specific 6 CEU eTD Collection principles include (Chancellery Primethe of Minister of Republicthe Poland, of 1998): administrative reform of Poland are formed on the traditions of European civilization. These own Polish traditions (Regulski, 2003). The principles that were considered as the basis of and practice and experience European inspiration: of sources two had governance, good and state Administrative reform in Poland, as a key mechanism of the effective functioning of the whole state. become European improve governance in the country, overcome political, economic and social challenges and meant toenablePoland were systems care andeducation health pension, administrative, step of Polish transition towards the modern Europe. The increased competiveness of The improvement of delivery of social services through these reforms was considered as a key in areas. these of itself of necessity changes because the of but state the structure administrative (self-governingwojewodztwo –had regions) the keyimportance not foronly thesake of the pp.103-108). The introduction newof territorial in units 1997-1998 –powiats (counties) and () as wasintroduced a basic territorial and administrative unit(Regulski, 2003, 2002, Kirchner, These 1999). reforms completed the firstwave of in changes 1990 when a reform (Swianiewicz, education and reform pension care reform, health reform, administrative reforms: simultaneous asfour wereintroduced therefore and systems education health care and Reforms thatwereinitiated in Polandin concerned 1997-1998 the administration of pension, Chapter 1.Administrative-territorial inPoland Reforms approximate every citizen to the process of administration, enhance the further enhance the of administration, process tothe every citizen approximate would which approaches administration new of implementation – state civil of Building 7 CEU eTD Collection among all levels of administration starting from bottom to up and in reverse direction. in reverse and up to bottom from starting administration of levels all among economic and social challenge and secure the consistent and beneficial cooperation political, every for solutions in-time proper the find factors, internal and external Flexibility – ability of central andlocal authorities torespond quicklychanges to of their supporters. towards actions fortheir at butbe thesametime accountable powers broader to obtain the access to public data. Democratically elected authorities on the local levels are supposed radical reform andof andbureaucraticadministrative structures, public finances wide andaccountability of elimination the Transparency,unnecessary – supposes openness social development. efficiently apply their skills and competences for the purpose of beneficial economic and ability localof governments, territorial communities and citizens themselves to Efficiency – the place of Poland in European the Union is largely determined by the of government. central within wouldbe competence kept the however, functions, territorial communities –closer to the citizens. Part of responsibility of carrying out these functions locallowerwould partof to the or delegate level state the of governments European Union, By 1992). means of deconcentration of central power the government Subsidiarity – the fundamental principle of the European Union (Article 5, Treaty on activities. their development of small social communities and make them responsible for the results of 8 CEU eTD Collection were initiated long ago. that of changes itwas rather incompletion theevolutionary areas most developments; previous not be treated as a rapid and miracle transition. Itis based on the long period of work and were introduced. Thereby, the reformation of Poland on the threshold of the millennium should of counties (powiats -union of several gminas) andreconsideration of regions (wojewodztwo) were adoptedin reform1992, the of 1998 changedalot (Regulski,The intermediate 2003). level several small social communities) as a basic territorial unit and initial unit of local governance - polity.Although basicthe -suchprinciples as introduction municipalitiesof (gmina -union of national the completely re-stated almost reforms system and administrative structure Territorial Parliament-Presidentwas already prescribed byAmendments to Polishthe Constitution of 1992. Government- triangle the within relations of pattern general the Thus, 2005). Presnyakov, (Shapovalova, extentchanges of different required system) and administrative structure It is important to emphasize that each of these areas (central government functioning, territorial Service). the state in general: state functions needed clearer definition (such as effective Law on Civil central government authorities was performed after as an adjustment to the new strategic tasks of reform andthe localreform of territorial structure of governance. in fact, consisted of two interrelated sub-reforms that were carried out simultaneously: the administration. state the reconsidering practical road map, Poland attempted to reform the above mentioned areas by means of intoTaking consideration fundamentalthese both principles as a key andphilosophy the The deep structural reform of public administration, 9 The minor reformation of CEU eTD Collection supposed to: flexibility principles of civil society involvement, subsidiarity, efficiency, transparency, accountability and Administrative Units WithinWojewodztwo (1998)and with listedregards tothe above and Wojewodztwo of Local of Governance lawsPowiats, key on Local Governance three including Acts Legislative numerous and Poland of Constitution the to according Currently, regional significance. Finally, currentdivision the (16regions) was established. of perform andregionshuman in aslargeeconomic to potential tasks concentrations the of order capacity of proper wouldthe thatkeep 10-17 to their number decrease or (capitals) centers of regions/provinceswould upto25-49 that conditions securebetter fordevelopment of their (Shapovalova,Regulski, Presnyakov, 2005, pp 90-91): whether 2003, tokeep largethe number and of counties regions numbers,borders and sizes duringof harmonization the arose communities within them - did not suppose the existence of counties. The biggest controversy - The previousused structure that to consistof 49 regions with wojewodztwo gmina-numerous in 1998 as a result of long debate on the introduction of new – three levels – territorial division. (gminas) (Regulski, 2003). This structure is established by Governmental Bill that was adopted 379 counties including(powiats) 65city counties and 314land counties and 2,478municipalities of Polandstructure of consists 16regions (wojewodztwo), The currentadministrative-territorial 1.1. a) (wojewodztwo); Consist of three levels (from bottom to up): municipality (gmina), () and ofPoland system Administrative-territorial , the Polish, the administrative-territorial division sincethe 1 January 1999is 10 CEU eTD Collection Regulski, 109-111): and aredefined by Actof the Local (,Government They include 1990). 2000, (Horvath, (gminas) municipalities of jurisdictions the under fall responsibilities social of types basic The 2000) . local community and those that are specifically delegated from above (Kowalczyk, Horvath, enabled perform to functions the thatwould satisfy primary the demands public of particularthe and are and urban-rural rural urban, betweenthe are differentiated municipalities In general, the Municipalities TasksandSourcesofFunding of 1.1.1 Functions, local –municipalities,governance counties and regions –is provided further. The detailed analysis of functions, tasks and financial sources of three levels of Polish system of d) c) b) Communities have biggestfinancial autonomy tocountiescomparing and regions. financed by the mix of own revenues and transfers and grants from the central budget. the effectiveProvide local The units of financing of levelsgovernments. three are between them by are disputed Courts. Administrative are different only infunctions and tasks assigned to them legally; issues the and tensions and other each on dependent organizationally not are regions and counties Municipalities, units areequal actas independentto legal personswithin their established competences. All governance. state of levels three between functions of distinction clear the Secure authority. system theamount with delegated of power of shouldself-governance appropriate the possess administrative-territorial the of unit every that requirement the with Comply 11 CEU eTD Collection 1998. The revenues ofmunicipalities are based on Local Self-governmentof 1990 and specifiedby Act the on Local GovernmentRevenues of As for the financial sources of municipality’sthe functioning, they are defined by Acton the x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Commercial bank credits from the banking system. banking the from credits bank Commercial property; municipal the from revenues local Own Revenues from the local taxes, charges, fines and donations, etc. per capita; accordingusually economicthe to municipality,defined calculated capacity not the of State Transfers and Grants – general and allocated for specific purposes; the amountis and building and construction. provisioncertificates, identity of cards, control drivingof agenciesand driving licenses defense, registration of birth, death and marriages, issuing of documentations and Other tasks that are specifically delegated by central (regional) authorities, such as civil Environmental protection; Maintenance of public places (buildings, parks, squares, monuments, cemeteries, etc); and control; traffic of roads Maintenance Sport; culture; and Libraries Primary education; Public transportation; Public security fireand protection; Supply gas,water, electricity,of disposal waste and socialother to services related this; Health care; 12 (Kaluz ná , 2009): CEU eTD Collection 113-115): tasks that are out of municipality jurisdiction, in particular jurisdiction, municipality of out are that tasks in by 1998 County Acton the inSelf-government order to posses legalthe rightperform to the present secondtierThe counties (powiat) the introduced They of Polish local were government. latter. be emphasized that the firsthas no administrative, delegation or control authorities towards the municipalities,counties which means that carry task the out municipalitythat not. should Itdoes in performed amount functions of the relation to tasks bycounties of arecomplementary the to actas legally independent entity hasand judicialprotection 2000). (Horvath, To sum up, the As well as municipalities, counties can be urban, rural and urban-rural, each of which has a right 1.1.2 Functions, TasksandSources ofFunding ofCounties freely 2001). (Swianiewicz, of financialstate system, although purposes the of municipal expenditures arechosen rather relative centralization the budget, which demonstrates from state the grants and transfers specific The highest share of municipal revenue (in around average, 40%) is provided by general and x x x x x Environmental Environmental protection, control of emergency situations and potential threats Management of landproperty, use, agriculture, fishing andforestry National defense Social welfare Education 13 (Kaluz ná , 2009,Regulski,pp 2003, CEU eTD Collection of of thisjustify concept numberthis by goal the maketo Polish regions competitive in comparison Administrative Units Within Regions thatbecame effective from 1 January 1998. The supporters according to the reform of 1998 and the Legal Acts of Local Governance of Regions and state(Horvath,the 2000).Forthis purpose numberthe of was regions from decreased 49 to16- The governance on the level of regions (wojewodztwo) is meant tosatisfy the regional interest of 1.1.3 Functions, TasksandSources ofFunding ofRegions Thus, counties the more are financially dependable onthe state budgetary system. service delivery)butalso include (Swianiewicz, 2001): subsidies from central the budget(numerous grants and in transfers toprovideorder the effective The financial sources of counties, as well as those of municipalities, are rather dependent on x x x x x x x activities, revenues from from activities, revenuesproperty issuedcounties and bonds. (possibly) their and institutions county from revenues include that counties the of revenues Own of particular tosupportthe particular grants counties; Specific tasks Revenues from fishing agriculture, andforestry taxes; One – defined tax of income percent tothelegislation personal according of 1999; building and construction. Maintenance of andcommunication networks transportation roads; supervision of people limited with physical abilities; to assistance minorities, local and communities of rights human and social of Securing and protecting the local heritage; cultural encouragement of local labor market, protection of consumer rights, stimulating tourism Policies issueson of local families, youth and retired people, unemployment, 14 CEU eTD Collection 2000): Horvath, (Kowalchuk, towards aredirected policies These region. of strategy every particular The main areaof isregional outlinedtasks by law and the includes multilateral the development to supervise all agencies municipalities,of counties and regions. entitled also are Minister thePrime with together (Wojewoda) Governor The 2005). Presnyakov, relationshipthe of regional policy nationalwith the strategiespolitical (Shapovalova, Governor (Wojewoda). This model ensures the unitarity of the Polish state and the consistence in Marshalthe Regionthe of and (2)the central governmentadministration, headedby the two separate structures of the region: (1) the executive body of the regional government led by region as a unit of government as well as the dual model itsof administration. It is performed by The above mentioned Polish Legal Acts approve the independence and ownjurisdiction of the coordinate regionalthe normsthe to policy and standards of Union.European opening economy, current globalization trends and arisen requirements to rationalize and maximize the capacity of Polish regions in terms of economic and social processes, outcomes of with of regions (Regulski,Europe They 2003). rightfullyinto considerationtook needthe to x x x cultivation of national identity; national of cultivation citizens, Polish of aspiration cultural and academic research, scientific stimulating Support of publicthe initiatives, increasing social awareness and involvement, of infrastructure regions;the Promotion of economic development, market competition,innovation, enhancing care, security, national defense, social welfare, family,market and labor issues; health education, regional of fields in the strategies main of implementation and Creation 15 CEU eTD Collection municipal level. Counties are supposed tobe responsible for delivery the of are services that oflocal the on governance complements is 1998reform asfunctional the the creation of counties European principle of empowerment of the local governance. One of the most important steps of it meets thecore since successful considered becan reform The Polish administrative-territorial 1.2 Critical review of the Polish administrative-territorial reform 2001): arefinancedby These are revenuesof regionsthe basedactivities that the on(Swianiewicz, x x x x x x x interest in the particular region or area; in region or particular the interest Donations and including grants, from support international organizations if havethey their services; Revenues collected from the use of regional property,institutions or some payments for grantspurpose for the activities requested bymunicipalities,if specific these tasks exist; for grants theactivities purpose or special Special by assigned central government the year; budget of previous from the the surplus aswell income tax, potential of corporate State shares, grants and subsidies in the amount of 1.5% of personal income tax and 1% and enhancing public in participation makingdecision processes. counties through support the of democratic transparent elections processes, onall levels Securing the independent rights and legal and economic autonomy municipalities,of region; the within organizations non-governmental and governmental various Establishment of appropriate conditions (includingfinancial side) for functioningthe of region;the Encouraging economy, green environmental and sustainableprotection development of 16 CEU eTD Collection IDEA, 2012). governments demonstrate, the voter turnoutis rather low –44.23% (Voter Turnout for Poland, local the to elections 2002 the of experience As the chosen. be can government each elections citizens get long lists with a number of names among which only one candidate for the level of the county the minimum electoral threshold of 5% is established. Almost in all local depends on the total number of votes which the whole party eventually receives. Moreover, at voter can vote for one candidate from one party list but whether this candidateis elected or not performance of municipal governance. Second, the electoral system itself is rather complicated: a politization of local leaders, especially on the level of municipalities, may lead to decrease in the governments, which are supposed, ideally, tosatisfy the needs of local communities. Thelocal independent and efficient of principles the with inconsistent be might it reality, In elections. parties, blocks or election committees (Colomer, 2004), which leads to the “partization” of the members of municipal and county governance are still elected according to the lists of critically. First, itis the electoral system localof governments. As well as at the national level, considered still be should structure administrative-territorial Polish the of issues some However, central governance of in state the general Presnyakov,(Shapovalova, 2005). notthus getto distracted by oflocaloverload issues and havemore opportunities for efficient and administration local the to responsibility the transfer to government central Polish enabled The sizeproper of withregions maximized concentration of economic andhuman resources capable asarightdecrease of towards numberdevelopment. regional units the regional step of isthe reform the of achievement important Another levels. (regional) higher to transferred difficultfor small communities but need to be kept close to the citizens and thus should not to be 17 CEU eTD Collection (since they most(since arenot they specific affected) are 2003). (Swianiewicz, units. However, theplans toincrease financialthe independence of countiesthe and regions of shortages in allocating leadstothe of revenues oflocal budgets the revenues governmental Performance-based budgeting system, reality shows that longthe andmultistep planning process European Union, suchasintroduction of Medium-Term Budgeting and Frameworks Although publicthe budgeting system is formally changing according tothe standards of the by strictly state. are the that amounts the allocated to only according budget theiractivities local from andcan taxes revenues regionthe nor budget. Neither possesses county state central municipal units, whereas the counties and regions are mostly dependent on remittances of the to belongs currently ownership communal to was transferred of that property major The part by the subsidies, transfers and grants from the central government (both general and specific). financed areprimarily local of activities of all governance the units centralizedsince to berather finances. Asitis evidentfrom works of P.Swianiewicz, Polish system publicof finance remains Another significant challenge of the Polish administrative system is the sphere of public 18 CEU eTD Collection Ukrainian territorial division a great territorial was alsoUkrainian extentaffecteddivision to by geographical, numerous territorial division in order to create hierarchy of units for the central governments. The territories of other states, which preserved some attributes of autonomy and (2) purposeful Ukraine whichwas formed during previous centuries by means of: (1)accession (annexation) of administration and territorial division, only restates the old form of territorial structure of The Constitution of Ukraine (1996) still that the mainremains law guiding for state wasnevergovernance established. levels of state between different and cleardistinction theproper However, 2005). (Capkova, tothe attemptsgovernment local of independence of absolute bodiesexecutive in 1994-1995 state from level starting local atthe direct of systems governance various experienced has until Ukraine recently highly governance from of Sovietpractice the centralized transition gainingafter independence thereis noclearly (Tausz,established structure 2002).During the years twenty even Ukraine: of system territorial and administrative the for valid is also situation anymore: decision-making remain traditions the same butthe country isSimilar independent. policies in spheres butratherthese readjusted them independentto manner, Ukrainian Soviet not 1993 for employmentandfamily policies.support Unfortunately, they change notdid thecore 1992 for pension insystem, 1992 and 1993for state health and accidentinsurance andin 1992- (Mostova, Rahmanin, 2007). However, only few changes were implemented straight away: in systems wereinherited from Sovietthe Union models and required reconsideration significant social sphere. The basics of the health-care, pension, education, employment and administrative As well as the rest of post-communist states, in 1991 Ukraine faced serious challenges in the Chapter 2.Administrative-territorial inUkraine Reforms 19 CEU eTD Collection three factorsthree (The Constitution of 1996): Ukraine, (rayon of the cities), towns and villages. These territorial units are distinguished according to Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regions (oblasts), districts (rayon), cities, districts of the cities administrative-territorial structure of the state; according to the Article 133, it isformed by the have own governments. In general, the Constitution of Ukraine provides a complicated and authorities all administrative not them share of units, of administrative-territorial features the equal are not territorialthe to Althoughones. majority the Ukrainian of territorial possessunits units administrative isthat system administrative Ukrainian the of feature important most The fundamental principles of the territorial system of Ukraine, in particular,it secures: historical, cultural and other factors. The Constitution of Ukraine (1996) also defines the x x x x x status (cities, towns and villages). Additionally,Autonomous Republic of Crimea units (regions (oblasts) and districts (rayons)) and territorial units with self-governance Units aredivided factors. between administrative-territorial Administrative-territorial significance –Kyiv and Sevastopol) and settlements (cities, towns andvillages) RepublicCrimea of and24regions districts, (oblasts)), cities-regions of special Territorial factors. between “Geographical aredivided Autonomousunits (the regions traditions” cultural historical, economic, environmental, geographic anddemocratic features and ethnic and their according to of territories the Ukraine of development Balanced socio-economic units; Combination of centralized and decentralized governance of the hierarchy of territorial ; state the of integrity and “Unity 20 CEU eTD Collection Publications, 2012): administrative-territorial system of Ukraine includes (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, 1360 towns andvillages. 29thousand According 31May, totheon data 2004, the regional moresubordination), than 9.5 thousand townsand 800thousand councils, nearly (Kyiv 605 districtsand Sevastopol), (485 wererural),of which 435 cities (151of which were of included Republic Autonomous of Crimea, 24regions (oblasts), 2cities of republic jurisdiction At moment the of gainingindependencein 1991, the Ukrainian administrative-territorial system Ukraine of system 2.1 Administrative-territorial and functions, tasks and financial sources of administrative-territorial areunits provided below. Thus, the administrative-territorial structure of Ukraine is very confused. A deeper analysis itof x x x x 490 rural districts; 24 regions (oblasts) Crimea Republic of The Autonomous Sevastopol)”. and Kyiv autonomy Republic Autonomous (the of Crimea, regions (oblasts) and cities-regions and villages), the second level of autonomy (districts, cities) and the highest level of administrative-territorial autonomy (cities without districts, districts of the cities, towns structure of the state. All units are distinguished between units of the first level of in theadministrative-territorial of units the place hierarchical thatdefinethe Factors status. self-governance with units and units administrative-territorial territorial division and districts in the cities (rayons in the cities) are characterized as both administrative- own its build to allows which status autonomy aspecial possesses 21 CEU eTD Collection and Regional Councils that are enabled to: that Councils and Regional Crimea of Republic Autonomous of Parliament the by is realized levels in these governance The Ukraine. of Constitution the to amendment regional policies”. The reconsideration of the regional division is possible only with an independence in their social, economic and cultural policies as well as in implementation of level andpossess acertain of factors andother economic historical, geographical, various “administrative-territorial units that were formed within the territory of Ukraine as a result of Regions of aredefinedin (24oblasts) Ukraine Constitution as the of (1996) Ukraine units. administrative-territorial economic and social autonomy other among its has It Ukraine. of own law –the Constitution of Autonomous Republic of Crimea andhas thebiggest political, Constitution the in defined status legal special possesses that unit territorial of Crimea Autonomous Republic and24regions (). is of Crimea an administrative- The biggest units of administrative-territorial of units include Ukraine the Autonomous Republic andFinancialSourcesofRegions Functions, Tasks 2.1.1 x x x x x 28 592villages. 885 towns; significance and(oblast)significance; 278of 456 cities, including 2ofmentioned cities-regions of special significance, 176 of regions 2 cities-regions of special significance (Kyiv and Sevastopol); 188 districts of urban areas; 22 CEU eTD Collection dependable on the decisions that are taken by the central government (Peteri, 2008). In general, autonomy of the regions makes all levels of local governance and regions in particular to be very The issame approach alsorelevant tothe system of finances.public The lack oflegal budgetary toofewpossess of features autonomy. but implementation their for responsible are and policies of formulation in participate levels and mainly administrated by the appropriate Ministry. The administrative units on the regional security, education, environmental protection, labor market policies, etc – are highly centralized (Swianiewicz, 2010). Each of the main social systems of Ukraine – health care, national defense, are under of the jurisdiction to thetasks inherentkept regions that isalso Centralization in is governance of performed power. a deconcentration and apparatus of state the elements peripheral actasthe local on tiergovernments this Therefore, government. by state electedthe andappointed not are Councils members of Regional authorities hierarchicalof system localof governance established by Constitution.the The The regional centers and Regional Councils that are functioning in these cities also act as the x x x x documentations and certificates related tothis. related anddocumentations certificates issue units, administrative-territorial of Register State the control in and fill or village councils within the particular territory; whether to consider it avillage or town; register rural and districts as well as city, decisionsunion: administrative-territorial particular regardingtake category the of raise the issues of changing the boundaries between units or moving the centers of them; units to Cabinetthe of Ministers of Ukraine; submit proposalsthe regarding the creation,liquidation and naming the newly established 23 CEU eTD Collection of of includesUkraine) settlements such cities,as towns andvillages. Cities are“big settlements (The Constitution state of the structure administrative-territorial the to according lower tier The 2.1. 3Functions, TasksandFinancial Sources ofSettlements any level independence andare of strictly toRegional accountable Councils. organizationsindividuals or (Swianiewicz,2006). In their districts expenditures donotpossess performed from programs side the of internalvarious foreignor private publicunits, or mightand byspecific accordingcentral bebudget tothe or complemented grants donations The financial support of Districts is performed through direct transfers and subsidies from the Regional Councils. administrated thenetworkthrough of DistrictCouncils are (Rayonni Rady) that subordinated to settlements; they may formulate plans or policies for cities, towns and villages. Districts are responsible to secure social and cultural context for the functioning of social institutions of the united socio-economic system of Ukraine” (the Constitution of Ukraine). Districts are also single the into communications and transport industry, economy, the integrate “to is districts governance and are administrative and territorial sub-units of the regions. The main goal of the Ukraine. They act as mediators between regions and settlements in the hierarchy of state Districts present the second from above level of administrative and territorial division of andFinancialSourcesofDistricts Functions, Tasks 2.1.2 established andplanned expenditures. programs Finance and the Ministry of Economics collect the sources and redistribute them according to the all taxes and revenues from all tiers of property are coming to the central budget. The Ministry of 24 CEU eTD Collection case by by case local the Council higherthe of unit. administrative have anyadministrative authority and theirfunctions, tasks andfinancial sources are defined temporary settlements and settlements of industrial purposes. However, these small units do not The territories of all settlements might be divided into sub-districts, residential areas, streets, of autonomy 2006). (Swianiewicz, the settlements is realized through the deconcentration of power and possesses only some extent or donations, but usually these shares are not too significant. Therefore, the local governance of and other remittances; itmight contain some revenues from the local communal property, taxes the distribution of revenues of the central budget through direct and specific transfers, subsidies Councils in executive and financial terms. The budgets of settlements are formed as a result of members. However, the Councils of cities, towns and villages are subordinated to the District The local governance on the level of settlements is performed by Councils with elected the population usually involved in agriculture, folk crafts or rural or health tourism. communal property and social Villagesinfrastructure. are the smallest settlements which include factories, railway hydrotechnical networks, facilities oragricultural They centers. also have some industrial nearby based settlements smaller usually are Towns communities. territorial of purpose the of enhancing hierarchy the in local the governance andestablishing legal the status hierarchical system of central governance. Cities also may be divided intodistricts of cities for andregional Sevastopol), significanceand district according totheir subordination within the network of socio-cultural institutions. Cities are distinguished between cities of special (Kyiv thousand people”. Cities usually own some communal property, housing facilities and the andindustrial, administrative, and trade cultural with centers populationthe from starting 10 25 CEU eTD Collection established administrative-territorial and appropriate decision-making model and appropriate negatively establishedaffects administrative-territorial system of local governments act according to short-term political goals only.Absence of clearly financialhigh dependence on remittances from centralthe budget make all of tiers Ukrainianthe and local and between central governments lack tools legitimate cooperation of a situation: the of responsibilities of local authorities. The absence properof legislative background only worsens not necessarily identical to territorial units, which leads to a confusions in roles and highly ineffective manner(Maynzyuk, Dzhygyr,2010). The administrative units of Ukraine are administration of country the in general – isvery confused and is currently functioning in a Second, the administrative-territorial system of Ukraine – the key mechanism of the effective services. social of delivery and policies of implementation processes, region => district => settlement) and possess limited autonomy in their decision-making governments of different tiers are still subordinated to each other from top to down (state => local and financial functions, of areelected tasks sources referendums,on the Settlements only parts of hierarchical system of governments. Although the members of the Councils of arethe and Settlements Regions, Districts Councils of policies. of prescribed implementation act only alinkas between the national level municipalitiesand and simplymonitor the to alimited group of localpolicy-makers. Currently, stillgovernments havenot do autonomy and transferred mechanism society was the of control the of communism period Under the overcome. First, as the practice of the state governance demonstrates, the practice of centralization is not cannot beconsideredcomplete. of Europe and norms standards social and economic democratic, the to consequently and, governance better to transition Ukrainian of stage current The reform administrative-territorial of Ukrainian review 2.2 Critical 26 CEU eTD Collection middle class as the core backbone of all social, economic and political interactions. the and self-governments of elimination is the these among Key terms. economic and political norms and values has led to an inexorable disruption in functioningthe of society in both communities to the top governmental authorities. The continuation of that distortion of social mechanism of the society is artificially removed from the jurisdiction of small territorial enhance their self-government authorities. By means of previous centralization the control system that would bring coherence to the system of territorial and administrative units and mostthe basic level localof – governments initialthe isunit not determined. Thereis no united capacities and functions is a main problem of all tiers of local governance. It is alsoinherent to size, in of borders, terms uncertainty administrative-territorial above described the Therefore, efficient. very is not it reality consuming of process central administration, planning and redistribution inbutresources of simultaneous development is attempted to be achieved through the complicated and time- industrial and business potential is mainly concentrated in the Center and East of the Country. A (Odessa oblast) is almost eight times larger than the smallest one (Chernivtsi oblast); the within these territories vary a lotfrom region to region. Thus,for example, the biggest region potential human and of economic andconcentration capacities their sizes, However, territories. development for all their centers (24 cities of regional significance) as well as surrounding On onethe hand, big the number of isregions (24) supposed to promote multilateralthe The size and capacity of administrative-territorial units are other challenges of Ukrainian reality. pension systems andothers. functioningthe of all social education, protection, spheres social such as health-care security, 27 CEU eTD Collection failed due to the destruction of the regulation mechanism within the society. be considered might country in the governance a better to transition successful the Consequently, 28 CEU eTD Collection good relations,good established networking between countries. cooperation and developed two despite even than Ukrainian more successful are strategies reformation administrative-territorial have achieved absolutely different results in the quality of the governance and why Polish Therefore, different. so processes as well as processes of governance. It is important to understand why the countries are is also noticeable in general performance in democratization and economic development dollars in Poland over 3.007in Ukraine). significant This mismatch between Poland andUkraine Ukrainian GDP percapitain in1.35 times, 2010 this to4 difference rose times (12.294US (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/) GDPper the incapita Polandin 1991 exceeded the data whereas tothe ofWorldin according However, Bank 1991. spheres and political in socio-economic the challenges countries facedsimilar Both experience. history, similar size of the state and scale of governance, national diversification and socialist considered to be similar states in terms of their neighboring, common Slavic ancestry and achievements presents a subject for interesting research. Poland and Ukraine are often similarity of Poland and Ukraine just after the collapse of communism, this difference in the governance and, consequently, political, economic and democratic performance. Considering the countries have achieved absolutely opposite results in their transition in terms of quality of The comparison of Polish and Ukrainian models makes itevidentsince that 1991the two Ukraine and Chapter 3.Comparative Analysis of Paths in of PolandReforms the research aim of this paperis to analyze why two countries with such similarities 29 CEU eTD Collection Second, in case the of Poland it was Polish central government which was focused only on the distinctions. First, Poland alwayshad private property, which was illegaltotally in Ukraine. main three were there However, governance. top-down performed which government in central the of toalimited group policy-makers force transferred were by mechanisms controlled subsystem (that is governed) were ruined by central authorities.All control andthe performs governance) the (that subsystem control the interaction between of processes independence was preserved. Of course, in the governance of both countries the essential communist governance and how the essential democratic processes were destroyed – context of state building this fact means a lot: no matter how much the state was affected by and Ukraine, the first,in contrast to the latter, was never a part of Soviet Union. For the general Despite socialist experience and all historical and socio-economic similarities between Poland Conditions Historical 3.1 ContextofReforms and below. Participating in Reformation and (3) Nature and Goals of Reforms. This analysis is provided analyzed and compared further: (1) Context of Reforms and Historical Conditions, (2) Actors thepurposeFor andof complete profound factors analysis comparative threegroups are of performed in Ukraine. social services provided within small communities. These decentralization changes were not levels, enhanced the authority of first-level local municipalities and increased the quality of paths. Polish decentralization reforms positively affected the system of local governments on all Poland and were not implemented in Ukraine –paper contrasts the essence of two reformation answer to In order the researchthe question – why these specific reforms were implemented in implemented were reforms specific these –why 30 CEU eTD Collection Abolition Abolition of importantthis and well-structured social institution led tothecomplete distortion of remained. The Church in Ukraine, as well as in the rest of the Soviet states, was prohibited. existence on all levels of society; inso the Polish society an important source of pluralism Polish Catholic Church, although being controlled bycommunist authorities, still continued its disobedient social groups and by the harassment of human rights. As it was mentioned above, the In contrast to Ukraine, Poland was also toa lesser extent affected by political repression against social systems and build of traditions ownership.private and models Sovietof administration readjust wasjust trying to Ukraine whereas communities, Polish basic of building and experiences of communist reconsideration total the concerned other things.also Thisfact explains why 1991 firstafter the round of inreforms Poland for the functioning of state including national currency, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and many human. Thus, after collapsethe UnionSovietof endedupwithUkraine institutionsno needed states through the significantdistribution of all types of sources – financial, economic and economic spheres were designed in a way to be able to meet the demands of all 15 member- they were abandoned shortly after. The process of policy-making in the USSR and all socio- Union and of the for thesovereignty threat serious liberal presented the processes because but relative liberalization in occurred SovietUkraine under N.Khrushev within periodthis as well views of N.Khrushev wasnotand therefore opposed by Union Soviet the (Regulski, The 2003). Poland chose its own way of socialist development strategy in 1956 which came along with the pluralism in preserved. society was 14 other states of USSR simultaneously. Third, the Catholic Church in Poland as a source of performed by central the governmentof Soviet Union which involvedwas in administration of administration of its own society, whereas in the case of Ukraine the administration was 31 CEU eTD Collection society: Party (Snyder, 2003).Curtis (1992)rightfully the highlights importance ofintelefencia in Polish intellectuals as a whole class were wiped out for being dangerous for the authority of the Soviet scientists, academics and professionals were more appreciated in Poland, whereas Ukrainian over 300000people from graduated colleges during timethis Curtis, (Glenn 1992).Groups E. of Polish authorities decided toexpand educational in opportunities periodthe 1962;of 1945 to ruined in FacingUkraine. theshortage of educated people and SecondWorld the after War, Moreover, as a consequence, Poland preserved the national human potential, which was totally communism. Ukraine. These factors explain why Poland had more chances to democracy after the fall of communities, as the basis of governance, were significantly more capable in Poland than in making was incomparable still inSovietto totalitarianism Ukraine. The first-level local Thus, the level of pluralism in Poland and the ability of its citizens to participate in decision- by (Regulski, protests numerous pp 20-24) 2003, thatin toUkrainecontrast had chance to occur. political and socio-economic crisis in Poland (1948,1956,1968-1970, 1980-1981) was followed uprising processes in Poland werebigger andmore influential comparing Ukraine. to Every deep the forth, and back going constantly was in Poland liberalization the through even Additionally, values in small local communities and thus destroyed the important backbone of the society. of Poland's reformist concepts in the early 1990s. reflecting most ideasintelligentsia,government, diverse proposed by source the of the the atmosphere, a wide variety of social and political agendas competed for attention in the … In this era. partition the of romantic patriotism the and nobility of the commonwealth for theprepartition Union, reverence and Soviet Russia andthe on reliance Polish with for the and contact disdain society, for Western admiration predecessors: century role, this In interference. political intelligentsia retainedand gradually spread the values it hadinherited from its nineteenth- outside from ideals national of protectors In the 1980s, the activist elements of the intelligentsia resumed the traditional role as 32 CEU eTD Collection uniform authorityuniform state Ukrainian(Regulski, 2003), politicians wereelaborating policies onthe of principle Stalinist the of rejection the and municipalities local of authority of restoration and Ukrainian Whereas politics. primary of ambitions Polish politicians concerned the Consequently, as a general trend, private incentives of these actors play different roles in Polish directly benefitfrom possessing and power neglected toopentheir profilesto own citizens. that people from and administration central the of traditions long with in acountry changes experience of inworking CommunistSovietIt would Party. be naive too expect to radical and the majority mostthe of influential political figureshave some communist background and considered as an option and never took place. The Communist party has existed till nowadays involvement in communist crimes (David, 2011). In Ukraine, however,lustration was noteven implemented inonly 1997, all political since 1989were authorities obliged mention to their socialism states, has not performed lustration. Although lustration liberalwas in Poland and distinction and it is rather obvious: Ukraine, in contrast to Poland and the majority of the post- transformation processes but also in political actors in charge. It is crucial to find out the main two countries is not inonly high share of academics and professionals involved in Polish between difference the reformation: for Ukrainian whoareresponsiblefrom those are different people who were implementing these reforms. Social groups working on reformation of Poland liberalization of economy) had different results in Poland and Ukraine emphasizes the role of the The key argument that partially explains the question why the same reforms (for example, 3.2 Actors Participating in Reformation The role of these people was crucial in the reformation of the state. 33 CEU eTD Collection reformation both of countries. reformation differences between Poland and Ukraine it is necessary to analyze the nature and major goals of reformed and through what means. However, in order to draw the final conclusion about Ukraine seems beto less mature and lack the experience and understanding of what should be state may be characterized as partial and adjustable to short-term and populist goals. In general, Ukrainian situation, unfortunately, the context is absolutely different: all attempts to reform the became the evolutionary and complementary step for all previous transformation attempts. In democraticThisdeep research accordingby tomanner. and reform wereperformed professionals traditions, previous experiments andchanges (forexample, Local GovernmentAct1990) and case of Poland, simultaneous administrative-territorial reforms of 1998 were based on long lot. Inthe vary a strategies reformation Ukrainian and Polish of characteristics general the actors, To sum in up, terms of historicalcontext, background andinvolved academic and political system. territorial in nor neitherof interested inpower decentralization creatingcapable administrative- the of Ukraine authoritiesof central are highlygovernment oligarchy with the diffused and are ability to obtain credits, entrepreneurship support and security between two countries. In the case systems, taxation of transparency bureaucracy, levels the of clearly demonstrate accordingly World Bank’sEase of Doing Index Business 59and(2012): 149places of Poland and Ukraine 152 place and by surrounded leastthe developed countries of world.the The same is relevantto post-socialists states (Corruption Perception Index, 2011). Ukraine, in contrast, is placed on the corrupted less among positions leading the of one occupies Poland International Transparency redistribution of state property and personal enrichment. As a result, nowadays, according to 34 CEU eTD Collection to European Union) should notbe overestimated since the nature of Polish decentralization has processes as a pushingmechanism in fall 1990-2004 (from down of communism tothe accession meaning the democracy Therefore, decentralization of changes. socialthe passiveness towards performed revealsLocal by inDemocracy Europe, (2001), and Central Eastern P.Swianiewicz local communities. The analysis of Citizens’ Perception of Reforms and from demanded than rather level on government central the of waselaborated transformation power, (3)monopoly publicof finance andmonopoly (4) publicof administration. This crucial the major state monopolies: (1) monopoly of communist party, (2) monopoly of centralized state administrative-territorialsuccess to as reform that, J.Regulski (2003) rightfully broke highlights, clearlythat Poland his chapters Previous owes character. demonstrate reforms top-down hadthe specialists (P.Swianiewicz, J.Regulski, K.Tausz, S.Capkova and others) is as follows: Polish A crucial argument of this paper that is based on the research and consistent with opinions of 3.3.1 Poland Polish reform are analyzed and contrasted to the Ukrainian situation. why the same strategy was not realized in Ukraine. The main purposes and principles of the why the administrative-territorial reform in Poland was performed this way and not the other and for is of Therefore,part of factors learning this successful experience. the paper the on focused (Ukraine). The initial goals of reforms andmeans whichthrough itwas performed are key understanding why some countries (Polandin case of paper)this more are successful than others The essence of the chosen reform strategy can explain a lotabout a country and is significant for 3.3 NatureandGoalsofReforms 35 CEU eTD Collection countries, where democracy is rather sufficient condition, to a bigger extent tend toward the toward extentto a bigger tend condition, is sufficient rather democracy where countries, decision-making and administration (principle of participation/democracy). European Northern in of processes the municipalities local of small therepresentation care about traditionally governments and enable different them take to decisions. Someof Southern European countries is due example) important good to its secureautonomy decentralization ability local to of (Swianiewicz,purposes 2003,pp22-23). Thus, in the contextofWestern (Germany Europe is a different for reforms decentralization use accordingly and of decentralization components essential these on focus intheir vary countries European different enough, Interestingly decentralization: Péteri (2001), andpp P.Swianiewicz (2003, 22-23), thereare mainthree of principles among different European countries. Thus, according to the research of T. Horváth (2000), G. reform across Europe and focus on the key principles that are put as a basis of decentralization fact is interesting Another revealed incompare of that studies group the Local Government in country. governance the intoimprove power the order decentralize to authority central of decision voluntary the demonstrates Polish reform However, character. top-down them closer to smaller communities. smaller to closer them “Efficiency” –principleincreases that efficiency the of delivered services moving though into the process of self-governance; “Participation” (democracy) –principleenhances inclusion that of various social groups localities; different in the choices different making allows and government “Liberty” (autonomy) –principle that prevents the concentration of power in the central 36 CEU eTD Collection governance of country - it is important to highlight that the Polish version of of Polishadministrative- version highlight the is to that important - itcountry of governance good for condition insufficient but necessary is decentralization of focus right the However, administrative-territorial division and good governance in the country. factors effective of the are key andcapacity chosensize Their properly (wojewodstvo). decision-makingfinancial and autonomy levelscompared to the of andcounty (powiat) regions municipalities (gminas) - the closest to the citizens level of governance –possess the bigger governments possess the autonomy in decision-making andbudgetary autonomy. Polish local and electedand citizens the authorities aredemocratically to (3) accountable services, (2) strong andLevitas: (1)areableAntonioprovide capablelocal that to governments quality public identified within scope the of paperthis since itsatisfy five main by pointed principles out and pension systems. The Polish models fits into the concept of good governance that is education security, in health-care, aredelivered that services andefficiency of local governments the primary goals of decentralization reforms – the primary goals concerned the empowerment of Polish model and basing on above mentioned historical factors, enhancing of democracy was not isThis argument in supported several works of 2006).AccordingP.Swianiewicz (2003, the to The Polish model of decentralization to a bigger extent similar to Northern European practices. towards functionstheir andsocial services thesethat units provide. leaned units and territorial administrative of sinceprimary consolidating goal an the outlier relations between citizens and public authorities”. Poland, in contrast to them, can be treated as “democratic focused areprimarily reforms ontheadministrative strengthening principles of of variation of approaches”. Thus, Slovakia, The Czech Republic and Hungary in their territorial- 23-24), “modes oflocal reformsgovernment in Central and seem Eastern Europe to reflect this importance of quality and efficiency of services.Accordingprovided toSwianiewicz (2003,pp 37 CEU eTD Collection 2004) because in periodthat of time itwas seen as a goodexample of existence ofmany levels Constitution formally became a basis for Ukrainianthe inConstitution 1996 (Yevtushenko, Ukraine) as well in as geographical, demographical and historical features. The French population of both countries and their territorial division (22 regions in France and 25 in forms of authority are very similar. Second, there are identical characteristics in size and French governance in many terms. First, Ukraine and France are both Unitarian states and the after the ratification of the Constitution of Ukraine in 1996. This model is similar to the model of transformation, Ukraine started to build its own Ukrainian model of state and local authorities Although due toabove mentioned challenges itis harddefine to a single main of trend Ukrainian 3.3.2 Ukraine Northern European countries and properly adjusted to the national Polish context. of experience tothe issimilar which services) of public (efficiency reforms decentralization success of Poland in the transition towards good government is explained by right focus of appropriateand involvement historical of additionally Therefore, actors, context dedicated to in local particular. and governance of administration reinforces processes mechanism that is heritage thecountry andgoverning according principles of– the to apertinentdecentralization Polishness –being citizens Poland,of sharing Polish respectingtraditions, national and cultural Poland being ademocratic European country as a was (that put guideline).idea The of of concept andthe units) pre-socialism to areadjusted of sizes gminas example, (for traditions Polish wasperformed accordingunits Theconsolidationto 2003). of administrative-territorial is isdecentralization intofactor of anotheridentity significantthat success(Regulski, embedded territorial reform is not a simple copying from foreign experience. The idea of Polish national 38 CEU eTD Collection development including the level of communities. The strongest power is concentrated on the on isconcentrated power strongest The communities. of level the including development consistent and a lot of improvements should be done. The state is involved in all directions of main tasks and responsibilities of different tiers of administrative-territorial division are not the since complete not are reforms decentralization the Ukraine and in France both Nowadays are evident. of decentralization paths Ukrainian and French between analogies the France, behind building state long of fact the functionscontrol forall and Thus, despite arbitration level structures. administrative-territorial of autonomy2004, pp4-5).However,(Yevtushenko, the central isgovernment still performing in communities freedoms, offinancial decision-making processes terms and representation, decentralization of central power were adopted (Schmidt, 1990). Wider rights were given to local Within periodthe of 1982-1986 more fortythan laws andnormative towards acts authoritiesother, of communitythe levelsand department possessed autonomy (Ridley, 1973). butthe on highly centralized, was structure territorial the hand,the one on clearly: stated are not communities” Act of 1958; however, the differences between administrative and territorial units French revolution. The main rights of local governments are stated in the “Territorial of hierarchy.Ahigh leveladministrative subordination has been of forhabitual France since and departments. As the French scholar Ridley (1973) points out, local governance is just apart France is that it has long and strong traditions of central governance through the level of regions mainof Thefeature reforms. long of decentralization the period despite countries democratic among European the states isadministrative-centralized most the France Currently, France. In order to understandwhich to isdirection Ukraine goingitis look necessary at pathto the of them. between relations of administration: central, regional,level of departments and communal level and complex 39 CEU eTD Collection economic, political, social and cultural development directions. development cultural and social political, economic, in reforms. particular The country is struggling with due this to lackthe of consistency in nor ideas national in the neither isembedded identity Ukrainian century. in XXI state Ukrainian claimed its intentions toenter European Union, country has still notformed anyconcept about Ukrainefact that the Even despite successful reforms. mosttowards crucial of the obstacles This absence of the clearly defined national idea in terms of how Ukraine should look like is on clear.are not notleandoes towardsefficiency publicof servicessince thelong-run strategic goals of Ukraine autonomous in decision-making andfinances. Ingeneral, process the of governance in Ukraine governments satisfy only the condition of democratic elections and are not service-oriented or local concept by governanceAccording Ukrainian tothe of good T.Levitas, provided quality services. or social municipalities local the sakeof of for autonomy power decentralize way increasingof democracy hierarchicalthe through deconcentration ratherof power than democracy (representation). Ukraine, similarly,may be considered as a state that has chosen the Swianiewicz France andotherauthors, model fitsSouthern into European focusthe with on Referring by of principles three defined decentralization of to decentralization power. These reformation challenges take place due to the confusion with the final goals of the far.finalized andsuccessful so be in considered may not countries both processes decentralization general, In the complicated. central accordingbudget previously programs to stated but is process the rather long and from the remittances the through ismainly financing The tiers. performed lower hierarchical regional levels; authorities of all levels are responsible for securing rights and freedoms of the 40 CEU eTD Collection that would satisfy the democratic, economic and social needs of the Ukrainian society. Ukrainian needsof the social economicand democratic, would satisfy the that itselaborated like, Ukraine versionstructure hasnot Ukrainian own of administrative-territorial look of country views the should how national andparticular goals formulated of absence clearly if due by citizens aretaken Second, to the only central decisions actual government. the the services. Formal representation on the level municipalitiesof does not lead to the benefit of the for thesake decentralization of instead of providingenhancing participation quality social reforms due toseveral reasons. First, it has stepped on the long and confusing path of in Ukraineitsof administrative-territorial may unsuccessful terms beTherefore, considered 41 CEU eTD Collection national ideas from ideasnational from interference” 1992)wasstronger in political than outside (Curtis, Ukraine. threat to communist ideology. Additionally, the role of Polish intellegencia as “protectors of as a source of pluralism was also preserved, whereas religion in Ukraine was destroyed as a property private in Poland waspreserved butprohibited in The Ukraine. Polish Catholic Church to Ukraine, wasnever apart of SovietUnion and since 1956 had its ownform socialism.of The in contrast Poland, independent The Poland. and Ukraine between differences significant reveals Analysis of the historical conditions and context under which the reforms were performed Participating in Reformation and, finally, (3) Nature and Goals of Reforms. analyzed for this reason: (1) Context of Reforms and Historical Conditions, (2) Actors contrasting of paths of decentralization reforms. Differences in three main groups of factors are reforms were performed in Poland and were notin Ukraine – is answered by means of –why question specific The research these central to the subordinated government. finances are through hierarchicalthe system councils andthedecision-makingof and process sphereof public isadministrative-territorial has never performed proper the division established, been governance final customers (citizens of Poland). Ukraine can be characterized as a less developed country: all levels of administrative-territorial systems and approximation of social services closer tothe of and responsibilities tasks functions, of clear establishment local of government, empowerment on the positive effect had direct the reforms ofdecentralization path chosen Poland the Ukriane and analyze why Poland is more successful than Ukraine in governance. In the case of The main objective of this thesis was to contrast administrative-territorial reforms of Poland and Conclusion 42 CEU eTD Collection participation in the governance and democratic election of local authorities. The decentralization localThe election of in authorities. and democratic governance the participation background of administrative-territorial system and in order to satisfy the condition of deconcentration was of enforcedpower by for Constitution the the sake of establishing thelegal hierarchical the Ukraine of case the In context. Polish in the governance good for conditions creating enabled reforms the Therefore, power. central of decentralization voluntary through andpension education,the systems health-care,administrative provided within services the improve to aimed were in Poland reforms of ideas initial The services. public of efficiency towards leans model Polish the – services public of efficiency and governance) P.Swianiewicz and other scholars – autonomy, democracy (participation in the process of Goals of Reforms”. Among the three main principles of decentralization that are defined by “Nature and reforms in is part analyzed the of decentralization in focuses This specific difference it. opposed Ukrainian reformers but governance better as away towards decentralization Poland (municipalities/gminas)privatization but in Ukraine and why reformersPolish supported to democracy, why primary the reforms in concerned1990-1992 creation basicof strong in units more explain chances why and had actors Poland context inhistorical differences these general, were more focused on personal benefits (this is proved by differentlevels of corruption). In Poland weredevoted actors to reforms state(Regulski,the of whereas 2003), Ukrainian actors in states: two in the roles different played have politicians of incentives private the Accordingly, wereneveradopted. practices these in Ukraine citizens country; of the the to accountability performedin Poland obliged toopen authorities their andcreatetraditions profiles of were involved in the process of reforms in Poland. The liberal form of lustration that was iswho inways. shareof reason The professionals not only and higher academics in a different participatinginaffected reforms the Consequently, in reformation actors the andPoland Ukraine 43 CEU eTD Collection recommendations for the efficient decentralization reforms in efficient decentralization Ukraine. forthe recommendations of fieldthecreation mayinclude practical of furtherthis analysis the Therefore, system and budgetary autonomy county of and regional levels still need tobe elaborated. system. Second, the Polish decentralization reform should notbe idealized since the electoral levels of administrative-territorial different the and governance central between define relations reforms in Poland were evolutionary. Ukraine still has to establish a clear legal background and apply the Polish experience and models of reforms. First, the number of problems is different: proper decentralization reforms. At the same time, it does not mean that Ukraine has to directly without governance good create to impossible is it that demonstrates experience Polish The deliver with publicservices) idea. national embedded 3) theproper focus of reforms(creatingthe and strong capable municipalities thatefficiently todown; from top power the decentralized 2) theexistence actors who ofmorevoluntary less professional and privately-oriented -more chancestodemocracy; historical 1) the existence of conditions appropriate inPolandUkraine compared are to governance by: explained andsuccess paths To sum reforms of different differencesthe of between decentralization up, levels of governance. territorial division without clearly established functions, tasks and financial sources of different of path isUkraine similar French tothe model: have both confusingcountries administrative- 44 CEU eTD Collection Czech Republic and Slovakia. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: St. Martin's Press, 1999. Kirchner, Emil Joseph.Decentralization and transition in the Visegrad: Poland, Hungary, the Publishing, 2009 Kaluz and Government PublicServiceReform 2000. Initiative, M Tamás Horváth, Princeton Princeton: University Press, 2011. Christopher.Hood, The blame game: spin,bureaucracy, and in self-preservation government. Hungary, Poland. and Philadelphia: University Pennsylvaniaof Press,2011. David, Roman. Lustration and transitional justice: personnel systems in the Czech Republic, Library of Congress :, 1994 Curtis, Glenn E. Poland: a country study. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Federal Research Division, (accessed May 20, 2012). Country. "Indicators | Data." Data | The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ 2012). Index: Perceptions (accessedMay 26, http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ Transparency International. Corruption International." Transparency Index: Perceptions "Corruption The Constitution of Ukraine http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/site/const_eng/constitution_eng.htm The Constitution of Poland -http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm. Hampshire: Macmillan,2004. Palgrave Colomer, Josep Maria. Handbook of electoral system choice. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Institute, 2005. & Pittsburgh, Penn.:Center for Russian & East European 1999. Studies, Burant, Stephen R.. Poland, Ukraine, and the idea of strategic partnership. Forbes Quadrangle, ed. : Chancellery of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland, 1998. A new Polandfor new challenges: effectiveness, openness, subsidarity.amended 3rd, and suppl. 2000 Commonwealth Secretariat, Agere, Sam. Promoting good governance: principles, practices and perspectives. London: Bibliography apková, Son apková, ná , Daniela. Main Features of the Public Employment Service in Poland. Paris: OECD a. Local government and economic development. Budapest: Open Society . Decentralization: experiments and reforms. Budapest, Hungary: and Local Budapest, reforms. . Decentralization: experiments 45 CEU eTD Collection 1999. NewHaven: Yale University 2003. Press, Snyder, Timothy. reconstruction nations: The of Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569- Singh, Joginder.governance. Good : IndianPublishers 2002. Distributors, ɛɭɞɭɳɟɟ ɪɟɚɥɶɧɿɪɟɡɭɥɶɬɚɬɢ Shapovalova, N., and I. Presnyakov. " University Press, 1990. Cambridge decentralization. [England: Cambridge VivienSchmidt, Ann. DemocratizingFrance: thepolitical and administrative history of Local Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative, 2003. Regulski, Jerzy. Local government reform in Poland: an insiders story. Budapest, Hungary: political systems. Oxford: Transaction ;, 1988. Publishers in study aDanish-Polish comparative local and government: Decentralization Regulski, Jerzy. decentralisation,. London: H.M. Stationery Off., 1973. Ridley, F. F.. The French prefectoral system: an example of integrated administrative May 26, 2012). Business Regulations -Worldhttp://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings BankGroup. (accessed "Ranking of economies -Doing Business - World BankGroup."Doing Business - Measuring Potichnyj. Alta.: Canadian Edmonton, of Institute Ukrainian 1997. Studies, Potichnyj, Peter J.. Ukraine, developing a democratic polity: essays in honour of Peter J. Ukrainian 1980. Studies, Potichnyj, J.Poland Peter and and Ukraine, Edmonton: past present. Canadian of Institute and Central in utilities local in competition and Europe.Budapest: Local Eastern andPublic Government Service Reform 2001 Initiative, regulation market: the to Navigation G. Peteri, (accessed May 11, 2012) ɩɨɜɿɞɨɦɥɟɧɧɹɆɁɋɍɤɪɚʀɧɢ "Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine - Publications." Administrative-Territorial MirrorReform?” Weekly,August 31(660) 24-31, 2007. Mostova, Y., S.Rahmanin, “How Shall We Set up Ukraine; or What to do with the 2007,2012. points, Levitas, Antonio. IsDecentralization Essential to Democracy and Good Governance., Talking Communist Europe. The World Bank Rice University, 2006. Kunicová J, Nalepa P. Coming To Terms With the Past: Strategic Institutional Choice in Post- ? / ȾɂȺɅɈȽ / ȾɂȺɅɈȽ .ua. http://dialogs.org.ua/ru/cross/page3636.html.ua. (accessed May 1, 2012). . http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/22877.htm .ua." Ƚɭɦɚɧɢɬɚɪɧɚɹɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɚɜɍɤɪɚɢɧɟ Ⱥɞɦɿɧɿɫɬɪɚɬɢɜɧɚɪɟɮɨɪɦɚɭɉɨɥɶɳɿ 46 ɆɁɋɍɤɪɚʀɧɢ - ɇɨɜɢɧɢɬɚ – : ɚɟɫɬɶɥɢ ɧɚɩɪɹɦɤɢɡɦɿɧɬɚ CEU eTD Collection 2012) http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/Soc_Gum/Gileya/2009_18/Gileya18/P6.pdf (accessed June 1, NBU. France" of experience the bodies: self-regulatory local Yevtushenko, O. "The principle of subsidiary in the interaction of the state power bodies and the changing London: Royal Europe?. Institute of International Affairs ;, 2002. Kataryna, andWolczuk, Roman Wolczuk. Poland and astrategic Ukraine: in partnership a http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=PL (accessed May 16, 2012). International IDEA." International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. "Voter turnout data for Poland (Parliamentary, Presidential, EUParliament) |Voter Turnout | 2012) (accessedJune, http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp Pacific. for Asiaandthe "UNESCAP | What is Good Governance?." United Nations Economic and Social Commission Communities ;, 1992. Treaty on European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative, Open2002. Society Institute, Tausz, Katalin. The impact of decentralization on social policy. Budapest, Hungary: Local Governmentand Public Service Reform Initiative, Open2010. Society Institute, Swianiewicz, Pawe Governmentand Public Service Reform Open2003. Iniative, Society Institute, Swianiewicz, Pawe Local GovernmentStudies, Volume 32,Issue5,2006 Swianiewicz, P.Poland and Ukraine: Contrasting paths of decentralisation and territorial reform. 2002. Initiative,Society Institute, Open and Budapest, Eastern Europe. Hungary: and Local Government Public Service Reform Swianiewicz, Pawel. Consolidation or fragmentation?: The size of local governments in Central á á . Territorial consolidation reforms in Europe. Budapest, Hungary: Budapest, in reforms Local consolidation Europe. . Territorial . Public perception . Publicperception localof 2ndgovernments. ed.Budapest: Local 47