The strategic-relational formation of regional and metropolitan scales: studying two Polish regions undergoing transformation

Figures & data

Table 1. Dimensions of the region and metropolitan areas.

Dimension	Definition	Significance for the strategic–relational approach (SRA)
Three formal dimensions
Modes of representation	These give social forces access to the regional/metropolitan apparatus and to its capacities	Unequal access to the region/metropolitan area
Modes of articulation	Institutional architecture of the levels and branches of the region/metropolitan area	Unequal capacity to the shape, make and implement decisions
Modes of intervention	Modes of intervention inside the region/metropolitan area and beyond it	Different sites and mechanism of intervention
Three substantive dimensions
Social basis of the region/metropolitan area	Institutionalized social compromise	Uneven distribution to the ‘population’ in order to secure support for the region/metropolitan area, regional/metropolitan project, specific policy sets and visions
Regional/metropolitan project	Secures operational unity of the region/metropolitan area and its capacity to act	Overcomes the improbability of regional/metropolitan institutions by orienting particular actors
Vision of the region/metropolitan area	Defines nature and purposes of the region/metropolitan area for wider social formation	Provides legitimacy for the region/metropolitan area, defined in terms of promoting common good, etc.

Source: Jessop (2016b, p. 58); modified by the author.

Figure 1. Lubelskie and Silesia regions and their location in both Poland and Europe.

Source: Author.

Table 2. Characteristics of the regions included in the case studies.

Elements of regional characteristics	Regions included in the case studies
	Lubelskie region	Silesia region
Area	25,123 km^2 (third largest in the country)	12,333 km^4 (14th largest in the country)
Population	2.1 million (10th largest in the country)	4.5 million (second largest in the country)
Percentage of national gross domestic product (GDP) generated in regions	3.7% (11th largest amount in comparison with the other regions; 16th per capita)	12.3% (second largest amount in comparison with the other regions; fourth per capita)
Dominant structural problems	Unfavourable structure (dominance of agriculture) and low level of innovativeness of the economy Large number of places at risk of socio-economic marginalization	Lowest economic activity rate of the population in the whole country Burden of historical dependence of local labour markets on traditional industries (especially mining) Disproportions of potential and economic activity of different parts of the region
Elements of a strategic vision of regional development	Rational use of socio-economic specificity, environmental resources and polycentricity of the urban centres network	‘Green Silesia’. A modern European region with a competitive economy resulting from a responsible transformation
Ways of perceiving regions in the national regional policy and national politics	Eastern Poland (including Lubelskie) as one of the two areas, next to the Silesia Region, struggling with adaptation and restructuring difficulties Support for Eastern Poland as a tool for equalizing opportunities and shaping territorial justice	Silesia as one of the two areas, next to Eastern Poland, struggling with adaptation and restructuring difficulties Transformation of Silesia as a symbol of different visions of the energy transformation and conflicts between the state and various social groups, with the involvement of strong trade unions
Selected support instruments from the national/EU level	Eastern Poland National Operational Program (mostly EU financed) EU Just Transition Fund	Program for Silesia (resulting from the national long-term development strategy) State law concerning the metropolitan union in Silesia EU Just Transition Fund
Characteristics of the spatial system	Largest city and capital of the region (Lublin), situated in the centre, apart from that, small and medium-sized urban centres Lowest urbanization rate in the country	Historically shaped, the polycentric network of urban centres divided into four areas of development policy Highest rate of urbanization in the country
Characteristics of institutional metropolitan cooperation	Cooperation of local governments driven by the EU Integrated Territorial Investments mechanism, based on the weak formula of the agreement (from 2015), but evolving towards stronger formalization	Model of cooperation between local governments, which has been established since the 2000s Only region in the country with a formally established, in 2017, metropolitan union: Upper Silesian and Zagłębie Metropolis (Metropolis GZM)
Categories and number of respondents included in the research	Total number of interviews: 31; including: representatives of public institutions, 16; and representatives of social organizations, business organizations, universities and the media, 15	Total number of interviews: 29; including: representatives of public institutions, 14; and representatives of social organizations, business organizations, universities and the media, 15

Sources: Author, based Eurostat (2020), Samorząd Województwa Lubelskiego (2021) and Samorząd Województwa Śląskiego (2020).

Table 3. Dimensions of regional and metropolitan relations indicated by the respondents.

Dimension	Lubelskie region		Silesia region
	Regional scale	Metropolitan scale	Regional scale	Metropolitan scale
Three formal dimensions
Modes of representation	Sufficient access to the region for business organizations, universities and a limited group of social activists – their aim is mainly to give opinions about current affairs Perceptible threats of clientelism in favouring specific local governments due to political party affiliation	Decisions are taken by local authorities No possibility of formal direct pressure or influence from interest groups No obvious link to the representation of social interests Pluralism in terms of access to the metropolitan entity for local authorities	Regional level is not a significant point of reference for universities and business organizations in terms of the need to represent their interests – if necessary, however, this representation is secured for them Representing the interests of local government by distributing EU funds No access to the region for residents	Openness to the business and science community Threat of unequal distribution of benefits among the members of the metropolitan union Metropolitan union as an element of the fight for positions for political parties Pluralism in terms of local government cooperation structures, the experience of which has been used by the metropolitan union
Modes of articulation	Region as a structure weakly anchored within the state apparatus Other actors contact regional authorities/officials to consult/discuss EU funds implementation, or the works on the regional development strategy Direct communication channels between region and EU institutions, as well as between Polish regional representatives	EU Integrated Territorial Investments as an instrument of pressure on the region (representing the interests of local governments) New opportunities for interpersonal relations Building an apolitical metropolitan project Local authorities from outside the metropolitan structures aim to join them or have their own functional area	European funds strengthen the position of regions within the state structures, the national government notice the leading role of the regions in this respect Pragmatic approach of the Silesia regional authorities and officials to the relations with national governmentIncreasing awareness of the European Commission representatives that regional authorities can shape their region’s futures	Building a metropolitan union based on the extensive experience of cooperation between local governments within the region (including the implementation of EU funds) Demanding and undefined character of the relations of the metropolitan union authorities with the national and regional governments representatives
Modes of intervention	Institution managing the EU-funded Regional Operational Program Large-scale infrastructure investments (e.g., construction of an airport, express roads) Representing the region’s interests at the national level Regional development strategy as an indirect basis for obtaining external funds for local governments	Funds from the Regional Operational Program for metropolitan projects, primarily for the improvement of internal public transport within the area and to its capital – Lublin In future, social infrastructure and climate change adaptation projects/investments Organization of cooperation and exchange between metropolitan institutions within the country	Own activities of universities and business organizations for the region, including those implemented on a national and international scale Various actors coalescing around regional projects Implementation of EU projects in cooperation with public authorities and other actors	Reform of public transport Building a network of contacts ‘Nobel Fund’ for universities ‘Solidarity Fund’ for local governments
Three substantive dimensions
Social basis of the region/metropolitan area	Confidence that it has been necessary to instantly make up for developmental delays and underinvestment in Eastern Poland Capital of the region (Lublin) as its showcase and symbol of change	None, varied or inconcrete imaginaries about the metropolitan area	A region undergoing transformation, which needs specific intervention in state policy, but especially taking responsibility for its future within the region (by different actors) The need to shift the region to new industries, new technologies, and new modes of thinking	A common awareness of the existence of a metropolitan union Awareness of the possibility of obtaining additional funds and/or achieving their goals by different actors The metropolitan union as a new platform for formal and informal relations Desire for public transport problems to be resolved
Regional/metropolitan project	The prominence of the region depends on the directions of state policy, and the pace of negotiations within institutions at the EU level concerning the EU Cohesion Policy Communication with partners relates mainly to the implementation of EU projects, but (as a rule) not other strategic issues	So far, the capacity to act depends on external funds, national policy, and an understanding with the members of the regional administration	The creation of a metropolitan union used to be one of the main purposes of regional policy, although the regional authorities did not contribute to it The regional administration has been supporting the cooperation between local governments in the implementation of EU funds	Three categories of members of the metropolitan union: the leading main cities, the disadvantaged and the peripheries Undefined place within the institutional architecture of the state and the region Building a metropolitan project based on the transparent and successful experiences of previous and ongoing cooperation
Vision of the region/metropolitan area	Region as a vehicle for raising external investment and funds from the EU	The starting point of the cooperation has been the implementation of the EU funded projects The will at a managerial level to include non-public actors in future works, but without a clear vision of the future aim of the metropolitan institution	Contrasting views: a region in planned and assisted transformation, shifting away from heavy industry versus a region being the object of external decisions and processes without the concept (with regard to regional authorities) for transformation and dialogue with partners	Additional funds for the region from the central budget Opportunity to solve the problems related to the organization of public transport

Source: Author’s own elaboration.

Table 4. Strategic–relational approach (SRA) elements: characteristics of regions.

Selected aspects of socio-spatial relations	Lubelskie region		Silesia region
	Regional scale	Metropolitan scale	Regional scale	Metropolitan scale
Dominant socio-spatial principles	Territory-scale: intergovernmental arrangements for coordinating different scales	Territory–place networks: integrating places/relations into a territory, building networks of nodal connectivity	Place networks: local, urban, regional governance or partnerships	Networks–territory: interregional alliances and networks of networks
Dominant contradictions within regional and metropolitan spaces	Demand for a swift transformation of the region versus weakness of the region within the state structures	Ability versus inability to balance social forces/imaginaries/interests within the metropolitan scale	Ability versus inability of different actors to follow/balance externalities that influence the region	The element of the regional raison d’état so far versus the lack of an undefined vision of further action within the metropolitan scale
Main spatio-temporal strategies	Temporalization	Temporalization–prioritization	Spatialization	Hierarchization
Meta-governance capacities	Capacity to govern the region lies beyond its borders	Intergovernmental arrangements as a possible way to multilevel governance (MLG) and meta-governance	Shared intentionality of actors from different sectors to transform the region	Establishment of the metropolitan union as a result of regional meta-governance

Sources: Author’s own elaboration based on Jessop (2016a, 2016b).

Jessop, B. (2016b). The state: Past, present, future. Polity Press.

 Google Scholar

Eurostat. (2020). GDP per capita in EU regions: Regional GDP per capita ranged from 30% to 263% of the EU average in 2018. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/10474907/1-05032020-AP-EN.pdf/81807e19-e4c8-2e53-c98a-933f5bf30f58 (accessed 30 March 2021).

 Google Scholar

Samorząd Województwa Lubelskiego. (2021). Strategia Rozwoju Województwa Lubelskiego do 2030 roku, projekt. Available at: https://strategia.lubelskie.pl/ogloszenie/srwl.projekt.2021.02.02.pdf (accessed 30 March 2021).

 Google Scholar

Samorząd Województwa Śląskiego. (2020). Strategia Rozwoju Województwa Śląskiego ‘Śląskie 2030’: Zielone Śląskie. Available at: https://rcas.slaskie.pl/content/strategia-rozwoju-wojewodztwa-slaskiego-slaskie-2030—zielone-slaskie (accessed 30 March 2021).

 Google Scholar

Jessop, B. (2016a). Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1), 8–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2015.1123173

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar