Mayors as a variable in typologies of local governments: a case study of the Czech Republic

ABSTRACT

The study focuses on the position of mayors in the self-government of municipalities in the Czech Republic. The typology of municipal governments classifies the Czech Republic in the ‘collective form’ category. The aim of the case study is to look for a way to supplement existing approaches to the typology of local governments. We emphasise the factual role of mayors in the formulation of development goals of municipalities, their initiative and weight in decision-making on budgets and investment actions. The study is based on data obtained through a questionnaire survey of municipal representatives and interviews with representatives of selected municipalities. Based on the results of both surveys, it is possible to prove that in spite of their not very strong legislative position, mayors can play a key role as initiators of investment projects and in promoting the municipal development agenda.

KEYWORDS:

• Municipality
• mayor
• council
• municipal board
• municipal development
• proposing an agenda
• promoting an agenda

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Zákon č. 128/2000 Sb., o obcích (obecní zřízení) (Czech Republic)

Zákon č. 313/2002 Sb., kterým se mění zákon č. 128/2000 Sb., o obcích (obecní zřízení) (Czech Republic).

Interview 1 Bohuslavice (district of Náchod, 1,007 inhabitants), mayor since 2010.

Interview 2 Česká Lípa (district of Česká Lípa, 37,158 inhabitants), representative 2014 – 2018.

Interview 3 České Budějovice (district of České Budějovice, 93,513 inhabitants), representative since 2006, 2010 – 2014 councillor, 2014 – 2015 first deputy of mayor, deputy of mayor since 2018.

Interview 4 Dobruška (district of Rychnov nad Kněžnou, 6,848 inhabitants), representative since 2006, mayor 2006 – 2016.

Interviews 5-9 Hanušovice (district of Šumperk, 3,181 inhabitants), representative since 2006; representative 2002 – 2010 and from 2014; representative since 2014; mayor 2010 – 2018, representative 1994 – 1998; representative since 1994, second deputy mayor 2006 – 2010.

Interview 10 Horoměřice (district of Praha-západ, 3,928 inhabitants), representative since 1994, mayor 1994 – 2014.

Interview 11 Chlistov (district of Klatovy, 123 inhabitants), mayor.

Interview 12 Ivančice (district of Brno-venkov, 9,606 inhabitants), representative since 1990, mayor 1990 – 2002, deputy mayor since 2014.

Interview 13 Klatovy (district of Klatovy, 22,415 inhabitants), deputy mayor since 2006.

Interview 14 Kopidlno (district of Jičín, 2,160 inhabitants), mayor since 2010.

Interview 15 Kozolupy (district of Plzeň-sever, 1,021 inhabitants), mayor since 2010.

Interview 16 Krakovany (district of Kolín, 823 inhabitants), mayor.

Interview 17 Nové Město nad Metují (district of Náchod, 9,550 inhabitants), representative since 2014.

Interview 18 Nýrsko (district of Klatovy, 4,962 inhabitants), representative.

Interview 19 Pláně (district of Plzeň-sever, 262 inhabitants), representative.

Interview 20 Plzeň 3 (district of Plzeň-město, 45,383 inhabitants, Plzeň 169,858), deputy mayor of city district.

Interview 21 Rapotín (district of Šumperk, 3,234 inhabitants), councillor 2014 – 2018.

Interview 22 Štětí (district of Litoměřice, 8,861 inhabitants), deputy mayor since 2010.

Interviews 23-24 Šumperk (district of Šumperk, 26,478 inhabitants), representative since 2014; representative 2006 – 2018, councillor 2010 – 2018.

Interview 25 Vidnava (district of Jeseník, 1 283 inhabitants), mayor since 2014.

Interview 26 Vochov (district of Plzeň-sever, 812 inhabitants), representative.

Interview 27 Vršovka (district of Náchod, 132 inhabitants) – representative 1998 – 2010, mayor 2006 – 2010.

Notes

1. In the Czech Republic the CEO is the municipal secretary.

2. Prague is a very specific city within the municipal structure of the Czech Republic. It differs significantly from the others due to its size given by the number of inhabitants. Prague is a city whose legal basis is not the Act on Municipalities as in the case of other municipalities, but rather the Act on the Capital City of Prague. The nature of political life tends to be more national than municipal.

3. The questionnaire contained questions determining who in a municipality comes with the impetus for the investment actions, whether the budget and intentions of the considered investment are discussed at the working meetings of the councillors (before the proper council meeting), whether the municipal council has initiated the establishment of working groups, and in which cases relevant investment actions are a source of polemics in the council or among citizens, whether the same group of councils – coalition, all councillors or most councillors, irrespective of coalition and opposition, vote for an investment action in the council, whether the municipality has a strategic development plan and whether the council proceeds according to this plan when approving investment actions. The questionnaire also contained identification questions – the name of the municipality, the number of councillors and so on.

4. The outline of the interviews was based on the questions in the questionnaire. The interviews allowed the responses to be better developed and focus more deeply on the reasons for the choice of specific policy mechanisms by mayors and other members of local governments. The questions were focused on investment initiators, working meetings of councillors and who proposes them, working groups set up by councils, decision-making on investments at council meetings and strategic development plans. They also discussed issues related to the risk of investment and its perception by a particular mayor (councillor).

5. This includes, for example, the website of the municipality, minutes from council meetings, study of statistical data about the municipality and election data – available from the Czech Statistical Office (www.volby.cz).

6. A total of 27 interviews were conducted in 22 selected municipalities (more people were interviewed in some municipalities). From the point of view of functions in the local government, the mayors were interviewed in 12 municipalities, the deputy mayor in three municipalities, a member of municipal board in three municipalities and representative without any other functions (i.e., not a member municipal board) in four municipalities. In cases where more respondents were interviewed in a municipality, the respondent with the highest past and present position is specified. The list of interviewed persons and their held positions in the municipal governments is specified in the sources of the study.

7. Given the size structure of Czech municipalities, most municipalities do not have a municipal board (executive body elected by the representatives from amongst their ranks). According to valid legislation, the board is only established in municipalities with at least 15 council members. Even the smallest municipalities can have this – every municipality can formally have a board. However, the council of most small municipalities consists of a smaller number of representatives, therefore most Czech municipalities do not have a board (6,235 municipal councils were elected in the 2014 elections, only 1,218 of which had 15 or more members) (Elections to Municipal Councils in 2014, 2015). This implies a logical assumption that the role of mayors in municipalities without a board is increasing, as the mayor holds the executive post instead of a municipal board.

8. Over and above the performance of office of a representative, mayors are primarily entrusted with the power to represent the municipality and manage or control the municipal office. They usually also conduct municipal council and board meetings.

9. E.g., civic activities, especially in the promotion of smaller investments (sidewalks, local roads) in a city with more than 93,000 residents, or a survey on preferred large investment projects among citizens in a city with 37,000 residents (interviews 3; 2).

10. Impulses for smaller investments, part of the proposals for larger investments, and support for the decision-making process.

11. The independence test of these two variables (Work Meetings on a Budget and Work Meeting on Investments) shows a mutual relationship. When using the Chi Square test, the value of 0.000 is achieved at a significance level of 5%.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Internal Grant Agency (IGA) Faculty of Economics and Management Czech University of Life Sciences Prague under Grant number 20171030 ‘Mechanisms of Local Government Decision-making in Municipalities of the Czech Republic’.

Notes on contributors

Jan Čopík

Jan Čopík teaches political science and public administration at the Department of Humanities, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. His research interests include the issue of local government and development of municipalities in the contemporary and historical context.

Radek Kopřiva

Radek Kopřiva teaches political science and public administration at the Department of Humanities, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. His research interests include the issue of voting behaviour and local government.

Jaroslav Čmejrek

Jaroslav Čmejrek is an associate professor at the Department of Humanities, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. His research interests include the issue of local government and representation of agricultural interests.