The establishment of inter-municipal cooperation: the case of a polycentric post-socialist region

References

• Albrechts, L. (2001). How to proceed from image and discourse to action: As applied to the Flemish Diamond. Urban Studies, 38(4), 733–745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allers, M. A., & De Greef, J. A. (2018). Intermunicipal cooperation, public spending and service levels. Local Government Studies, 44(1), 127–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baba, H., & Asami, Y. (2019). Municipal population size and the benefits of inter-municipal cooperation: Panel data evidence from Japan. Local Government Studies, 1–23. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/03003930.2019.1624257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey, N., & Turok, I. (2001). Central Scotland as a polycentric urban region: Useful planning concept or chimera? Urban Studies, 38(4), 697–715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain. The Journal of Policy Reform, 9(1), 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bel, G., Fageda, X., & Mur, M. (2013). Why do municipalities cooperate to provide local public services? An empirical analysis. Local Government Studies, 39(3), 435–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bel, G., & Miralles, A. (2003). Factors influencing the privatisation of urban solid waste collection in Spain. Urban Studies, 40(7), 1323–1334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bel, G., & Mur, M. (2009). Intermunicipal cooperation, privatization and waste management costs: Evidence from rural municipalities. Waste Management, 29(10), 2772–2778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bel, G., & Sebő, M. (2019). Does inter-municipal cooperation really reduce delivery costs? An empirical evaluation of the role of scale economies, transaction costs, and governance arrangements. Urban Affairs Review. doi:10.1177/1078087419839492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bel, G., & Warner, M. E. (2015). Inter-municipal cooperation and costs: Expectations and evidence. Public Administration, 93(1), 52–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergholz, C., & Bischoff, I. (2019). Citizens’ support for inter-municipal cooperation: Evidence from a survey in the German state of Hesse. Applied Economics, 51(12), 1268–1283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevernage, B. (2016). Tales of pastness and contemporaneity: On the politics of time in history and anthropology. Rethinking History, 20(3), 352–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyhan, B. (2019). The delimitation of planning regions on the basis of functional regions: An algorithm and its implementation in Turkey. Moravian Geographical Reports, 27(1), 15–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaeschke, F., & Haug, P. (2018). Does intermunicipal cooperation increase efficiency? A conditional metafrontier approach for the Hessian wastewater sector. Local Government Studies, 44(1), 151–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999–1023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, P. J. (2008). “State administration” vs. Self-government in the Slovak and Czech Republics. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 41(3), 339–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger, M., & Meijers, E. (2012). Form follows function? Linking morphological and functional polycentricity. Urban Studies, 49(5), 1127–1149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capello, R. (2000). The city network paradigm: Measuring urban network externalities. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1925–1945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEC. (1999). European spatial development perspective: Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the EU. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Challand, B. (2009). 1989, contested memories and the shifting cognitive maps of Europe. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(3), 397–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chloupková, J., Svendsen, G. L. H., & Svendsen, G. T. (2003). Building and destroying social capital. The case of cooperative movements in Denmark and Poland. Agriculture and Human Values, 20, 241–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CRR MU. (2009). POLYREG: Annual report 2008. Brno: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Csaba, L. (1982). Industrial structural policy in Czechoslovakia, 1970–1985. Economics of Planning, 18(3), 114–142.
   Google Scholar
• Czech Statistical Office. (2014). Census 2011 – Commuting to work and schools. Retrieved from https://www.czso.cz/csu/sldb/cd_dojizdka_do_zamestnani_a_do_skol_podle_sldb_2011
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. (2003). Polycentricity in European spatial planning: From an analytical tool to a normative agenda. European Planning Studies, 11(8), 979–999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Liddo, G., & Giuranno, M. G. (2016). Asymmetric yardstick competition and municipal cooperation. Economics Letters, 141, 64–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domański, B. (2011). Post-socialism and transition. In A. Pike, A. Rodríguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney (Eds.), Handbook of local and regional development (pp. 172–181). London-New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Enyedi, G. (1992). Urbanisation in east central Europe: Social processes and societal responses in the state socialist system. Urban Studies, 29, 869–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enyedi, G. (1996). Urbanisation under socialism. In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe, & I. Szelényi (Eds.), Cities after socialism (pp. 100–118). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2014). Making Europe open and polycentric: Visions and scenarios for the European territory towards 2050. Retrieved from http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Publications/TerritorialVision/ESPON_Vision-Scenarios_2050.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EU Ministers responsible for Spatial Development. (2007). Territorial agenda of the European Union. Leipzig. Retrieved from http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Nationale_Stadtentwicklung/territoriale_agenda_en_bf.pdf
   Google Scholar
• EU Ministers responsible for Spatial Development. (2011). Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020. Gödöllő. Retrievede from http://www.eu2011.hu/files/bveu/documents/TA2020.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Eyþórsson, G. Þ. (2019). Decision-making efficiency, accountability and democracy in inter-municipal cooper-ation arrangements: The case of Iceland. Icelandic Review of Politics & Administration, 15(1), 21–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fałkowski, J. (2013). Political accountability and governance in rural areas: Some evidence from the Pilot Programme Leader+ in Poland. Journal of Rural Studies, 32(October), 70–79.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2004). Territorial cohesion: old (French) wine in new bottles? Urban Studies, 41(7), 1349–1365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2005). Polycentric territorial cohesion policy. Town Planning Review, 76(1), 107–118.
   Google Scholar
• Finka, M., & Kluvánková, T. (2015). Managing complexity of urban systems: A polycentric approach. Land Use Policy, 42, 602–608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29, 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frère, Q., Leprince, M., & Paty, S. (2014). The impact of intermunicipal cooperation on local public spending. Urban Studies, 51(8), 1741–1760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furmankiewicz, M., Macken‐Walsh, A., & Stefańska, J. (2014). Territorial governance, networks and power: Cross‐sectoral partnerships in rural Poland. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 96(4), 345–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furmankiewicz, M., & Slee, B. (2007). Cross-sectoral cooperation for rural development in old and new EU member states: A comparative case study of English and Polish area-based partnerships. Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 4(3–4), 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Grospič, J. (2008). Úvod do regionálních věd a veřejné správy [Introduction to regional sciences and public administration] (5th Extended ed.). Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.
   Google Scholar
• Growe, A. (2012). Emerging polycentric city-regions in Germany. Regionalisation of economic activities in metropolitan regions. Erdkunde, 66(4), 295–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, J., & Growe, A. (2014a). From places to flows? Planning for the new ‘regional world in Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(1), 21–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, J., & Growe, A. (2014b). When regions collide: In what sense a new ‘regional problem’? Environment and Planning A, 46(10), 2332–2352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks, F. (2006). Shifts in governance in a polycentric urban region: The case of the Dutch Randstad. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(10–11), 931–951.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horák, M. (2007). Governing the post-communist city: Institutions and democratic development in Prague. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kadečka, S. (2003). Právo obcí a krajů v České republice [Law of municipalities and regions in the Czech Republic]. Praha: C.H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffmann, A. (2016). Is the ‘Central German metropolitan region’ spatially integrated? An empirical assessment of commuting relations. Urban Studies, 53(9), 1853–1868.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klimovský, D. (2010). Territorial consolidation and inter-communal co-operation at the local level in the Slovak Republic. In P. Swianiewicz (Ed.), Territorial consolidation reforms in Europe (pp. 237–253). Budapest: OSI/LGI.
   Google Scholar
• Kloosterman, R. C., & Musterd, S. (2001). The polycentric urban region: Towards a research agenda. Urban Studies, 38(4), 623–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluvánková-Oravská, T., & Chobotová, V. (2006). Shifting governance. Managing the commons: The case of Slovenský Ráj National Park. Sociologia, 38(3), 221–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambregts, B. (2009). The polycentric metropolis unpacked: Concepts, trends, and policy in the Randstad Holland (Doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Leitner, H., & Sheppard, E. (2002). “The city is dead, long live the net”: Harnessing European interurban networks for a neoliberal agenda. Antipode, 34(3), 495–518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lintz, G. (2016). A conceptual framework for analysing inter-municipal cooperation on the environment. Regional Studies, 50(6), 956–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lux, M., Sunega, P., & Katrňák, T. (2013). Classes and castles: Impact of social stratification on housing inequality in post-socialist states. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 274–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lysek, J., & Šaradín, P. (2018). Mapping the success: Inter-municipal cooperation in two Czech Micro-regions. In F. Teles & P. Swianiewicz (Eds.), Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe: Institutions and governance (pp. 315–326). Cham: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Macken-Walsh, A. (2010). Towards a “transverse inter- sectoral debate”? A case study of the Rural Partnership Programme (RPP) in post-socialist Lithuania. Eastern European Countryside, 16, 45–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macken-Walsh, A., & Curtin, C. (2013). Governance and rural development: The case of the Rural Partnership Programme (RPP) in post-socialist Lithuania. Sociologia Ruralis, 53(2), 246–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, K., & Franke, D. (2019). Assessment of territorial benefits and efficiency from the construction of motorway and speed train networks: The Czech case. Moravian Geographical Reports, 27(3), 140–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malý, J. (2016). Impact of polycentric urban systems on intra-regional disparities: A micro-regional approach. European Planning Studies, 24(1), 116–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malý, J. (2019). Polycentric urban systems and territorial cohesion. In E. Medeiros (Ed.), Territorial cohesion: The urban dimension (pp. 69–89). Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Marquardt, D., Möllers, J., & BucHenrieder, G. (2012). Social networks and rural development: LeAder in Romania. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(4), 398–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, E. (2007). From central place to network model: Theory and evidence of a paradigm change. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 98(2), 245–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, E., Hoekstra, J., & Aguado, R. (2008). Strategic planning for city networks: The emergence of a basque global city? International Planning Studies, 13(3), 239–259.
   Google Scholar
• Meijers, E., & Romein, A. (2003). Realizing potential: Building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 173–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, E., & Sandberg, K. (2006). Polycentric development to combat regional disparities? The relation between polycentricity and regional disparities in European countries. Proceedings of the 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Volos, Greece, 30 August – 3 September 2006, Volos: ERSA.
   Google Scholar
• Meijers, E., Waterhout, B., & Zonneveld, W. (2005). Polycentric development policies in European countries: An introduction. Built Environment, 31(2), 97–102.
   Google Scholar
• Mulíček, O., & Malý, J. (2019). Moving towards more cohesive and polycentric spatial patterns? Evidence from the Czech Republic. Papers in Regional Science, 1–18. doi:10.1111/pirs.12383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, C. (2005). Social capital and cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe. A theoretical perspective. ICAR Discussion Paper 9/2005. Berlin: Humboldt University Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Myant, M. (2003). The rise and fall of Czech capitalism: Economic development in the Czech Republic since 1989. Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Nunvářová, S. (2006). Veřejná politika a územní správa a samospráva [Public policy and territorial administration and self-government]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
   Google Scholar
• Olsson, A. R., & Cars, G. (2011). Polycentric spatial development: Institutional challenges to intermunicipal cooperation. Jahrbuch Fur Regionalwissenschaft, 31(2), 155–171.
   Google Scholar
• Osman, R., Frantál, B., Klusáček, P., Kunc, J., & Martinát, S. (2015). Factors affecting brownfield regeneration in post-socialist space: The case of the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy, 48, 309–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. The American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pano Puey, E., Magre Ferran, J., & Puiggròs Mussons, C. (2018). Beyond size: Overcoming fragmentation by inter-municipal associations in Spain? The case of Catalonia. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(4), 639–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parr, J. B. (2004). The polycentric urban region: A closer inspection. Regional Studies, 38(3), 231–240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pumain, D. (2011). Systems of cities and levels of organisation. In A. Lesne & P. Bourgine (Eds.), Morphogenesis: Origins of patterns and shapes (pp. 225–249). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riguelle, F., Thomas, I., & Verhetsel, A. (2007). Measuring urban polycentrism: A European case study and its implications. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 193–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryšavý, D., & Bernard, J. (2013). Size and local democracy: The case of Czech municipal representatives. Local Government Studies, 39(6), 833–852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt, P. (2013). Planning for polycentricity in European metropolitan areas—Challenges, expectations and practices. Planning Practice & Research, 28(4), 400–419.
   Google Scholar
• Sedmihradská, L. (2011). Voluntary municipal associations in the Czech Republic: Unfulfilled expectations? In P. Swianiewicz (Ed.), Working together: Inter-municipal cooperation in five Central European countries (pp. 165–209). Budapest: LGI-Open Society Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Sedmihradská, L. (2018). Inter-municipal cooperation in the Czech Republic: A public finance perspective. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 11(2), 153–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidenglanz, D. (2010). Transport relations among settlement centres in the eastern part of the Czech Republic as a potential for polycentricity. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica, 45(1), 75–89.
   Google Scholar
• Šimková, E. (2012). Partnership of municipalities and regional development in the Czech Republic (Example in Rural Tourism). In S. Oprisan, A. Zaharim, S. Eslamian, M.-S. Jian, C. A. F. Aiub, & A. Azami (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Computational Chemistry and Bioscience (pp. 193–198). Montreux: WSEAS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A., & Timár, J. (2010). Uneven transformations: Space, economy and society 20 years after the collapse of state socialism. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(2), 115–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soukopová, J., & Klimovský, D. (2016). Intermunicipal cooperation and local cost efficiency: The Case of waste management services in the Czech Republic. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference Current Trends in Public Sector Research (pp. 398–405) Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.
   Google Scholar
• Soukopová, J., Ochrana, F., Klimovský, D., & Mikušová Meričková, B. (2016). Factors influencing the efficiency and effectiveness of municipal waste management expenditure. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government, 14(3), 361–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanilov, K. (2007). The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Swianiewicz, P. (Ed). (2011). Working together: Inter-municipal cooperation in five Central European Countries. Budapest: LGI – Open Society Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Swianiewicz, P., & Teles, F. (2019). The institutionalization of inter-municipal arrangements in Europe: Findings from the unusual suspects. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 15(57), 119–136.
   Google Scholar
• Sýkora, L., & Mulíček, O. (2009). The micro-regional nature of functional urban areas (FUAs): Lessons from the analysis of the Czech urban and regional system. Urban Research & Practice, 2(3), 287–307.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, P. J., Evans, D. M., & Pain, K. (2008). Application of the interlocking network model to megacity regions: Measuring polycentricity within and beyond city-regions. Regional Studies, 42(8), 1079–1093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teles, F., & Swianiewicz, P. (Eds). (2018). Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe: Institutions and governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• van Meeteren, M., Poorthuis, A., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2016). Pacifying Babels Tower: A scientometric analysis of polycentricity in urban research. Urban Studies, 53(6), 1278–1298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasanen, A. (2013). Spatial integration and functional balance in polycentric urban systems: A multi-scalar approach. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 104(4), 410–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veneri, P. (2010). Urban polycentricity and the costs of commuting: Evidence from Italian metropolitan areas. Growth and Change, 41(3), 403–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veneri, P., & Burgalassi, D. (2012). Questioning polycentric development and its effects: Issues of definition and measurement for the Italian NUTS 2 Regions. European Planning Studies, 20(6), 1017–1037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser, J. A. (2004). Voluntary regional councils and the new regionalism: Effective governance in the smaller metropolis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 51–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner, M. E. (2004). Inter-municipal cooperation in the U.S.: A regional governance solution? Urban Public Economics Review, 6, 221–240.
   Google Scholar
• Weclawowicz, G. (2002). From egalitarian cities in theory to non-egalitarian cities in practice: The changing social and spatial patterns in Polish cities. In P. Marcuse & R. van Kempen (Eds.), Of states and cities: The partitioning of urban space (pp. 183–199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• West, K. (2007). Inter-municipal cooperation in France: Incentives, instrumentality and empty shells. In R. Hulst & A. Montfort (Eds.), Inter-municipal cooperation in Europe (pp. 67–90). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zafra-Gómez, J. L., & Muniz, M. A. (2010). Overcoming cost-inefficiencies within small municipalities: Improve financial condition or reduce the quality of public services? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(4), 609–629.
   Google Scholar
• Zarecor, K. E. (2011). Manufacturing a socialist modernity: Housing in Czechoslovakia, 1945–1960. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ziafati Bafarasat, A. (2016). Exploring new systems of regionalism: An English case study. Cities, 150, 119–128.
   Google Scholar
• Ziafati Bafarasat, A., & Baker, M. (2015). Building consensus for network power? Some reflections on strategic spatial planning in the North-West region of England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(5), 900–926.
   Google Scholar
• Ziafati Bafarasat, A., & Baker, M. (2016). Strategic spatial planning under regime governance and localism: Experiences from the North West of England. Town Planning Review, 87(6), 681–703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerbauer, K. (2014). Constructing peripheral cross-border regions in planning: Territory-network interplay in the Barents region. Environment and Planning A, 46(11), 2718–2734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar