1

WARSAW METROPOLITAN AREA AND ITS REGIONAL HINTERLAND

CASE STUDY REPORT

Maciej Smętkowski GRINCOH WP 6 Task 6 The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement “Growth-Innovation-Competitiveness: Fostering Cohesion in Central and Eastern Europe” (GRNCOH)

2

Maciej Smętkowski

THE METROPOLIS-THE REGION RELATIONSHIPS – A CASE STUDY OF WARSAW AND THE

MAZOWIECKIE VOIVODSHIP1

INTRODUCTION

Situated in Central Poland, the Mazowieckie Voivodship (województwo mazowieckie) occupies an

area of 35,600 km2 and has a population of ca. 5,250,000. There are 85 cities in its territory, of which

Poland’s capital, Warsaw is the largest, with a population of ca. 1,700,000, and its entire

metropolitan area is inhabited by 2,600,000 to 2,800,000 people, depending on the delimitation

method. The voivodship was created as a result of the 1998 administrative reform which divided

Poland into 16 large regions with a dual, governmental and self-governing, system of governance. In

effect, this is a nodal region, which is manifested by a concentration of socio-economic potential in

the metropolitan area of the capital city, whereas its surroundings, especially in the peripheral parts,

are poorly-developed rural areas. However, large and mediums-sized subregional centres can also be

found in other parts of the voivodship, including: Radom (220,000), Płock (124,000), Siedlce (76,000),

Ostrołęka (53,000) and Ciechanów (45,000), in addition to many county centres with a population

typically ranging from 20,000 to 30,000. Generally speaking, however, the voivodship’s rate of

urbanisation is low if Warsaw is excluded, at a level of 52% compared to 61% across Poland.

Masovia (Mazowsze) is a historical region, but has a very poorly developed sense of regional identity.

Historically, the region covered only the northern and central part of the present voivodship, and its

borders changed considerably over time. In the past, its southern part was incorporated into the

Lesser Poland, and the border running along the Pilica River is still clearly visible, e.g. on the map of

municipalities’ own revenues. Another reason for the absence of regional identity is the fact that

Warsaw, practically from the very beginning of its serving as Poland’s capital, had poor links with its

immediate surroundings, a situation which did not change until the end of the 19th century as

cooperation links developed in the industrial economy.

The Mazowieckie Voivodship, and the Warsaw metropolitan area in particular, has become the

leader of the Polish transformation, a position which remained unchallenged both after the EU

accession and during the recent financial crisis. In consequence, in 2011 GDP per capita in the

Mazowsze region reached 163% of the national average, compared to 208% in the Warsaw

metropolitan area. Metropolitan functions play a key role in the city’s economy, which is associated,

among others, with the headquarters of largest enterprises, including subsidiaries of transnational

corporations, being located in the city.

PART 1: METROPOLITAN REGION AND ITS CONSTITUENTS

Just as any other big city, Warsaw has a wide zone of influence, in this case arising mainly from its

capital city metropolitan functions. In 2013, the public administration sector in Warsaw employed ca.

72,300 people, i.e. some 9% of all the employed, a value not considerably different than those

encountered in other large Polish cities, but nevertheless twice as high as the national average.

Furthermore, during the economic slowdown post 2008, public administration was one of the sectors

which increased its share in overall employment at the fastest rate.

1 The report partly draws on the Warsaw case study presented in the publication: European Metropolises and

Their Regions: From Economic Landscapes to Metropolitan Networks (Smętkowski et al. 2011).

3

The labour market in Warsaw is both attractive (high salaries) and extensive (high degree of

diversity). Most of people settling down permanently in Warsaw do so because of career

opportunities. Commuting to work in the city is also popular and extends beyond the administrative

boundaries of the voivodship. Two types of work commuting can be distinguished: daily commuting,

which prevails within an 80 km radius from the city centre, and weekly commuting, from locations at

a distance which in some cases exceeds 200 km (Smętkowski 2005).

Fig. 1. Warsaw and its spheres of influence in the context of Poland’s administrative division

Bydgoszcz Toruń

Łódź

Olsztyn

Kielce

Białystok

Lublin

* metropolitan area marked by synthetic indicator consists of: migration

balance, companies with foreign shareholdings and number of enterprises

** metropolitan region (hinterland) marked out on the basis of Reilly’s

law (1931) Source: M. Smętkowski (2005a).

Capital cities of neighboring voivodships Warsaw metropolitan region**

border of voivodships

Mazowieckie voivodship

Metropolitan area*

Warsaw

4

The Mazowieckie Voivodship in its present shape was created in 1998 as a result of Poland’s

administrative reform. The boundaries of all the 16 new regions relatively closely correspond to the

spheres of influence of their regional capitals, which is also the case with Warsaw. Only some small

parts of the neighbouring voivodships remain within Warsaw’s dominant sphere of influence (Fig. 1).

Nevertheless, it can be noticed that in terms of attractiveness for students, some academic centres

situated in the neighbouring voivodships (Olsztyn, Lublin, Kielce) compete with Warsaw for students

living in the region’s outlying counties (Herbst 2009), which can largely be explained by lower costs

of studying in such cities.

There are 314 municipalities (LAU2) [gmina] in the Mazowieckie Voivodship, grouped in 42 counties

(LAU1) [powiat]. The majority of analyses delineating the Warsaw metropolitan area use

municipalities as the basic unit of delimitation (Fig. 2). Despite certain differences between various

approaches, the range of the metropolitan area usually covers about 40-50 kilometres from the core

city and its shape reflects the major transport corridors. The area stretches mostly in the western and

southern directions (which are the directions of the main business linkages), and less so in the

eastern one, which is partly due to the existence of a transport barrier caused by an insufficient

number of bridges on the Vistula River. Moreover, the borders of the metropolitan area largely

correspond to the former capital city voivodship existing in the years 1976-1998. That administrative

unit, unlike the present Mazowieckie Voivodship, had no local government authorities and the scope

of its powers was relatively small.

Fig. 2. Various delimitations of the Warsaw metropolitan area

a) Selected analytical delimitations of the Warsaw metropolitan area

Source: Smętkowski 2007.

5

b) Study of the Warsaw metropolitan area

Source: MBPR, 2011

c) Functional area of the Integrated Territorial Investments

Source: ZIT, 2014

To sum up, employing the existing NUTS3 units for an analysis allowing interregional and

international comparisons should be recognised as a sufficiently precise approximation.

PART 2: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE METROPOLIS AND THE REGION

Metropolitan area

The most important strengths of the Warsaw metropolitan area include a high quality of human

capital manifested, among others, by the highest percentage of people with higher education in

Poland (2011 – in Warsaw 39.5% of people aged 13+ had a university diploma compared to the

national average of 17.9%). It is due to the fact that Warsaw is the most important academic centre

in Poland (with about 280,000 students, including about 94,000 studying in non-public colleges), and

it also has the highest concentration of the R&D potential in the country. In 2011, capital expenditure

on R&D totalled ca. PLN 4.7 billion, and accounted for 40% of the aggregate domestic expenditure.

Control functions are also well developed in the national dimension, as manifested by the number of

headquarters of major enterprises and transnational corporations. Although 22.7% Polish enterprises

6

had their central offices in Warsaw, they accounted for a 40% share in total revenues and 32.9% in

total employment (58.4% and 46.4%, respectively, in the case of companies with foreign

shareholdings), which suggests distinct functional specialisation in the sphere of management and

control (Śleszyński 2007).

Moreover, the sectors of specialised business services such as financial brokerage, and information

services such as accounting, IT, consulting, advertising or public relations, represent a substantial

share of the metropolitan economy. In total, in 2011 the business services sector employed 147,000

people (including in particular those providing professional and scientific services), and the financial

brokerage sector 84,500 people. The latter is characterised by the highest value of the location index

in Poland and its growth dynamics was 18% in 2007-2011. Consequently, the Warsaw office real

estate market is equally well developed and at present the capital city has 4,000,000 square metres

of modern office space.

Cultural functions of Warsaw are also well-developed, but with a certain degree of competition from

several other large Polish urban centres. Moreover, the city has an important position on the tourist

map of Poland, especially with respect to business tourism, yet its accommodation facilities as

regards congress tourism remain inadequate. Okęcie, the largest airport in Poland with ca. 10 million

passengers per year, is located close to the city and in 2012, a new airport at Modlin with ca. 1 million

passengers started operation, although the role of airports in other regions of Poland has also

increased.

The weaknesses of Warsaw include poorly developed links to the national transport network,

although, in the recent years, as a result of the expansion of road and motorway projects in Poland,

the situation has been steadily improving (e.g. Warsaw-Berlin A2 motorway and sections of

expressways along other major transport corridors). Besides, in comparison to other European

capitals, the living standards and the quality of life are relatively low (cf. e.g. European Cities Monitor

2011). The latter weakness has been compounded by a low quality of social space and a growing

spatial chaos of the suburbs resulting from uncontrolled suburbanisation processes. Moreover, in

spite of the city’s well-developed R&D potential, mutual relations between business and academia

have been deficient and failed to produce any synergy effects.

Development factors

From the very beginning of the transformation, Warsaw has become a major location for foreign

direct investments (FDIs) in Poland. Their role is still very significant today, with a growing

involvement of foreign entities in transactions on the commercial property market in Warsaw. In the

years 2007-2011, Warsaw attracted an average of ca. MEUR 4.7 in FDIs, which accounted for over

40% of their total value in Poland. In addition to its well-developed human resources potential (a

leading position in the international ranking of business location factors, cf.: European Cities Monitor

2011), the inflow of foreign investments was induced by Warsaw’s accessibility through the

international airport of Okęcie, supplemented, as of recently, by a low-cost airline airport in Modlin.

The role of Warsaw’s endogenous potential still remains largely untapped. The innovation level of

Warsaw’s SMEs and of regional companies is fairly low (according to a survey of 500 regional

enterprises, only 7.2% of SMEs carried on any R&D activities (Poznańska et al. 2012)), while the

mutual relations between business and academia are poorly developed (ibid. 8.2% of all companies).

There is no sufficient support for such projects on the part of the city authorities which have failed to

keep their promise e.g. to develop a technology park.

7

As has been indicated above, the role of structural factors is also very important, which is implied by

profound changes in the economic structure. As a result, the industry contributes ca. 12% of gross

value added (GVA), while advanced services have a 17% share in the economy of the whole

metropolitan area . In effect, compared to the national economy, labour productivity is high, yet it is

still much below the average productivity of the German economy in each of the sectors under

analysis (Smętkowski 2012). It should also be noted that Warsaw’s linkages with the global economy

driving changes in the economic structure are largely one-sided; that is, Warsaw is an attractive

business location for foreign companies, yet it does not offer a significant concentration of Polish

companies involved in foreign market transactions, owing to their relatively low potential (ESPON

FOCI 2010).

The role of the public authorities in the economic success of Warsaw has so far been relatively

insignificant (see also: Gorzelak, Smętkowski 2009). This was, among others, due to the fact that the

city authorities do not pursue any active and integrated policy for supporting entrepreneurship and

economic development. The initiatives that were undertaken were as a rule very limited, e.g. the

opening of an Entrepreneurship Centre in 2013 with a floor area of 1,200 sq.m.

Regional hinterland

In comparison to Warsaw, the regional hinterland is practically devoid of any strengths. However,

certain development potential of the area can be indicated, i.e. the existence of large subregional

centres which might in the future, as a result of e.g. improved transport connections with the capital,

play the role of supralocal growth poles. Secondly, some of the areas of the region have favourable

conditions for developing highly specialised commodity farming. Moreover, there are opportunities

for developing tourism on a local scale, including agri-tourism with related tourist products.

The weaknesses of the regional hinterland of the Warsaw metropolis include a considerable role of

low-productivity agriculture that mainly fulfils social functions. Besides, due to overemployment in

this sector, the region faces the problem of a high rate of hidden unemployment. The non-

metropolitan part of the region is barely attractive for external investors, including foreign ones,

owing to a low quality of human resources and poor transport infrastructure. The resources needed

to foster endogenous growth are also scarce and, as a result, the SME sector is poorly developed

outside Warsaw.

Development factors

The development of the remaining part of the region has been a consequence of two processes. On

the one hand, certain reindustrialisation of the economy can be observed, which is associated with

an inflow of foreign capital, mainly to cities located along the major transport corridors such as

Mława, Siedlce or Ostrołęka. On the other hand, the agri-food industry based on local resources

(vegetable and fruit, and also dairy and meat specialisations) has also expanded. In consequence, it is

hard to determine whether the exogenous (as in the former case) or the endogenous (as in the latter

case) factors prevail. Another important external factor is the availability of the European funds, both

under the Regional Operational Programme and Sectoral Programmes which are parts of the

Cohesion Policy, and under the Common Agricultural Policy.

On the local scale, the analysis of municipalities’ own revenues in the last 10 years reveals that their

relative position with respect to the national average remains fairly stable according to quintile

analysis (Fig. 3). Outside the Warsaw metropolitan area, whose range is relatively stable, only a few

municipalities located at a further distance are among the wealthiest ones in Poland and, as a rule,

8

these are larger cities. A great majority of municipalities in the Mazowieckie Voivodship are among

the poorest 20% in the country.

Fig. 3. Municipalities’ own revenues per capita in the Mazowieckie Voivodship

2002 2012

Source: prepared by the author.

One of the few examples of local success is the city of Mława, seat of a county, with a population of

ca. 30,000 and situated ca. 130 km north of Warsaw. Its LG plant with its cooperating partners

provide employment to about 4000 people. The circumstances which made it possible included,

among others:

• The investment site was incorporated in the Warmia and Mazury Special Economic Zone with

all the privileges involved,

• Its development was based on the existing plants in the sector, which made it easier to

employ the basic staff and shortened the preliminary phase of the project,

• The availability of substantial resources of cheap labour, which was a vital factor in view of

the fact that much of the production does not require highly-qualified employees,

• Good transport connections (a national road and a railway line) facilitating both supplies and

sales (however, the expectations relating to modernisation of the national DK7 road and its upgrading

to an expressway standard and construction of a connecting road leading to the industrial zone have

not been satisfied as yet).

One more factor that helped improve the situation of Mława in the recent years was the growth of

incomes in agriculture. This has happened as a result of the redistribution function of the Common

Agricultural Policy and, consequently, of the modernisation of agriculture and, in particular, as a

9

result of the development of a local specialisation - industrial poultry husbandry. As a result, on the

one hand, simple services for the local population living in the vicinity of the city developed in Mława

(trade and repairs, personal services) and on the other, the city responded to the demands of the

growing agricultural production by building a large poultry slaughterhouse.

In effect, per capita own revenues in Mława increased from PLN 629 in 2002 (ca. EUR 150) to PLN

1607 (EUR 400) in 2012, that is from 77.5% to 83.8% of the national average.

Comparison of the metropolitan area and the metropolitan region

The above review of the strengths and weaknesses implies a clear dichotomy of the socio-economic

structures between the metropolis and the region. As a result, the Mazowieckie Voivodship is one of

the most internally diversified regions in Poland. The development of the regional hinterland

considerably depends on the relations with the core city. Depending on whether spread or backwash

effects prevail, the region changes its position in comparison to the national average. The

development paths of both areas, despite their uniform growth tendency with respect to the national

average in the years 2000-2011, followed different courses, especially in the initial period (Fig. 4)It is

worth noting, however, that post 2005, these paths became largely similar, which may indicate, on

the one hand, a growth of functional ties and, on the other, a favourable influence of external factors,

including those related to the EU membership. Special attention should be given to a markedly

improving position of the remaining part of the Mazowieckie Voivodship in comparison to the whole

country that was taking place in the period following the economic slowdown starting in 2009. It may

imply some sort of resilience of the whole region to the crisis as it characterises both the Warsaw

metropolitan area and the remaining part of the region.

Fig.4. GDP per capita in the constituent parts of the Warsaw metropolitan region

a) Metropolitan area

10

b) Regional hinterland

Source: prepared by the author based on CSO data.

Apart from the differences in the level of development (GDP per capita), the dichotomy between the

metropolitan area and the region is manifested by the different economic structures, in particular by

a different share of agriculture in the labour market (Fig. 5). Another significant difference was a

much higher and still growing share of industry in the regional hinterland in contrast to its gradual

decrease in the Warsaw metropolitan area. On the other hand, the growth of the advanced services

sector and a growing share of simple services in Warsaw was accompanied by a considerable

weakening of those sectors in the remaining part of the region. The share of public services, however,

was similar in both parts of the region, with a greater role of private companies in contributing to the

value of the sector in Warsaw.

Fig. 5. Industry sectors and economic structure in the constituent parts of the Mazowieckie

Voivodship in 2000-2011

METROPOLITAN AREA REGIONAL HINTERLAND

GVA per capita as % of the national average

11

GVA structure (%)

Source: prepared by the author based on CSO data.

Other major differences between the metropolis and the region include the quality of human capital.

If the share of people with higher education was ca. 40% in Warsaw, in some of the rural

municipalities of the Mazowieckie Voivodship it did not exceed 1%. The existing social differences

were obviously exacerbated by migration processes, discussed below.

PART 3. Relationship between the metropolis and the region

Major types of flows between the metropolis and the region

Commuting

One of the crucial linkages between the Warsaw metropolis and its regional hinterland is commuting

to work. According to the CSO (GUS) data for 2006 (i.e. the most recent available) the extent of daily

commuting in Warsaw is very high and is estimated at ca. 170,000 people (about 20% of all those

working in the city), while only 12,000 employees commute in the opposite direction. According to

the recent surveys, the former figure might have increased to 220,000 (e.g. Komornicki et al. 2013). It

should also be noted that the intensity of daily commuting is strongly negatively correlated with the

physical and temporal distance from the city centre (Smętkowski 2005). The point at which weekly

commuting (which requires renting some accommodation in the city) starts to predominate over

daily commuting can be set at a distance of 80 km from the centre of Warsaw and at 95 minutes of a

car journey.

As a rule, daily commuting involves the municipalities located in the close vicinity to the city and

usually takes place along the main transport corridors to Warsaw (Fig. 6). This type of commuting also

involves transfer of income which may affect the development of the endogenous sector of a given

municipality. Moreover, commuting increases the revenues of the municipal budgets owing to their

share in the personal income tax. By contrast, the less-developed municipalities situated further from

Warsaw provide workers for the city labour market commuting on a weekly basis. A certain role of

subregional centres can also be discerned in the structure of commuting to work. First of all, this

concerns Plock, as Radom and Siedlce represent a part of the functional labour market of Warsaw. To

an even greater degree, this can also be said about smaller urban centres. As a result, a distinctly

monocentric commuting model continues to function both within the metropolitan area and within

the metropolitan region. In the latter case, this suggests a significant dependence of the regional

hinterland on the metropolis.

12

Fig. 6. Commuting to Warsaw in 2006.

Commuters to Warsaw per 1000 of working-age

population

% of commuters to work in Warsaw in the

municipalities

Source: Śleszyński 2014.

Migration of the population

Migration flows are to some extent related to work commuting, discussed above. Migrations in the

Mazowieckie Voivodship should divided into two segments. The first is the outflow of inhabitants

from the city, a process which started at the beginning of the 1990s and is manifested by the

suburbanisation processes in the suburban zone. Based on the 2002 census data, (Gorzelak,

Smętkowski 2005), the outflow from Warsaw was directed toward the surrounding municipalities

which in 1988-2002 took over ca. 70% of 114,000 former city inhabitants. As a rule, such people

maintain close ties with Warsaw, through work, schooling, culture and leisure activities, even

including daily shopping. Only 10% of people that had been earlier listed as city residents moved

further off to the other parts of the voivodship. As regards the inflow of people to Warsaw, the

majority of 151,000 of migrants, i.e. 63%, came from the peripheral areas of the /Mazowieckie

Voivodship. These were mainly people with higher education aged 24 to 30 (29,000); their share in

the inflow to Warsaw from the remaining part of the metropolitan region reached 76%. The

backwash processes primarily involve people with higher education.

These processes were continued over the last 10 years. A map presenting the migration balance

between Warsaw and the remaining municipalities, showing their population numbers (net migration

rate) (Fig. 7), reveals that the negative balance was found mainly in municipalities within a 150 km

radius from Warsaw. The positive balance in that area was practically limited exclusively to

municipalities surrounding the subregional centres – Płock in the north-west and Radom in the south

and, to a lesser degree, Siedlce, Ciechanów and Ostrołęka. On the other hand, it is evident that areas

13

of dense migration outflows were situated in the eastern and northern part of the region, whereas

more dispersed migration flows came from the southern part of the voivodship.

Fig. 7. Migration balance in municipalities in 2002-2012 [ ‰]

Source: prepared by the author based on CSO data.

The municipalities which were characterised by a high negative migration balance with Warsaw are

usually less developed, as a result of which they become providers of Warsaw’s labour force, mainly

in a weekly cycle. In this case, the correlation between commuting and the level of development is

two-sided. A low development level of a municipality and the weakness of the local labour market

drives migrations of the inhabitants in search of employment. Accommodation prices and high living

costs in Warsaw constitute a barrier impeding permanent migration outflows. Therefore, some of the

migrants rent apartments (or rooms) in Warsaw and go back to their families on weekends and

holidays. Such a population outflow can produce negative consequences for the municipalities, such

as spending much of the salary in Warsaw and, in the longer term, may cause a permanent outflow of

a part of the local population to Warsaw and therefore the transfer of capital for real estate

investments.

Nevertheless, the regional settlement system remains pretty stable since part of the migration

outflow is counterbalanced by a positive birth rate, whereas the population aging processes, though

accelerating, are not yet much advanced.

Trade and capital ties

The share of the Warsaw metropolitan area in Poland’s foreign trade turnover was significant and

amounted to 30% in the import of goods and services and ca. 16% in exports. The imports twice as

high as the exports clearly show that the role of Warsaw’s enterprises was mainly that of

intermediaries in foreign trade, which was e.g. a result of the fact that most companies supplying

goods for the Polish internal market had their headquarters in Warsaw. However, based on the

surveys conducted in 2002 among companies located in the Warsaw metropolitan area, it may be

14

concluded that the regional ties of the metropolis are poorly developed. The other part of the

Mazowieckie Voivodship had a marginal, less than 10%, share in extra-local sales and supply

mechanisms, which as a rule was lower in the case of more highly-processed goods or specialised

services (Gorzelak, Smętkowski 2008).

The spread of development processes from Warsaw was spatially limited and basically restricted to

the metropolitan area (Fig. 8). It was mainly manifested by a widespread practice of relocating

companies or opening their branches in the municipalities close to Warsaw. Generally speaking, the

outward reach of foreign investments was to a great extent restricted to an area within a 40 km

radius from the city. The unchartered territories, as far as the location of foreign investments is

concerned, remain more or less unchanged, which points to a low attractiveness of the peripheral,

agricultural municipalities for the inflow of capital. The most remarkable change in terms of the

penetration of companies with foreign shareholdings could be observed in the north-east of Warsaw,

which might have been affected by the completion of a part of the expressway connecting Warsaw

and Białystok.

Fig 8. Companies with foreign shareholdings per 1000 population

2002 2012

Source: prepared by the author based on CSO data.

As a result, the regional manufacturing system points to significant and growing linkages within the

Warsaw metropolitan area, with rare examples of companies locating their offices in the remaining

part of the region. The latter, such as the LG plant in Mława, often operate on a supranational scale

and the vicinity of Warsaw does not play a crucial role in their business location decisions. The same

can be said about companies operating in the food processing sector, whose products are partly sold

on the Warsaw market.

Other social relations

Advanced services provided in Warsaw to its regional surroundings such as higher education, medical

15

services and cultural events represent an important category of linkages. It should be noted, however,

that such impact of Warsaw largely extended to the whole of the country.

One of the very few manifestations of outward movements were vacation or recreation trips made by

the residents of Warsaw . This kind of commuting often involved building holiday cottages that were

frequently densely grouped in locations with outstanding natural assets, mostly situated in the river

valleys. The intensity of such commuting clearly decreased as the distance from the city increased;

furthermore, such a practice did not reach the north-western, southern and eastern peripheries of

the Mazowieckie Voivodship (that had to compete with the neighbouring, more attractive areas of

the neighbouring voivodships).

PART 4. Governance and local/regional development policies

Relations of public authorities in the metropolitan region

The Mazowieckie Voivodship may serve as a good example of the impact of the national policies on

the relationships between individual actors responsible for the development of the region. The

Warsaw authorities are deeply involved in national policy-making and the city mayor's or

commissioner's office is usually held by politicians with a career in the government, candidates

running in presidential elections or leaders of major political parties. The office of the marshal

responsible for the development of the region has been held since 1998 by a politician from the

Polish People's Party (PSL). This leads to political struggles for influence which is manifested, among

others, by adopting the rules for allocating funds under the Regional Operational Programme. Apart

from few examples such as a common ticketing scheme for urban transport (city authorities) and the

regional railways (regional authorities) within the agglomeration or the Regional Loan Guarantee

Fund, initiatives and projects to be implemented jointly by the city and regional authorities are sorely

lacking. The relations between the public authorities and the business sector follow the same

pattern, and it is difficult to find any effective communication channels or joint public and private

undertakings.

On the local scale, however, one can find examples of well-functioning cooperation networks

between municipalities involving various fields of activity, starting from access to public services to

joint infrastructure investments to development planning (Zegar 2003). Inter-municipal cooperation

is relatively the least developed in the border areas between the capital city and its neighbouring

municipalities. This is an area which sees the most severe conflicts of interest. Recently, the sole

success was the introduction of a common ticketing scheme within the Warsaw agglomeration, co-

financed by the municipalities of the metropolitan area under a bilateral agreement concluded with

Warsaw and not as a special-purpose association of municipalities. The development of cooperation

between municipalities is further promoted by Local Action Groups supported under the Rural

Development Programme.

In the recent years, the regional authorities of the Mazowieckie Voivodship, also in cooperation with

the Regional Office for Planning and Development, prepared a number of strategic (Development

Strategy Update), operational (a draft of the Regional Operational Programme) and analytical

documents (e.g. under the project Development Trends in the Mazowieckie Voivodships), which

delineated the major directions of activities to foster the development of the region. These

documents include relevant diagnoses of the main strengths and weaknesses of the voivodship,

underlining the above-mentioned dichotomy between the Warsaw metropolitan area and the

remaining part of the region. The planned undertakings are supposed to gradually reduce the

16

development disparities between the metropolis and the region. Measures to be undertaken may be

divided into financial instruments targeted at businesses and local governments, and investment

tools related to the development of physical infrastructure, aimed e.g. to promote the positive

influence of Warsaw, as well as ‘soft’ instruments intended to develop human resources to reduce

the effects of the backwash processes from the regional hinterland to the metropolis.

Relations between the public authorities in the metropolitan area

The idea of creating a metropolitan area for Warsaw dates back to the 1990s and is brought up with

each attempt to regulate the issue at the national level. Currently, cooperation is mainly based on

bilateral agreements between Warsaw and the neighbouring municipalities and concerns mainly

transport services. Following a long period of mutual distrust, some progress was made owing to the

need to develop a programme that would help to implement the Integrated Territorial Investments, a

Cohesion Policy tool. As a result, 38 local governments joined this cooperation (Warsaw and 37

neighbouring municipalities). A budget of ca. EUR 165 million was earmarked for these activities.

According to preliminary plans, the investment projects should be focused, first, on building bicycle

paths (PLN 50 million) and P&R parking facilities (PLN 33 million) and, second, on the development of

entrepreneurship (PLN 33 million altogether) and the development of investment sites (PLN 25

million).

PART 5. External interventions: national and EU policies

Under the 2007-2013 financial perspective, it was estimated that, up to 2012, ca. PLN 16.2 billion had

been spent under the Cohesion Policy in the Mazowieckie Voivodship, which meant ca. PLN 3,1000

(ca. EUR 750) per capita in the region. These estimates reveal that about half of the funds were spent

in Warsaw, another 20% - in its metropolitan area and the rest, that is ca. 30%, were expended in the

remaining part of the voivodship. One should be very cautious, however, in interpreting these figures,

since the full range of the impact of some of the projects located in Warsaw is much wider and may

extend to the whole of the voivodship and, in some cases, to other regions in Poland. Moreover, the

estimates do not include expenditure made under the Common Agricultural Policy, which largely

offsets the above disproportions favouring the peripheral rural areas. The most important projects

included the large-scale projects implemented under the Infrastructure and Environment

Programme, that is the construction of the A2 motorway (unfortunately, completed without the

Vistula River crossing) and of the two expressways, S7 and S8. The expansion of the transport

infrastructure in Warsaw itself (including the construction of the second underground line) also was

an important item under the programme.

In 2007-2013, the Mazowieckie Voivodship was one of the regions which was granted support under

the Convergence objective. As a result, the received co-financing in per capita terms did not diverge

much from that of the less-developed regions (although the accepted algorithm to some extent

favoured regions at a lower development level and with a higher unemployment rate). The biggest

Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013, with a budget of ca. EUR 1.831 billion, was

implemented in the Mazowieckie Voivodship. Its main focus was the development of the regional

transport system (30%) and promotion and support of innovation and entrepreneurship (23%). Large

funds were also earmarked for the development of e-economy (11%), rational use and protection of

the environmental resources (10%), as well as development of tourism and culture (9%).

The impact of the public policies implemented with the EU co-financing on the relations between the

metropolis and the region can be summarised as follows (cf. Smętkowski 2011):

17

Development of the transport infrastructure to improve the accessibility of the regional

hinterland may contribute to curbing the negative effects of the backwash processes (such as brain

drain) and fostering the spread effects (business investments, exurbanisation),

Support for companies and R&D institutions that may contribute to the emergence of a

functional urban region, a process which is observable especially within a 35 km radius from the city

centre,

Development of human resources and social infrastructure, which is particularly noticeable

by the municipalities situated within a 35-75 km radius and which may demonstrate improvement in

the accessibility of various forms of public services offered in the capital city,

Projects related to the development of ICT infrastructure and tourism, which may enhance

tourism and recreation attractiveness, especially in the extremely peripheral parts of the voivodship.

What is even more important is the difference in the intervention structure in the 2007-2013 period.

In Warsaw itself, a significant portion of the funds was spent on labour market instruments – to a

great extent, however, this was a consequence of the non-local impact of projects implemented by

the regional labour office. The role of funds earmarked for the development of the R&D potential was

very important, especially of those allocated to the expansion of the university infrastructure –

University of Warsaw (UW), Warsaw University of Technology (PW) and Medical University of Warsaw

(WUM).

Relatively large sums are allocated to culture. As regards transport projects, two vital investments

included the construction of the second underground line and of the Warsaw ring-road. Both projects

are done in stages – they were started in the 2004-2006 period and will be continued under the

present financial perspective 2014-2020. In view of the completion of work on the sewage treatment

plant financed under the 2004-2006 perspective, the volume of expenditure on the development of

environmental infrastructure was considerably reduced. Furthermore, relatively modest funds were

spent on the development of human resources, which was largely caused by the fact that they had

already been among the highest-developed in the country. To sum up, we may make a conservative

assumption that the structure of the intervention in Warsaw largely matched its development

requirements. The greatest weakness in this respect was a relatively modest application of external

funds to the improvement of the quality and accessibility of public services and the revitalisation

process, including the enhancement of the quality of public space and development of an effective

spatial planning system. In the Warsaw metropolitan area, the intervention was mainly focused on

assistance granted to enterprises; according to estimates, it could have represented almost 50% of

the entire allocation.

The available information, estimates and collected data seem to point to a marked difference

between Warsaw, its metropolitan area and the rest of the region as far as their expenditure targets

are concerned. If in the case of Warsaw, and especially in its metropolitan area, a great portion of the

funds was allocated to the improvement of competitiveness and innovation, as well as to creating

conditions for the development of entrepreneurship, in the remaining part of the metropolitan

region the prevailing tendency was to focus on improving the living standards of its inhabitants.

Naturally, this did not mean that there were no projects aimed to enhance the level of innovation of

the economy, yet definitely more resources were allocated to the development of the basic physical

infrastructure, which has an undeniable impact on the improvement of the living standards of the

inhabitants.

18

As regards the degree of coordination in spending the funds in the Warsaw metropolitan region, the

opinions were quite varied. The most evident, in particular, was the lack of coordination among the

programmes implemented under the Cohesion Policy and the Rural Development Programme

implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy, which often results in the overlapping of certain

activities and in an artificial separation of the existing functional areas, a feature that is especially

visible in the case of medium-sized cities.

PART 6. Future prospects

After a period of a rapid increase of the disparities between the metropolis and the region, which

was typical of the first phase of the transformation, the development paths of both constituent parts

of the Mazowieckie Voivodship became largely similar. Nonetheless, in the near future it can be

expected that the scale of the disparities between the metropolis and the region will be maintained.

This will be the likely effect of the continued complementarity of this system, coupled with smaller

synergies, which will however be fostered by the extending the range of Warsaw’s functional urban

region, also as a result of the modernisation of its transport infrastructure. At the same time, the

main difference between the metropolis and the region will be the former’s increasing participation

in modern information economy, with the region still remaining more embedded in traditional

agrarian and industrial economy. In consequence, it can probably be expected that only large

migratory flows may partly offset the scale of the existing disparities in the level of economic

development in the long term perspective (as it has been the case with some of the European

metropolitan regions, e.g. Barcelona, cf. Smętkowski et al. 2011). As regards Warsaw itself, further

internationalisation of its economy can be anticipated, accompanied by the strengthening of its

position in the European and global network of cities.

In this regard, the following recommendations can be made for both the national policies and the EU

Cohesion policy:

• Supporting continued development of Warsaw’s metropolitan functions in the sphere of

higher education, scientific research, specialised financial and management functions, innovation,

culture and entrepreneurship, also through urban policy, an instrument recently promoted by the

European Commission, and its Integrated Territorial Investment, an EU policy tool which should be

reinforced.

• In the remaining cities of the region: supporting their service potential and also

strengthening their industrial potential in selected sectors: oil (Płock), machine-building (Radom) and

food-processing. Development of entrepreneurship in the peripheral areas should be promoted, also

via ICT. Strategic decisions concerning the continued operation of higher education institutions in the

subregional centres will need to be made in view of their having to address the challenge of falling

student numbers in the near future.

• Further strengthening of the voivodship’s external linkages, which should facilitate attracting

inward capital active especially in the sphere of high technologies, which could locate R&D activity in

the region. This should be accompanied by improving the ‘soft’ location factors in Warsaw and other

cities of the region in view of their role in the development of creative industries. The number of

start-ups in the creative industries should be increased owing to the development of business

environment institutions (such as academic business incubators).

• Improving transport accessibility within the region, which will significantly enhance the

quality of life of the residents of the metropolitan area and should also foster the development of

19

tourism (culture, business and conference tourism). This would help consolidate the capital city

functions and promote network development, drawing on the offer of the remaining subregions.

Supporting increased mobility of workers (permanent and shuttle migration), especially between the

Warsaw metropolis and the regional hinterland.

• Undertaking measures aimed to develop a polycentric structure of the Warsaw metropolitan

area and strengthening its integration in terms of transport. Improving the quality of the natural

environment, among others through promoting sustainable transport within the Warsaw

metropolitan area, reducing the human pressure in areas with valuable environmental assets and

preventing natural hazards associated with housing development in floodplains. The establishment

of a metropolitan board should facilitate the implementation of these tasks.

• Measures for the restructuring of agriculture and rural areas and for improving the standard

of teaching in the peripheral areas, among others via networking and cooperation between

secondary schools.

PART 7. Conclusions

7.1. How does the metropolis perform on the international scale? What are the main drivers of its

success/failure? Is their nature exogenous or endogenous?

Warsaw is among the most dynamically developing metropolises in Europe. This can also be said

about its immediate surroundings, i.e. the metropolitan area, and is manifested by a fast GDP

increase, which in 2011 reached 107% of the EU27 average year-on-year. Warsaw’s success stems

from a combination of both external and endogenous factors, although, arguably, with a certain

prevalence of the former, which notably include the influx of inward capital attracted by the best

multimodal transport accessibility in Poland and highly-skilled workforce. Companies with foreign

shareholdings also have a strong presence in the advanced business services sector, and Warsaw is

home to the subsidiaries of about a half of the largest global corporations operating in this sector

(CBRE 2011). The main factor attracting investors is the availability of well-qualified and cheap

workforce. In this context, the endogenous potential plays a smaller part owing to the low level of

innovation of SMEs operating in the metropolis and their weak linkages with the R&D potential of the

public institutions.

7.2. How does the regional hinterland perform in comparison to the metropolis? What is the role

of natural resources in the development process? Does the success in the regional hinterland rely

on exogenous or endogenous factors?

The development of the rest of the Mazowsze region lags far behind that of Warsaw mainly owing to

its being strongly embedded in the traditional, industrial and agricultural development paradigm. In

this approach, natural resources remain an important development factor. Nevertheless, these

resources are not necessarily acquired locally; for instance, the oil refinery in Płock one of the

country’s largest industrial plants, uses the oil transported via the Druzhba pipeline. Some of the

foreign enterprises operating their plants in the region behave in a similar way. For example, the

plant in Mława run by LG, one of the world’s major TV manufacturers, relies most heavily on the

large pool of cheap and unqualified local labour. However, agriculture in the Mazowieckie Voivodship

is undergoing a modernisation process, manifested by increasing specialisation, especially vegetable

and fruit growing, but also animal husbandry. In the recent years, the development rate of the non-

metropolitan part of the region has been faster than the national average, which seems to be a result

of exogenous factors associated with its becoming gradually more attractive to foreign capital and

20

access to funds under the Common Agricultural and Cohesion policies rather than a consequence of

its endogenous potential (related to innovation and education).

7.3. What is the role of migration processes in relation between metropolis and their region? Could

we observe segmentation of migration (e.g. young to the core, elderly to hinterland)? How does

the quality of life in regional hinterland affect this process?

Migration processes drive the brain drain from the Mazowieckie region to Warsaw, mostly of young

people, especially those with high qualifications. However, these people are not replaced by the

inflow of post-working age migrants from Warsaw. The largest migratory outflow from Warsaw is

recorded among the middle-aged population and is connected with a dynamic suburbanisation of the

suburban municipalities, since emigration from Warsaw is almost entirely restricted to the

municipalities within the Warsaw metropolitan area. The reasons for such a situation include

relatively low cost differences between the outer part of the metropolitan area and the more distant

areas. In effect, this area offers a higher quality of life due not only to the well-developed local public

services, but also to the possibilities to use services offered in Warsaw itself.

7.4. How does the accessibility affect development processes in regional hinterland?

Transport accessibility plays an important part in the spread of development processes from

Warsaw. Municipalities situated within the main transport corridors are characterised by a higher

development level measured by own revenues per capita. This is due, first, to easier commuting to

work in Warsaw on a daily basis, and, second, to enhanced attractiveness of some municipalities for

investment. It should be noted, however, that the number of such municipalities is relatively small.

As regards subregional centres, it can be said that their enhanced transport accessibility creates

favourable conditions for daily work commuting to Warsaw, which in effect slows down migration

processes, but does little to improve their attractiveness for investment in any significant way.

7.5. What are the most important policies for the development of the regional hinterland? What is

the interplay between policies supporting exogenous factors (e.g. transport policy) vs. endogenous

factors (e.g. education policy) of development?

From the perspective of the non-metropolitan part of the Mazowieckie Voivodship, sectoral policies

associated with the expansion of the transport infrastructure are of crucial significance. Similarly,

barriers associated with the insufficient capacity of the existing transport network also play a

considerable role. In consequence, the accessibility of the peripheral parts of the region is small,

which cripples their attractiveness for private investment. It should also be noted that accessibility is

considerably affected by the bottlenecks existing in the transport system situated in the city’s

metropolitan area (exit roads). The recent years saw some improvement in that regard as several

sections of expressways have been put into operation, but an efficiently functioning transport

network still remains a question of the future. Considerable neglect can also be observed in the rail

transport, which involves not only sluggishness in the execution of infrastructure projects (despite EU

co-financing which allowed repairing a part of the major east-west railway route), but also lack of

organisational skills manifested by the poor matching of the service offer to passenger needs, which,

given the obsolete rolling stock and run-down railway stations, makes competing with private

transport providers extremely difficult. Moreover, several different public providers use the railway

infrastructure, including Koleje Mazowieckie, a railway company operated by the regional

government, which does not improve the quality of their offer as their activities are largely

uncoordinated.

21

Educational policy should aim to improve both the quality of, and access to, education at all levels,

starting from pre-school (where considerable progress has been achieved and the number of

children aged 3-5 attending kindergartens has been significantly increased) to higher education

institutions. In the recent years, public colleges have expanded fast in the subregional centres of the

Mazowieckie Voivodship, attracting many more students. This was supplemented by private

investments, as a result of which a number of private higher education institutions have been

opened, although their teaching quality is quite frequently questioned. Currently, this process has

been reversed due to changes in the demographic situation. Nonetheless, in light of the brain drain

processes taking place, educating surplus numbers of highly-qualified people should be continued as

it could provide the basis for the development of the endogenous potential in the regional

hinterland. These efforts should be supported by urban policy aimed to strengthen the main

subregional centres and create conditions for making use of the available stock of human capital,

including offering supports to the development of enterprise.

Under the policy promoting innovation (the updated Regional Innovation Strategy), the key

specialisations of the region include safe food, intelligent management systems, modern business

services and high quality of life. Each of these specialisations is sufficiently broad to allow

diversification of the economic and research potential in the Mazowieckie region, creating the

conditions for the implementation of this strategy also in the non-metropolitan part of the region.

7.6. Are the authorities at regional level necessary from perspective of metropolis-region

relationships?

The Mazowieckie Voivodship is among the regions of Poland which are the most strongly divided in

socio-economic terms. In many cases, the disparities between the Warsaw metropolis and the

remaining part of the region are so wide that it is difficult to pursue intraregional policies without

suspicions of partiality in the distribution of the funds. The regional government is rather weak, for a

number of reasons. One such reason is the financial issue posed by the obligation to pay a

compensatory tax to the state budget, as a result of which the region is not able to discharge its tasks

properly, and is forced to desperately seek savings in various spheres such as e.g. culture. In this

context, we can speak of a question that is not easy to resolve – that of separating Warsaw and its

metropolitan area from the Mazowieckie Voivodship, which could eliminate the existing dichotomy

in administrative terms, although could in effect weaken the functional integration of the entire area

and lead to the petrification of uncompetitive economic structures in the non-metropolitan part of

the region.

In these circumstances, it is difficult to maintain the region’s political cohesion as the huge

differences among the electorate prevent a consensus to be reached between the authorities at

different tiers of the local government. Such a situation also hampers implementing pro-

development policies on the regional scale despite furnishing the Marshal’s Office with the required

competencies.

7.7. Do the metropolis and its surrounding region mutually need each other? Does the metropolis

need the region? Does the region need the metropolis?

The relations between Warsaw and its surroundings are not symmetrical. Warsaw is increasingly

functioning within a global network of flows, deriving from it factors of production but also selling its

products and also advanced business services within this network.

22

From the perspective of the metropolis, the linkages between the metropolis and its region were

weak and insignificant. In the Mazowieckie Voivodship, regional concentration processes prevailed in

both absolute and relative terms, and were manifested by a concentration of jobs outside agriculture

especially in the service sector in the metropolis. In contrast, deindustrialisation processes more

strongly affected the Warsaw metropolitan area, leading to a relatively greater significance of the

production functions in the remaining part of the metropolitan region. Nevertheless, the role of the

regional hinterland in terms of supplies for companies operating in Warsaw was rather marginal,

being largely restricted to simplest products and services with low GVA. The situation of the

workforce was fairly similar since workers as a rule lacked the necessary qualifications to participate

in the mainstream of development, characterised by a growing role of specialised services. In

addition, deconcentration of business activity and location of the subsidiaries of Warsaw’s

companies was typically restricted to the areas within the boundaries of the Warsaw metropolitan

area. In contrast, traditional and environmentally burdensome business activities such as cement

industry were most often located in the non-metropolitan part of the region. In consequence, the

role of the regional hinterland is relatively becoming weaker and weaker in metropolitan

development processes.

However, the situation looked considerably different if viewed from the perspective of the region

which derives benefits from the proximity of the metropolitan area. For the regional surroundings,

the development of the Warsaw metropolis opened up many opportunities which they did not grasp

in full. For instance, in the case of the population with higher education, a process of relative regional

deconcentration could be observed, mainly due to the development of subregional academic

centres. On the other hand, spread effects associated with shuttle migrations of the population,

especially daily commuting to work, were restricted to the municipalities adjoining the metropolitan

area, especially those situated within transport corridors. Their positive impact was largely reduced

by weekly work commuting, typical mainly of municipalities at the outskirts of the region. The capital

balance of the remaining types of commuting suggested their centripetal nature, which increased the

trade deficit and was only partly offset by the leisure and recreation trips of Warsaw’s residents and

the accompanying growth of construction activity. This was associated with the deficit of the

metropolitan region in the trade with the metropolis, both in simple and processed goods. In effect,

the development paths of the metropolis and the region were not strongly interrelated, although the

region could to some extent benefit from the development of the capital city, as demonstrated by

the similarities in their development trajectories, which could be observed recently.

References:

CBRE, 2011, Business Footprints. Global Office Locations 2011, CB RICHARD ELLIS. ESPON FOCI, 2010, Cities and urban agglomerations: their functionality and development opportunities for European competitiveness and cohesion, www.espon.eu European Cities Monitor, 2011, Cushman and Wakefield. Herbst M., 2009, Tworzenie i absorpcja kapitału ludzkiego przez miasta akademickie w Polsce, Kwartalnik Studia Regionalne i Lokalne No. 4(38). Gorzelak G., M Smętkowski, 2011, Warsaw as a metropolis – successes and missed opportunities

Regional Science Policy & Practice 4 (1), 25-45

23

Komornicki T., Wiśniewski R., Stępniak M., Siłka P., Rosik P., 2013, Rynek pracy województwa

mazowieckiego - analiza przestrzenna, Trendy Rozwojowe Mazowsza 12, Mazowieckie Biuro Rozwoju

Regionalnego, Warsaw.

MBPR, 2011, Studium Planu Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Warszawy, Warsaw.

MBPR, 2013, Strategia rozwoju województwa mazowieckiego do 2030 roku: innowacyjne Mazowsze,

Warsaw.

Poznańska K., Zarzecki M., Matuszewski P., Rudowski A., 2012, Innowacyjność przedsiębiorstw na

Mazowszu oraz współpraca ze szkołami wyższymi, Raport z badania.

Smętkowski M., 2005a, New relationships between the metropolis and the region in information

economy: Warsaw metropolitan region - a case study, [in:] Eckardt F., Hassenpflug D. (eds.) Paths of

Urban Transformation, No. 5 der Reihe ‘The European City in Transition’. Frankfurt: Peter Lang

Verlag.

Smętkowski M., 2005b, Rola infrastruktury transportowej w integracji obszaru metropolitalnego

Warszawy, [in:] Z. Makieła, T. Marszał (eds.) Infrastruktura techniczno-ekonomiczna w obszarach

metropolitalnych, Biuletyn KPZK PAN, z. 222, Warsaw.

Smętkowski M., 2011, Wpływ polityki spójności na dyfuzję procesów rozwojowych w otoczeniu

dużych polskich miast, Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, Wydanie Specjalne, pp. 123-154.

Smętkowski M., 2012, Wschodnie obszary problemowe i ich trajektorie rozwojowe na przykładzie

Polski i Niemiec, Studia Regionalne i Lokalne Np. 4(50), pp. 29-53.

Smętkowski M., Gorzelak G., 2008, Metropolis and its region – new relations in the information

economy, European Planning Studies, Vol. 16(2008). No. 6, 727-743.

UM, 2006, Strategia Rozwoju Województwa Mazowieckiego do roku 2020 (aktualizacja), Warsaw.

Śleszyński P., 2007, Gospodarcze funkcje kontrolne w przestrzeni Polski, Prace Geograficzne 213,

IGiPZ PAN, Warsaw.

Śleszyński P., 2013, Warszawa jako ośrodek dojazdów pracowniczych, Studia Regionalne i Lokalne,

No. 1 (51), pp. 5-25.

Śleszyński P., 2014, Obszar Metropolitalny Warszawy a rozwój Mazowsza w ramach projektu „Trendy

rozwojowe Mazowsza”, maszynopis.

Zegar T., 2003, Procesy integracji obszaru metropolitalnego Warszawy, Kwartalnik Studia Regionalne

i Lokalne, EUROREG, No. 1(11).

Other sources of information:

Qualitative study of the City of Mława under a RoSA project entitled: The role of the local

government in the adaptation of enterprises and employees to the global and regional economic

trends.

Conferences as part of the project ‘The Development Trends in the Mazowsze Region, 2013 and

2014.

24

RIS3 (Smart Specialisation Platform), Potsdam 12th Peer Review Workshop, Potsdam, November

2013.

Organised group interview as part of the project entitled ‘Study for the Development of the

Mazowsze Region, July 2013, Warsaw.