Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Localgovernmentreformasstatebuilding:WhatthePolishcasesaysabout“decentralisation”
governmentsasquasi-autonomousfiscalunits
inwhichthealignmentofelectoraljurisdictions,
benefitareasandtaxpowerswouldgenerate
avirtuouscircleofgoodgovernance.
Instead,theysawlocalgovernmentsasfunctio-
nalcomponentsofasingle,nationalsystem
ofpublicadministration.Theywantedtomake
localgovernmentsresponsibleforthevastmajority
ofday-to-daypublicservices,becausetheywere
convincedthatthiswastheonlywaytoensure
thatthenationalgovernmentwouldfocuson
largerquestionsofstrategy,policy,andlaw.For
them,inotherwords,“decentralisation”was
thefoundationofabroaderstate-buildingstrategy.
Thesereformersassumedthattherewaslittle
populardemandforlocalgovernmentsandthat
thecapacitytorunthemwasweak.Theyalso
believedthatdeconstructingcommunismwouldbe
alongstruggle.This,Iargue,ledthemtoconstruct
anarrayofinstitutionsdesignedtotrainand
professionalisenewly-electedlocalofficialsand
tocollectivelyembedtheminthestate’sregula-
toryandpolicy-makingprocesses.Horizontally,
theseinstitutionsmitigatedthedangersoflocal
captureandrent-seekingbyfosteringnewnorms
andstandardsandbyforcinglocalofficialsto
policeeachother’sbehaviour,thusatleastpar-
tiallycompensatingforthelackofanengaged
citizenry.Vertically,theyblurredtheboundaries
betweenlevelsofgovernmentandmadepossible
thecontinualadjustmentofintergovernmental
relations-adjustmentsthatalloweddecentralisation
tounfoldasaprocess,andnotasaone-sided
attempttoinstantiaterulesthoughttoensure
subnationalaccountabilityandgoodgovernance.
ThestoryItellisthusaboutanelitegroup
ofstate-builderswhoseideasinformedthecreation
ofinstitutionsthatprofessionalised,disciplined
andempoweredanewclassofdemocratically-
electedlocalofficialstogoverneffectively.In
makingthisargumentIamnotdenyingthat
muchoftheimpetuousfortherapidcreation
ofdemocratically-electedlocalgovernmentswas
narrowlypolitical.Afterall,almosteverywhere
intheregionelectionsfornewly-constituted
localgovernmentswereheldwithintwoyears
ofcommunism’scollapse,andalmosteverywhere
nationalreformerssawthemasapowerfultools
fordefangingoldfoes.Nonetheless,Poland’s
reformsstandoutfortheirdepth,resilience,and
effectiveness,andtheirsuccesscannoteasilybe
attributedtoamotivationthatwaswidelyshared
elsewhere.
Equallyimportantly,Iamnotdenyingthe
importanceofSolidarity,eitherasatradeunion
orasasocialmovement(Ekiert&Kubik,2001).
Indeed,thefactthattheunionwas(unusually)
organisedalongregionalandnotbranchlines(Ost,
1991)andthatmanyofitsactiviststurned-as
weshallsee-tolocalgovernmentsafter1990,
undoubtedlyhadmuchtodowithPoland’ssuccess.
Nonetheless,whatisstrikingaboutPoland’s
successisthattheideasthatinformeditwere
notpredicatedonstrongexpectationsofwide-
spreadcivicengagement.Indeed,inmanyways
theinstitutionsthatthearchitectsofthereforms
builtcanbestbeunderstoodasmechanismdesigned
tocreateresponsiblelocalelitesinthepresumed
absenceofanengagedcitizenryandnofaith
inthetax-basedaccountabilityoffiscalfederalism.
Moreover,thereislittlestrongevidencethat
thisbasicpresumptionwaswrong:Polishpost-
communistcivilsocietyseemstobesimilarto
thoseintherestoftheregioninasmuchasthe
Polescontinuetoscoreatthebottomofthepost-
communistbarrelonmeasuressuchastrust
ingovernment,trustinothers,membershipin
associationsandparticipationinpublicprocesses
andevents(Bernard,1996;Kramer,2002;Howard,
2003;Tworecki,2008).Again,thisisnottodeny
thatthehistoryofpopularresistancetocommunism
leftPolandinanadvantageouspositionin1990
byprovidingthearchitectsofitsreformswith
apoolofcommittedactivistsreadytoenter
thelocalgovernmentstheywerecreating.But
sayingthisisverydifferentfromattributing
thesuccessoftheprocesstoanunusuallyengaged
citizenryoraparticularly“strongcivilsociety”
(Mielczarek,2012).
ZarządzaniePubliczne/PublicGovernance3(45)/2018
7
