Discussion Papers 1988.
Spatial Organization and Regional Development
16
Krzysztof MIROS
SUPRACOMMUNAL SERVICE CENTERS IN POLAND
1. Introductory remarks
Administrative division of any country is
primarily meant to serve the goal carrying out
effective governing done by the dominating classes,
through functioning of organs of the authorities,
state administration, political organizations, and
others, within the framework of a definite terri-
torial setting. The administrative division does
condition as well, though to a much lesser degree,
activities of economic enterprises and institutions
serving population, which is especially true in co-
untries with strongly developed central governing
authority /Rybicki 1982/. Formation of the terri-
torial divisions should therefore result from as-
sociating the spatial setting of administration and
authority competences with the existing and emerging
spatial structures of economic /economic regions/,
natural /natural regions/, or cultural /historical
gravitations/ character /Panko 1984/. The assump-
tions mentioned were well satisfied by the three-
level administrative division of Poland in force
until 1975, in whose framework within relatively
well proncunced spatial settings administration
and management functions, population-oriented
service, and economic activities were carried out.
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
1 7
Administrative reform of the division was
starred on January 1st, 1973 /Law Journal No, 49
p. 312, 1972/ by creation of communes, whose num-
ber was far smaller than the number of previously
existing smaller units, village-level /gromada/,
which totalled 4315 as of December 31st, 1972.
In subsequent years, this reform was continued,
becoming complete on June 1st, 1975 when the two-
level administrative division of the country was
finally implemented /Law Journal No. 16 p. 91, 1975
and Law Journal No. 17 p. 92, 1975/. Thus, almost
overnight,the administrative structure of the
country underwent tremendous transformation. The
level of district /powiat/ was totally liquidated
/there were 392 districts, including 78 town dis-
tricts as of May 31st, 1975/, so that the inter-
mediate management level entirely disappeared. On
the other hand, the number of voivodships was in-
creased significantly, from 22, with 5 specially
distinguished urban voivodships, to 49. The number
of communes, which at the start of the reform was
2365, underwent successive decrease in the folloWing
years. At the beginning of the 80s, however, under
the pressure of society's postulates, this number
started growing and has recently reached 2121
/Potrykowski 19844
The changes introduced into the administra-
tive division of the country were primarily meant
for rationalization and enhancement of the effec-
tiveness of the country's government, In the new
territorial setting, communes were given broad
competences within the framework of organizational
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
1 8
and managerial functions, with coordinative and
supervisory functions left to the voivodship au-
thorities /Panko 1984/,
Effects brought about by the change of ad-
ministrative division did not, however, stand up
entirely to expectations linked with that maneuver.
Liquidation of the intermediate administrative le-
vel constituted previously by districts brought
about difficulties in management and administra-
tion of the country. The concept of vesting com-
munes with a variety of responsibilities did not
turn out properly effective, either, since communes
cannot often carry out functions because of lack of
financial means, inadequate availability of properly
skilled employees, and insufficient technical equip-
ment. Ultimately, the result of decentralization was
only token in character. Namely, new, intermediate
division levels started to emerge /supracommunal,
supravoivodship/ created for so called special pur-
poses. Though special divisions existed also when
the three-level division was in force, they were
few and the non-standard spatial organization of
some state institutions was conditioned by the spe-
cifics of their functioning /railroads, shipping,
military/. The scale of this problem can be well
illustrated by the fact that before the two-level
division was introduced, there had been merely some
20 such special spatial divisions, while presently
their number is estimated at approximately 200
/Lijewski 1986/,
Thus, administrative reform did not liquidate
in fact the spatial setting functioning until 1975
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
19
within the three-level territorial division of the
country, but preserved them, although in signifi-
cantly modified form. Only state administration
and some political and social organizations adapted
completely to the presently legitimate administra-
tive division and function within the two-level
structure. Other organizations, as well as numerous
offices and state institutions, carry out their func-
tions within their own, proper only for them, spatial
structures, which do not coincide with the official
territorial division of the country. The Council of
Ministers' Ordinance of May 30, 1975 /Law Journal
No. 17 P. 95 §§ 7 and 8, 1975/ obliges central and
local organs of state administration as well as co-
operative associations to adapt spatial structures
of units subject to them to the new administrative
division, In most cases, however, this reduces to
just a modification of geographical extent or stretch
of their activities so as to follow the boundaries
of new voivodships. Practically, this means that in
many cases the old district structures were reactiv-
ated, along with old voivodship structures, though
the latter in somewhat changed forms /Lipinska -
Miros, 1984/.
2. Analysis of the spatial distribution of supracom-
munal /sub regional/ service centers and of their
reach of influence
There are approximately 30 different offices
and state institutions operating at the supracommunal,
i.e., previous district or sub regional, level, ser-
vicing within one unit a dozen towns and communes.
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
20
Their statutory spheres of activity are very differ-
entiated, including, for instance: financial service,
judiciary system, protection of public order, agri-
cultural service, and health care.
This paper reports on work in which
10
such institutions, functioning on a supracommunal
/district/ level and having great social and poli-
tical significance, were considered. These institu-
tions were:
1. revenue and taxation offices,
2. state notariates,
3, district committees for minor offences,
4. professional fire brigades /district head-
quarters/,
5, district courts,
6,
juvenile criminal divisions,
7, state district public prosecutor's offices,
8, district offices of home affairs,
9. offices of the State Insurance Company,
10, offices of the Social Insurance Company.
The geographic reach of operations of the of-
fices and institutions of the district level coinci-
des approximately with the areas of previous dis-
tricts /powiat/. The number of district-level geo-
graphical units differs depending upon institution,
ranging from 198 /juvenile criminality divisions/
to 359 /committees for minor offences/:
A
/Table 1./
Offices and institutions at the district le-
vel often have a similar, and sometimes even identi-
cal, reach of their local operations. In some,
though, the situation is much more complicated. For
A
District offices located in particular quarters of
5 Polish towns /Warsaw, Lodz, Cracow, Wroclaw, and
Poznan/ were not accounted for because of their
very specific location character, depending mainly
upon locati,on availability.
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
21
example, in 3 voivodships there are communes or
towns whose population is provided various types
of service by offices located in 5 different urban
centers /out of just 10 located there!/: the town
and commune of Kety in Bielsko-Biala voivodship;
the commune Krzeszyce in Gorzow Wielkopolski voi-
vodship; and the town and commune of Dobra in
Szczecin voivodship. Within as many as 22 voivod-
ships there are territorial units belonging to
operating areas of 4 different centers, All towns
and communes in only 8 voivodships /Biala Podlaska,
Chelm, Przemysl, and Siedlce/ were served from at
most 2 centers
/Table 2
and Fig.
1/.
In order to better - more precisely -
determine the magnitude of spatial differentiation,
for the whole country with respect to the problem
here undertaken, a simple calculation was performed.
For every voivodship, the coefficient of attendance,
W
, was calculated. This coefficient is equal to the
o
average number of district centers from which popula-
tion of towns and communes in a given voivodship /i.
e., basic territorial units/ are provided service:
G, + 2G2 +
+ nGn
G
+ G
+
+ G
1
2
n
where Gi, G2,
, Gn are numbers of basic terri-
torial units of a given voivodship whose population
is served by, respectively, 1, 2, ,„,n different
district centers.
For the 49-element set of data containing
values of W
for particular voivodships, the stan-
o
dard deviation of W
was calculated, i.e.,
o
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
22
1'1,1 'fl--IL=P.
I
1 f I NOR Mit 1115
.6s`,14
Towns or communities attracted by:
1=one centre
5=five centres
2=two centres
6=boundanies of areas covering townE
and communities attracted by the
3=three centres
same number of centres
4=four centres
7=voivodship boundaries
8=national border
FIGURE 2 Towns and communities attracted by various
number of centres
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
2 3
49
E /wo _ v0/2
i=1
6 /Ay
49
where W
- coefficient of attendance of the i-th
o.
voivodship.
7
- average value of the coefficient for
the whole country,
so that intervals defined by values: 7 +6" 7 +
o — ' o —
9
V + 3 6 could be determined, Voivodships, therefore,
o —
could not only be ordered according to the magnitude
of W
, but also classified into 6 classes correspon-
o.
ding to these intervals /Table 2 and Fig. 2/.
Voivodships, having the highest values of the
W
indicato display weakly pronounced unequivocal
o
structure of service areas. Reaches of operation of
particular institutions located in various district
centers very often overlap significantly so that only
a small number of towns and communes /below 30%, or
even sometimes below 20%/ get their services from
just one center
/Table 2/,
For this respect, the situation is worst in
3 voivodships: Szczecin, Radom and the urban Lodz
voivodship those values of Wo are, respectively, 2.46,
2.43,and 2.42 and are located in the extreme class
for which W
7 7
+ 26. This situation apparently is
o
o
caused primarily by the fact that within these three
voivodships, there is a relatively high number of
towns with similar magnitudes, each of them aspiring
to the role of a district center even though they
had not been district seats before 1975. Thus, only
a portion of all the aspiring towns are given the
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
2 4
Intensity classes of the values attendance coefficient - Wo
FIGURE 2 Spatial differentation of the intensity
attendance coefficient /W0/ in Poland
by voivodships
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
2 5
functions of district centers for all the 10 chosen
state institutions, In Szczecin voivodship, there
are only 4 such fully "equipped" district centers
out of the total number of 12 towns in which cer-
tain district-wide functions are located. In Radom
voivodship, 2 out of the total of 10 are located,
and in urban Lodz voivodship are located 2 out of
6
/Table
2/,
Another 4 voivodships /Sieradz, Gorzow, Olsz-
tyn, and Wroclaw/ are characterized by attendance
coefficient values of between V
+ 6
o
and Vo + 26,
respectively: 2,31, 2,25, 2,14,and 2.13, There are,
also in these voivodships at least within their cer-
tain subareas, relatively too many towns aspiring to
the role of a district center, even if these towns
are all previous district seats as is the case of
Olsztyn and Sieradz voivodships„ The number of towns
in which all the district-wide functions are located
are small, in comparison with the total numbers of
towns in which some district functions are located,
For individual voivodships, these numbers are: 1 out
of the total /Sieradz/, 2 out of 11 /Gorz6w/, 1 out
of 11 /01sztyn/, and 3 out of 9 /Wroclaw/; see Table
2,
The lowest values of W
are attained in the
o
voivodships whose operational reaches of particular
district offices are unequivocal and only slightly
overlapping, The minimum value of the attendance
coefficient W
within the set of voivodships occurs
o
for Siedlce voivodship, the only one in the class
of those with W
values between 17
-
and
o
o
o - 36,
with W
= 1,19. Such a low value of W
indicates the
o
o
fact that the spatial division of district offices
and institutions existing within this particular vo-
ivodship follows almost exactly the reaches of oPmv-
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
26
tions of previous districts. Out of a total of 6
towns in which district institutions are located,
as many as 5 encompass all of the 10 functions
considered and only one town - Sokolow Podlaski -
has less, namely, 6 district-wide institutions
/Table 2/,
There are four voivodships in Poland for
which values of attendance coefficient W
are con-
o
tained in the interval 7o - 26 and 7
-6:
o
Legnica
- 1.45; Przemysl - 1,50; TarnOw - 1,51; and Krosno
-
1,53. These voivodships have well shaped attend-
ance areas, and there is a large share, over 50%,
of towns and communes provided service from just
one district center /see Table 2/.
The other 37 voivodships fall into the class
for which attendance coefficient values are con-
tained in the interval V
-6 /
+6. In this di-
o
o
chotomous class, there are decidedly more voivod-
ships having Wo below Vo, the latter value being
1,83, The number of these voivodships is 23 and
they are located as a rule in the Eastern part of
the country /see Table 2 and Fig, 2/, The district
centers network is better organized there as can
be explained, for instance, by the lower number of
such towns in this area aspiring to the role of di-
strict office seats, so that, naturally, the terri-
torial reach of service areas there is much more
homogeneous. The other part of this group, contain...
ing voivodships with Wo above Vo, encompasses 14
voivodships, with the somewhat less homogeneous net-
work of district offices as compared to the previous
part of the group with W
< 7 . These voivodships
o
o
are located primarily in Western Poland. Besides
that, however, there are two urban voivodships among
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
27
these 14, namely Cracow and Warsaw urban voivodships,
that display the highest coefficient values Wo in
this group, respectively 2.06 and 2.08,
More detailed analysis of data concerning
spatial distribution of service centers in Poland
and of their reach of operations makes it possible
to detect certain regularities. Thus, in the areas
where the urban settlement network is sparse and
with the low numbers of towns of sufficient size,
state offices and institutions are located almost
exclusively in previous country seats, in view of
the lack of other centers in which they could have
functioned. In such a case, the geographical stretch-
es of the attendance areas of district offices coin-
cide in a majority of cases with the areas of previ-
ous districts /powiat/. This situation appears main-
ly in the areas of Eastern Poland and that is why
the values of the attendance coefficient W
are the
o
lowest there. In the case of a dense urban settle-
ment network, there often occurs a spatial split
of administrative and service functions among var-
ious towns aspiring to the role of a district cen-
ter, even though they might not have functioned as
district seats before 1975. There are the following
location factors influencing the location of a dis-
trict office in a given town in the second case:
- availability of adequately skilled potential
employees,
- adequate availability of land, buildings,
and equipment,
- tradition,
- economic and political factors,
- arbitrary decisions of the central level of
authority.
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
28
3. Final remarks
The reform of administrative division of
Poland, which was carried out in 1975, has brought
about a number of unexpected effects. In the two-
level territorial division of the country, the
number of voivodships, and even more so the number
of communal territorial units, exceeded the ration-
al scale of the so called management scope used in
organizations /some 25 subordinate units, at most/,
causing certain difficulties in the effective per-
formance of supervision and coordination functions
and provoking the emergence of intermediary levels
as well as development of territorial unit concen-
tration processes /Panko 1984/. This is closely
related, for instance, to the development of speci-
al territorial divisions, inconsistent with the
present formal two-level administrative division of
the country, with numerous state offices and institu-
tions working within the framework of these special
divisions. A significant number of the special di-
visions repeat, to a large extent, the old admin-
istrative structures, referring through their area
delineations to districts or to voivodships from
before 1975. This finding shows the impossibility
or purposelessness of functioning of various state
institutions within the organizational structures
extirely coinciding with the two-level territorial
division of the country. Thus, the appearance of
special divisions seems to be entirely justified at
the present stage.
The real problem related to special divisions
boils down to the existence of enormous differences
in the spatial organization of district offices of
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
29
particular institutions. This is to a large extent
caused by the fact that decisions as to territorial
organization of district offices and institutions
were left to particular branches of the economy and
cooperative associations, which ultimately led to
the current state of affairs.
The present state of functioning of various
institutions within the framework of special divi-
sions though can - and certainly should - be liq-
uidated. This is postulated by the law of the sys-
tem of people's councils and territorial selfgovern-
ment /Law Journal No. 41 p. 185 art. 23 and 178,
1983/. For this purpose, it seems, a number of towns
should be selected to host all - eventually almost
all - functions of population service. Then the
decision should be made /at the central level and
with adaquate information/ regarding the reaches of
operations or particular district level centers of
services for population, which should be as equal
as possible.
The basis for creation of the district center
network should be constituted by a majority of pre-
vious district seats, approx. 300 in number and,
possibly, some additional towns that had not been
district seats before 1975. It should, however, be
very strongly emphasized that elaboration of such
a homogeneous organizational division must be pre-
ceeded by detailed studies related to matters con-
sidered, so that the organizational division could
constitute the platform for efficient management
within all the institutions encompassed by the di-
vision. This new spatial organization should be co-
ordinated with the voivodship and supravoivodship
division.
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
30
References
/all in Polish/
1. JAROSZYNSKI, A. - KOMOROWSKI, S. M. /ed/ /1982/
Spatial economy of Poland and territorial
organization of the country, Warsaw.
'2.
Law of November 29th, 1972 on creation of com-
munes and on the change of law concerning peo-
ple's councils. Law Journal
of December 1st,
1972 No. 49. p. 312.
3.
Law of May, 28th 1975 on the two-level adminis-
trative division of the State and on the
change of law concerning people's councils.
Law Journal
of May 28th, 1975 No. 16 p. 91.
4,
Law of July 20th, 1983 on the system of
people's councils and territorial selfgovern-
ment. Law Journal
of July 28th, 1983 No. 41.
p. 185.
5, LIJEWSKI, T /1986/ In; Biuletyn KPZK PAN vol.
128.
6, LIPINSKA, J. - MIROS, K.: Spatial division of
activities of justice departments and pub-
lic order protection units as well as other
chosen institutions of sei-vicing nature.
In: Expertise of the Polish Association of
Urban Planning entitled; "Assessment of the
present administrative division of Poland
and conclusions drawn against its back-
ground". Typescript 1984.
7.
Ordinance of Council of Ministers, of May 30th,
1975 on designation of towns and communes
forcing particular voivodships. Law Journal
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
3 1
of May 31st, 1975 No. 17 p. 92.
8.
Ordinance of Council of Ministers, of May
30th, 1975, on adaptation of organization
and scope of operations of local organiza-
tional units to the new administrative di-
vision of the state. Law Journal of May
31st, 1975 No. 17 p. 95.
9. PANKO, W. /1984/ In: Biuletyn KPZK PAN vol.
126.
10, POTRYKOWSKI, M. /1984/ In: Biuletyn KPZK PAN
vol. 126.
11.
Problems of territorial division of the
country. Biuletyn KPZK PAN vol. 83. PWN
Warszawa 1974.
12. RYBICKI, Z. /1982/ Spatial economy of Poland
and territorial organization of the country.
13. STASIAK, A, /ed/ /1984/ Administrative divi-
zion of the country. Views and opinions.
Biuletyn KPZK PAN vol. 126. PWN Warszawa.
14. STASIAK, A, /ed/ /1986/ Administrative divi-
sion of the country. Studies. Materials.
Discussions. Biuletyn KPZK PAN vol. 128.
PWN Warszawa.
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
32
Table 1
Alfabetical list of attending centers being a seat of district offices
Number of
Number of offices and institutions of state
attending
centers
administration (of these offices located in
Voivodship
(of these
previous district seats) '
previous
district
1
2
seats)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 capital Warszawa
9/ 7/
7/ 7/
5/ 5/
9/ 7/
8/ 7/
7/
7/
7/ 7/
7/ 7/
8/ 7/
6/ 6/
3/ 3/
2 Biala Podlaska
6/ 4/
3/ 3/
2/ 2/
6/ 4/
4/ 4/
2/ 2/
2/ 2/
3/ 2/
5/ 4/
4/ 4/
3/ 3/
3 Bialystok
8/ 8/
5/ 5/
3/ 3/
0/ 8/
8/
8/
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
4/ 4/
8/ 13/
8/ 8/
4/ 4/
4 Bielsko-Biala
9/ 6/
6/ 6/
7/ 6/
7/ 6/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/ 6/ 4/
7/ 6/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/
5 Bydgoszcz
11/ 9/
7/ 7/
9/ 9/ 10/ 9/ 10/ 9/
7/ 7/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/ 11/ 9/ 10/ 9/
4/ 4/
6 Cheim
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
3/
3/
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
3/ 3/
1/ 1/
7 Ciechanow
6/ 6/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/
4/ 4/
3/ 3/
5/
5/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/
8 Czgstochowa
7/ 6/
5/ 5/
4/
4/
6/ 5/
6/ 5/
4/ 4/
3/ 3/
4/ 4/
6/ 5/
6/ 6/
3/ 3/
9 Elblgg
9/ 7/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/
8/ 6/
7/ 7/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/
5/ 5/
4/ 4/
6/ 6/
5/ 5/
10 Gda6sk
10/10/
9/ 9/
8/ 8/ 10/10/ 10/10/
7/ 7/
5/ 5/ 9/
9/ 10/10/
9/ 9/
7/ 7/
11 Gorzow Wielkop.
11/ 9/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/ 11/ 9/
9/ 9/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/
8/ 8/
4/ 4/
12 Jelenia Gora
7/ 6/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/
5/ 5/
7/ 6/
5/ 5/
3/ 3/
5/
5/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/
4/ 4/
13 Kalisz
9/ 9/
5/ 5/
7/ 7/
5/
5/
9/ 9/
5/ 5/
4/ 4/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
8/ 8/
6/ 6/
14 Katowice
28/22/
25/22/ 18/17/ 25/22/ 22/20/ 21/20/ 18/17/ 21/20/ 25/22/ 17/17/ 16/15/
15 Kielce
12/11/
9/ 9/ 11/11/ 11/11/ 12/11/
8/ 3/ 7/
7/
9/ 9/ 11/11/ 11/11/
8/ 8/
16 Konin
6/ 4/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/ 2/ 2/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/
6/ 4/
3/ 3/
17 Koszalin
6/ 6/
5/ 5/
3/ 3/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
4/ 4/
18 urban KrakOw
7/ 3/
4/ 3/
3/ 3/
7/
3/
4/ 3/
2/ 2/
2/ 2/
2/ 2/
7/ 3/
3/ 3/
1/ 1/
19 Krosno
6/ 6/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/
6/
6/
6/ 6/
5/ 5/
3/ 3/
5/ 5/
6/ 6/
5/ 5/ 4/ 4/
20 Legnica
6/ 5/
5/ 5/
4/ 4/
5/ 5/
6/ 5/
5/ 5/
3/
3/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
5/ 5/
5/
5/
21 Leszno
6/ 6/
4/ 4/
4/ 4/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/
4/ 4/
3/ 3/
4/ 4/
6/ 6/
6/ 6/
3/ 3/
The numbers 1,2,...,10 denote the following offices and state institu-
tions:
1.
revenue and taxation office, 2. state notariates,
3.
district comittees for minor offences,
4.
professional fire brigades (district head-guarters),
5.
district courts,
6.
juvenile criminal divisions,
7.
state district public prosecutor's offices,
8.
district offices of home affairs,
9.
offices of the State Insurance Company,
10.
offices of the Social Insurance Company.
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
33
able 1 - continued
Number of
Number of offices and institutions of state
attending
centers
administration (of these offices located in
Voivodship
(of these
previous district seats)
previous
district
seats)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
22 Lublin
10/8/
6/5/
4/4/
9/7/
9/8/
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/
9/7/
8/7/
4/4/
23
om2a
5/5/
5/5/
4/4/
5/5/
5/5/
4/4/
2/2/
4/4/
5/5/
5/5/
3/3/
24 urban todi
6/3/
4/3/
3/3/
4/3/
5/3/
3/3/
3/3/
3/3/
3/3/
2/2/
3/3/
25 Nowy Sqcz
9/5/
6/5/
6/5/
6/5/
7/5/
6/5/
3/3/
5/5/
6/5/
4/4/
3/3/
26 Opole
14/12/
9/9/
8/8/
10/10/ 14/12/ 7/7/
7/7/
7/7/
10/10/
11/11/
7/7/
27 Olsztyn
11/11/
6/6/ 11/11/ 11/11/ 11/11/ 7/7/
5/5/
8/8/
11/11/
11/11/
3/3/
28 Ostroigka
6/5/
5/5/
3/3/
6/5/
5/5/
4/4/
3/3/
5/5/
5/5/
4/4/
4/4/
29 Piia
8/8/
5/5/
8/8/
7/7/
7/7/
6/6/
5/5/
6/6/
7/7/
7/7/
6/6/
30 Piotrkow Tryb.
6/5/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
6/5/
5/5/
4/4/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
4/4/
31 Pkock
5/5/
3/3/
3/3/
5/5/
5/5/
4/4/
2/2/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
3/3/
32 Poznan'
9/8/
7/7/
8/7/
9/8/
7/7/
5/4/
5/4/
7/6/
8/8/
8/8/
6/5/
33 Przemy61
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/ 4/4/
2/2/
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/
3/3/
34 Radom
10/8/
6/6/
5/4/
8/8/
8/8/
5/5/
3/3/
5/5/
9/8/
7/7/
4/4/
35 Rzesz6w
7/7/
6/6/
7/7/
7/7/
7/7/
7/7/
3/3/
7/7/
7/7/
7/77
3/3/
36 Siedlce
6/6/
6/6/
5/5/
6/6/
6/6/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
6/6/
6/6/
6/6/
37 Sieradz
5/5/
5/5/
4/4/
5/5/
5/5/
3/3/ 1/1/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
3/3/
38 Skierniewice
6/6/
6/6/ 6/6/
6/6/
6/6/
6/6/
2/2/
6/6/
6/6/
6/6/
3/3/
39 Slupsk
6/6/
4/4/
4/4/
6/6/
6/6/
4/4/
3/3/
4/4/
6/6/
5/5/
4/4/
40 Suwalki
9/9/
6/6/
5/5/
8/8/
9/9/
5/5/
5/5/
6/6/
8/8/
7/7/
4/4/
41 Szczecin
12/10/
7/7/
6/6/
12/10/ 10/10/ 8/8/
6/6/
10/9/
11/10/
7/7/
4/4/
42 Tarnobrzeo
7/7/
6/6/
6/6/
7/7/
6/6/
5/5/
3/3/
6/6/
6/6/
6/6/
4/4/
43 Tarnow
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/ 3/3/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
3/3/
44 Torur5
7/7/
6/6/ 6/6/
7/7/
7/7/
6/6/
4/4/
6/6/
7/7/
7/7/
5/5/
45 Waibrzych
11/7/
7/7/
6/6/
10/7/
8/7/
5/5/
5/5/
7/7/
7/7/
7/7/
7/7/
46 Wiockawek
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
4/4/
2/2/
5/5/
5/5/
5/5/
2/2/
77 Wcociaw
9/8/
6/6/
7/7/
8/8/
9/8/ 7/7/
5/5/
6/6/
8/8/
8/8/
3/3/
70 ZamoC
5/4/
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/
4/4/
2/2/
4/4/
4/4/
5/4/
4/4/
79 Zielona G6ra
11/10/
6/6/
6/6/
10/10/ 11/10/ 8/7/
5/5/
7/7/
11/10/
10/10/
5/4/
POLSKA
••••.-
•
ss
1.11
PL"
9(34)
-.
C.
,
CO
6 2
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
34
Table 2
Ranking of communes and towns /according to attendance coefficient
values - Wo
f
Number of communes and towns
o
ing
d
ters
ber
attended by:
am
tten
t
'en
:
n:
a
Voivodship
CO
v
:ow
it
.
1
2
3
4
5
r
rte
r•
ce
cen-
s
.
-en-
cen-
cen-
cen-
ter
ters
ters
ters
ters
%
.
%
%
ksv
/IC
I/
l/
1 Siedlce
79
6
5
1,19
64
81,0 15 19,0
o
m
2 Legnica
42
1,45
26
61,9 13 31,0
3
7,1
-
3 PrzemyL
44
1,50
22
50,0 22 50,0
4 Tarnow
54
1,51
29
54,7 21 39,6
3
5,7
-
-
5 Krosno
51
1,53
30
58,8 15 29,4
6 11,8
-
6 Bielsko-Biaa
65
1,58
38
58,4 22 33,9
3,1
2
3,1
7 Ciechanaw
55
1,60
24
43,6 29 52,7
-
-
3 Piotrkow
11
Tryb.
61
1,61
26
45,9 29 47,5
9 Ostroqka
48
1,62
23
47,9 20 41,7
-
-
,-11
10 Wakbrzych
61
1,62
28
45,9 29 47,5
1,7
-
11 Chekm
30
1,63
11
36,7 19 63,3
-
-
11,41
12 Zamo6C
56
1,64
22
39,3 32 57,1
13 Bialystok
66
1,65
24
36,4 41 62,1
-
-
14 Suwalki
58
1,66
27
46,6 26 44,6
3,4
-
15 kom2a
52
1,67
18
34,6 33 63,5
-
-
,-11
16 Kalisz
75
1,68
31
41,3 38 50,7
1,3
-
17 Leszno
50
1,68
23
46,0 20 40,0
-
-
1
18 Plock
53
1,70
21
39,6 27 50,9
11
19 Kollin
61
1,70
22
36,1 35 57,4
20 Slupsk
42
1,71
21
50,0 12 28,6
-
-
,41.1
21 Opole
90
1,72
46
53,4 21 23,3
2,2
-
22 Poznan'
90
1,76
31
34,4 50 55,6
-
-
23 Kielce
36
1,76
48
55,0 19 22,1
9,3
-
24 Rzeszov
55
1,76
16
32,7 32 56,2
-
-
Krzysztof Miros : Supracommunal Service Centers in Poland
Discussion Papers 1988. Spatial Organization and Regional Development 16-35. p.
35
Table 2 - continued
f
o
Number of communes and towns
iny
d
ters
bar
m
attended by:
tten
4u
i
cen
W
Voiyodship
CO
wns
of
1
2
3
4
cen-
cen-
cen-
cen-
cel -
-LI
ter
ters
ters
be
irr
ters
te s
ota
m
en
v
ffil
%
%
25 Katowice
93
28
1,77
45 48,4
25 26,9
23,6
1
1,1
-
26 Bydgoszcz
82
11
1,78
31 37,8
39 47,6
13,4
1
1,2
-
27 ElblIg
53
9
1,79
21 39,6
23 43,3
15,1
1
1,5
28 Toru6
54
7
1,81
16 29,6
32 59,3
11,1
-
29 Lublin
79
1,84
40,5
29 36,7
21,5
1,3
30 Koszalin
52
1,85
44,2
14 26,9
28,9
31 Pike
60
1,97
36,7
24 40,0
23,3
32 Biala Podlaska
42
1,88
11,9
37 88,1
-
33 Gdarisk
64
1,91
34,4
27 42,2
21,9
1,5
34 Wloclawek
52
1,94
30,6
23 44,2
25,0
35 Jelenia Gfira
53
1,94
45,3
15 28,3
13,2
13,2
36 Zielona Gora
76
1,95
-
40,8
19 25,0
32,9
1,3
37 Czptochowa
69
1,96
46,4
14 20,3
24,6
8,7
-
36 Skierniewice
45
2,00
20,0
27 60,0
20,0
39 Tarnobrzeg
66
2,03
12,1
48 72,7
15,2
40 Nowy Scz
57
2,05
29,8
26 45,6
14,1
10,5
41 urban Krak6w
48
2,06
6,2
39 61,3
12,5
42 capital Warszawa
59
2,06
18,6
35 59,3
17,0
5,1
43 Wrockaw
53
9
2,13
14 26,4
18 34,0
21 39,6
-
-
44 Olsztyn
69
11
2,14
10 14,5
40 58,0
18 26,1
1
1,4
-
/1;
r.
45 GorzOw Wielkop.
59
11
4
2,25
12 20,3
23 39,0
22 37,3
1
1,7 1
1,7
46 Sieradz.
0
5
2,31
8 16,4
23 46,9
13 26,5
5 10,2
-
TW
47 urban to:3i
19
6
2,42
3 15,8
9 47,4
3 15,8
4 21,C
-
43 Radom
76
10
2,43
Z
18 23,7
21 27,6
23 30,3
14 10,4 -
-
/lf,°
49 Szczecin
81
12
2,46
b/:
22 27,2
13 16,0
35 43,2
9 11,1 2
2,5
2
+
M
7.
POLSKA
2933 339
152
1,83
Wo
1132 38,6 1259 42,9 451 15,4
86
2,9 5
0,2