Abstract
There is a growing consensus within both policy and academic circles, including various schools of political, legal, and economic thought, that institutions matter and that the quality of institutions and governments makes an important difference for economic development. However, while the institutional literature has extensively discussed different types of institutions and their importance, only a few quantitative measures of formal institutions and their quality are available. What is more, most analyses referring to the quality of public institutions concern the national or regional level and the issue at the local level is relatively understudied.
The purpose of the article is to fill this gap in two ways. The first one is to identify territorial differentiation of the quality of public institutions at the local level in Poland; the second one, to explain the reasons of the differentiation of institutional capacities in the context of historical, cultural, and social factors.
The research has shown that the quality of public institutions is highly related to historical circumstances. However, although their impact is strong, the historical conditions are definitely not the only factor influencing local institutional capital in Poland, as they appear to be deeply affected also by the level of urbanization and the degree of human capital.
Introduction
During the last two decades, the institutional environment has become a strategic variable and a determining factor for local socio-economic well-being. This confirms the concept of territorial governance emphasizing the quality of law and of public institutions as key determinants of policy making and territorial development. 1 As pointed out by Fukuyama in his latest book, nowadays “much more important than the size of government is its quality. . . . There is a very powerful correlation between the quality of government and good economic and social outcomes.” 2
There is a consensus among social science researchers that the quality of public institutions not only determines the functioning of the public utilities sector, but above all constitutes a factor of the development of civic activity and entrepreneurship, as well as of building innovative capacities. 3 The importance of a sound and fair institutional environment becomes even more apparent during the periods of crisis, given the increasingly direct role played by the public authorities in the economy during such periods in many countries.
While the institutional literature has extensively discussed different types of institutions and their importance, only a few quantitative measures of formal institutions and their quality are available. The literature on the subject also lacks an established universal range of their indicators. As a result, measurement of the quality of public institutions poses many methodological and interpretative problems. Analyses show a large variety of areas and criteria of assessment, including in particular, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency or voice, and accountability. 4
Furthermore, in the case of analyses of formal institutions, subjective measures and qualitative assessment methods (e.g., based on opinions expressed by experts in particular fields of knowledge) are commonly used and visibly dominate over “hard” measures and quantitative methods based on objective indicators, which are only very rarely applied. However, the use of subjective analytical approaches may increase the scope for bias or the risk of drawing unfounded conclusions, in contrast to analyses based on statistical data providing a more reliable picture of the quality of public institutions. 5 In addition, various empirical studies in this field often rely on indirect measures, such as for example levels of gross domestic product per capita, as proxies of the level of quality of institutions. 6 These analyses provide an approximate rather than an actual picture of the quality of institutions. Unlike previous studies that analyzed similar questions, we have measured quality of institutions directly instead of measuring the perceptions or consequences thereof.
In the subject-matter literature, most analyses referring to the quality of public institutions concern the national or regional level and the problem of the quality of institutions at the local level is relatively understudied, despite its importance to local socio-economic development processes. 7 This is due, inter alia, to the poor availability of statistical data at a local level and low degree of their comparability over the years. However, the quality of institutional environment constitutes a strongly territorially differentiated development factor, depending on local historical, cultural, or economic determinants. For this reason, analyses carried out at a local level are the most valuable.
In this context, an attempt to analyze the quality of public institutions in Poland at the local level of counties (LAU1), 8 using quantitative methods and hard assessment measures, should be considered an ambitious challenge aimed at filling the gap in these studies. The purpose of the article is twofold. Firstly, it is to identify territorial differentiation of the quality of public institutions at the local level (and to answer the question, Is the quality of public institutions in Poland differentiated?). Secondly, it is an attempt to explain the reasons for the territorially varied inequalities of institutional capacities (and to answer the question, What determines the differentiation of the quality of public institutions in Poland?).
The Concept and Role of Institutions
The last few decades have seen a significant growth of scholarly interest in studying institutions. The literature concerning this subject is becoming more varied and transcends numerous academic disciplines. Increasing attention has been given in particular to the role of institutions in practical implementation of the idea of good governance and in economic development. There is a growing consensus within both policy and academic circles, including various schools of legal, political, and economic thought, that institutions matter and that the quality of institutions and governments makes an important difference for economic development. 9 However, such a consensus does not exist as to the content of the notion of “institutions” as well as to the indicators allowing measurement of their quality. Numerous definitions of this term have been proposed in the social sciences, in particular in works by institutional economists. In defining the concept of an institution, we can come across a narrower and a broader approach. In the light of the first one, institutions are primarily seen as constraints or restrictions. This view was presented inter alia by North who defined institutions as constraints that human beings impose on themselves. 10 They are created by society and embedded therein. According to the standpoint presented by this author, they affect human interactions through a system of standards and restrictions, for example, restrictions on private individuals, but also on autocratic aspirations by public authorities. 11
However, many authors perceive institutions less and less often as constraints only. For example, according to Hodgeson, they can be construed as “durable systems of established and embedded social rules that structure social interactions.” 12 Hayek defines them in a similar manner, that is, as rules of conduct that emerge evolutionarily in the course of human interaction. 13 According to Crawford and Ostrom, institutions should be understood as “enduring regularities of human action in situations structured by rules, norms, and shared strategies, as well as by the physical world.” 14 They not only limit, but at the same time enable human actions, and from their shape and content it follows which activities are allowed and which are not. 15 Consequently, it can be stated that institutions capable not only of constraining behaviour but also of causing certain activities, acting as norms or patterns of behaviour. Importantly, institutions consist of rules and norms that, in case of non-compliance, trigger sanctions and make unprofitable actions that are contrary to what is expected.
A wider definition can also be found in the literature, which places organizations next to rules, norms, and constrains within the notion of institutions. In this approach, organizations are apprehended as a special type of institutions. 16 According to this understanding, the term “institution” covers not only rules of the game (norms) but also organizations such as, for example, public—state or local—authorities, development agencies, or business associations. Such an approach has also been adopted in this study.
Furthermore, a distinction between formal and informal institutions can be made. According to Ferguson, formal institutions arise from a specific collective decision-making process and are typically, although not always, written. They include for example constitutions, statutes, regulations, and other formally decided government or corporate rules as well as forms of government. 17 On the other hand, informal institutions can be defined as mutually expected informal behavioural patterns or as shared meanings and collective understandings that, while not codified into documented rules and standards, reflect a socially constructed reality, 18 including traditions and customs, moral values, religious beliefs, and other social norms that emerge spontaneously from repeated social interactions and informal decision procedures. 19
It follows from these considerations that different institutions have been devised by human beings to create a stable structure of human behavior. It is also often pointed out that institutions have the capacity to structure political, economic, and social interactions and to reduce uncertainty in exchange. 20 This results from the fact that in relations with other individuals or groups, they give rise to legitimate expectations regarding the behaviour of these other entities and therefore provide conditions for repeatability in exchanges and social relations. Working in this way, institutions increase the predictability of the activities of individuals and groups and their results and promote order and stability by providing authoritative behavioral guidelines. 21 As a result, they can become a valuable asset to society. It must be noted, however, that while good-quality institutions promote economic development, bad-quality ones, on the contrary, can restrain it, for example by raising transaction costs. Institutional and policy shortcomings discourage the investments, hold down cooperation between various actors, and as a consequence, keep countries and regions from achieving their potential. 22 In the literature, it is often indicated that a significant role in shaping formal institutions is played by the informal ones. They are said to gradually change the actions and interactions of various agents in all sorts of social organizations including states as well as smaller entities such as villages. 23 For example, according to DiMaggio, formal institutions reflect the motivation and collective actions of societal members seeking to solve problems that obstruct the ability to achieve goals deemed to be important. 24 Many scholars underline that a driving force in the development and maintenance of formal institutions is the society’s customs and culture, 25 which are embedded in its heritage. In particular, an important role is played by culture, which reflects and further influences the beliefs, values, norms, priorities, and attitudes that are broadly shared by individuals. 26 Collective values and non-codified standards included therein and shared by the members of a certain group, for example by inhabitants of a given territory, define what actions are considered ethical, acceptable, and desirable, and as a result, can affect, inter alia, the actions of public authorities. What is more, culture understood in this way can be transmitted across generations and, as a result, is deeply shaped by history. In this way, many authors underline the strong effect that historic events have on the formation of various institutions and their persistence. They indicate that historical, as well as—more or less distant in time—geopolitical factors constitute, to a large extent, the origins of current institutions and should therefore be seen as particularly important determinants thereof. 27
Like institutions, institutional quality is also a broad concept that may include the quality of rules and regulations, as well as of the institutions construed as organizations, such as inter alia government structures and regulatory bodies. As a result, in the literature various features and indicators of institutional quality are discussed. The proposed sets of indicators refer to numerous different aspects of the quality of institutions or—wider—of governance, such as for example civil service independence from politics, impartial courts, legal enforcement of contracts or protection of property rights, and regulatory quality. However, the most common and, it seems fundamental, indicators concern such institutional quality features as the Rule of Law, which is a broad concept that encompasses many features such as in particular the lawfulness of the actions of public authorities, legal certainty, government impartiality, equality before the law, transparency, control of corruption, independence of judiciary; voice and accountability and government effectiveness. 28
Finally, taking into account the subject of this article, it must be noted that although many formal institutions are of a national character and therefore their impact on development is similar in all parts of the country and not strongly diversified, a significant role in providing order and stability as well as in shaping social and economic processes is also played by local institutions. This concerns both institutions understood as rules and norms and those understood as organizations. In this respect, a certain spatial diversity is possible. This diversity may concern rules and norms of local law, as they are created by territorial self-government bodies and not by the state ones, as well as the territorial authorities themselves, in particular, the way in which they govern and apply legal norms. This seems particularly important as local government authorities create conditions in which individuals and various entities operate and get engaged in common projects. The efficient functioning of territorial self-governments and the quality of local institutions depend not only on the standard of living but also on the opportunities for the development of local economies and communities. 29
Research and Results
In order to define the quality of local institutional capital, we took into consideration several relevant measures. At first, the list was longer and included also some other factors such as for example the totality of decisions issued by self-government boards of appeal as a result of examination of complaints against inaction or excessive length of actions of local self-government bodies. However, the preliminarily correlation analysis 30 excluded them from the research owing to their strong association with other, similar measures for example—as in the indicated case—admitted complaints against inaction or excessive length of action of local self-government bodies or annulments of decisions issued in the first instance by these bodies. Finally, we took into consideration five characteristics (Table 1). Then, at the next step of the analysis, we built the synthetic measure 31 of local institutional effectiveness and the Rule of Law. We divided the diagnostic variables into two the following groups of indicators:
Effectiveness: ● European Funds for financing EU programs and projects in PLN obtained by the territorial units per capita (indicating administrative efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities actions); ● complaints against inaction or excessive length of action of local self-government bodies considered justified by the self-government boards of appeal (which are bodies competent to review complaints against decisions and actions of local self-government bodies in Poland) per 10,000 inhabitants (indicating efficiency and speed of action of local authorities).
Rule of Law: ● share of area of land covered by valid local spatial development plan in total area of the territorial units by percentage (indicating stability and transparency of local law in the field of spatial planning and attention to spatial regime); ● decisions of SGBA (self-government boards of appeal) on annulment of decisions issued in the first instance by local self-government body per 10,000 inhabitants (indicating compliance with the law of actions of local authorities); ● anti-corruption internal procedures, measured as the percentage of all LAU-2 units owning the procedures in all communes in that LAU-1 (indicating impartiality of local authorities).
We used statistical information from Local Data Bank of Statistics Poland [Central Statistical Office of Poland], annual information on the local SGBA (Self-government Boards of Appeal) activities available in the online Bulletin of Public Information (for each SGBA separately) and data obtained from survey conducted on each commune 32 (LAU-2) office (that we aggregated to LAU-1 level). We refer our analysis to local LAU-1 level of data aggregation and to the time period 2012-2018.
Diagnostic Variables Describing the Quality of Polish Local Institutions
Note: S = stimulant, D = destimulant (the stimulants were normalized with the formula:
Source: own elaboration.
In the years 2012–2018, the efficiency of local authorities in obtaining European Funds for financing programs and projects was the highest in western and southern Poland (from PLN 100 to 294 per capita). Those parts of the country are homogenous as to the level of socio-economic development. On the other hand, the counties located in the eastern part of the country, where the amount of allocated EU funds was the lowest (from PLN 0.1 to 22.6 per capita), are one of the least developed in the European Union.
What is more, in the context of the institutions’ quality, an important role was played also by the size of the entity. Data indicated that voivodeship capitals (NUTS-2), other big cities, as well as the southern and northwest parts of Poland were characterized by the lowest number of admitted complaints against inaction/excessive length of action of local self-government (from 0.03 to 0.19 complaints per 10,000 inhabitants).
When it comes to overall effectiveness of local self-government institutions, counties are characterized by the largest spatial differences in the distribution of EU funds for financing programs and projects. Approximately 71 percent of all LAU-1 units obtained less than PLN 18 per capita (the average for Poland). We also noticed that some counties received no funding, while some other were allocated funds sixteen times greater than the reported average, that is, more than PLN 200 per capita (Figure 1).
The effectiveness of local institutions (data averaged over the years 2012–2018)
For the period analyzed in the study, we found that the rule of law defined in terms of the share of area covered by valid local spatial development plans was observed the most in urban areas and in the southwest part of the country (from 65 to 100 percent of the total area of the county). It may also be seen that stability and transparency of local law in the field of spatial planning and attention to spatial regime are highly unequal across Polish counties (Figure 2). The composite indices of spatial planning vary from 0.7 to 100 percent of the share of area covered by valid local spatial development plans in the total area of the territorial units. Moreover, the northern parts of Poland and rural areas (especially those in the vicinity of big cities) were characterized by the highest number of SGBA decisions that annulled decisions issued in the first instance by local self-government bodies (from 30 to 98 cases per 10,000 people). We also observed lower spatial heterogeneity of the number of SGBA decisions annulling decisions issued in the first instance by local self-government bodies with respect to other factors. The average value of the number of SGBA is 15 decisions per 10,000 inhabitants and approximately 62 percent of all counties not accompanied with this level. However, we still noticed wide disparities in the number of anticorruption internal procedures among different counties within and between different parts of Poland. The 85 percent of urban areas (big cities), counties located in the southern and north-western regions of Poland, put those regulations in place locally (Figure 2).
The rule of law of local institutions (data averaged over the years 2012–2018)
The constructed synthetic measure allowed indicating counties with the highest and lowest quality of local institutions in Poland in the time span 2012–2018 (the higher the value of the synthetic measure, the higher the quality). A cursory look at the results of the analysis reveals that the values of the measure vary from 0.24 to 0.78 (Figure 3). It may be noted here that local territorially varied disparity of institutional quality exists (coefficient of variation on synthetic measure equals 19 percent, with mean 0.53 and standard deviation 0.10) 34 and depends on composite indices, that is, on the effectiveness and rule of law. We noticed (from the significance of the correlation coefficients and variation tests) 35 that the overall quality of institutional capital was mostly stimulated by anti-corruption internal procedures and areas covered by local spatial development plans. On the other hand, it was destimulated by admitted complaints about inactions/excessive length of action of local government and by annulments of decisions issued in the first instance by local self-government bodies.
Synthetic measure of the quality of Polish local institutions (data averaged over the years 2012–2018)
Finally, we observed that rural areas located in central, north, and north-eastern Poland experienced the least degree of the phenomenon (Figure 3). In general, the effectiveness of actions undertaken by their local institutions was the lowest. On the other hand, urban areas (with the exception of those in central Poland), rural counties situated in the south and south-western part of the country, and some units in eastern Poland were characterized by the high quality of the authorities’ actions. In those LAU-1 units, the stability and transparency of local law was observed (Figure 2) and had the lowest number of admitted complaints against inaction or excessive length of action of local self-government (Figure 1).
Reasons of the Differentiation of the Quality of Institutions in Poland
According to the results obtained in the research, an important role in explaining the differentiation of public institutions’ quality can be attributed to historical and cultural circumstances as well as social attitudes shaped in the past.
Poland can be divided into four historical regions according to whether the territory was in the Austrian, Russian, or Prussian partition until 1918 or “recovered” after 1945. The period of more than one hundred years of partitions (in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Poland was partitioned among Austria, Prussia, and Russia 37 ) exerted a particular impact on the development of institutional capacity in Poland. Up until the reunification of Poland following World War II, these three regions were exposed to very different political and administrative cultures. In the area of western, west-northern, and partly southern Poland, dependent on Prussia and Austria, a positive cultural import from Western and Southern Europe took place, including for example the transfer of social attitudes, motivations, and institutional solutions (see Figure A1). Prussia and Austria were much more advanced at the economic and civilisation levels and offered a better quality of life than the Russian Empire. 38 This concerns in particular the territories under Prussian rule that were the most developed part of Poland at the time of the partitions. 39 In terms of the socio-political situation, the Prussian and Austrian states were more favourable to the self-organization of their Polish populations. In these partitions Poles were exposed to an administration that was predictable and based on universal and impersonal rules, even though some of these rules were anti-Polish. 40 It is important to notice that in particular the territories under Prussian rule, despite many instances of abuse, were part of a European state which was undergoing rapid modernization and which somewhat preserved the rule of law and respect for work. 41 Such circumstances have led to the development of trust in public authorities, higher activity of society, and the creation of different forms of self-organization of local communities. On the other hand, the southeastern partition under Austrian rule was a poor, agricultural, and overpopulated territory. 42 However, at the same time, Austria was a multinational empire without an “imperial nationality” comparable to the other partitioners, and as a result this partition was a less hostile environment for diverse national identities. 43 Austria gave substantial administrative and cultural autonomy to its Polish territories—it was the only empire to allow Poles to participate in local governance, and it was also the first to introduce local democratic institutions that enfranchised the Polish population. 44 In terms of the socio-political situation, the Prussian and Austrian states were more favourable to the self-organization of their Polish populations. Nowadays, these parts of Poland, in particular Western and Northern territories that in the past were under Prussian rule, 45 are better developed economically and socially than the part of the country that constituted the Russian partition, 46 and, at the same time, enjoy bigger spatial order, their actions are better organized, and they are strongly goal-oriented, which translates into higher effectiveness of local governments and institutions (Figure 1). 47
On the other hand, the eastern part of the country was dependent on Russia, which was perceived as a less developed country—not only economically but also culturally and socially—and lagging in terms of the development of modern social and political structures. 48 What is more, the Russian empire was the most oppressive of the three in terms of cultural and social policies. Poles in this partition were often subject to idiosyncratic and corrupt administration without any rule of law guidelines. 49 In this area, the post-partition cultural patterns have given birth to low activity and passivity of civic attitudes among its inhabitants. This, in turn, translates into a lower pressure by the local community on local authorities, and, consequently, lower motivation of these authorities to improve efficiency and effectiveness of their activities in this part of the country. 50
Historical and cultural circumstances are also of certain importance for explaining the quality of public institutions in the field of spatial planning. The high culture of spatial planning characteristic especially of the areas of southern Poland (Figure 2) can be, to some extent, a consequence of these areas having been under the Austrian rule, where some freedom of the inhabitants had been maintained. A characteristic feature of these territories was a specific approach to the issues of Polish spirit and patriotism, which were not eradicated (as was the case in Russia or Prussia) but only monitored. 51 The complex political and social history of southern Poland, but also the diverse physiography of some of its parts (mountainous areas), were the basis for the formation of an area with a strong and unique culture of place, architectural distinctiveness and individuality, with attention paid to spatial order and cultural heritage. 52 Nowadays, the southern parts of Poland (Figure 2) are regions with a rich architectural heritage—protected by law and to some extent forcing a high culture of spatial planning.
What is more, it must be noted that the impact of the events that took place after World War II and affected Polish territories overlaps the post-partition aftermath. As a result, observations regarding the three partitions have to be supplemented by remarks concerning the so-called Regained Territories, that is, those that had not been a part of the Polish territories under the partitions but were allocated to Poland after World War II. 53 As Poland’s western and eastern frontiers were moved westward, Poles were forced to move from the territories in the East 54 and resettled mostly to the newly acquired territories in the west and north-west. 55 It must be noted that for the deployment of populations in the recovered areas, the concept of “latitudinal resettlement” was used—people were moved more or less along the same latitudes. 56 This means that people from the Russian partition were resettled mainly in the north-western territories, and from the Austrian one in the south-western territories. It should be noted that in the Regained Territories institutional capital is differentiated with a visible division between the north-west, with a rather low quality of public institutions, and the south-west, with a high quality of public institutions. This can indicate that the quality of public institutions is higher in these parts of the Regained Territories, where mainly people from the former Austrian partition were resettled (where the quality of local public authorities is high) and lower in these where people from the former Russian partition were resettled (where the quality of local public authorities is low). Such a differentiation can suggest that forced resettlement of people resulted in the transposition of social attitudes and value systems as well as related standards of actions of public authorities and therefore confirms the important role of patterns of behavior and attitudes developed throughout history in shaping the quality of public institutions.
What is more, the high quality of public institutions in the territories of the past Austrian partition cannot be observed in the most south-eastern part of this partition (taking into account the current borders of Poland). This could also be a result of the overlapping of other important historical events with the post-partition aftermath, that is, the operation “Vistula” that was conducted in Poland in 1947. This operation was undertaken to displace the population defined by the Polish authorities as Ukrainian from the south-eastern part of Poland, where it had lived for centuries. 57 Its consequence was a significant depopulation of these territories and destruction of their cultural heritage, including the fact that several dozen towns completely ceased to exist, which in turn led to a significant weakening of institutional capital in these areas.
Although their impact on the quality of public institutions is strong, historical conditions are definitely not the only factor influencing local institutional capital in Poland. Our research showed that an equally important factor determining the quality of public institutions is the size (population) and the nature of the territorial unit (urban / rural) which strongly correlates with the quality of human capital. First, the nature of the territorial unit and the level of urbanisation proved to be an important determinant explaining the inaction and excessive length of action of local self-government bodies. Apparently, their levels are high in administrative structures operating in poorly urbanized areas, distant from urban centres. In large cities and agglomerations, research has shown a much lower intensity of this phenomenon, which can be attributed to the higher level of human capital available in these areas than in rural and poorly urbanized ones. 58 Human capital carries specific qualifications and knowledge acquired through education. Its higher quality in highly urbanized areas is primarily due to better access to education infrastructure or to cultural institutions. The availability of higher-quality human capital in cities has two types of consequences when it comes to the quality of public institutions. First, people employed in public administration are better educated and much better prepared to work in public institutions and deal with administrative matters. Moreover, well-developed human capital is tantamount to a higher level of social awareness, including awareness as to the tasks and responsibilities of public authorities. This might surely generate a kind of pressure for high-quality performance exerted by a developed civil society on public institutions, as well as increase the intensity of social control exercised over these institutions. As a consequence, human capital in large urban centres, on the one hand, coerces public entities into performing their tasks in an effective manner, including taking the required actions without undue delay and, on the other hand, allows for such a selection and recruitment of staff to public administration that enables timely and effective performance.
Furthermore, the importance of human capital for the quality of public institutions is also confirmed by the scale and spatial differentiation of non-compliance with administrative decisions issued by local self-government bodies with law, which remains in high correlation with the inaction and excessive length of actions of these bodies. Also in this case, the scale of the phenomenon is higher in poorly urbanized areas, while its intensity is smaller in large cities and agglomerations. The high quality of human capital in large urban centres increases social expectations in terms of the quality of activities pursued by the authorities, raises social pressure exerted on public entities, and intensifies control over them. On the other hand, it allows for better access to the labour market and the selection of staff substantively prepared to properly deliver their public authority tasks. Such conclusions are also confirmed by research carried out to find out the scope of anti-corruption internal procedures, which are more common in cities and strongly urbanized counties than in rural territorial units.
In addition, a possible connection between the quality of public institutions and the economic transformation of Poland taking place in the last three decades seems to be noticeable. This is particularly visible in large cities and their functional areas and in the southern part of Poland, characterized by the exceptionally dynamic development of transport infrastructure at that time and the high intensity of changes in the economic structure. On the one hand, the economic, social and spatial changes taking place in these areas may condition and force a better quality of actions by public institutions; on the other, institutional capacities may be an important variable determining the socio-economic transformation of these areas. However, confirmation of this dependence as well as determining possible directions of interactions between the quality of institutions and socio-economic development requires separate in-depth analyses.
Conclusions
There is a growing consensus within both policy and academic circles, including various schools of legal, political, and economic thought that the quality of institutions strongly affects socio-economic development. On the other hand, the determinants of the quality of institutions and the causes of its differentiation seem not to be unequivocally determined, in particular at the local level. The analysis presented in the article clearly demonstrates strong territorial differentiation of the quality of public institutions in Poland, but also illustrates many regularities and similarities in the spatial distribution of this phenomenon.
A synthetic measure of institutional capacity (Figure 3), built on the basis of the 5 above-described indicators, allows us to distinguish three types of areas characterized by different conditions.
The first one is the north-east and north-west part of Poland, where the quality of public institutions is lower than in other parts of the country. These are territories characterized by a specific historical background. For more than 120 years, the eastern part of Poland was under Russian partition, which undoubtedly strongly influenced the culture and behaviour patterns adopted by the community living there. Public institutions in the former Russian partition are characterized by rather low quality, indicating the negative long-term effects of nineteenth-century Russia’s institutions. Moreover, those social norms and attitudes were also artificially transferred from these territories to the north-western part of Poland, which after the Second World War were areas of several waves of resettlement of people from the east. That forced resettlement process resulted in the transposition of social attitudes and value systems accompanying the movement of population. Consequently, these areas exhibit features, attitudes, and patterns of behaviour typical of Russian culture (passivity in action, weak civil society). Furthermore, they are the least economically developed areas of Poland, which may suggest there is a feedback loop between the quality of institutions and the level of economic development. On the one hand, the institutional environment significantly determines economic development; while on the other hand, the level of economic development affects the quality of the institutional environment.
In the second area—the obliquely situated area of central Poland—the quality of public institutions can be described as average but, at the same time, highly internally differentiated. This heterogeneity, difficult to unequivocally explain, may be the consequence of a large diversity of cultural and historical influences from the past, which led to the creation of a kind of “mosaic” of institutional capacity, as this area is characterized by a rich and unstable historical and cultural past. Changing country borders, which affected this area, as well as overlapping and clashing geopolitical and cultural influences may have contributed to the emergence of a heterogeneous institutional environment.
The third area is the south, in particular the south-west part of Poland, where research demonstrated a high quality of public institutions. At the same time, it is an area where the accumulation and overlap of positive historical, cultural, and social determinants of the quality of the institutional environment can be observed. It is an area of Poland characterized by cultural and social distinctiveness, strong traditions, and territorial bonds (“small homelands”), spatial order, and rich historical heritage. Inhabitants of these regions are active, entrepreneurial, and diligent, which in turn translates into the high quality of public institutions as well as the economic dynamics of this area.
Regardless of the above-mentioned division of Poland into parts that are clearly differentiated in terms of the quality of public institutions and, at the same time, significantly different when it comes to their historical and cultural contexts, it can be noticed that large urban centers and highly urbanized areas stand out compared to other territories. These are areas in which the quality of public institutions is especially high, which can be associated with the quality of human capital resulting from the availability of the educational base.
To conclude, the quality of public institutions in Poland is differentiated and strongly conditioned by historical and socio-cultural factors. Surprisingly enough, the effects of an 120-year plus period of Poland’s dependence on the neighbouring countries (Russia, Germany and Austria), which shaped civic attitudes, canons of social behaviour, value systems, and economic attitudes, are still visible. Post-partition cultural and social influences, despite 100 years of Poland’s independence, continue to affect the quality of the institutional environment, which confirms the lasting impact of institutions and their continuity. However, it seems that this historical continuity is not completely unchangeable or unbreakable and another key determinant of the development of local institutional capacity is the degree of urbanisation and related level of social development. In this case, a higher level of human capital is the primary reason why large cities and agglomerations as well as strongly urbanised counties usually represent higher institutional capacity than typically agricultural counties or those dominated by small towns. 59 Therefore, it should be recognized that the key determinants of the quality of public institutions are not only historical and cultural conditions, although their impact on institutional capacities is still clearly visible, but also the degree of urbanization and the related level of human capital.
