Decentralization

obligatory courses

Classroom

There are six meetings, each having separate topic focus. Each of meetings is dedicated to the discussion of 2-3 journal articles, or book chapters.

Meeting I: Urban development and policies around sport mega-events

dr hab. Marta Lackowska

Meeting II Territorial Reforms

Prof. Paweł Swianiewicz

Meeting III Europeanization

Dr Piotr Żuber

Meeting IV Local Government Finance

Prof. Paweł Swianiewicz

Meeting V Size and local democracy

Dr. Adam Gendźwiłł

Meeting VI Regional Policies

Dr Joanna Krukowska

J.R. Gold, M. Gold (2011) Introduction [w:] J.R. Gold, M. Gold (red.) Olympic Cities. City Agendas, Planning, and the World's Games 1896-2016, Routledge

S.V Ward (2011) Promoting the Olympic City [in the same book]

J. Coaffee (2011) Urban Regeneration and Renewal [in the same book]

P. Kitchin (2011) Financing the Games [in the same book]

P. Swianiewicz, A. Mielczarek (2010) “Georgian Local Government Reform: State Leviathan Redraws Borders?”, Local Government Studies, 2010, vol. 36:2, p. 291-311

Askim J., Klausen J.E., Vabo S.I., Bjustrøm K. (2016), What causes municipal amalgamation reform? Rational explanations meet Western European experiences, 2004–2013, . [w:] Kuhlmann, S., Bouckaert, G. (red.) Local public sector reforms in times of crisis: national trajectories and International comparisons, London: Palgrave-MacMillan, s. 59-80.

Bache I. (2008) “Europeanisation: A Framework for Analysis” [chapter 2 of Ian Bache book: Europeanization and Multilevel Governance, p. 9-20.

Heinelt H., Niederhafner S. (2008) Cities and organized interest intermediation in the EU multi-level system, European Urban and Regional Studies, 15(2), p. 173-187.

Dukes T. (2008) „The URBAN programme and the European urban policy discourse: successful instruments to Europeanize the urban level?” GeoJournal 72, 105-119.

H. Blochliger, J. Kim (2016) A bird’s eye view of fiscal decentralization [in:] Fiscal Federalism 2016, Paris: OECE, s. 13-30.

H. Blochliger (2015) Tax competition across sub-central governments: a survey, [in:] N.J. Mao, J. Lotz, J. Kim (eds.) Interaction between local expenditure responsibilities and local tax policy, Copenhagen, s. 67-94.

L. Rose (2002) Municipal size and local nonelectoral participation: findings from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol.20: 829-851.

Frandsen, A. (2002) Size and electoral participation in local elections, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol.20: 853-869.

Piattoni S., 2008, “The development of Structural Funds: a success

story?”, In: Conzelmann T., Smith R. (eds.) Multi-level governance in the European Union: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead, Baden-Baden: Nomos, s.73-93.

Wright V. 1998, “Intergovernmental relations and regional government in Europe: a skeptical view”, In: Le Gales P., Lequesne Ch. (eds). Regions in Europe, London & New York: Routledge, s.39-49

Student knows specialised English language vocabulary related to main topics of the course on strategic planning of regional and local development.

Obligations of the students during six meetings

- Once in a semester each student has to give a short (ca. 10 minutes) presentation summarizing main message of the read article

- For each of the meetings each student has to read one of the readings, so to be able to participate in a discussion

Final test’s description:

There will be 6 questions (one related to readings from each of the meetings). Student can select 2 of the 6 questions and write a short mini-essay (ca. ½ page). The essay does not need to be written in English, but it can be in a native language of the student or a language chosen by the student (if it is Polish, English, French, Russian, Ukrainian, Macedonian or German). The mark for the test will take into account first of all knowledge of the readings and ability of a concise presentation of one’s conclusions.

The final grade is based on:

- Results of the final test (40%)

- Short presentation during the meetings (ability of concise summary of major conclusions is taken into account rather than linguistic capacity to speak perfect English) (30%)

- Active participation in the discussions during the meetings (30%)