XXII. MEZINÁRODNÍ KOLOKVIUM O REGIONÁLNÍCH
VĚDÁCH. SBORNÍK PŘÍSPĚVKŮ
22nd
INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON REGIONAL
SCIENCES.CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
Place: Velké Bílovice (Czech Republic)
June 12-16, 2019
Publisher: Masarykova univerzita (Masaryk University Press), Brno
Edited by:
Viktorie KLÍMOVÁ
Vladimír ŽÍTEK
(Masarykova univerzita / Masaryk University, Czech Republic)
Vzor citace / Citation example:
AUTOR, A. Název článku. In Klímová, V., Žítek, V. (eds.) XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních
vědách. Sborník příspěvků. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2019. s. 1–5. ISBN 978-80-210-9268-6.
DOI.
AUTHOR, A. Title of paper. In Klímová, V., Žítek, V. (eds.) 22nd
International Colloquium on Regional
Sciences. Conference Proceedings. Brno: Masaryk University Press, 2019. pp. 1–5. ISBN 978-80-
210-9268-6. DOI.
Publikace neprošla jazykovou úpravou. / Publication is not a subject of language check.
Za správnost obsahu a originalitu výzkumu zodpovídají autoři. / Authors are fully responsible for the content and
originality of the articles.
© 2019 Masarykova univerzita
ISBN 978-80-210-9268-6 (online : pdf)
 
 
 
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
418
DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-9268-2019-52
CO-PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES IN RURAL
AREAS – THE POLISH WAY?
Koprodukce veřejných služeb ve venkovských oblastech –
Polský způsob?
JAROSŁAW OLEJNICZAK 1
DOROTA BEDNARSKA-OLEJNICZAK 2
1
Katedra Finansów
2
Katedra Zarządzania Marketingowego
Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu
1
Department of Finance
2
Department of Marketing Management
Faculty of Economic Sciences
Wroclaw University of Economics
 Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland
E-mail: jaroslaw.olejniczak@ue.wroc.pl, dorota.olejniczak@ue.wroc.pl
Annotation
The purpose of this article is to present the structure of sołecki fund as a solution that promotes governance and
co-production of public services, as well as to analyse the use of this tool by urban-rural communes in Poland in
the years 2014-2017. The basic research method consisted of statistical analysis of the data made available in the
Central Statistic Office Local Data Bank concerning the scale and directions of expenses of the examined 621
communes within sołecki funds. The vast majority of communes, in which the sołecki funds functioned,
implemented within their framework the tasks in the scope of transport and communication, municipal
management and environmental protection, culture and protection of national heritage (in above 80% of all). It
can be noticed that there is a strong diversification of directions of the sołecki funds’ expenses between the regions,
also it can be noticed in 2014, in some regions the percentage of communes with sołecki funds constituted approx.
50%, while in 2017 in most of them it exceeded 70%.
Key words
co-production, civil society, public services, Poland, solecki fund
Anotace
Cílem tohoto článku je představit strukturu Sołecki fondu jakožto řešení, které podporuje správu a koprodukci
veřejných služeb, a analyzovat využití tohoto nástroje městskými a venkovskými komunami v Polsku v letech 2014–
2017. Základní metoda výzkumu spočívala ve statistické analýze dat z Lokální databanky Ústředního statistického
úřadu. Data byla zaměřena rozsah a směřování výdajů v rámci Sołecki fondu v 621 zkoumaných komunách.
Převážná většina komun, ve kterých fungovaly Sołecki fondy, realizovala v jejich rámci rámci úkoly v oblasti
dopravy a spojů, řízení měst a ochrany životního prostředí, kultury a ochrany národního dědictví (více než 80 %
z nich). Je možné konstatovat, že existuje silná diverzifikace ve směřování výdajů Sołecki fondy 50 %, zatímco
v roce 2017 to ve většině regionů bylo přes 70 %.
Klíčová slova
koprodukce, občanská společnost, veřejné služby, Polsko, Solecki fond
JEL classification: G38, H40, H83
1. Introduction
The problem concerning evolution of the approach to the method of providing public services by public
administration has been noticeable in the economic literature for a long time. Osborne (Osborne 2006, p. 377)
indicated “that Public Administration and Management has actually passed through three dominant modes: a
longer, pre-eminent one of Public Administration, from the late nineteenth century through to the late 1970s/early
1980s; a second mode, of the New Public Management, through to the start of the twenty-first century; and an
emergent third one, of the New Public Governance, since then”. The term "governance" appears here, which in
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
419
the source literature is understood in various ways. For example, according to Rosenau (Rosenau 1992, p. 4)
“governance refers to purposive behaviour, to goal oriented activities (…) backed by the shared goals that may or
may not derive from legal and formally prescribed responsibilities”. In turn, Salamon (Salamon, Elliott 2002,
p. vii) associates governance with “the collaborative nature of modern efforts to meet human needs, the widespread
use of tools of action that engage complex networks of public and private actors, and the resulting need for a
different style of public management, and a different type of public sector, emphasizing collaboration and
enablement rather than hierarchy and control”. Stoker (Stoker 1998, p. 18) indicates five aspects of governance:
(1) refers to a set of institutions and actors that are drawn from but also beyond government, (2) identifies the
blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues, (3) identifies the power
dependence involved in the relationships between institutions involved in collective action, (4) is about
autonomous self-governing networks of actors, (5) recognizes the capacity to get things done which does not rest
on the power of government to command or use its authority. It sees government as able to use new tools and
techniques to steer and guide.” Rhodes defines governance as “self-organizing, interorganizational networks
characterized by interdependence, resource exchange, rules of the game and significant autonomy from the state”
(Rhodes 1997, p. 15). While analysing the concept of governance, Kooiman (Kooiman 1999, p. 70) indicates that
it is possible to understand it as “all those interactive arrangements in which public as well as private actors
participate aimed at solving societal problems, or creating societal opportunities, and attending to the institutions
within which these governing activities take place”. Therefore, it should be noted that one of the elements of
governance should be public participation, the essence of which is co-management of public matters by the
residents (see more: Arnstein 1969). However, the forms of public participation indicated by Arnstein focus mainly
on co-management, while in theory of finance and in practice, there is a noticeable pursuit of co-creation (coproduction)
of public services. Pestoff (Pestoff 2012, p. 1170) notes that “sometimes co-production is used as a
general term to cover many different types of citizen participation in public service provision, and it also includes
various ways citizens and/or the third sector participate both in policy making and policy implementation.”
However, he indicates the need to distinguish between co-production (where citizens at least in some part produce
services for themselves), co-management (understood as provision of services by the third sector, along with the
public sector and the for-profit sector) and co-governance (as participation of all sectors in the processes of public
service planning and decision-making). Similarly, Boviards and Löffler distinguish several areas of cooperation
of the government agencies with the users (Bovaird, Bovaird, & Löffler, 2009, p. 225): “public agencies have to:
co-design their services and policies together with their users and other key stakeholders; co-manage their
resources with other partners; co-deliver their services with users and their communities; co-assess their services
with their key stakeholders.” Therefore, it can be indicated that participation of citizens in the provision of public
services can be implemented in various forms, while the participatory budgeting is one of the most frequently
described and analysed in the literature (Baiocchi 2003; Bingham, Nabatchi, O’Leary 2005; Boulding, Wampler
2010; Cabannes 2004; Sintomer, Herzberg, Rocke 2008). This results from the fact that the idea of participatory
budgeting is widespread around the world (Dias 2018). However, when considering the concept of co-production
of public services, it can be concluded that usually the form of participatory budgeting mainly includes co-deciding
on the directions of spending funds, while marginalising citizens' participation in provision of services, and
therefore their co-production. The problem of co-production of public services is usually associated with the
characteristics of services as such. Based on the literature analysis, Osborne and Brown (Osborne, Brown 2011,
p. 1343) indicate that four unquestionable characteristics of public services are: (1) Intangibility (that services are
processes rather than concrete goods and so cannot be stocked or demonstrated and where transfer of ownership
is uncommon); (2) Inseparability (that the production and consumption of services occur simultaneously and
cannot be separated, unlike for manufactured goods); (3) Perishability (as a consequence of the above, that services
must be consumed at the point at which they are produced and cannot be stored for future use in the way that
manufactured goods can be); (4) Co-production (that services are produced through the interaction between service
providers and their consumers, the latter being an active participant in the production process and not solely a
consumer, as for most manufactured goods). In the context of the last of the above-mentioned characteristics, it
should be noted that the trend associated with NPG appears in the literature and it raises the necessity of the
participation of recipients in the provision of public services - co-production. Ostrom (Ostrom 1996,
p. 1077) indicates that “coproduction (is) the process through which inputs used to produce a good or service are
contributed by individuals who are not “in” the same organization. (…) Coproduction implies that citizens can
play an active role in producing public goods and services of consequence to them”. In turn, Alford (Alford 2009,
p. 23) equates co-production with “any active behaviour by anyone outside the government agency which: (1) is
conjoint with agency production, or is independent of it but prompted, (2) by some action of the agency, (3) is at
least partly voluntary; and either intentionally or unintentionally creates private and/or public, (4) value, in the
form of either outputs or outcomes.”
According to OECD's definition, co-production is “a way of planning, designing, delivering and evaluating public
services which draws on direct input from citizens, service users and civil society organisations”. It can be noticed
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
420
that co-production can include both ”simple input into service delivery (e.g. feedback on services)” and “extensive
and enduring relationships with service users” (OECD 2011, p. 32). The literature contains analyses that link the
participatory budgeting with co-production of public services at the local level (Barbera, Sicilia, Steccolini 2016;
Dzinic, Svidronova, Markowska-Bzducha 2016; Gondasova, Murray Svidronova 2016), however this area is
relatively new. In Poland, the problem of participation of the residents in public management is usually raised in
the context of social participation and the participatory budgeting concerning the cities (Dewalska–Opitek 2014;
Olejniczak, Bednarska-Olejniczak 2015; Bednarska-Olejniczak, Olejniczak 2018a; Bednarska-Olejniczak,
Olejniczak, Svobodova 2019; Gulińska, Składanek 2017). Few studies undertake the problem of solutions that
take into account the elements of co-production of public services in the form of sołecki funds (BednarskaOlejniczak,
Olejniczak 2018b; Heffner, Klemens 2017; Ptak 2015; Wójcik 2014). The purpose of this article is to
present the structure of sołecki fund as a solution that promotes governance and co-production of public services,
as well as to analyse the use of this tool by urban-rural communes in Poland in the years 2014-2017.
2. The state of art
The administrative division of Poland separates commune as the basic unit of territorial division and its authorities
implement the majority of public tasks of a local nature. The legislator envisaged the possibility of creating
auxiliary units in the form of sołectwo, in the areas of rural communes. Sołectwo is a non-obligatory auxiliary unit
of the urban-rural or rural commune that is created in order to implement this part of own tasks of the commune,
which due to the limited territorial scope (usually several villages within the commune) are specific for the given
sołectwo. In practice, this means that it is possible to match some of the activities carried out with the commune's
resources (as own tasks) to the specificity (preferences of the residents) of the given village. However, this does
not mean that sołectwo is independent and separate from the commune. The governing and controlling body is a
village meeting, in which all residents of the sołectwo can participate, however the commune council exercises
control over spending funds of the sołectwo. The sołecki fund solution was originally introduced in 2009 (Sołecki
Fund Act of 20 February 2009 2009), however it was modified in 2014 with the provisions of the new Sołecki
Fund (Sołecki Fund Act of 21 February 2014 2014). In accordance with legal regulations, the sołecki fund means
a pool of funds guaranteed in the commune budget for the sołectwo, for the implementation of undertakings that
are aimed at improvement of the living conditions of its residents. In accordance with art. 1, section 3 of the Act,
in order for the funds to be allocated for the implementation of undertakings included in the sołectwo’s application,
three conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively: (1) the submitted task must be own task of the commune, (2) it
must be conducive to the improvement of the living conditions of the residents, (3) it must be compliant with the
commune's development strategy. The commune's own tasks, which can be financed in the framework of sołecki
funds, include among others: firstly the organization of celebrations, meetings and integration events (harvest
festivals, state and local holidays, village meetings), secondly the implementation of promotional activities (trade
fairs, presentations, promotion of the commune), thirdly the tasks in the scope of shaping the image and aesthetics
of the village (planting trees and shrubs, as well as care of greenery, purchase and assembly of garbage bins,
containers for used batteries, etc., creating new lawns, ponds, rock gardens, etc.), fourthly the tasks associated with
recreational and cultural infrastructure (construction, renovation and setting up sports fields, e.g. small sports fields
at the day-care centres, construction of stages and roofings for the organization of artistic performances, purchase
of devices that improve sports infrastructure, purchase of equipment and setting up playgrounds for children),
fifthly the tasks associated with municipal infrastructure, construction and renovation of small sections of the
communal roads and sidewalks, maintenance of roads and sidewalks, as well as performance of small renovations,
construction of lighting points for roads and squares, renovation of historic buildings). Although it is not a full list
of tasks, which can be implemented in the scope of sołecki funds, it should be noted that this is a form of the coproduction
of public services, because the residents themselves, in addition to participation in the consultation
process (participation, co-governance), can participate in the co-production of public services thanks to the direct
engagement in their creation (own work, co-creation). After 2014, due to changes in legal regulations, an increase
of the interest in using the mechanism of sołecki funds by communes in Poland can be observed.
3. Research method
Implementation of the purpose of this article required the analysis of quantitative data concerning the use of the
possibility to establish sołectwo and to separate sołecki funds, by all urban-rural communes. The years 2014-2017
were assumed as the research period, which results from the above-mentioned changes in the legal regulations
concerning the functioning of sołecki funds. The research included all communes with urban-rural status in 2017
- 621 units (commune that covered the area of at least one city and surrounding villages). The time range covered
the years 2014-2017 and the communes for which data was available in the Local Data Bank of the Central
Statistical Office (CSO)(Główny Urzad Statystyczny 2019). The basic research method consisted of statistical
analysis of the data made available in the Local Data Bank (CSO) concerning the scale and directions of expenses
of the examined communes within sołecki funds. The first stage of research included an analysis of quantitative
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
421
changes in the use of sołecki funds in urban-rural communes in Poland. The second stage included the analysis of
the structure of expenses within sołecki funds, according to the main directions of expenses. The data analysis
conducted in the last stage of research concerned the structure of the main groups of expenses within sołecki funds
in the territorial system.
4. Results and discussion
Increase of the interest of auxiliary units in urban-rural communes (sołectwo) in the possibility of using sołecki
funds (SF), is visible in the analysed period. In 2014, the SF were used by 412 communes (66,34% of all examined
communes), while in subsequent years, this level reached approx. 493 (79,3%). During assessment of the
significance of communal expenses in the national scale, it is necessary to point out that the share of expenses of
the SF in current expenses fluctuates at the level of 0.7% (2014) to 0.68% (2017). Reference to the level of current
expenses seems to be more justified here, firstly due to specific nature of fund expenses and, on the other hand,
due to the relative stability (apart from the increase in communal expenses resulting from changes in the scale and
structure of tasks after 2015) of current expenses of the communes. Having in mind that the purpose of creating
the SF is to finance own tasks of communes leading to the improvement of the quality of life of residents, it would
be necessary to indicate the main areas of expenses occurring within the framework of activities of the SF. The
analysis of section classification of communal expenses within the sołecki funds demonstrates that these expenses
can be assigned to five main sections (table 1). The vast majority of communes, in which the sołecki funds
functioned, implemented within their framework the tasks in the scope of transport and communication, municipal
management and environmental protection, culture and protection of national heritage, public safety and fire
protection, as well as physical culture. There is a visible tendency to increase the percentage of communes that
implement more and more wider spectrum of tasks.
Tab. 1: Percentage of communes that implemented expenses within the framework of SF in the years 2014-
2017 and percentage of communes that implemented expenses from the SF in the main sections of
budgetary classification
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total 66.34% 72.30% 76.17% 79.39%
Transport and communication 88.11% 87.97% 88.79% 90.47%
Housing 18.69% 21.83% 27.70% 24.14%
Public safety and fire protection 54.37% 57.91% 60.89% 64.50%
Educational services 31.55% 32.29% 31.71% 32.25%
Municipal management and environmental protection 80.58% 83.52% 85.84% 88.24%
Culture and protection of national heritage 85.19% 86.64% 87.32% 86.41%
Physical culture 69.66% 72.61% 71.67% 74.44%
Source: own calculations based on BDL data
It is necessary to emphasize that the occurrence of the given section of budgetary classification within the expenses
of sołecki fund does not have to translate into a high share of this type of expenses in the structure of the fund. It
is visible based on the analysis of amount of funds spent in individual sections (table 2). Compared to the
percentage of communes implementing tasks in individual areas (table 1), it should be concluded that the main
directions of expenses cover three out of the five above-mentioned areas - transport and communication, culture
and protection of national heritage, municipal management and environmental protection. In total, they cover
approx. 75% of the total expenses of sołecki funds in the researched period. A large share of expenses on transport
and communication, as well as on municipal management and environmental protection is caused by relatively
higher costs of task implementation (construction of bike paths, repairs of streets, pavements or activities
associated with planting greenery), however in this case, the value added by the residents, in the form of their
contribution of work during implementation of the tasks may be significant (the commune provides materials and
technical facilities, while the residents carry out part of the works for free). This is an example of the co-production
of public services (contribution of own work), combined with the co-management (co-deciding on directions of
expenses). Of course, other activities within the sołecki funds (participation in the organization of cultural events,
activities of cultural centres, participation in trade fairs and promotion of the commune, etc.) are also a part of the
concept of the co-production of public services. The biggest problem is to determine the scale of engagement of
the residents in these activities, due to the lack of a monitoring system of such activities (the problem is even
assessing the scale of engagement in decision making at village meetings, during which each resident of the given
sołectwo may propose an area of action and discuss the proposals of others, because there is no universal
standardised access to information regarding such meetings).
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
422
Tab. 2: Share of expenses by the sections of budget in the total amount of expenses within the SF
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017
Transport and communication 30.70% 29.40% 28.60% 28.60%
Housing 2.50% 2.60% 2.90% 2.60%
Public safety and fire protection 4.40% 4.60% 4.20% 4.40%
Educational services 1.80% 2.00% 1.70% 1.90%
Municipal management and environmental protection 15.30% 15.80% 17.00% 17.80%
Culture and protection of national heritage 29.80% 29.70% 29.70% 28.20%
Physical culture 8.10% 8.90% 9.70% 10.30%
Source: own calculations based on BDL data
While analysing the tendency to use the mechanism of sołecki fund in individual regions (table 3), there is a visible
significant increase in the percentage of communes, in which the sołecki fund functioned in 2017 compared to
2014. As it can be noticed in 2014, in some regions the percentage of communes with sołecki funds constituted
approx. 50%, while in 2017 in most of them it exceeded 70%. The regions, in which the largest percentage of
urban-rural communes used sołecki funds included: kujawsko-pomorskie, dolnośląskie, warmińsko-mazurskie,
opolskie, lubuskie.
Tab. 3: Percentage of urban-rural communes in individual provinces, which implement expenses within
sołecki funds (%)
Year
dolnośląskie
kujawsko-pomorskie
lubelskie
lubuskie
łódzkie
małopolskie
mazowieckie
opolskie
podkarpackie
podlaskie
pomorskie
śląskie
świętokrzyskie
warmińsko-mazurskie
wielkopolskie
zachodniopomorskie
2014 75 80 54 68 77 54 66 82 66 52 70 45 37 79 67 56
2015 84 86 61 76 77 60 72 82 80 56 70 59 47 79 71 60
2016 88 86 61 76 77 65 77 82 77 78 80 68 47 82 78 62
2017 88 89 68 85 77 71 83 85 86 70 85 77 47 85 79 64
Source: own calculations based on BDL data
Fig. 1: Share of expenses within the sołecki funds in 2014 (left) and 2017 (right) in the researched
communes in the total current expenses
 
Source: own calculations based on BDL data
Comparison of the share of sołecki funds' expenses in the current expenses of urban-rural communes reveals
changes in the territorial distribution and relative level of expenses implemented within the funds. While in 2014,
there was a large diversification of the share of these expenses (left part of the figure 1) between the regions higher
values in western Poland - between 0.5 and 1.5% of current expenses, in 2017 (right part of the figure 1)
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
423
there was a decrease in the share of these expenses to the levels of 0.5% -1% in the western part and below 0.5%
in the remaining part of the country.
Analysis of expenses within the sołecki fund in the area of transport and communication (figure 2) indicates that
in the communes of central and eastern Poland, they played a very significant role, because their share ranged from
40 to 100% of total expenses within the sołecki funds (mainly expenses associated with the public commune
roads). On the other hand, in urban-rural communes of western Poland, these expenses occurred as a small
percentage (less than 20% of total expenses) or, despite the existence of sołecki funds, they did not occur at all.
Fig. 2: Share of expenses in the section of transport and communication within the sołecki funds in 2014
(left) and 2017 (right) in the researched communes
 
Source: own calculations based on BDL data
Fig. 3: Share of expenses in the section of culture and protection of national heritage within the sołecki funds
in 2014 (left) and 2017 (right) in the researched communes
 
Source: own calculations based on BDL data
The third significant section was the area of expenses on municipal management and environmental protection
(mainly the lighting of roads, streets and squares, as well as maintenance of greenery). There is a noticeable
engagement of funds in the communes of western Poland visible here, with a simultaneous very low spending for
these purposes in the communes of central and eastern Poland. A similar situation occurred in the case of expenses
of the sołecki funds in the area of culture and protection of national heritage. The dominance of this type of
expenses can be observed on the "western wall" of Poland (regions: dolnośląskie, lubuskie, wielkopolskie,
zachodniopomorskie). Usually, the expenses were mainly focused on co-financing of the activities of cultural
centres (fig. 3).
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
424
5. Conclusion
Taking up the topic of the co-production of public services in Poland on the example of sołecki funds in urbanrural
communes was caused by a limited number of publications devoted to this issue, as well as the scale of
occurrence and characteristics that significantly differentiate the sołecki funds from participatory budgets, which
are the main examples of public participation of residents indicated in the source literature. Due to the relatively
common functioning of the sołecki funds, their regulation by provisions of the law, as well as wide spectrum of
possible spending, a comparative analysis of all urban-rural communes in Poland, which introduced the sołecki
funds into their budgets, was necessary. It should be noted that after 2014, the scale of the use of sołecki funds in
Poland significantly increased and as much as 80% of communes started (or continued) to use the sołecki funds.
In the context of main areas of spending, five can be distinguished, which reflect the main needs of residents
reported to communes in the area of improving the quality of life within the individual communes. Due to the scale
of expenses, three of the above-mentioned directions of spending dominate here. This usually results from
relatively high cost effectiveness of this type of expenses compared to expenses on culture, physical culture or
education. It can be noticed that there is a strong diversification of directions of the sołecki funds’ expenses
between the regions. These discrepancies may in part result from differences in the level of development and the
condition of road network between the regions (greater saturation of areas with modern road infrastructure, bike
paths, better condition of roads in the western part of Poland), which is often conditioned by the level of communes'
wealth (western Poland is characterized by higher than average GDP per capita compared to the average GDP in
the country). However, it is not possible to indicated the reasons for such differences between the regions without
further in-depth research. Another issue is the lack of possibility to assess the degree of co-production of public
services, due to the lack of a system for monitoring and collecting data regarding this topic. It can be concluded
that a certain part of the residents of local communities participate in the provision of public services (e.g.
participation in the activities of voluntary fire brigades, farmers' wives associations, activities in the cultural
centres), however the collection of data regarding this topic would only be possible through direct examination of
individual sołectwo. Consequently, it can be assumed that studies concerning the co-production processes within
the sołecki funds may constitute a significant contribution to the development of new public governance theory,
however this will require the research on the scope of citizens' participation in decision making, provision of public
services, as well as reasons that they are guided by. Moreover, it is also necessary to consider the possibility of
assessing or measuring the benefits resulting from the engagement of residents in the co-management.
Literature
[1] ALFORD, J, (2009). Engaging Public Sector Clients - From Service-Delivery to Co-Production. Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-0-230-22376-9.
ARNSTEIN, S.R., (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
vol. 35, no. 4, p. 216–224. ISSN 0002-8991. DOI 10.1080/01944366908977225.
[2] BAIOCCHI, G., (2003). Emergent public spheres: Talking politics in participatory governance. American
Sociological Review, vol. 68, no. 1, p. 52–74. ISSN 0003-1224. DOI 10.2307/3088902.
[3] BARBERA, C., SICILIA, M., STECCOLINI, I., (2016). The Participatory Budgeting as a Form of Coproduction.
In Fugini, M., Bracci E., Sicilia, M. (eds.) Co-production in the Public Sector: Experiences and
Challenges. Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 27–39. ISBN 978-3-319-30558-5. DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-30558-5_3
[4] BEDNARSKA-OLEJNICZAK, D., OLEJNICZAK, J. and SVOBODOVA, L., (2019). Towards a Smart and
Sustainable City with the Involvement of Public Participation-The Case of Wroclaw. Sustainability, vol. 11,
no. 2, p. 332. ISSN 2071-1050. DOI 10.3390/su11020332.
[5] BEDNARSKA-OLEJNICZAK, D., OLEJNICZAK, J., (2018a). Changes in the Attitudes of Y Generation
Members towards Participation in the Activities Municipalities in the Years 2008-2017. In Hradec Economic
Days Vol. 8(1). Hradec Kralove: University of Hradec Kralove. p. 62–72. ISBN 978-80-7435-700-8.
[6] BEDNARSKA-OLEJNICZAK, D., OLEJNICZAK, J., (2018b). Participatory Budgeting in Poland in 2013-
2018 – Six Years of Experiences and Directions of Changes. In Dias, N. (ed.) Hope for democracy. 30 years
of participatory budgeting worldwide. Portugal: Epopeia Records & Oficina coordination & Nelson Dias.
p. 337–354. ISBN 978-989-54-1670-7.
[7] BINGHAM, L.B., NABATCHI, T., O’LEARY, R., (2005). The New Governance: Practices and Processes
for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government. Public Administration Review, vol. 65,
no. 5, p. 547–558. ISSN 1540-6210. DOI 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x.
[8] BOULDING, C., WAMPLER, B., (2010). Voice, Votes, and Resources: Evaluating the Effect of Participatory
Democracy on Well-being. World Development, vol. 38, no. 1, p. 125–135. ISSN 0305-750X.
DOI 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.002.
XXII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Sborník příspěvků Velké Bílovice 12.–14. 6. 2019
 
425
[9] CABANNES, Y., (2004). Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy.
Environment and Urbanization, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 27–46. ISSN 0956-2478.
DOI 10.1177/095624780401600104.
[10]DEWALSKA–OPITEK, A., (2014). Smart City Concept – The Citizens’ Perspective. In Mikulski J. (eds)
Telematics - Support for Transport. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, p. 331–340. ISBN 978-3-662-45317-9.
DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-45317-9_35
[11]DIAS, N., (2018). Hope for democracy. 30 years of participatory budgeting worldwide [online]. Portugal:
Epopeia Records & Oficina coordination & Nelson Dias. ISBN 978-989-54-1670-7.
[12]DZINIC, J., MURRAY SVIDRONOVA, M., MARKOWSKA-BZDUCHA, E., (2016). Participatory
Budgeting: A Comparative Study of Croatia, Poland and Slovakia. Nispacee Journal of Public Administration
and Policy, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 31–56. ISSN 1337-9038. DOI 10.1515/nispa-2016-0002.
[13]GŁÓWNY URZAD STATYSTYCZNY, 2019. BDL GUS. Bank Danych Lokalnych Główny Urząd
Statystyczny [online]. 2019. [Viewed 16 January 2019]. Available from: www.stat.gov.pl
[14]GONDASOVA, L., MURRAY SVIDRONOVA, Maria, (2016). Participatory Budgeting as an Innovation in
Local Public Services Delivery: The Slovak Case. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on
Current Trends in Public Sector Research. Brno: Masarykova Univ. p. 248–256. ISBN 978-80-210-8082-9.
[15]GULIŃSKA, E.,SKŁADANEK, B., (2017). Budżet partycypacyjny jako przejaw demokracji uczestniczącej
w samorządzie terytorialnym. Studia Ekonomiczne, Prawne i Administracyjne, no. 2017/1, p. 30–40. ISSN
2450-3940.
[16]HEFFNER, K., KLEMENS, B., (2017). Koprodukcja usług publicznych na obszarach wiejskich w Polsce.
CBGiOŚ. IGiPZ PAN, vol. 47, p. 7–21. ISSN 1642-4689. DOI 10.7163/SOW.47.1.
[17]KOOIMAN, J., (1999). Social-Political Governance. Public Management: An International Journal of
Research and Theory, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 67–92. ISSN 1461-667X. DOI 10.1080/14719037800000005.
OECD, (2011). Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society. OECD
Publishing. ISBN 978-92-64-11884-3.
[18]OLEJNICZAK, J., BEDNARSKA-OLEJNICZAK, D., (2015). Participation of Non-Resident Students in the
Creation of Participatory Budget in Wroclaw. Procedia Economics and Finance, no. 25, p. 579–589. ISSN
2212-5671. DOI 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00772-8.
[19]OSBORNE, S.P., BROWN, L., (2011). Innovation, Public Policy and Public Services Delivery in the Uk. the
Word That Would Be King? Public Administration, vol. 89, no. 4, p. 1335–1350. ISSN 1467-9299.
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01932.x.
[20]OSBORNE, S.P., (2006). The New Public Governance? Public Management Review, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 377–
387. ISSN 1471-9037. DOI 10.1080/14719030600853022.
[21]OSTROM, E., (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World
Development, vol. 24, no. 6, p. 1073–1087. ISSN 0305-750X. DOI 10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X.
[22]PESTOFF, V., 2012. Co-production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and
Evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 1102–
1118. ISSN 0957-8765.
[23]PTAK, A., 2015. Lokalna społeczność w procesie tworzenia funduszu sołeckiego. Studia Regionalne i
Lokalne, vol. 59, no.1, p. 138–153. ISSN 1509-4995. DOI 10.7366/1509499515907.
[24]RHODES, R. A. W., 1997. Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and
accountability. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 978-0-335-19727-9.
[25]ROSENAU, J.N., (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In: Rosneau, J.N., Czempiel, E.,O.,
(eds.) Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-511-52177-5.
[26]SALAMON, L.M., ELLIOTT, O.V. (eds.), (2002). The tools of government: a guide to the new governance.
Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513665-4.
[27]SINTOMER, Y., HERZBERG, C., ROCKE, A., (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and
challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 32, no. 1, p. 164–178. ISSN 0309-
1317. DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x.
Sołecki Fund Act of 20 February 2009, 2009. . Dz.U. 2009 nr 52 poz. 420.
Sołecki Fund Act of 21 February 2014, 2014. . Dz.U. 2014 poz. 301.
[28]STOKER, G., (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, vol. 50,
no. 155, p. 17–28. ISSN 1468-2451. DOI 10.1111/1468-2451.00106.
[29]WÓJCIK, M., (2014). Fundusz sołecki w świetle nowych regulacji prawnych. Prawo Budżetowe Państwa i
Samorządu, vol. 2, no. nr 4, p. 103–114. ISSN 2300-9853. DOI 10.12775/PBPS.2014.040.
The project is financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland under the programme
"Regional Initiative of Excellence" 2019 - 2022 project number 015/RID/2018/19 total funding amount 10 721
040,00 PLN.