Delimitacja przygranicznych obszarów problemowych = The delimitation of problem border areas

While border areas are usually perceived as peripheral in nature, denoting only a limited level of economic development, it is clear that a border location might also be in a position to offer measurable benefit. In that context, work described here in relation to Poland has focused in on: (1) the delimitation of border areas; and (2) an identification and subdivision of units into those whose location by a state border brings either positive or negative economic consequences. The criterion applied most often in designating border areas is administrative (cf. Kałuski, 1990), with different hierarchical levels referred to (e.g. the NUTS 3 where pursuit of the EU policy on Territorial Cooperation is concerned; or LAU 2 where the need is to designate areas characterised by small-scale border traffic, with account then taken of the criterion of distance of a given administrative unit from the border). Alongside the administrative, a second main criterion relates simply to physical distance from a border, and usually gains application in denoting a zone of particularly intensive scrutiny by the Border Guard and other state services such as the Customs Administration (e.g. in the United States). Use of this criterion actually does much to hinder scientific research, given the lack of concordance with units of administration. Neither of the divisions referred to above embraces real functional linkages, while the real-life zone of impact of a border is likely to be indicated by just such linkages, of a socioeconomic nature, and specific in the sense that other parts of a country do not manifest them (Węcławowicz et al., 2006). Such linkages would seem to offer a basis to determine, first, if border areas actually exist at all, and, second, how they can be delimited in a detailed way, by reference to multiple criteria. It is certain that a key aspect is involved here, as the attempt is made to set the benefits of a border location against the “non-benefits”. But it is clear that attention also needs to be paid to the configuration of internal interactions, as aspects of a border location become all the more unfavourable the more peripherally a given unit is located. Ultimately, it is possible to indicate which border areas are actually problem areas, and to set these apart from other areas by a border whose geographical position ensures that a border represents no barrier to development and/or does not determine peripheral status. For the above reasons, the work presented here does indeed propose a delimitation based on real economic linkage (levels of export), as well as the degree to which regional centres are accessible from the given area. The first stage of the delimitation procedure thus takes in the designation of a border area formed from a belt of Polish communes (LAU 2) “two deep”. A second stage then sees elimination from this set of those units with a favourable location vis-à-vis the nearest regional centre (s), it being assumed that the proximity of these centres helps even out any potentially negative impact of the border; as well as with a high value for the statistic regarding the value of exports to the neighbouring country (the assumption then being that such units benefit from a border location, rather than suffering as a result of it). Units left behind following the application of this procedure were deemed to be border communes of problem status, potentially in need of support if they are to develop. In the event, such units are found to be located primarily along Poland’s borders with the Russian Federation, Lithuania, Belarus and Slovakia (as opposed to Germany, the Czech Republic and Ukraine). Unsurprisingly, it is communes by the Polish-German border that are seen to benefit most from their location. The authors set other divisions and classifications already in effect against the proposal for delimitation which is offered here, along with relevant recommendations for the development of regional policy.

Obszary przygraniczne postrzegane są zazwyczaj jako obszary peryferyjne, o niższym stopniu rozwoju gospodarczego. Jednak położenie przygraniczne może przynosić również wymierne korzyści. W niniejszym artykule skupiono uwagę na dwóch elementach: tj. (1) delimitacji obszarów przygranicznych; (2) podziale jednostek, dla których położenie przy granicy państwowej przynosi pozytywne i negatywne skutki gospodarcze. Delimitację przeprowadzono z uwzględnieniem rzeczywistych powiązań gospodarczych. W pierwszym etapie procedura delimitacyjna obejmowała wyznaczenie obszaru przygranicznego składającego się z pasa dwóch gmin. Drugi etap procedury polegał na eliminowaniu z tego zbioru jednostek o korzystnym położeniu względem ośrodków regionalnych wewnątrz kraju (uznano, że bliskość tych ośrodków niweluje potencjalne negatywne oddziaływanie granicy) oraz o wysokiej wartości eksportu do kraju sąsiedniego (uznano, że są to jednostki, które na położeniu przygranicznym raczej zyskują niż tracą). W ten sposób wyodrębniono gminy przygraniczne-problemowe, które wymagają potencjalnego wsparcia rozwojowego. Obejmują one przede wszystkim obszary leżące wzdłuż granicy z Rosją, Litwą, Białorusią i Słowacją. W największym stopniu na położeniu przygranicznym zyskują gminy leżące wzdłuż granicy polsko-niemieckiej. Autorską propozycję delimitacji przedstawiono na tle innych funkcjonujących podziałów. Przedstawiono również rekomendacje dla polityki rozwoju regionalnego.

24 cm