A. Raszkowski, B.

Bartniczak 225 ISSN 1648-4460

Structural Transformations in Business Development

---------TRANSFORMATIONS IN --------
Raszkowski, A., Bartniczak, B. (2018), “Towards Sustainable Regional BUSINESS & ECONOMICS
Development: Economy, Society, Environment, Good Governance
Based on the Example of Polish Regions”, Transformations in Business © Vilnius University, 2002-2018
© Brno University of Technology, 2002-2018
& Economics, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), pp.225-245. © University of Latvia, 2002-2018

TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT:

ECONOMY, SOCIETY, ENVIRONMENT, GOOD
GOVERNANCE BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF POLISH
REGIONS
1 2
Andrzej Raszkowski Bartosz Bartniczak
Wroclaw University of Wroclaw University of Economics
Economics Faculty of Economics,
Faculty of Economics, Management and Tourism in
Management and Tourism in Jelenia Gora
Jelenia Gora 3 Nowowiejska Street
3 Nowowiejska Street 58-500 Jelenia Góra
58-500 Jelenia Góra Poland
Poland E-mail: bartosz.bartniczak@ue.wroc.pl
E-mail: andrzej.raszkowski@ue.wroc.pl
1
Andrzej Raszkowski, PhD, (Economics), is the Assistant
Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Management and
Tourism, Wroclaw University of Economics, Poland. Expert
for the Ministry of Investment and Economic Development,
Minister of Justice, The National Centre for Research and
Development, Polish Agency of Enterprise Development and
Lower Silesian Marshal Office for the substantive assessment
of applications for financing projects co-financed from the
European Union funds for 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.
Consultant and trainer of e.g. Millward Brown SMG/KRC,
Aviva, Asseco Group. The author of several territorial
development strategies dedicated to Polish local authorities and
over 100 scientific publications, e.g. in the Problems of
Sustainable Development, Journal of European Economy,
Management of Environmental Quality, Cyprus International
Journal of Management, GeoScape, ACC Journal. Scientific
editor of the journal Regional Economy in Theory and
Practice. Received the certificate issued by the London
Chamber of Commerce and Industry: English for Business
Level 3 and also Spoken English for Industry and Commerce
Level 4. Member of the Young Scientists Council of the 2nd
term of office at the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
2
Bartosz Bartniczak, PhD (Economics), is the Assistant
Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Management and
Tourism, Wroclaw University of Economics, Poland. Expert
for the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, Oil and
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 226 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Gas Institute and Marshal Offices for the substantive

assessment of applications for financing projects co-financed
from the European Union funds for 2007-2013. Expertise co-
author for the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of
Infrastructure and Development, the Ministry of Agriculture
and Rural Development, the General Directorate for
Environmental Protection, Polish Agency of Enterprise
Development, Polish National Bank, Marshal Offices in the
regions: Dolnośląskie, Śląskie, Mazowieckie, Świętokrzyskie,
Podkarpackie, Lubelskie and Warmińsko-Mazurskie. Member
of the supervisory boards of commercial companies. Author of
over 60 scientific articles and co-author of 4 books.

Received: July, 2015
1st Revision: April, 2017
2nd Revision: April, 2018
Accepted: May, 2018
ABSTRACT. The presented study discusses problems referring
to the concept of sustainable development at regional level, based
on the example of Polish regions in the period 2005-2011. The first
part presents theoretical aspects of sustainable regional
development, raises the problems of primary phenomena hindering
such development, sustainable development definitions, the role of
creativity, the importance of NGOs, good governance of regional
space. The next part of the article provides the characteristics of
sustainable development indicators selected for the analysis in
accordance with the approach adopted by the Central Statistical
Office in Poland towards measuring the level of sustainable
regional development. The synthetic measure of development
(SMD) represents the applied research method, which offered the
basis for constructing the ranking and identifying the position of
particular Polish regions. The research results remain the core of
the study since they illustrate the indicator values in the years
under analysis. Within the framework of the final remarks and
conclusions it was emphasized that in none of the studied regions,
in terms of implementing sustainable development standards, the
situation can be assessed as favourable or very favourable and the
reasons for such state of the matter were provided. In spite of the
relatively unfavourable results, a gradual improvement of the
situation was observed over the years. It was pointed out that one of
the fundamental barriers to the implementation of sustainable
development standards is the absence of awareness and
understanding of the discussed development concept.

KEYWORDS: sustainable development, economy, society,

environment, linear ordering, Poland.

JEL classification: Q01, Q5, R10, R11.

Introduction

Polish regions will have to face numerous challenges and developmental problems in
the years to come. Among the fundamental phenomena hindering dynamic regional growth
the following can be listed: high unemployment rate, primarily among young residents, social
tensions, problems related to public finance or difficulties resulting from excessive
bureaucracy. A separate issue, requiring in-depth analysis and taking remedial actions,
remains the irregularity in socio-economic development level of individual regions in the
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 227 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

country. Western regions, in simple terms, are significantly better developed than the eastern
ones, except for Mazowieckie due to the country capital located in its area (Bogumił, 2009;
Czyż, Hauke, 2011). In terms of unemployment problems, one should admit objectively that
during economic downturn Polish regions presented a relatively good situation comparing to
other countries (Marelli et al., 2012; Tyrowicz, Wójcik, 2010; Bakker, Klingen, 2012).
The implementation of sustainable development concept at the regional level should,
on the one hand, enhance the exploitation of emerging opportunities and, on the other,
facilitate overcoming problems. The concept itself is expressed by ensuring harmony between
economic growth in economic terms and improved condition of natural environment, along
with taking into account broadly approached social aspects supported by good governance of
regional space (Giorgetta, 2002). Good governance depends to a great extent on regional
public managers, who should be characterized by strong leadership, present the skill of
inspiring others in carrying out the set goals and taking advantage of both intellectual and
organization potential at their disposal (Gelder, 2005; Gibney, 2012). The determinants of a
good manager are of high significance and remain the compilation of inborn qualities
(charisma, intelligence, creativity) and the acquired ones (knowledge, experience),
supplemented by strong orientation towards pursuing the set objectives (Cohen et al., 2008,
pp.33-34; Green, 2010; Eden, Ackermann, 2013, pp.13-19).
In terms of good governance, as the component of sustainable regional development
concept, NGOs play a particular role, since they can offer vital support for regional
authorities. The cooperation of social leaders, representatives of regional communities with
business sector and public administration leaders, hence co-creating the network of effective
space management, seems an optimal solution (Diamond, 2012). The activities carried out by
the organizations themselves are perceived as an important phenomenon manifested by
opening developmental perspectives for the poorer social sections and their involvement in
influencing current social and economic policy (Edwards, Hulme, 1995). In other words,
NGOs, apart from business sector and local government, constitute the inherent components
and remain the creators of regional development processes. Moreover, through their activities
they can help in obtaining social consensus for the most important developmental projects
(Willauer, 2005), they can play the role of a natural incubator for creative, innovative
solutions, the source of tolerance and empathy, as well as the breeding ground for human
talents by taking advantage of the endogenous developmental potential ingrained in a given
community.
The dynamics of socio-economic processes in regional space offers incentives towards
investigating methods and concepts, the implementation of which can influence the
development of a complex organism, i.e. a region. The concept of sustainable development
covers numerous components providing incentives for regional development, i.e. the
projected growth of gross domestic product, increased expenditure on R&D (Ministry of
Economy, 2013), reduced unemployment rate and employment growth, preventing poverty,
higher fertility rate, focus on natural environment issues (selective collection of waste,
renewable energy, legally protected areas), or effective functioning of NGOs. Among the
above-mentioned processes the following can be listed: economy globalization, new
consumption standards, individualized approach towards meeting consumers’ needs, changing
demographic situation, advancing impact of culture and art on the perception of the
surrounding reality (Flew, 2012, pp.111-124; Norrman, 2006; KEA European Affairs, 2009),
higher aspirations of those representing regional communities. If it is adopted that we are
facing an increasing consumerist, ideologically and worldview formatted society, culture and
art are observed as the distinguishing factors capable of stimulating for action and activating
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 228 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

human entrepreneurship potential. Furthermore, an increasing competition from other regions

is noticeable at both national and international level, as well as financial turmoil, crisis of
confidence in political and business elites, the need for cooperation with other entities in
implementing major projects and the intensification of activities for social inclusion (Runco,
2014).
The implementation of sustainable development concept at regional level should be
supported by human creativity (Hennessey, Amabile, 1998), primarily in the social area and in
terms of good governance. At this point it is worth taking a closer look at 3T concept
(Technology, Talent, Tolerance) representing one of the more interesting ideas related to
creativity in the context of socio-economic development referring to territorial units (cities,
regions, countries). The core assumption of this concept perceives human creativity as the
major source of the above-mentioned development. Territorial units, which aspire to remain
creative and hence develop more dynamically, stay competitive and attractive on national and
international markets, should concentrate on modern technologies, innovations, education and
social development in the spirit of respecting diversity and tolerance. In accordance with the
discussed concept, creativity, as opposed to classical production factors, represents an
inexhaustible and renewable resource, subject to ongoing improvement (Florida, 2002;
Florida, 2005; Florida, 2012; Mellander et al., 2012). It should be observed that the presented
concept does not persist in any contradiction to sustainable development principles, the
developmental focus is just differently distributed and thus can remain both complementary
and enriching for these principles.
In the study a region is equivalent to Polish voivodeship and in the discussed cases
these concepts are identical, i.e. stand for a territorial unit corresponding to the EU space
division at NUTS 2 level (Eurostat, 2011). In terms of the theory of regional economy they
are administrative regions, i.e. territorial units with clearly defined boundaries, introduced by
the central authorities and designed as functional regions to provide one or many
administrative services, different from the local government and federal division of the
country within which they are located and also equipped with administration with clearly
defined conditions of mutual dependence, occupying a particular niche, i.e. a place in the
overall territorial organization system (Bullmann, 2015).
The purpose of the presented study is to discuss and analyze the position of Polish
regions (voivodeships) in terms of implementation of sustainable development concept over
the period 2005-2011. The choice of sustainable development indicators and the period under
analysis were determined by the availability of public statistics. The indicators used are also
in line with the approach adopted by the Central Statistical Office of Poland regarding
measuring the regional level of sustainable development. Due to this concept complexity and
diverse research viewpoints, the selected indicators should be approached as one of the
suggestions for performing measurements, binding, however, in case of Polish regions. The
synthetic measure of development (SMD) represents the applied research method chosen to
assess the sustainable development implementation standards in the cross-section of Polish
regions, as the basis for developing ranking and determining the position of particular units.
The measure itself is used for linear ordering of objects characterized by diagnostic variables,
later substituted by one diagnostic value.
Therefore, the research problem discussed in this study refers to the operationalization
of sustainable development concept at regional level and an attempt to answer the questions
how such operationalization can be carried out and what conclusions can be drawn from the
assessment of development at regional level using indicator analysis.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 229 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

1. Theoretical Aspects of Sustainable Regional Development

Sustainable development remains one of the most important challenges of the modern
world. It is also perceived as the key trend in global environment protection policy and socio-
economic development (Urbaniec, 2015). The concept of “sustainable development” can be
defined following one of the first approaches to this term (Our common future, 1987), as the
right to satisfy developmental aspirations of the current generation without limiting the rights
of future generations to meet their needs. The presented definition assumes that economic and
civilization development of the current generation should not be carried out at the expense of
depletion of non-renewable resources and environmental destruction for the sake of future
generations, which shall have the right for their development (The Government Center for
Strategic Studies, 2000). The subject literature emphasizes three fundamental qualities of
sustainable development, i.e. sustainability, durability and self-sustenance (Michałowski,
2012). Borys (2005) points to the fact that the concept of sustainable development refers to
the process of changes, which is supposed to be characterized by an attribute of sustainability,
evaluated positively from the point of view of at least anthropocentric system of values or
briefly, though less precisely, as the development which has an attribute of sustainability.
For the purposes of the presented discussion one can assume that regional
development should be understood as effective implementation of socio-economic processes
and resources in a region, resulting in sustainable development. Moreover, such development
should manifest itself by achieving the desired results from the perspective of all regional
space users (e.g. residents, entrepreneurs, tourists) (Stimson et al., 2006). The ongoing
improvement of life quality, experienced by local community, should remain the long-term
effect of regional development (Raszkowski, 2014). In this case life quality should be
approached as combining material aspects of life (e.g. remuneration, access to social and
technical infrastructure facilities) and the elements related to experiencing overall satisfaction
with life (e.g. feeling the prestige of the place of residence, health condition, possibilities for
meeting professional and private aspirations, positive human relations (Yuan et al., 1999).
In other words, sustainable development is defined as the result of quality and quantity
transformation processes in economic, social and natural sphere, assuming effective regional
space management. Following the minimalist approach, it is the result of positive changes in
the level of economic and social development, which do not deteriorate the quality of natural
environment. As a result of the occurring changes, the environmental condition should keep
improving. In the recent publications, covering the problem of sustainable development, the
role of regional leaders is emphasized, as well as the passion for implementing the principles
of sustainable development along with perceiving the primary obstacles resulting from the
limiting rules and procedures, adopting short-term developmental perspectives or conflicts of
interests among the regional actors (Sotarauta et al., 2012).
The processes aimed at the implementation of sustainable development concept should
also be manifested in higher territorial identity level (regional identity in this case). The
subject literature is relatively abundant in the definitions of territorial identity, which also
present certain discrepancies. It can be assumed that it is a sense of identification with a
particular fragment of space perceived as part of ourselves. At this point it should be
emphasized that emotional bond with a given place, the surrounding landscape, natural
environment, community residing in this area, products of material and spiritual culture, as
well as the broadly understood cultural heritage remain the relative determinants of territorial
identity (Allmendinger, Tewdwr-Jones, 2006; Miranda, Adib, 2007; Deffner, Mataxas, 2010).

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 230 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Another approach defines regional development as changes in regional productivity

measured by the size of human community, employment rate, income and value-added
production. Regional development also covers social development understood as the level of
health care, welfare or environmental quality. The complex nature of regional development
results from the simultaneous activity of various public authority entities, enterprises,
organizations and regional community. The processes identified within the framework of
regional development remain the effect of microeconomic behaviour present in market
economy, but on the other hand they result from intentional activities of public entities
responsible for regional policy. Integrity and interdependence of all regional development
subsystems, i.e. economic, social, natural, institutional and political represent the determinants
of lasting regional development in long-term perspective (Sepulveda, Edwards, 1995). It is
materially expressed by proper usage and management of a given space. Defining lasting
development in terms of quality can be understood as a vision or guideline for a long-term
development. In practical terms, the actions of public authorities are manifested by defining
strategic objectives, which should be verified by a specified set of monitoring indicators. The
modern approach to sustainable regional development emphasizes the significance of
scientific progress, deriving its power from human capital, interdisciplinary research projects,
regional community activity, innovation and creativity. Human capital itself is perceived as
one of the most important developmental factors of space and following modern approach it is
referred to as creative capital (Oort, Raspe, 2007). Furthermore, the quality of human capital
is in many cases more important than the simple numbers, since creative capital, in its nature,
is supposed to represent high quality human capital (Blair, Carroll, 2009).
Poland represents one of the precursors of research on sustainable development
indicators. The interest in practical applications of multivariate comparative analysis in the
assessment of country and development of other territorial units was already observed in the
70s and 80s. It was manifested not only in the attempts to estimate the discussed development,
but also in the abundant theoretical output (Borys, 2005).

2. Research Methodology, Sustainable Development Indicators in Regional Perspective

Indicators represent quantitative tools which synthesize and simplify the data crucial
for the assessment of certain phenomena. They are used for communication, evaluation and
decision-making (Geniaux et al., 2009). Indicators are the fundamental instruments to monitor
sustainable development since they illustrate this developmental concept in a rational and
measurable way (Borys, 2005). The indicators of sustainable development can be defined as a
statistical measure that gives an indication on the sustainability of social, environmental and
economic development (SEEA, 2003).
Sustainable development indicators from the regional module, developed within the
framework of Local Data Bank1, were used for the analysis purposes. The list of selected
indicators is presented in Table 1.

1
http://stat.gov.pl/bdlen/app/wskazniki_zr.display?p_id=19584&p_token=1854881055, referred on 20/06/2015.
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak
Table 1. Sustainable development indicators selected for the analysis
Indicator
Gross domestic product per
capita (current price) thous. PLN
Expenditure on R&D in relation
to the GDP (current prices)
Employment rate total (%)
Municipal waste collected
separately during the year in
relation to the total municipal
waste (%)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (below
the relative poverty line) after
taking social transfers into
account in income (%)
Unemployment rate (BAEL) (%)
Gross fertility rate
Share of renewable energy
sources in total production of
electricity (%)
Share of legal protected area (%)
Foundations, associations and
social organizations per 10 thous.
population
Source: created by the authors according to Central Statistical Office of Poland
Development Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank.
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
231 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development
Indicator significance for sustainable development analysis
It shows the value of gross domestic product in current prices per capita.
Expenditure on research and development (R&D) is a part of investment activities aimed at
knowledge accumulation, creation and implementation of innovative solutions (products, services,
organization and marketing-oriented solutions) resulting in higher capital productivity and
extending the offer by products which meet the social/market needs in a better way. Such
activities are dedicated towards ensuring long-term economic growth, as well as strengthening of
developmental processes, along with increasing economic competitiveness. They offer
opportunities for changing developmental directions of particular economy sectors by
implementing innovative, socially desirable solutions, e.g. pro-ecological ones, less energy and
material intensive and also by developing human-friendly technologies, protecting human health,
resulting in the implementation of sustainable development ideas. R&D expenditure against gross
domestic product illustrates the scale of GDP redistribution into activities focused on economy
transformation towards knowledge-based economy.
The indicator illustrates the total number of people and distinguishes between the employed young
people and those over 50. From the perspective of the state – employment remains one of the
primary developmental objectives facilitating socio-economic cohesion. Taking an individual
viewpoint – employment represents the fundamental condition for ensuring oneself and the family
adequate financial means indispensable for goods and services. Moreover, work provides
opportunities for an individual development and determines social status, thus influencing the
level of meeting individual needs and, in consequence, also life quality. Ensuring equal chances in
labor market access to all social groups remains and important component of sustainable
development. Particular attention is paid to those who start they professional career and search for
their place on the labor market, i.e. young people. Another important group covers people over 50
who, in Polish conditions, frequently leave the labor market prematurely. Such situation has an
unfavorable impact on both, their labor market position and their material status, as well as affects
the condition of public finance.
The indicator illustrates the share of waste collected separately which affects the level of
sustainable waste management realization, mainly in terms of waste recovery and recycling.
The indicators show the level of income diversification, the extension of poverty and social
exclusion as the major challenges for sustainable development. The absence of possibilities to
meet diverse needs as a result of unfavorable financial situation is reflected in life quality
deterioration and increasing social disparities.
High unemployment rate is one of the factors hindering socio-economic growth, lowering the
living standards, increasing the risk of poverty and also remains one of the reasons for social
exclusion. Unemployment rate reduction is one of the conditions responsible for dynamic
economic growth. From the perspective of an individual unemployment it has an unfavorable
impact on the economic situation of a household and has adverse social and mental effects. From
the state viewpoint, unemployment results in reduced usage of human resources in economy and
thus lower GDP value, simultaneously contributing to higher public expenditure in terms of
benefits and social aid.
Fertility rate is a synthetic measure of fertility determining the total female fertility and birth
intensity. Low fertility rate in a long-term perspective results in deformations in age structure and
consequently leads to demographic decline. Fertility decline, along with the increasing number of
senior citizens, intensifies the process of population aging. In a long-term perspective it generates
a gap in labor market, pension system disturbances, etc. Economic growth and reducing regional
disparities requires significant participation of women in the labor market. For this reason, within
the framework of pro-family policy certain mechanisms are activated, which allow women to
combine their professional work with the realization of procreation plans.
The indicator characterizes the level of energy from renewable sources. The demand for energy,
which keeps growing with the advancing civilization, along with its traditional sources depletion –
mainly fossil fuels (coal, crude oil, natural gas) and the increasing natural environment pollution,
resulting from their consumption, places the energy from renewable sources in the centre of
attention.
Maintaining natural qualities is of significant importance not only for ecological reasons, but also
the socio-economic ones (e.g. results in the development of regional tourism market).
Environmental protection aims at maintaining natural heritage and abundant biological diversity of
Polish nature.
NGOs function independently from the state administration and their operations do not generate
profits. They carry out an increasing number of public tasks and exert impact on social, cultural
and environmental protection policy. They present a form of institutional civic activities and
constitute an important factor in building confidence and creating social ties.
(2015), Sustainable
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 232 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

The presented analysis of sustainable development concept implementation is a

general assessment, focused on the selected aspects, meeting which affects the overall
implementation of the sustainable development concept. The selection of variables for the
study referred to each of the spheres responsible for sustainable development, i.e. social,
economic and environmental sphere.
The assessment of the implementation level of sustainable development standards
requires defining the set of indicators characterizing the main aspects related to each of the
sustainable development spheres and providing the definitions of indicators from the
perspective of their significance for sustainable development.
An equally important task is to determine the quantitative goals necessary to achieve
in order to illustrate the level of implementation of sustainable development concept. The
nature of each variable: stimulant, destimulant or nominant is vital while specifying the
quantitative goals.
The synthetic measure of development (SMD) was applied in assessing the
implementation of sustainable development standards, which provided the basis for
constructing the ranking and determining the position of particular regions (Jajuga et al.,
2003). SMD is used in linear ordering of objects characterized by many diagnostic variables,
which are later substituted by one diagnostic value. The procedure of SMD construction is
carried out in several stages:
1. the selection of diagnostic characteristics (indicators) and determining the nature of
variables in terms of sustainable development concept implementation: stimulant,
destimulant, nominant;
2. the normalization of diagnostic characteristics was performed, for the purposes of
indicator comparability, using zero unitarization method by means of applying the
below formula:
xij  min xij
i
zij  , (1)
max xij  min xij
i i

where: zij – value of j-th diagnostics characteristics (indicator) j = 1, 2,…, k in i-th

object i = 1, 2,…, N (region) after unitarization, xij – realization of j-th diagnostic
characteristics in i-th object, minxij (maxxij) – the lowest (the highest) value of j-th
diagnostic characteristics xij (Dziechciarz et al., 2001).. The normalization was
performed for the matrix covering data from the period 2005-2011. It allowed for
defining a common development pattern. Following unitarization the analyzed values
fall in <0;1> interval, with 0 value for a region in which the indicator presented the
lowest (minimum) value in 2005-2011 and 1 – the highest value. After applying zero
unitarization the variable is measured in an interval scale with an arbitrary zero point
at the level of minimum value.
3. defining object-model coordinates. Top development model was the adopted standard,
i.e. maximum values were considered the most favourable values of diagnostic
characteristics, in case of stimulants, whereas for destimulants – minimum values, for
nominants – the lowest absolute value as the difference between the characteristics
value and the optimal one. Object-model represents the total of most favourable
indicator values achieved in 2005-2011,
4. determining the distance of objects (region) from the object-model using Euclidean
distance and the synthetic measure of development (SMD) for i-th region in
accordance with the following formula:
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 233 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

d it 0
SMRi  1  , (2)
d0

where: dit0 – Euclidean distance between i-th region in t-th period and 0 object-model,
d0 – the distance between the model and anti-model (Lausen et al., 2013).

The values of development measure are normalized in <0;1> interval, whereas in case
of a model the value equals 1. The higher the level of the discussed phenomenon the higher
the development measure value. Position 1 was assigned to a region which reached the
highest level of sustainable development standards implementation in a given year. The
values of standard measures of development (SMD), specified based on Euclidean distance,
allowed for determining the position of particular regions in terms of sustainable
development. SMD values less than 1, in terms of regional sustainable development, stand for
the following situation:
- <0,0 - 0,2) very unfavourable,
- <0,2 - 0,4) unfavourable,
- <0,4 - 0,6) moderate,
- <0,6 - 0,8) favourable,
- <0,8 - 1,0) very favourable.

3. Sustainable Development of Polish Regions in the period 2005-2011

The values of synthetic measure of development (SMD), in the period 2005-2011,

were specified based on the set of indicators presented in Table 2 along with the nature
(interpretation) of indicators and the coordinates (values) of the object-model common for the
period 2005-2011.

Table 2. The set of indicators used for regions’ ordering from the perspective of sustainable development
concept implementation
Indicator Reference
Indicator
nature value
Gross domestic product per capita (current price) thous. PLN stimulant 64.8
Expenditure on R&D in relation to the GDP (%) stimulant 1.39
Employment rate total (%) stimulant 55.3
Municipal waste collected separately during the year in relation to the total
municipal waste (%) stimulant 15.2
At-risk-of-poverty rate (below the relative poverty line) after taking social
transfers into account in income (%) destimulant 11
Unemployment rate (BAEL) (%) destimulant 5.5
Gross fertility rate stimulant 1.558
Share of renewable energy sources in total production of electricity (%) stimulant 70.6
Share of legal protected area (%) stimulant 64.55
Foundations, associations and social organizations per 10 thous. population stimulant 35
Source: own calculations based on Central Statistical Office of Poland (2015), Sustainable Development
Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 234 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Table 3. Values of basic descriptive statistics for the sustainable development indicators, 2005-2011

Descriptive
Indicator 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
statistics
mean value 23.6 25.4 28.2 30.6 31.8 33.4 35.9
Gross domestic product per capita
minimum value 17.6 18.8 20.9 23.1 23.4 24.7 26.8
(current price) thous. PLN
maximum value 40.8 44.4 49.4 53 56.1 60.1 64.8
mean value 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
Expenditure on R&D in relation to the
minimum value 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.16
GDP (%)
maximum value 1.1 1.07 1.07 1.21 1.19 1.36 1.39
mean value 44.9 46.2 48.2 49.8 49.8 49.5 49.6
Employment rate total (%) minimum value 41.6 42.1 43.7 45.6 46.8 45.8 45.2
maximum value 48.6 49.9 51.9 55.3 55.3 53.7 54.9
Municipal waste collected separately mean value 3.1 3.9 4.8 6.3 7.3 8.2 9.5
during the year in relation to the total minimum value 1.8 2.2 2.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 6
municipal waste (%) maximum value 6.2 5.5 6.6 8.9 10.3 11.6 15.2
At-risk-of-poverty rate (below the relative mean value 21.5 20.1 17.9 17.9 18.1 18.3 18.6
poverty line) after taking social transfers minimum value 14.5 14.1 11.8 12.4 11 12.4 12.8
into account in income (%) maximum value 28.1 28 26.2 27.6 27.9 30.7 31.3
mean value 18.0 14.1 9.9 7.4 8.7 10.0 10.0
Unemployment rate (BAEL) (%) minimum value 14.3 11.4 8.1 5.5 6 7.4 7.9
maximum value 22.8 17.1 12.7 9.6 10.9 12.4 12.9
mean value 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
Gross fertility rate minimum value 1.044 1.039 1.042 1.132 1.147 1.155 1.102
maximum value 1.359 1.394 1.455 1.558 1.548 1.49 1.392
mean value 6.6 7.2 8.4 10.3 14.4 14.8 18.7
Share of renewable energy sources in total
minimum value 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9
production of electricity (%)
maximum value 40.1 42.1 46.9 48.1 51.8 59 70.6
mean value 33.7 33.1 33.3 33.4 33.4 33.5 33.5
Share of legal protected area (%) maximum value 16.4 16.41 18.09 18.03 18.17 18.54 18.6
maximum value 61.95 62.62 63.03 63.94 64.55 64.54 64.53
mean value 20.8 22.3 23.7 24.8 25.9 27.1 28.3
Foundations, associations and social
minimum value 16 17 18 18 19 20 21
organisations per 10 thous. population
maximum value 26 27 29 30 32 33 35
Source: own calculations based on Central Statistical Office of Poland (2015), Sustainable Development
Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank.

The analysis of values of selected descriptive analyses allows for presenting the
following conclusions about the situation of regions characterised using sustainable
development indicators in the period 2005-20011:
- GDP value per capita was systematically growing each year and in the period
under analysis the recorded growth increased by over 52%,
- average R&D expenditure increased by only 0.2 percentage point,
- average employment rate value went up by 4.7 percentage point,
- unemployment rate decline by 8 percentage points is a positive phenomenon,
- average gross fertility rate presents minor differences in particular years,
- share of renewable energy sources in total production of electricity was
increasing each consecutive year, the recorded increase amounted to 12.1
percentage points,

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 235 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

- minor changes were observed in the share of legal protected area in the total
area,
- the number of foundations, associations and social organizations per 10 thous.
population was steadily increasing and recorded the growth of over 36%.
Table 4A presents values of indicators in individual years (see Appendix 1).
Table 5 presents the distance from model values, positions of regions and their
changes in 2005-2011.

Table 5. SMD value, positions of regions, 2005-2011

Source: own calculations based on Central Statistical Office of Poland (2015), Sustainable Development
Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank.

Statistical measure values were specified for the analysed periods to support the
interpretation of the situation in individual regions and its changes in the period under analysis
(Table 6).

Table 6. Synthetic measures for the distance from the model, 2005-2011
Specification 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Median 0.23 0.27 0.33 0.38 0.41 0.41 0.43
Minimum value 0.13387964 0.20444 0.240468 0.293994 0.321088 0.3271 0.332346
Maximum value 0.38089056 0.425958 0.479922 0.549625 0.569187 0.581186 0.592909
Quotient range 2.85 2.08 2.00 1.87 1.77 1.78 1.78
Variation coefficient (%) 29.06% 23.40% 18.61% 17.41% 16.44% 17.01% 17.19%
Source: own calculations based on Central Statistical Office of Poland (2015), Sustainable Development
Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank.

The situation of regions, in terms of sustainable development implementation, was

moderately spatially diversified in particular years, as confirmed by the mean value of
variation coefficient. Year after year the regions were approaching model values shown by the
steady increase of both median and minimum values. Nine regions were systematically, each
consecutive year, approaching the model (Łódzkie, Małopolskie, Mazowieckie, Opolskie,
Podkarpackie, Pomorskie, Warmińsko-Mazurskie, Wielkopolskie and Zachodniopomorskie).

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 236 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

In 2005, the situation of 6 regions was defined as very unfavourable, whereas

unfavourable in case of the others. In 2006, the situation in 14 regions was recorded as
unfavourable, while in two as moderate. In 2007, 12 regions were identified as presenting
unfavourable and four as moderate situations. In 2008, the situation was unfavourable in 10
regions and moderate in the other six. In 2009, half of the regions were characterized by an
unfavourable and half by a moderate situation. In 2010, six regions still had an unfavourable
status and 12 a moderate one. In 2011, 7– unfavourable, 9 – moderate (Figure 1).

Source: own calculations based on Central Statistical Office of Poland (2015), Sustainable Development
Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank.
Figure 1. The Ordering of Regions against the Model, 2005-2011

The top ranking position was occupied by Mazowieckie region with Małopolskie as
the runner up. These regions were steadily, year after year approaching the model, as
confirmed by the annually growing SMD value. The highest position of Mazowieckie region
was mainly determined by its best situation in each of the analysed years in terms of GDP per
capita, the number of foundations, associations and social organizations per 10 thous.
population. Since 2006 Mazowieckie region was presenting the best situation regarding
employment rate. High position of Małopolskie region resulted mainly from the best situation,
in each year under analysis, regarding municipal waste collected separately during the year in
relation to the total municipal waste.
The lowest ranking position in the period 2006-2010 was taken by Opolskie region,
since in each of the studied years the situation in this region was the worst in terms of gross
fertility rate. This region is characterized by the low share of expenditure on R&D in relation
to GDP. In 2005, Zachodnipomorskie region closed the ranking due to the very low level of
total employment rate. In 2011, the lowest ranking position was occupied by Lubelskie
region, which in the previous three years was ranked as one before the last. Poor result of this
region was mainly due to the low value of GDP per capita.

Conclusions

It should be emphasized that the overall results, in terms of sustainable development

implementation in Polish regions, differ in terms of their position regarding the level of
investment competitiveness (Nowicki, 2011; Raszkowski, 2013; Godlewska-Majkowska,
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 237 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

2014). In relation to the level of the above-mentioned competitiveness, the ranking of regions
is as follows: Śląskie, Mazowieckie, Dolnośląskie, Małopolskie, Wielkopolskie,
Zachodniopolskie, Pomorskie, Łódzkie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Lubuskie, Opolskie,
Podkarpackie, Świętokrzyskie, Warmińsko-Mazurskie, Lubelskie, Podlaskie. The investment
attractiveness itself is a complex concept and covers the whole range of factors crucial from
the perspective of potential investments and the conducted economic activities. The
perception of a region regarding its investment attractiveness depends on an investor
him/herself, who analyzes numerous determinants present in a given area, crucial from his/her
viewpoint along with the potential benefits to be derived from the invested capital. Having the
above discussion in mind, investment attractiveness can be defined as the ability to persuade
an entrepreneur to invest based on the location advantages, possible to achieve in the process
of running a business (Kobrin, 2011).
The presented comparison seems founded, since the regions characterized by an
advanced level of sustainable development concept implementation are also expected to offer
high living standards to the regional space users which, to some extent, remains determined
by the investment attractiveness. Differences occur at the level of factors or indicators taken
into account in both cases. In terms of investment attractiveness relatively less importance is
attached, in the discussed case, to environmental issues, poverty problems, fertility rate or
NOGs’ functioning. The primary emphasis is placed on labor market structure, transport
availability, activities carried out by regional authorities regarding incentives for potential
investors. Other studies consider crucial, from the perspective of potential investors, the
regional market size and its absorption capacity, as well as transparent and stable economic
policy and legislation (Ernst and Young, 2012). At this point attention should be drawn to
opinions and experiences of the existing investors, i.e. potential investors, especially the
foreign ones, can pay attention to the message coming from other entrepreneurs. Positive
information can facilitate investment choices and shorten the process of searching for an
optimal region to run a particular business.
The new European Union strategy, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth, emphasizes the significance of innovation, the improvement of education
systems, digital market, efficient use of resources, business environment, labor market
modernization, poverty alleviation to enhance competitiveness of the European space.
Sustainable development, one of the three priorities of the strategy is intended to promote a
more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy (Europe 2020, 2010).
The conducted research allows drawing very important conclusions. Firstly, in all the
analyzed years the situation, in none of the regions, regarding sustainable development
standards implementation, can be assessed as favorable or very favorable. It shows that the
studied regions still have a long way ahead to reach the desirable sustainable development
level. Such situation definitely results from the relatively low implementation level of the
presented indicators. It refers to the indicators from all areas. Gross fertility rate can serve as
an example. In terms of natural generation replacement its value should exceed 2.0. In Polish
regions its average value amounted to 1.32 in the period 2005-2011. The expenditure on R&D
in relation to the GDP was also very low, its average share was 1.88%. Yet another example is
the share of municipal waste collected separately during the year in relation to the total
municipal waste. Its average level was 6.1%, whereas in the European Union countries the
relative value reached 36% in 2005-2011 (Eurostat Database, 2015).
Another conclusion to be put forward based on the conducted research refers to the
situation improvement in individual regions from the perspective of sustainable development
concept. In 2005, the situation in 6 regions was defined as very unfavorable and unfavorable
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 238 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

in the others. In the subsequent years all regions improved their situation, since none of them
recorded a very unfavorable situation and the number of regions characterized by a moderate
situation was gradually increasing. The situation of Łódzkie region should be noticed, which
from a very unfavorable situation in 2005 moved to the group of moderate regions in 2010.
The conducted research also allows for more general conclusions, which results from
approaching the problems of sustainable development implementation. The survey performed
in 2014 for the Ministry of the Environment, covering the ecological awareness of Poles (TNS
Poland, 2014), confirmed that 46% of the respondents know and understand the concept of
sustainable development. In 2013, 43% of the surveyed declared the awareness of the studied
concept, and in 2012 the respective number was 42%. These results show that less than half of
Poles know this concept, however, the percentage is steadily increasing each year. It can,
therefore, be observed that the fundamental barrier in sustainable development standards
implementation is associated with the absence of awareness and understanding of this
development concept. The research presented in the article covered the period 2005-2011.
Along with the increasing awareness of the need for the implementation of sustainable
development concept, the situation of individual regions should also be improving. Therefore,
continuous monitoring of implementation of sustainable development concept should remain
an important process. It demonstrates the need for further research to show the actual practice
of sustainable development implementation and whether Polish regions find themselves on a
good track towards sustainable development.
Therefore, the results of the conducted research can be practically applied and used by
those responsible for policy development at regional level to assess the effectiveness and
efficiency of the conducted research. It is possible to assess the position of a particular region
against the background of others and also to observe how the situation in a given region
changes over the period of several years.

References
Allmendinger, P., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2006), “Territory, identity and spatial planning”, in: M. Tewdwr-Jones, P.
Allmendinger (eds.), Territory, Identity and Spatial Planning, Spatial governance in a fragmented nation,
New York, Routledge, pp.13-18.
Bakker, B., Klingen, C. (2012), How Emerging Europe Came Through the 2008/09 Crisis, An Account by the
Staff of the IMF’s European Department, Washington, International Monetary Fund, pp.155-162.
Blair, J., Carroll, M. (2009), Local economic development. Analysis, practices and globalization, Thousand
Oaks, SAGE Publications, pp.109-114.
Bogumił, P. (2009), “Regional disparities in Poland”, Economic analysis from the European Commission’s
Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, ECFIN Country Focus, Vol. 4, No 4, pp.2-7.
Borys, T. (2005), Indicators for sustainable development – polish experiences, Warszawa-Białystok.
Bullmann, U. (2015), “The Politics of the Third Level”, in: C. Jeffery (ed.), The Regional Dimension of the
European Union: Towards a Third Level in Europe?, New York, Routledge, pp.3-19.
Central Statistical Office of Poland (2015), Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank,
available at, http://wskaznikizrp.stat.gov.pl/index.jsf?jezyk=en, referred on 20/06/2015.
Cohen, S., Eimicke, W., Heikkila, T. (2008), The effective public manager. Achieving success in a changing
government, 4th Edition, San Francisco, John Wiley and Sons.
Czyż, T., Hauke, J. (2011), “Evolution of regional disparities in Poland”, Quaestiones Geographicae, Vol. 30,
No 2, pp.35-48.
Deffner, A., Mataxas, T. (2010), “Place marketing, local identity and branding cultural images in Southern
Europe: Nea Ionia, Greece and Pafos, Cyprus”, in: G. Ashworth, M. Kavaratzis (eds.), Towards Effective
Place Brand Management. Branding European Cities and Regions, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp.49-68.
Diamond, J. (2012), “Leadership and the voluntary and community sector”, in: M. Sotarauta, L. Horlings, J.
Liddle (eds.), Leadership and Change in Sustainable Regional Development, Regional Studies

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 239 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Association, Regions and Cities, New York, Routledge, pp.80-102.

Dziechciarz, J., Strahl, D., Walesiak, M. (2001), “Data Set Normalisation for Banks Performance Assessment”,
Econometrics 8. Research Papers of Wrocław University of Economics, No 915, pp.21-32.
Eden, C., Ackermann, F. (2013), Making Strategy. The journey of Strategic Management, 2nd Edition, London,
SAGE Publications.
Edwards, M., Hulme, D. (1995), “NGO Performance and Accountability. Introduction and Overview”, in: M.
Edwards, D. Hulme (eds.), Non-governmental Organisations. Performance and Accountability. Beyond
the Magic Bullet, London, Earthscan Publications, pp.4-6.
Ernst and Young (2012), Ernst and Young’s 2012 European attractiveness survey. Growth, actually 2012,
London, Ernst & Young Global Limited, pp.7-19.
EUROPE 2020 (2010), A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 2010, Communication from the
Commission, Brussels, European Commission, pp.5-30.
Eurostat (2011), Regions in the European Union. Nomenclature of territorial unit for statistics NUTS 2010/EU-
27, Methodologies and working papers, European Commission, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the
European Union, pp. 104-108, available at,
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5916917/KS-RA-11-011-EN.PDF, referred on
20/06/2015.
Eurostat (2015), Database, available at, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, referred on 20/06/2015.
Flew, T. (2012), The Creative industries. Culture and policy, London, SAGE Publications.
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class: and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and
Everyday Life, New York, Basic Books.
Florida, R. (2005), Cities and the creative class, New York, Routledge.
Florida, R. (2012), The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited, New York, Basic Books.
Gelder, S. (2005), “The new imperatives for global branding. Strategy, creativity and leadership”, Brand
Management, Vol. 12, No 5, pp.396-398.
Geniaux, G., Bellon, S., Deverre, C., Powell, B. (2009), “Sustainable Development Indicator Frameworks and
Initiatives”, Integrated Project EU FP 6 (contract no. 010036), Global Change and Ecosystems, Project
duration: January 2005 - December 2008.
Gibney, J. (2012), “Leadership of place and the dynamics of knowledge”, in: M. Sotarauta, L. Horlings, J. Liddle
(eds.), Leadership and Change in Sustainable Regional Development, Regional Studies Association,
Regions and Cities, New York, Routledge, pp.20-36.
Giorgetta, S., (2002), “The Right to a Healthy Environment, Human Rights and Sustainable Development”,
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, No 2, pp.173-194.
Godlewska-Majkowska, H. (2014), Regional Investment Attractiveness 2014, Warsaw, Polish Information and
Foreign Investment Agency at the Institute of Enterprise, Warsaw School of Economics, pp.66-71.
Green, A. (2010), Creativity in Public Relations, 4th Edition, London, Kogan Page Publishers, pp.4-6.
Hennessey, B., Amabile, T. (1998), “The conditions of creativity”, in: R. Sternberg, (ed.), The Nature of
creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp.11-42.
Jajuga, K., Walesiak, M., Bąk, A. (2003), “On the General Distance Measure”, in: M. Schwaiger, O. Opitz
(eds.), Exploratory Data Analysis in Empirical Research, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, pp.104-
109.
KEA European Affairs (2009), The impact of culture on creativity, A Study prepared for the European
Commission, Directorate – General for Education and Culture, Brussels, pp. 37-78, available at,
http://www.keanet.eu/docs/impactculturecreativityfull.pdf, referred on 20/06/2015.
Kobrin, J. (2011), “The Transnational Transition and the Multinational Firm”, in: C. Asmussen, T. Pedresen, T.
Devinney, L. Tihanyi, (eds.), Dynamics of Globalization: Location-Specific Advantages or Liabilities of
Foreignness? Advances in International Management, Vol. 24, Bingley, Emerald Group Publishing, pp.5-
23.
Lausen, B.,Van den Poel D., Ultsch A. (2013), Algorithms from and for Nature and Life, New York, Springer.
Marelli, E., Patuelli, R., Signorelli, M. (2012), “Regional unemployment in the EU before and after the global
crisis”, Post-Communist Economies, Vol. 24, No 2, pp.155-175.
Mellander, C., Florida, R., Rentfrow, J. (2012), “The creative class, post-industrialism and the happiness of
nations”, Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society, Vol. 5, No 1, pp.31-43.
Michałowski, A. (2012), “Ecosystem services in the light of a sustainable knowledge-based economy”, Problems
of sustainable development, Vol. 7, No 2, pp.97-106.
Ministry of Economy (2013), Strategy for Innovation and Efficiency of the Economy. Dynamic Poland 2020,
Annex to the Resolution No 7 of the Council of Ministers of 15 January 2013, Warsaw, pp. 54-128,
available at, https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/library/strategy-innovation-and-efficiency-economy-sieg,
TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018
A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 240 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

referred on 20/06/2015.
Miranda, C., Adib, A. (2007), “Sustainable development and the territorial approach: identities and typologies”,
Comuniica, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, May-August, Second Stage, Third
Year, pp.42-48.
Norrman, K. (2006), Culture, the heart of knowledge – based economy. The strategic use of culture in European
project, European Cultural Parliament-Lisbon Agenda Research Group, Tuscany, The Bank of Sweden
Tercentenary Foundation, pp. 5-18.
Nowicki, M. (2011), The investment attractiveness of the regions and the sub-regions of Poland, Gdańsk, The
Gdańsk Institute for Market Economics, pp.43-60.
Oort, F., Raspe, O. (2007), “Urban Heterogeneity in Knowledge-related Economic Growth”, in: J. Surinach, R.
Moreno, E. Vaya, (eds.), Knowledge Externalities, Innovation Clusters and Regional Development,
Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.280-282.
Our common future (1987), The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
Raszkowski, A. (2013), “Selected aspects of investment attractiveness of regions”, ACC Journal, Vol. 2, No B,
pp.116-126.
Raszkowski, A. (2014), “Place marketing in the process of territorial identity creation and strengthening”,
Journal of European Economy, Vol. 13, No 2, pp.197-198.
Runco, M. (2014), Creativity. Theories and Themes. Research, Development, and Practice, Elsevier, London,
pp.166-170.
SEEA (2003), Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, Handbook of National Accounting 2003,
United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, World Bank, Studies in Methods, Series F, No.61, Rev.1, pp.173-207,
available at, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seea2003.pdf, referred on 20/06/2015.
Sepulveda, S., Edwards, R. (1995), Sustainable Regional Development Methodologies for Micro Regional
Diagnostics. Literature Review, San Jose, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA),
pp.13-15.
Sotarauta, M., Horlings, L., Liddle, J. (2012), “Leadership and sustainable regional development”, in: M.
Sotarauta, L. Horlings, J. Liddle (eds.), Leadership and Change in Sustainable Regional Development,
Regional Studies Association, Regions and Cities, New York, Routledge.
Stimson, R., Stough, R., Roberts, B. (2006), Regional Economic Development. Analysis and Planning Strategy,
Heidelberg, Springer.
The Government Center for Strategic Studies (2000), Poland 2025-Long-term Sustainable Development
Strategy, Ministry of the Environment, Warsaw, pp.2-11, available at,
http://www.access.zgwrp.org.pl/materialy/dokumenty/StrategiaZrownowazonegoRozwojuPolski/index1.h
tml, referred on 20/06/2015.
TNS Poland (2014), The research on ecological awareness and environmental behaviour of Polish citizens-
tracking research, TNS Poland for Ministry of the Environment, Warsaw, available at,
https://www.mos.gov.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/Badanie_swiadomosci_i_zachowan_ekologicznych_mies
zkancow_Polski__badanie_trackingowe_2014_.pdf, referred on 20/06/2015.
Tyrowicz, J., Wójcik, P. (2010), “Regional Dynamics of Unemployment in Poland. A Convergence Approach”,
in: F.E. Caroleo, F. Pastore (ed.), Labour Market Impact of the EU Enlargement: A New Regional
Geography of Europe?, AIEL Series in Labour Economics, pp.149-173.
Urbaniec, M. (2015), “Sustainable Development Indicators in Poland: Measurement and System Evaluation”,
Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, Vol. 3, No 1, pp.119-134.
Willauer, B. (2005), Consensus as key success factor in strategy-making, Wiesbaden, Deutscher
Universitätsverlag.
Yuan, L., Yuen, B., Low, C. (1999), “Quality of Life in Cities-Definition, Approaches and Research”, in: L.
Yuan, B. Yuen, C. Low (eds.), Urban quality of life. Critical issues and options, School of Building and
Real Estate, Singapore, National University of Singapore, pp.2-12.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 241 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

TVARIOS REGIONINĖS PLĖTROS LINK: EKONOMIKA, VISUOMENĖ, APLINKA, TINKAMAS

VALDYMAS REMIANTIS LENKIJOS REGIONŲ PAVYZDŽIU

Andrzej Raszkowski, Bartosz Bartniczak

SANTRAUKA

Darbe nagrinėjamos problemos, susijusios su tvarios plėtros regioniniu lygmeniu samprata, remiantis
Lenkijos regionų pavyzdžiu 2005–2011 m. Visų pirma pristatomi teoriniai tvarios plėtros aspektai. Po to
apibūdinami rodikliai, pasirinkti analizei remiantis Lenkijos Centrinio statistikos departamento priimtais tvarios
regioninės plėtros lygio vertinimo principais. Taikomas tyrimo būdas – dirbtinai sugeneruotų plėtros lygio
duomenų analizė (angl. SMD), kurios pagrindu buvo sureitinguoti tam tikri Lenkijos regionai. Atliktas tyrimas
parodė, kad visus analizuotasis metais nė viename iš tirtų regionų tvarios plėtros standartų įgyvendinimo
požiūriu situacija negali būti vertinama kaip palanki ar labai palanki. Tyrimas atskleidė, kad tam tikriems
regionams gali tekti įdėti labai daug pastangų, kad būtų pasiekta darni plėtra. Tokia situacija susiklostė dėl
ganėtinai žemo aptartų rodiklių įgyvendinimo lygio. Tačiau reikėtų pabrėžti, kad situacija tam tikruose
regionuose, atsižvelgiant į tvarios plėtros koncepciją, analizuotu laikotarpiu pagerėjo. 2005 m. 6 regionuose
padėtis buvo apibūdinama kaip labai nepalanki, o likusiuose kaip nepalanki. Vėlesniais metais situacija visuose
regionuose pagerėjo, nes nė viename iš jų padėtis nebuvo apibūdinta kaip labai nepalanki, be to palaipsniui
didėjo regionų, kuriuose situacija galėtų būti apibūdinta kaip vidutinė, skaičius. Aukščiausią poziciją visais
analizuotais metais užėmė Mazovijos regionas, o antroje pozicijoje buvo Mažosios Lenkijos regionas. Metams
bėgant šie regionai nuosekliai artėja prie standartinio lygio, tai patvirtina ir sistemingai didėjanti SMD vertė.
2006–2010 m. žemiausioje pozicijoje buvo Opolės regionas, o 2011 m. Liublino regionas.

REIKŠMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: darni plėtra, ekonomika, visuomenė, aplinka, tiesinė tvarka, Lenkija.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 242 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Appendix 1

Table 4A. Values of indicators in individual years 2005-2011 for particular regions
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gross domestic product per capita (current price) thous. PLN
Dolnośląskie 23.7 25.5 28.6 31 32.1 34.1 36.8
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 40.8 44.4 49.4 53 56.1 60.1 64.8
Lubelskie 22 24.1 26.6 28.9 30 31.2 34.1
Lubuskie 27.8 29.5 32.8 36.1 37.8 39.7 42.8
Łódzkie 17.6 18.8 21 23.2 23.4 24.8 26.9
Małopolskie 17.8 19 20.9 23.1 23.9 24.7 26.8
Mazowieckie 19.1 20.4 22.9 24.4 25.7 26.7 28.5
Opolskie 19.3 21.1 23.8 26.7 27 27.8 29.6
Podkarpackie 23.2 24.7 27.2 28.7 29.8 31 32.8
Podlaskie 27.6 29.3 32.2 34.9 37.2 38.3 41.3
Pomorskie 23.9 25.3 27.5 30.2 30.4 31.7 33.5
Śląskie 26.6 29.7 33.5 35.9 37.9 41.2 45
Świętokrzyskie 21.3 22.3 25.5 28.3 29.1 29.8 31.8
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 22.5 24.3 26.8 28.9 29.5 30.7 32.6
Wielkopolskie 25.3 27.4 30.3 31.8 33.8 35.1 37.8
Zachodniopomorskie 19.7 21 22.9 24.7 25.6 26.7 28.6
Expenditure on R&D in relation to the GDP (%)
Dolnośląskie 0.41 0.45 0.35 0.41 0.44 0.53 0.51
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 0.27 0.25 0.35 0.20 0.22 0.56 0.31
Lubelskie 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.54 0.48 0.58 0.64
Lubuskie 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.14
Łódzkie 0.52 0.52 0.54 0.51 0.54 0.60 0.63
Małopolskie 0.96 1.02 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.93 1.00
Mazowieckie 1.20 1.10 1.07 1.07 1.21 1.19 1.36
Opolskie 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.12
Podkarpackie 0,29 0.30 0.39 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.92
Podlaskie 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.20 0.26 0.21 0.32
Pomorskie 0.48 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.57 0.52 0.60
Śląskie 0.31 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.55 0.46
Świętokrzyskie 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.27 0.42 0.45
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.29 0.23 0.31 0.44
Wielkopolskie 0.43 0.47 0.46 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.58
Zachodniopomorskie 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.31
Employment rate total (%)
Dolnośląskie 42.0 44.9 46.5 48.1 48.5 48.1 47.7
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 44.7 44.3 45.8 47.7 49.1 48.5 48.3
Lubelskie 48.6 48.8 51.1 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.8
Lubuskie 44.6 45.7 48.2 49.0 48.5 49.4 49.5
Łódzkie 45.7 47.1 49.7 51.6 50.8 51.1 51.6
Małopolskie 47.4 48.1 48.9 50.4 50.0 49.8 50.2
Mazowieckie 47.8 49.9 51.9 55.3 55.3 53.7 54.9
Opolskie 44.7 45.8 46.4 47.8 48.4 48.2 48.4
Podkarpackie 45.2 46.7 49.3 50.2 50.9 50.0 49.3
Podlaskie 48.0 47.8 49.6 51.1 51.0 48.8 50.1
Pomorskie 43.5 45.6 48.1 49.8 49.0 50.3 49.8
Śląskie 42.3 43.9 46.1 48.3 49.0 47.5 48.4
Świętokrzyskie 44.0 46.5 49.6 51.6 49.9 49.9 49.8
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 41.6 43.2 46.0 47.5 48.0 47.9 46.7

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 243 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Wielkopolskie 47.2 48.3 49.9 51.6 51.8 52.8 52.4

Zachodniopomorskie 41.8 42.1 43.7 45.6 46.8 45.8 45.2
Municipal waste collected separately during the year in relation to the total municipal waste (%)
Dolnośląskie 2.2 2.7 4.8 6.6 7.8 7.1 7.2
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 2.9 4.4 4.9 5.2 7.5 9.6 9.6
Lubelskie 3.5 4.0 4.4 4.9 8.5 9.2 9.3
lubuskie 2.0 3.6 4.7 5.7 5.7 6.6 7.8
Łódzkie 2.5 3.2 5.3 7.4 8.8 8.5 10.0
Małopolskie 3.9 5.5 6.6 8.9 10.3 11.6 15.2
Mazowieckie 3.6 3.4 4.3 7.2 8.0 8.9 11.1
Opolskie 6.2 3.1 4.0 4.7 5.6 7.0 8.1
Podkarpackie 3.3 4.5 5.9 8.5 8.8 10.7 11.7
Podlaskie 1.8 2.2 2.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 6.0
Pomorskie 2.9 4.6 4.8 5.2 6.0 6.7 7.9
Śląskie 3.6 5.3 6.2 7.1 8.1 8.7 10.2
Świętokrzyskie 2.3 2.9 3.2 4.8 4.9 7.0 8.0
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 2.8 3.4 4.0 5.1 5.9 6.5 8.6
Wielkopolskie 3.5 5.4 6.4 8.9 9.9 10.3 11.2
Zachodniopomorskie 2.7 3.9 4.5 6.2 6.9 8.0 10.2
At-risk-of-poverty rate (below the relative poverty line) after taking social transfers into account in income
(%)
Dolnośląskie 2.2 2.7 4.8 6.6 7.8 7.1 7.2
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 2.9 4.4 4.9 5.2 7.5 9.6 9.6
Lubelskie 3.5 4.0 4.4 4.9 8.5 9.2 9.3
Lubuskie 2.0 3.6 4.7 5.7 5.7 6.6 7.8
Łódzkie 2.5 3.2 5.3 7.4 8.8 8.5 10.0
Małopolskie 3.9 5.5 6.6 8.9 10.3 11.6 15.2
Mazowieckie 3.6 3.4 4.3 7.2 8.0 8.9 11.1
Opolskie 6.2 3.1 4.0 4.7 5.6 7.0 8.1
Podkarpackie 3.3 4.5 5.9 8.5 8.8 10.7 11.7
Podlaskie 1.8 2.2 2.8 4.5 4.3 4.3 6.0
Pomorskie 2.9 4.6 4.8 5.2 6.0 6.7 7.9
Śląskie 3.6 5.3 6.2 7.1 8.1 8.7 10.2
Świętokrzyskie 2.3 2.9 3.2 4.8 4.9 7.0 8.0
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 2.8 3.4 4.0 5.1 5.9 6.5 8.6
Wielkopolskie 3.5 5.4 6.4 8.9 9.9 10.3 11.2
Zachodniopomorskie 2.7 3.9 4.5 6.2 6.9 8.0 10.2
Unemployment rate (BAEL) (%)
Dolnośląskie 22.8 17.1 12.7 9.1 10.1 11.3 10.6
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 19.8 16.1 11.3 9.1 10.4 10.6 11.0
Lubelskie 14.3 12.7 9.5 8.8 9.7 9.9 10.3
Lubuskie 19.1 13.9 9.8 6.5 9.6 10.5 9.5
Łódzkie 17.4 13.4 9.3 6.7 7.6 9.2 9.3
Małopolskie 15.2 12.5 8.5 6.2 8.0 9.1 9.4
Mazowieckie 14.8 12.2 9.1 6.0 6.0 7.4 7.9
Opolskie 17.0 13.2 9.3 6.6 9.8 9.7 9.3
Podkarpackie 16.6 13.6 9.6 8.2 10.0 11.6 12.4
Podlaskie 14.3 11.4 8.9 6.4 7.1 10.2 9.2
Pomorskie 18.9 13.5 9.5 5.5 6.4 9.3 8.5
Śląskie 19.0 14.1 8.1 6.6 6.7 9.1 9.2
Świętokrzyskie 19.0 15.6 12.1 8.8 10.9 12.0 12.9
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 20.4 15.9 10.5 7.5 8.5 9.7 9.7
Wielkopolskie 17.2 12.7 8.3 6.1 7.5 8.7 8.7
Zachodniopomorskie 22.7 17.1 11.5 9.6 10.3 12.4 11.8
Gross fertility rate

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 244 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Dolnośląskie 1.148 1.179 1.222 1.316 1.316 1.288 1.210

Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 1.271 1.308 1.348 1.433 1.419 1.388 1.297
Lubelskie 1.329 1.330 1.343 1.412 1.405 1.367 1.297
Lubuskie 1.243 1.299 1.333 1.400 1.419 1.352 1.298
Łódzkie 1.181 1.219 1.243 1.331 1.363 1.353 1.279
Małopolskie 1.286 1.279 1.322 1.417 1.426 1.396 1.332
Mazowieckie 1.261 1.314 1.359 1.434 1.454 1.453 1.366
Opolskie 1.044 1.039 1.042 1.132 1.147 1.155 1.102
Podkarpackie 1.271 1.243 1.275 1.341 1.340 1.314 1.265
Podlaskie 1.245 1,244 1,253 1,327 1,346 1,309 1.227
Pomorskie 1.359 1,394 1,455 1,558 1,548 1,490 1.392
Śląskie 1.130 1,173 1,211 1,298 1,326 1,341 1.265
Świętokrzyskie 1.209 1,191 1,254 1,331 1,328 1,306 1.227
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 1.335 1,358 1,398 1,457 1,474 1,387 1.305
Wielkopolskie 1.316 1,344 1,393 1,488 1,481 1,478 1.376
Zachodniopomorskie 1.232 1,251 1,301 1,381 1,360 1,308 1.215
Share of renewable energy sources in total production of electricity (%)
Dolnośląskie 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.8 3.2 4.9 5.3
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 40.1 42.1 46.9 48.1 51.8 59.0 60.5
Lubelskie 0.4 0.9 1.2 2.0 0.9 0.8 0.9
Lubuskie 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.4 8.6 8.0
Łódzkie 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.5 1.8
Małopolskie 5.4 5.5 6.5 7.8 11.0 11.4 12.4
Mazowieckie 0.9 0.8 1.4 2.6 3.3 4.5 5.3
Opolskie 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.4
Podkarpackie 6.6 6.7 6.5 7.8 9.8 11.9 11.1
Podlaskie 1.3 1.6 1.8 11.8 42.0 37.5 48.8
Pomorskie 10.7 13.2 17.5 24.6 26.2 25.0 30.8
Śląskie 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.5 3.7 4.7 5.1
Świętokrzyskie 6.4 5.5 6.3 9.7 10.2 9.3 10.4
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 16.8 21.1 25.2 25.2 42.0 38.8 70.6
Wielkopolskie 0.7 1.0 2.3 3.8 4.5 7.3 7.8
Zachodniopomorskie 5.5 5.4 6.9 8.3 11.0 8.8 16.4
Share of legal protected area (%)
Dolnośląskie 18.13 18.14 18.09 18.03 18.17 18.54 18.60
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 32.36 32.36 32.36 31.99 31.27 31.78 31.78
Lubelskie 22.77 22.71 22.71 22.71 22.68 22.69 22.69
Lubuskie 39.28 39.16 39.16 38.81 38.86 38.88 38.92
Łódzkie 16.40 16.41 18.81 18.81 18.83 19.72 19.73
Małopolskie 58.88 52.05 52.05 52.06 52.06 52.05 52.06
Mazowieckie 29.63 29.63 29.63 29.64 29.67 29.68 29.68
Opolskie 27.14 27.14 27.18 27.21 27.31 27.23 27.23
Podkarpackie 47.72 44.50 44.50 44.51 44.53 44.70 44.70
Podlaskie 31.95 31.95 31.96 31.96 31.97 31.98 31.98
Pomorskie 32.59 32.48 32.55 32.62 32.67 32.66 32.67
Śląskie 22.00 22.00 22.09 22.11 22.12 22.15 22.15
Świętokrzyskie 61.95 62.62 63.03 63.94 64.55 64.54 64.53
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 46.25 46.27 46.29 46.31 46.47 46.59 46.72
Wielkopolskie 31.01 31.40 31.55 31.57 31.79 31.80 31.80
Zachodniopomorskie 20.80 21.34 21.51 21.48 21.06 21.07 21.07
Foundations, associations and social organisations per 10 thous. population
Dolnośląskie 21 23 24 26 27 28 30
Kujawsko-
Pomorskie 18 20 22 23 24 25 26
Lubelskie 22 23 25 26 27 28 29

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018

A. Raszkowski, B. Bartniczak 245 ISSN 1648-4460
Structural Transformations in Business Development

Lubuskie 21 23 24 25 26 28 29
Łódzkie 20 21 23 24 25 26 27
Małopolskie 21 22 24 25 26 27 28
Mazowieckie 26 27 29 30 32 33 35
Opolskie 19 21 22 24 25 27 28
Podkarpackie 20 23 24 26 27 28 29
Podlaskie 22 23 24 24 25 26 27
Pomorskie 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Śląskie 16 17 18 18 19 20 21
Świętokrzyskie 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Warmińsko-
Mazurskie 23 24 26 27 29 30 31
Wielkopolskie 22 24 25 26 27 28 30
Zachodniopomorskie 20 21 23 25 26 27 29
Source: authors’ compilation based on Central Statistical Office of Poland (2015), Sustainable Development
Indicators (SDI), Local Data Bank.

TRANSFORMATIONS IN BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, Vol. 17, No 2 (44), 2018