Decentralization and Transition in the Visegrad. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia by Emil J. s> Kirchner (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 78I Kirchner, Emil J. (ed.). Decentralization and Transition in the Visegrad. Poland, Hungagy, theCzechRepublic andSlovakia. Macmillan, Basingstoke, and St Martin's Press, New York, I 999. XViii + 237 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. ?47.50. LOCAL governmentreformin CentralEuropewas one ofthe earliestinitiatives in the process of institutional change characteristic of post-communist democratization.Decentralization was an importantelement of the platforms of Solidarityin Poland and Civic Forum/Public againstViolence in Czechoslovakia , not least to counter the oppressive, unresponsive bureaucratic centralismof the old regime. At the same time, completing the reformprocess proved difficultand halting, with both structuresand proceduresemerging as areas of technical and political controversythroughout the course of the first decade of transformation. Despite the book's title, the examination of this disjuncture provides the stuff of four solid empirical chapters by local specialistson the Visegrad Four, about half the book. In general the regional similarities are more striking than the differences, though the precise time periods underdiscussionare not alwaysclear, nor are they uniform. In I990 all three Visegrad governments enacted legislation to break the links between local government and the state administration by restoring genuine autonomy to communes (Poland) and municipalities (the Czech Republic, Slovakia,and Hungary),alongwith some reinstatementofproperty. The opportunities and obstacles for local democracy are effectively charted here, and three areas will serve to illustratesome of the common difficulties. First,there was a range of size, expertise and resourcesacrossthe local units, raisingseriousproblems of inequality.At the same time there was a growthin particularism, with few developed mechanisms for horizontal coordination and cooperation. In Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakiathere was a tendency for still furtherfragmentation into smaller units, though territorial settlementwas alreadyfragmentaryand dispersed. Secondly, the Centre gladly transferredextensive responsibilities to this lowest tier of government, but failed to secure the funds to ensure that they could fulfil them. This was especially acute in Slovakia from I994-98 when all spheres of social life based upon the principle of self-government came under attack'(Flatanand Krivy,p. Io8). Thirdly, decentralizationwas limited by the failureto addressintermediate levelsof government,the natureand cope ofwhich remainedhighlycontested. The Centre was anxious to retain control by direct as well as by financial means, despite the rhetoric of local democracy. In Poland and the Czech Republic this issue was still unresolved at the time the chapterswere written. In Poland resistance by the Polish Peasant Party, in coalition with the social democrats from 1993-97, meant that only a change of government could achieve the controversial restructuringof the provinces (wojewodztwa) from forty-nine to sixteen and the (re-)introductionof the county in I999. In the Czech Republic the provinceswere strippedof theirpolitical and administrative functions in I990, leaving seventy-eightdistrictsoperating as 'uncomfortably strongarmsof the centralgovernment and vehicles of centralism'(Illner, p. 9I). Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus was no friend of decentralization (nor 782 SEER, 79, 4, 2001 indeed of civil society), seeing it as a potential threat to a unified economic reform process. It was not until late I997 that the territorialdivision of the country into fourteen (small)provinces was resolved, but with their functions and finance still undefined. In both Hungary and the Czech Republic a 'politicalvacuum' emerged because of the weaknessof the intermediatelevel. In Slovakia the 1996 restructuringof the country's regions and districtswas certainly not final either: it was not only politically controversial but representeda clear attemptboth at partisangerrymanderingand to dilute the strengthof the Hungarian minority. Aside from the core studies a number of chapters cast differentangles on questions of decentralization. Issues of inequality surface in Andrzej Kowalczyk 's discussion of the development of Polish-German Euroregions, which notes the problems arising from economic differences between Poland and Germany. Successful cooperation can bring enormous benefits, as with the cooperation between Frankfurt-on-Oderand Stubice within the ProEuropa Viadrina Euroregion. Stubice became one of the wealthiest towns in Poland, thus magnifyinginternalinequalitieson the Polishside, while also castinginto starkreliefthe lack of comparablemotors of development on Poland'seastern borders. In other respects, however, this is a disparatecollection. It seems unlikely thatreaderswould expect to locate studiesof EU-Polish trade(Zielinska-Glebocka ) or European security and Polish debt finance (Sperling)in a study of decentralization;and these two sit especiallyuneasilyin thisvolume. They do not support or indeed refer to the questionable thesis...