Discussion Papers 1993.
Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes 85-95. p.
AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
85
AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
IN RURAL COMMUNAL
CENTERS IN POLAND
KRZYSZTOF MIROS
INTRODUCTION
Infrastructure is a notion which has been defined in a variety of ways by different
authors. Very briefly, one can define infrastructure as a "set of fundamental facilities and
institutions which are necessary for the proper functioning of an economy and the organ-
ization of life of a population in a given territory".  1  In the framework of infrastructure,
one most often distinguishes  technical infrastructure,  related to the production of ma-
terial goods and to the provision of material services to a population and to an economy  2,
and social infrastructure, meant for satisfaction of broadly understood social needs con-
cerning: housing, education and upbringing, health and social care, culture, recreation,
tourism and sports.  3  One should also mention, as an additional element, facilities related
to the functioning of trade and services, which, by principle, are not contained in the no-
tion of "infrastructure", but in view of their importance in satisfying the needs of popula-
tion, are often analyzed along with proper infrastructure.  4
The degree of development of an infrastructural system influences, to a large extent,
the growth and functioning of the national economy. This concerns both technical infra-
structure which conditions  the functioning of all domains of the national economy (e.g.
power production and supply, or transport), and social infrastructure which, by directly
influencing the living conditions of a population constitutes, depending upon its develop-
ment status, a slowing down or stimulating factor for the development of a given area.
The degree of development of infrastructure in Poland is strongly differentiated in
space and in hierarchical scale (the latter especially concerns social infrastructure). There
exists a tier system of service levels, of which the lowest one is constituted by local cen-
6
ters  whose sites are as follows:
,
(1)
small towns which are seats of town and commune authorities and, in
addition to their own population, serve also the surrounding communes;
(2)
villages which are commune centers;
(3)
other small towns.
Villages which are commune centers and provide local level services should constitute
true service centers, focussing on the life of the inhabitants of the whole commune,

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
86
KRZYSZTOF MIROS
equipped with adequate sets of trade, social and everyday life services, of cultural and
recreational as well as administrative services. 7
The model of commune service 8 existing at present and quite commonly used in spa-
,
tial planning, distinguishes two grades of service according to the influence sphere of
particular facilities:
(a)
the grade encompassing objects and facilities of the so-called "close
reach" (distance of one to two km); depending upon local conditions,
the population numbers within the reach of this grade of service may
range from several hundred to one thousand people, and there may be
several villages hosting this type of service within a commune;
(b)
the grade encompassing objects and facilities meant for the whole com-
mune; they are as a rule concentrated in the commune center, but the
situation is quite often encountered that there are "auxiliary centers" in
a commune, i.e. villages equipped with facilities of significance beyond
the local one (grade a).
The present model, considering the existing differentiation of the settlement system
and the intermediate levels of service, tends towards the concentration and improvement
of its standard. In the planning practice of the post-war period, aiming constantly at the
development of the service function in rural areas, there were frequent changes in the
criteria of organization for the service system. In the years just after the war the main
criterion was locating the service as close as possible to the user and the creation of a
multi-level system. Then, in the period of dismemberment of the administrative break-
down of the countryside, service development started to be related to the centers of 'gro-
mada' (village district). At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, the rural
service model was enriched with the elements of agricultural services. In the same period,
the housing-and-service centers for employees of socialized agriculture started to be es-
tablished in the communes, although not always in connection either with the existing
settlement network or with the functioning centers. The administrative breakdown reform,
performed over the years 1973-1975 was, in particular, meant for enhancing the develop-
- ment of well equipped local centers. Due to this reform 2,365 communes were created to
replace the previously existing 4,135 village districts. (This number underwent a signifi-
cant decrease over the following years.)
All these varying tendencies and changes in the concept of the service system did, in a
way, contribute to a dispersal of investments and caused a slowdown in the development
of service centers. The functions of a commune center are often divided among two or
three centers of similar equipment and reach of service provided.
Facilities offered by a commune seat with regard to service do not depend solely upon
the local settlement network but also upon the dynamics and the tendencies of commune
development and upon its location. In the less developed communes, especially the ones
with a dispersed settlement system, it is quite common to observe the lack of certain fa-
cilities included in the commune service model, and sometimes even of those from lower
organization levels.

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
87
Attention should be turned to the fact that the commune service model includes ob-
jects and facilities of a threefold nature, when assessed from the point of view of financial-
organizational criteria used until now:
— those which have a clearly defined ("districted") reach belonging to
general and social service categories and are financed from the state
budget (schools, health care dispensaries, state administration, com-
munication, security service, culture);
those of market nature with various sources of financing, now mainly
in disposition of the co-operative sector but also private, both produc-
tive and service;
a group which is only starting to take shape: the group of communal
facilities, financed from various sources but depending mainly upon
the activity and organization level of local communities.
The development of these three groups of service is subject to various laws and, be-
cause of this, it displays large spatial differentiation on the national scale. Thus, for in-
stance, in the areas of suburban communes with intensive development of housing and
productive functions, one can notice a restricted growth of the services which are com-
monly used by the population of these communes in the town due to daily mass commut-
ing to work and to school, e.g. trade and culture, or service crafts. Hence, these factors
which are connected to the socio-economic development level, the organizational level of
the commune and its relations with the surrounding areas, also strongly influence the dif-
ferentiation in the facilities offered and their quality.
CHARACTERIZATION OF SOURCE MATERIALS AND RESEARCH
ASSUMPTIONS
The main source of information used in the present report, concerning availability of
infrastructure in commune seats, is the study carried out by the Census Bureau of the Main
Statistical Office (GUS) in 1988. This study encompasses a broad scope of problems but
information referring to facilities is usually limited to a statement of existence of a given
kind of service, without a specification of magnitude and the standard of a given facility.
This sets a constraint upon the range of analyses that could be performed with regard to
availability of selected social, life (education, health care) and agricultural services in
commune seats.
The set of commune seats encompassed by the more detailed study has all the features
of representativeness, for it includes altogether 160 villages of various population size
classes, scattered throughout the country. Analysis was performed for all the community
seats of less than 300 inhabitants (37 altogether) and for some 10% of localities—com-
mune seats—from all the other size classes, including 31 small (with populations of 301-
500), 34 medium (501-750 inhabitants), 27 big (751-1,500 inhabitants) and 31 very big

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
89
with mineral fertilizers and protein fodders as well as agricultural equipment bases for
farmer's circles and dispensaries for animals. (Table 1) The latter displayed an especially
high degree of concentration in commune centers (56.2%). Especially rare were three
kinds of service facilities related to agricultural machines, that is: State Machinery Cen-
ters (5.6% of the cases), stores with agricultural machines and tools (16.2%), and work-
shops for agricultural machine repairs (25.0%). Because of the very low indicator oc-
curence of these three kinds of agricultural service facilities, further statistical analysis
was concentrated on the other eleven types.
Table 1
Frequency of appearance of agricultural service outlets in communes and commune
centers
Commune
Communes
Commune
Communes *
Agricultural service outlets
centers
centers
without service outlets, %
with service outlets, %
agricultural circle
39.4
8.1
60.6
16.9
equipment bases
State Machinery Centers
94.4
88.8
5.6
5.0
artificial insemination points
51.9
3.1
48.1
5.6
dispensaries and clinics for
36.9
16.9
63.1
56.2
animals
agricultural product buying points for:
animals
30.6
3.8
69.4
45.0
cereals
28.8
3.8
71.2
46.9
potatoes
45.0
20.0
55.0
36.2
milk
29.4
1.9
70.6
11.2
storage and sales facilities for.
mineral fertilizers
26.2
0.6
73.8
35.0
protein fodders
26.9
2.5
73.1
46.9
agricultural machines
83.8
76.9
16.2
14.4
and tools
pesticides and
46.9
22.5
53.1
43.1
herbicides
service craft workshops:
blacksmiths and
48.1
13.1
51.9
42.5
ironworks
agricultural machine
75.0
41.2
25.0
15.0
repair centers
* with service outlets appearing solely in common centers

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
91
AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION AND
UPBRINGING FACILITIES
Analysis of situation in this domain was performed by considering the number of kin-
dergarten places and the number of primary school pupils in the commune center, in rela-
tion to the respective numbers for the whole commune and to the number of inhabitants of
the commune and of its center. Values of coefficients calculated thus are obviously de-
pendent upon the size of the commune center as reflected by the number of inhabitants.
That is why these values, like in the previous case of agricultural services, were grouped
according to the size classes of the commune centers.
The degree of availability of kindergarten places in commune centers is strongly
correlated with their size. The degree of concentration (the ratio of the number of kinder-
garten places of the commune center to those in the whole commune) increases together
with the size of the center and attains its maximum, similarly to the case of agricultural
services, for the size class of 751-1,500 inhabitants.  (Table 3)  It can be concluded from
the analysis of this last table that the smallest centers (below 300 inhabitants) are, for the
most part, deprived of kindergartens: more than one fourth of these communes do not
haVe a kindergarten in its territory at all.
Table 3
Degree of concentration of kindergarten places according to the size classes of
commune centers
Commu-
Commu-
ne
Commune centers with
Population size
nes
centers
classes
without kindergarten,
0.1-40.0  40.1-60.0  60.1-99.9
100.0
%
concentration degree, %
below 300
67.6
32.4
10.8
5.4
-
16.2
301-500
58.1
25.8
22.6
3.2
3.2
12.9
501-750
38.2
20.6
32.4
8.8
2.9
17.6
751-1500
14.8
-
25.9
18.5
14.8
25.9
above 1,500
9.7
3.2
41.9
9.7
16.1
22.6
Total
39.4
17.5
26.2
8.8
6.9
18.8
Analogous calculations as for kindergartens were also carried out for the pupils of
primary schools located in commune centers. The concentration coefficient, given by the
ratio of the number of pupils attending the primary school in the commune center to those
in the whole commune, attained its maximum in the size class of commune centers with
more than 1,500 inhabitants  (Table 4).  In the smallest size class (below 300 inhabitants)
attention should be paid to the very high value of the indicator of the lack of primary

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
92
KRZYSZTOF MIROS
schools (35.1%), along with a low concentration degree of existing schools. The low de-
gree of concentration is characteristic, just as it was in the case of kindergartens, for the
size class of centers with 501-750 inhabitants.
Table 4
Degree of concentration of pupils in primary schools according to the size classes of
commune centers
Commune
Commune centers with
Population size
centers without
0.1-40.0
40.1-60.0
60.1-99.9
classes
primary school,
%
concentration degree, %
below 300
35.1
43.2
16.2
5.4
301-500
9.7
45.2
32.3
12.9
501-750
-
67.6
20.6
11.8
751-1,500
-
51.9
33.3
14.8
above 1,500
-
38.7
35.5
25.8
Total
10.0
49.4
26.9
13.8
Table 5
Number of primary scool pupils per classroom in commune centers (%)
Commune
Commune centers with
centers
i out
Population size
less than
20.1-
25.1-
30.1-
35.1-
more
without
20.1
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
than 40.0
primary
school, %
pupils per classroom, %
below 300
35.1
16.2
5.4
5.4
2.7
-
35.1
301-500
35.5
19.4
16.1
6.5
9.7
3.2
9.7
501-750
26.5
41.2
20.6
8.8
-
2.9
-
751-1,500
11.1
25.9
29.6
22.2
7.4
3.7
-
above 1,500
12.9
12.9
29.0
12.9
9.7
22.6
-
Total
25.0
23.1
19.4
10.6
5.6
6.2
10.0
Interesting observations are provided by the analysis of Table 5 containing data on the
number of primary school pupils per classroom in communal centers, according to the
population size classes. This degree of "crowding" in primary schools located in corn-
mune centers displays enormous differentiation (from 6.5 to 40), especially when corn-

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
93
pared to the "crowding" in the primary schools of the whole commune. The lowest values
of this indicator appear for the centers with the smallest population number, while the
highest—for the biggest centers. Such a distribution of indicators is an evidence of the
inadequacy of school dimensions to actual needs. The smallest centers, located often in
depopulating areas, have similar schooling facilities in their capacity to those existing in
localities of much greater population potential and demographic activity. An instance for
the latter side of this discrepancy is provided by the commune centers of Halin6w and
Jaktor6w, villages located within the confines of the Warsaw agglomeration, where popu-
lation numbers grow from year to year but the development of infrastructure, especially of
the social one, does not catch up with it.
Phenomena similar to those observed for education are also characteristic of health
care. Communes whose seats are located in small centers feature monocentric distribution
of health care dispensaries. As a rule, they were found in just one village of the commune,
though quite frequently outside the commune center. (Table 6) Unlike this latter group in
commune centers of 501-750 inhabitants distribution is, as a rule, at least bi-centric.
Table 6
Degree of concentration of medical consulting rooms according to the size classes of
commune centers
Commune
Commune centers with
Population size
centers without
0.1-50.0
50.1-99.9
100.0
classes
health care dis-
pensary, %
concentration degree, %
below 300
32.4
8.1
18.9
40.5
301-500
22.6
22.6
3.2
51.6
501-750
5.9
41.2
23.5
29.4
751-1,500
3.7
29.6
25.9
40.7
above 1,500
—
22.6
29.0
48.4
Total
13.8
24.4
20.0
41.9
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The analysis performed concerned first of all the position and actual service availa-
bility in commune centers. It also encompassed the infrastructural outfit of the communes
to a significant degree. The main conclusion from this phase of analysis is the statement
that in spite of certain infrastructural investments made in the communal centers over the
last years, the level attained is still often not satisfactory, as confirmed by the facility
standards, especially with regard to certain types of objects.

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
94
KRZYSZTOF MIROS
This would mean that in spite of the long time elapsed since the reform of the admin-
istrative division and in spite of the declarative strengthening of the functions of commune
centers, the previously existing policentric service provision system persists, in reality
hindering the development of communal centers. It is perhaps worth emphasizing here
that breakdown of functions of a higher level among several centers usually lowers the
standards of service, which is not entirely compensated by closer location.
In the spatial setting, the best availability of service in communes and in the majority
of commune localities appears in the areas taken over by Poland in 1945 (the Northern
and Southern parts of the country). The central part of the country receives negative dis-
tinction, where the concentration of service in commune centers is low and there are, in
general, less and worse facilities. It is in this area that the multicenter system mentioned
above prevails, entailing the dispersal of facilities and weakly shaped functions integrat-
ing and activating the communal centers. Such a situation may result from the specifics of
the settlement system which has a great number of small villages of low activity and poor
facilities. This spatial situation and the poor state of development is compounded by dis-
advantageous socio-demographic phenomena: high migration to towns and mass job
commuting, weakening local activity.
As opposed to the background of the central part of the country, the image of develop-
ment of commune centers located in the Eastern part presents itself quite advantageously,
for there only the smallest localities, having a very weak infrastructure, have not attained
an adequate level. The better development of the commune centers in the Eastern part of
the country is presumably due to a sparse network of towns and a worse transport system,
which was a stimulus for infrastructural development in rural commune centers. It would
mean that the Eastern areas of the country, where depopulation processes have been tak-
ing place for years, from this point of view are more active than the central part.
The development of commune seats in Southern Poland is also quite specific. Com-
mune seats, for the most part, are located there in large villages of even several thousand
inhabitants. Though their infrastructural outfit level is very differentiated, in that respect
the position of commune centers is often relatively low. This results presumably mainly
from the nature of the settlement system: it is characterized by a dominating share of large
villages, each one having certain elements of service infrastructure, frequently of high
degree of specialization. It is also, to some extent, the result of the high importance of
tourism and housing functions in this area, reflected in a more uniform development of
several localities in a commune. In such a case, the concentration of service in the com-
mune center is difficult and probably purposeless. This type of communes certainly re-
quires more profound studies.
Within the spatial setting, communes located in the vicinity of large towns can also be
distinguished. This group of communes features decidedly the poorest service availability,
which would mean that a location close to town and, probably, strong links with it, limits
the development of the commune center. A large proportion of service-related population
needs is satisfied in the neighbouring town due to job and school commuting, and since
this town becomes the focus of attention, the local activity is much lower.
The analysis of the infrastructural and service outfit of commune centers shows, espe-
cially for Central Poland, significant divergences from the general model presented at the

Krzysztof Miros : Availability of Infrastructure in Rural Communal Centers in Poland.
In: Spatial Research and the Social-Political Changes. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
1993. 85-95. p. Discussion Papers. Special
AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE
95
outset. In spite of the inadequate development dynamics and the disadvantageous condi-
tions for investment at present, such a model clearly emerges although, perhaps, over a
longer time horizon. It is necessary to improve the service standard and to bridge the
existing gaps, and the best way towards the attainment of this goal is the development of
communal centers with better civilizational conditions of functioning.
Such a development model would be appropriate both for the areas which are demo-
graphically active but feature high dispersal of service and lower quality and for the de-
populating areas with low levels of general activity. It seems also possible to perform
changes in the ranks of centers in the communes, having in mind to link the commune seat
with the locality displaying clear development dynamics. The analysis conducted distinct-
ly indicates that small localities, deprived of proper infrastructural outfit, are not capable
of playing the role of a commune center and that then such a role is often played by other
localities, instead.
NOTES
GINSBERT-GEBERT, A. 1988: Infrastruktura komunalna, jej stan i tendencje zmian w Polsce w latach 1950-
2000 (Communal infrastructure, its state and change tendencies in Poland in the years 1950-2000) — In: Infra-
struktura komunalna spoteczna w Polsce w latach 1950-2000. Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 140 — PWN, Warszawa
— pp•7-81.
2  KARST, Z. 1986: Techniczno-ekonomiczna infrastruktura gospodarki narodowej (Technico-economic infra-
structure of national ecomony) — PWN, Warszawa
3  CIECHOCII<ISKA, M. 1982: Infrastruktura spoleczna a organizacja terytotialna kraju (Social infrastructure
and spatial organization of the country) — In: Gospodarka przestnenna Polsld i organizacja tetytotialna kraju
— Eds. laroszynski, A. and Komorowski, S. M. — Warszawa — pp.156-180.
4  MIROS, K. 1989: Availability of technical and social i nfrastructure in villages-commune centers in Poland —
(Unpublished MS)
5  SASINOWSKI, H. 1988: Infrastruktura spoleczna jako potencjalny stymulator aktywizacji wsi (Social infra-
structure as a potential stimulator of rural activization) — Doctor of  science  dissertation — OBN, Bialystok
6  CIECHOCIN-SKA, M. 1981: Infrastruktura spoleczna (Social infrastructure) —
Koncepcje studi6w diag-
noctycznych nad gospodarka przestrzenna Polski — Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 116 — PWN, Warszawa —
pp.50-68.
7  WIECZORKIEWICZ, A. 1983: Centrwn uslugowe arodka gminnego (Service center of a commune seat)
— Arkady, Warszawa
8  KACHNIARZ, T. 1979: Model i zasady przestriennego zagospodarowania otrodk6w gminnych (Model and
principles  for spatial organization of commune centers) — IKg, Warszawa