Suchergebnisse

The paper deals with the complex issue of (ethno)regional parties conceptualisation. Notions and schematics elaborated and promoted by Lieven de Winter, Klaus von Beyme, Donald L. Horowitz, Francisco Letamendía, Huri Türsan, Ferdinand Müller–Rommel Derek Urwin, John T. Ishiyama etc. are briefly discussed. Ethno–regional parties can be conceived of as political parties whose electoral and legitimation potential is primarily based on identitary mobilisation of an ethno–territorial community of sub–national (sub–state) nature. However, ethnic and territorial aspects may assume different relevance within the different approaches to the study of ethno–regional parties. It should be emphasized, that regional parties are not necessarily ethnic parties – and vice versa. Regional parties could be defined as formations with region–based electorate and mobilisation resources, or as formations representing sub–national (regional) interest communities exercising party functions to the full extent in a regionally defined operating space. Ethno–regional (ethno–regionalist) parties may thus be defined as a sort of regional (regionalist) parties. Finally, some issues of classification and typology of regional party arrangements are assessed. A lot of work is still to be done in this field. More attention should be paid to the heterogeneous nature of compounded territorial–political arrangements, which allows for the coexistence of different types of actors – political parties on the national (nation–wide) and regional level, as well as for simultaneous existence of diverse party and political scenes. To make a comprehensive typology of regional party (sub)systems is not an easy task at all. This is due to the persisting lack of suitable conceptual frameworks and to the fact that an effective reconciliation of the approach to nation–forming identitary and regionalist mobilisations used by regional parties with the traditional platform applied in research into European party systems has proved very difficult. ; The paper deals ...

The paper comments on issues of conceptualisation and typology of regional parties in Europe. Regional parties could be defined briefly as independent formations with regional identity, region–based legitimacy and region–based electoral resources. The territorial aspect of their identity and of their modus operandi is the crucial one in this respect. It should be reminded that a number of heterogeneous party phenomena could be subsumed under the label of regional parties. The existence of a genuine regional party family, which could be, eventually, included into the classic familles spirituelles scheme, is not obvious. It seems that recent attempts to conceptualise the regional (and/or ethno–regional) party family have only small chance to success. Moreover, it should not be taken for granted that invention of such party family would enhance the capacity for comparative research into the European regional party phenomena. It could be a counter–productive move. There is an implicit danger to be avoided: that of conceiving of the differences between regional parties and non–regional parties as the differences between party families. However, these differences are not of the same kind. The paper proposes to distinguish several types of regional parties according to their origins (genuine regional autonomist parties, regionalized branches of state–wide parties etc.) which could allow for a sophisticated explanation of their heterogeneity and of various combinations of the systemic properties of regional parties. It is also suitable to pay more attention to the differing opportunity structures and to the compounded nature of territorial–political operational space of regional parties. ; The paper comments on issues of conceptualisation and typology of regional parties in Europe. Regional parties could be defined briefly as independent formations with regional identity, region–based legitimacy and region–based electoral resources. The territorial aspect of their identity and of their modus operandi is the crucial one ...

The article focuses on representatives of the regional (and most recently established) level of government in the Czech Republic. It describes the context behind the emergence of regional governments & how they differ from the local & national political levels. It notes the close personnel connection between local & regional political elites. Experience gained in local politics helps elites to succeed at the regional level. The presence of local politicians in regional government varies with the level of residential fragmentation & the degree of urbanization in the given region. Unlike local politics, which is consistently comprised of a significant proportion of independents, regional representatives are almost exclusively members of political parties & movements. This situation on the one hand serves to increase the politicization of local politics & on the other leads to greater competition within political parties, whose programs & national leadership regional politicians wish to influence.

The article aims to identify the development phases in the process of the regional differentiation in the Czech Republic after 1989, & examines whether this differentiation trend is currently changing. The assumption the article's hypothesis is based on is that during recent development the basic 'parameters' of the principal features of the country's regional structure have been stabilized amidst the conditions of parliamentary democracy & a market economy. Unlike the first phases of socio- economic transition, when differentiating trends prevailed, a certain degree of stabilization can now be assumed, alongside the emergence of new trends. The development of regional differences was analyzed using indicators of GDP, the unemployment rate, entrepreneurial activity, & tax revenue from self- employed physical persons. The findings show that over the course of the 1990s regional differences intensified at both the mezo- regional (regional) level & the micro- regional level. It was also confirmed that at the turn of the millennium the phase of divergent regional development ended, & since that time regional differences have hovered around the same level.

Kvalitu veřejné správy lze definovat jako stupeň splnění požadavků občanů na kvalitu života v jejich komunitě, regionu či národa. Pokud se podíváme na vývoj ukazatelů kvality správy, vidíme značné rozdíly nejen mezi jednotlivými zeměmi, ale také uvnitř těchto zemí. Navzdory těmto zjištěním, je tato oblast stále velmi málo prozkoumána. Současné průzkumy jsou založeny na předpokladu, že rozdíly na národní úrovni jsou významnější než rozdíly regionální a že rozdíl v kvalitě správy v evropských zemích jsou velmi malé. Tento dokument analyzuje pravděpodobně jediný přístup k posuzování kvality veřejné správy na regionální úrovni. Analýzou indikátoru The European Quality of Governance Index byly zjištěny významné rozdíly v regionální kvalitě veřejné správy. U některých zemích je hodnocení kvality správy na národní úrovni velmi zavádějící, jelikož jeho sub-národní posouzení se může v některých regionech výrazně liší. ; Quality of governance could be defined as the degree of fulfillment of the requirements of citizens for the quality of life in their community, region or nation. If we have a look at the development of any indicators of quality of governance, we can see significant differences not only between countries, but also within these countries. In spite of these findings, this field is still very little explored. Current surveys are based on assumptions that differences at the national level are more significant than the regional differences and that difference in the quality of governance across the European countries are very small. This paper analyzes probably the only approach for assessing the quality of governance on the regional level. Using European Quality of Governance Index were revealed significant differences in the regional quality of governance in some European countries. For some states the evaluation of national-level quality of governance is very misleading, as its sub-national assessment may differ considerably in some regions. National variability data may exhibit even a higher degree than the variability international in some cases.

The social transformation in post- totalitarian countries is characterized by extraordinarily dynamic differentiation tendencies. With respect to social groups & territorial communities, these tendencies differ or are even contradictory, resulting in an internal social & territorial polarization in the national systems concerned. These polarization processes are, on the one hand, a reaction to the equalizing tendencies in communist countries, and, on the other hand, are the result of the need for qualitative changes to social structures. One such structure is the regional organization of society, which owing to the heterogeneous nature of the conditions it exists in has very specific features. Essentially it is the environmental organization of society, where the effects of social & natural factors are combined. Consequently, there is typically a higher level of territorial inequality in the distribution of economic activities than in social distribution, and, by contrast, less variability of geographical differentiation than social differentiation. These features are demonstrated in an empirical analysis of the current development in the Czech Republic, wherein a distinction is made between two ways of assessing regional distribution. First, there is the assessment of differentiation of the territorial intensity of economic activities (economic aggregate/km2). Second, there is the assessment of relative economic & social development (economic aggregate/inhabitant). Despite the differences in the level & variability of the two types of regional differentiation, there are similar trends in their development, heading towards greater inequalities.

The article presents an analysis of the performance of regional governments -- the institutions representing the self- governing regions in the Czech Republic. The authors try to answer the question of whether regional governments function similarly or whether they vary in terms of performance, & if they do vary, how structured & how large are these differences. After a review of the position occupied by the regions in the Czech public administration system, & after assessing the ways in which regional government performance can be understood & measured & the accessibility of necessary data, indicators are proposed & used to create an aggregate index of regional government performance. An analysis based on these indicators shows that there are considerable differences between regional governments in terms of the structure & the level of their performance. Based on the performance index it was possible to distinguish regions with above- average, average, & below- average regional government performance. The territorial distribution of these groups & some other factors confirm the validity of these measurements.