W pracy podjęto rozważania dotyczące zmian w rozmieszczeniu przestrzennym i udziału dużych wsi w sieci osadniczej Polski od końca XIX w. do lat 20. XXI w. W analizie uwzględniono siedem momentów czasowych, w których odbywały się spisy ludności i dla których dostępne są dane na poziomie miejscowości, tj. lata około 1900, 1921/1925, 1970, 1988, 2002, 2011, 2021. Przedmiotem pracy są duże wsie, które w roku spisowym charakteryzowały się liczbą ludności równą lub wyższą 2000 osób. Procedura badawcza obejmuje analizę zmian rozkładu przestrzennego dużych wsi w układzie obecnych województw oraz analizę zmiany liczby i udziału liczby ludności mieszkającej w dużych wsiach względem ludności miejskiej i ludności ogółem. Uzyskane wyniki wskazują na przyrost liczby dużych wsi od końca XIX w. do początku XXI w. z około 420 do nieco ponad 900 oraz liczby ludności w nich mieszkających z nieco ponad 1,5 mln do blisko 3 mln osób. W rozkładzie przestrzennym wyraźna koncentracja tego typu jednostek osadniczych występowała i występuje w południowej Polsce (województwa śląskie, małopolskie, podkarpackie), a największy przyrost liczby dużych wsi i ich mieszkańców zaobserwowano w regionach z największymi aglomeracjami miejskimi (mazowieckie, wielkopolskie, pomorskie).

Celem artykułu jest analiza zmian poziomu nierówności dochodów osobistych ludności w Polsce, w układach między- i wewnątrzregionalnych w latach 2004– 2021, m.in. w świetle miar nierówności bazujących na statystyce entropii i indeksie Giniego. W pracy podjęto próbę odpowiedzi na następujące pytania badawcze: jak zmieniał się poziom nierówności wewnątrz- i międzyregionalnych w Polsce w latach 2004–2021 w świetle wartości wskaźnika dochodów osobistych ludności, w jakim stopniu nierówności na poziomie lokalnym wpływają na ogólny poziom nierówności dochodowych w Polsce oraz jakie prawidłowości występują w zakresie zmienności rozkładu przestrzennego nierówności dochodowych w Polsce. W toku postępowania badawczego wykazano, że w badanym okresie poziom nierówności dochodowych w Polsce uległ zmniejszeniu. Nierówności wewnątrzregionalne w większym stopniu kształtują poziom nierówności niż nierówności międzyregionalne. Wśród województw o najwyższym poziomie nierówności są mazowieckie i małopolskie, a o najniższym – opolskie i zachodniopomorskie. W większości województw znacznie szybsze tempo wzrostu dochodów osobistych ludności obserwowano w gminach o relatywnie najniższych dochodach.

Commonly used in human geography, quality of life (QOL) refers to the way and degree to which objective human needs are met, not only existential ones, but also those regarding the development of the human personality. This article diagnoses QOL understood in this way in Poland and its changes between 2004 and 2018 (i.e. during modernization), which saw the continuation of systemic transformation after joining the EU. To fully identify the regularity of spatial differences in the analysed phenomenon, 380 local units are used as reference points. First, we formulated an operational definition of multifaceted QOL with its separate dimensions, as well as selecting and constructing organized indicators that can be determined at the local level. Then we quantified local differences in the rate of growth and the level of QOL using multivariate analysis. Third, on the basis of the obtained results, we sought to reach the most significant conclusions: (1) the dynamic economic growth, enjoyed in Poland in 2004–2018, did not change significantly the spatial diversity of the quality of life on a local level. (2) To a large extent, the persistent differences in the quality of life in Poland are related to the historical spatial differences in the level of urbanisation and the well-established, traditional economic structure of the specific territorial units. (3) A higher degree of urbanisation coupled with the service- and service and industry-related functional nature of the local units in Poland are conducive to a better quality of life. This confirms the regularities observed in the countries on the verge of a rapid economic development.

This article attempts to identify the relationship between the persistent polarisation of political opinions and diverse levels of social and economic development. The coexistence of these phenomena may indicate a barrier to inclusive economic development, which connects with the United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development. A research aim was to test two hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 (H1)-The increase in the spatial disparity of political support in Poland is persistent; and Hypothesis 2 (H2)-The spatial distribution of support for specific political options shows significant correlations with the distribution of social and economic growth. The study involves the following research methods implementation: desk research, intensity indicators and regression analysis. The results confirmed the persistence of spatial divisions in political support, whose distribution reflects to a large extent the diverse levels of social and economic development that exist. Two axes dividing Poland are identified, one between west and east and the other between urban and rural areas. The article connects with the international debate regarding "places that don't matter" and the reasons behind the growing popularity of populist ideas in society.

The analysis aims to identify spatial variations of socio-economic development in Poland at the local level and to determine their correlation with conditions resulting from the historical political divisions of today’s areas of the country. The research procedure helps to verify the hypothesis that spatial differentiation of socio-economic development in Poland is permanent and does not show significant changes during periods of economic growth and crisis. We can emphasize at the same time the persisting differences between cities and their functional areas on the one hand and rural areas on the other. The study applied an innovative procedure of determining the synthetic index. The procedure of classifying local units presented in the text was based on the original random forest method. The outcomes confirm that contemporary spatial diversification at the level of socio-economic development in Poland is still strongly conditioned by history, especially by the socio-economic consequences of the partition of Poland between the three superpowers (Russia, Prussia and Austria). This is evident in the synthetic presentation of the level of socio-economic development. However, in the case of certain socio-economic phenomena, the values of indicators describing them no longer directly relate in their diversity to historical borders, particularly the former partition borders.

This chapter points out the need to rethink the manner and scope of defining and using regional development factors in the interpretation of socioeconomic development processes and in the programming and implementation of intervention meant to limit the spatial diversity of this process. The starting point of our considerations is the systemic characterization of regularities resulting from the theoretical assumptions of the space-based approach and the elements of the triad composed of territorial capital—development diffusion—institutional conditions. We deem the applications of those regularities indispensable for the effective and efficient implementation of cohesion policy measures ensuring sustainable development and fostering its convergence. On this basis, we present an original approach to the definition and operational concretization of regional development factors, taking into account their relations with previously structured regularities and with the elements of the triad that underpin our understanding of effective development intervention in the place-based policy. Taking into account both the conditions and the assumptions, we draw attention to the unique manner and scope of intervention that should be undertaken to reach the convergence of growth and to build a sustainable basis for the development of each territory. The chapter concludes with a proposal to organize the findings in the form of a conceptual model, which we treat as our recommendation to modify the existing concept of a place-based approach, one on which we build further research and explanation in this book.

The last chapter of the book is a summary of the most important results on the basis of which we attempt to formulate operational recommendations for practical cohesion policy measures in subsequent programming and implementation periods. In the first part of the book, we present the results of our research procedure, which we arrange in the order of the research hypotheses formulated in the first chapter, paying attention to the outcomes and the justification for their verification. Then we relate our findings to the assumptions of the 2020+ cohesion policy; through them, we identify the degree of compliance and discrepancy of our results with the priorities of the future perspective of the European Union’s cohesion policy drafted for the period 2021–2027. In the next step, we formulate operational recommendations. Their implementation in the practice of cohesion policy should, in our opinion, increase its effectiveness and efficiency, contributing to improving the degree of sustainability of the products, outcomes, and impacts obtained from its intervention. Finally, due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which in the late 2019 and early 2020 completely changed the conditions in which the countries and regions of Europe and the world operate, we present our opinions and forecasts. They concern the direction and scope of redesigning the existing priorities of cohesion policy interventions, which will certainly have to take into account the economic and social consequences of the prolonged economic lockdown and the introduced restrictions on the freedom to create and maintain social relations.

In this chapter, we conduct an analysis of the differences in the level and dynamics of socioeconomic development of EU countries and regions to identify their main causes related to the impact of development factors. The starting point is the presentation of the methodological basis, i.e., discussion of the algorithm of the research procedure aimed at achieving the assumed goal, together with a general description of the mathematical and statistical methods used in this procedure. The successive parts of the paper offer: (1) analysis of the level and dynamics of socioeconomic development, culminating in a classification of countries and regions under both approaches, (2) analysis of development trajectories in the context of the level and dynamics of development and changes in the national per capita income, including analysis of changes in development and income disparities, and (3) identification and analysis of factors of socioeconomic development. Our considerations provide empirical verification of the findings and assumptions made in Chaps. 3 and 4 regarding the redefinition of development factors and contribute to the reflection on the effectiveness of development intervention in a place-based approach.

In this chapter, on the grounds of the findings concerning the spatial conditions of spontaneous socioeconomic development, we present its contemporary theoretical basics, which determine the definition and systematization of the factors shaping this process at the regional and subregional level. We draw attention to the direction and nature of the dynamics of these factors, in which a significant role is played by main contemporary megatrends of socioeconomic development, such as transformation, integration, globalization, and postmodernization. On the other hand, we highlight the component of controlled development manifested in the assumptions and actions of the contemporary regional development policy. As regards this issue, we recall the genesis and transformations of European development policy, emphasizing particularly the dilemmas related to its paradigm and the challenges of its operationalization. We devote a special space in these reflections to the place-based policy approach, in which we see opportunities to improve the effectiveness of intervention activities undertaken within the development policy. Based on the assumptions of this approach, in the Chap. 4 of this book, we present our proposal for specifying it in more detail, which is necessary in our opinion, for proper identification, creation, and strengthening of regional development factors ensuring significant and sustainable economic development.

This chapter presents the specific nature of the socioeconomic changes taking place in the twentieth century after World War II in the countries of Western Europe as well as Central and Eastern Europe. In the next stage, it is a starting point for us to analyze the impact of contemporary changes, called megatrends to use a term coined by John Naisbitt (Megatrends. Ten new directions transforming our lives. Warner Books/Warner Communications Company, New York, 1982), on the socioeconomic development of European countries and their regions. The analysis of the main megatrends determining the direction and pace of socioeconomic development processes includes the processes of (1) transformation, (2) economic integration, (3) globalization, and (4) postmodernization. Our concise characterization of the distinguished contemporary megatrends includes their definition, origin, and systematization of the influence of megatrends on development. The proposed systematization takes into account the effects of megatrends in two basic aspects: socioeconomic and sociopolitical. We assume that the state of megatrends and their interpenetration, which determine the transformations of development factors, lead to spatial diversification of social and economic development processes in the Western European and Central and Eastern European countries, with particular emphasis on Poland.

Celem pracy jest identyfikacja geograficznego wymiaru (nie)sprawiedliwości społecznej w kontekście istniejących, trwałych zróżnicowań poziomu rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego w Polsce w ujęciu geograficzno-historycznym i ich konsekwencji dla polityki rozwoju na poziomie regionalnym i lokalnym. Praca składa się z dwóch zasadniczych części. W części pierwszej prowadzi się syntetyczne rozważania nad geograficznym wymiarem sprawiedliwości społecznej. W części drugiej podjęto próbę egzemplifikacji geograficznego wymiaru (nie)sprawiedliwości społecznej poprzez analizę rozkładu przestrzennego poziomu rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego (wskaźnik syntetyczny) i wybranych wskaźników cząstkowych. Dodatkowo dokonano weryfikacji występowania zależności pomiędzy poziomem rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego a poziomem poparcia politycznego dla frakcji politycznych głoszących hasła „sprawiedliwości społecznej”. Wyniki przeprowadzonych badań potwierdzają występowanie w polskiej przestrzeni dużych zróżnicowań rozwojowych. Ich trwałość determinowana jest historycznie i pomimo upływu czasu ich układ niezmiennie odpowiada przebiegowi granic reliktowych z okresu zaborów. Brak z jednej strony minimalizacji tych różnic, a z drugiej strony utrzymujący się ograniczony wpływ wzrostu gospodarczego na wzrost dochodów, zwłaszcza w obszarach słabszych ekonomicznie, powodują pogłębiające się niezadowolenie społeczne. Prowadzi to w rezultacie do wniosku, że przedmiotowe zróżnicowania stanowią w Polsce geograficzny wymiar (nie)sprawiedliwości społecznej.

Abstract This work presents the results of research on the identification of types of Polish agriculture. Polish gminas (the third-order administrative division of the country sometimes referred to as “communes” or “municipalities”, until 2016 – according to Local Administrative Units – LAU level 2) have been divided into three types, characterised by low, medium or high levels of agricultural development, with 10 sub-types. A multi-stage typological procedure was used, employing two classification methods: k-mean cluster analysis and the random forest method. Twelve diagnostic attributes were used that comprehensively characterise Polish agriculture. The results show the diversity of this sector of the economy, which should be taken into account when planning its future development.

The process of socio-economic development is subject to changes resulting from the interaction of contemporary socio-economic megatrends which modify the influence of development factors and affect the polarisation of development in space. The measures to date, adopted as part of the cohesion policy and intended to decrease the differences, have not produced the desired results. This leads to the search for new solutions which include place-based intervention. Here a special role is played by the largest cities performing the function of development poles. They can positively affect the development of the surrounding area. The work aims to identify the importance of cities in terms of socio-economic inequalities in Poland. The analysis is carried out at the local level and covers the years 2004-2016. The research includes three stages. What is discussed in the first is the role of cities as development poles. The second presents an analysis and classification of spatial differences in the level and dynamics of the development of the largest cities. The third stage determines the influence of these cities on the surroundings.

This analysis aims to present and assess the impact of historical factors on the differences in socio-economic development of Poland at the local level and to compare them with the results of other research that shows the effects of similar analyses carried out for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The study is based on the analysis of spatial diversification of the socio-economic development level classes and indicators of the electoral support structure of residents by means of spatial regression methods. The spatial scope of the work includes the local, or the commune level (LAU2) and furthermore takes into account the division of the present-day territory of Poland by the relict borders of partitions (1772, 1793, 1795), established at the Congress of Vienna (1815) and the course of Poland's borders between the two world wars (1918–1939), conclusively determined in 1922. The main timeline of the study is the years 2004–2016 and, retrospectively, the 1815–1939 period.

The article aims to analyse the influence on socio-economic development of contemporary socio-economic changes, or – using terminology after John Naisbitt (1982) – main megatrends, primarily from the point of view of the situation and changes characterising the EU’s Member States. The specifics of these processes in the capitalist countries of Western Europe and in the former countries of so-called “people’s democracy” in East-Central Europe are the key element of this discussion. In the context of the spatial patterns identified, discussion centres around trends of: (1) transformation, (2) economic integration, (3) globalisation, and (4) postmodernisation. The first part presents a synthetic characterisation of megatrends distinguished, including as regards specific definitions and reasons for them to arise. The second, most important part of the work addresses the impacts of megatrends n socio-economic development and the specific nature of the process ongoing with the two spatial European patterns. The analysis conducted supports the contention that the megatrends described have played a key role in the shaping contemporary processes of socio-economic development. However, it is difficult to analyse the separate influences of each, given the way they interact in one bundle (external in relation to endogenous ocesses), permeating one another, and ensuring an influence exerted that is diversified both temporally and spatially. It is not easy to state that any specific social or economic changes result solely from one or other of the processes iscussed. Thus, the influence of these megatrends should be perceived synergically. More or less intensive processes of transformation are strengthened by economic integration and globalisation and give rise to a diversified range of postmodernisation changes. This perception is needed even more, as many researchers often consider these processes in a slightly different configuration (Dicken, 2015).