The Quadruple Helix Versus Barriers to Local Development: The Example of ‘Dual Municipalities’

Magdalena Cybulska; Dorota Mantey; Wojciech Dziemianowicz

doi:10.14746/quageo-2024-0035

Figures & Tables

Relationship between development incentives and actors in the socio-economic development mechanism based on Mantey (2020: 527).

Dual municipalities in Poland based on the available data (see Fig. 2).

Spearman’s correlation results for the co-occurrence of development barriers and the impact of relationships on municipal development_

Relations ((-2)-2)	Local administration – local administration	Local administration – business	Local administration – science / education	Local administration – residents / non-governmental organisations	Business – business	Business – science / education	Business – residents / nongovernmental organisations	Science / education – science / education	Science / education – residents / non-governmental organisations	Residents / non-governmental organisations – residents / nongovernmental organisations
Barriers (0–5)	Local administration – local administration	Local administration – business	Local administration – science / education		Business – business	Business – science / education	Business – residents / nongovernmental organisations	Science / education – science / education
Difficulties in accessing EU development funds	0.133**(p) 0.001	0.097**0.016	0.0290.481	0.083*0.041	0.0320.441	−0.0080.854	0.0390.353	0.0470.266	0.0690.097	0.0580.163
Difficulties in accessing national development funds	0.0730.076	0.0640.114	0.0400.332	0.0690.090	0.0140.734	0.0420.321	0.0720.085	0.0490.238	0.083*0.046	0.086*0.037
Decline in quality of services provided by municipality	−0.0260.534	−0.099*0.015	−0.081*0.048	−0.0610.137	−0.0310.464	0.0080.844	0.0500.227	0.0450.284	0.0270.516	0.0460.269
Decreasing investment opportunities for local authorities	−0.0390.350	−0.0400.327	−0.0580.154	0.0090.832	−0.0160.711	0.0350.406	0.0070.861	0.0030.936	−0.0240.562	0.0240.556
Reducing wealth of population	0.0490.236	0.0460.256	0.0200.622	0.0710.082	0.0170.693	0.0660.119	0.0540.198	0.110**0.009	0.0600.146	0.0570.167
Ageing of local community	0.0770.064	0.0600.143	0.0060.879	0.0700.087	0.0670.108	0.085*0.044	0.0490.239	0.106*0.011	0.0540.191	0.0580.157
Decreasing population in municipality	0.092*0.0027	0.0320.437	0.0050.907	0.086*0.033	−0.0630.130	0.0020.956	0.0400.335	0.127**0.002	0.0690.097	0.095*0.021
Decreasing number of active NGOs	0.0500.230	0.0170.680	−0.0240.559	0.0430.285	−0.0290.492	0.0400.340	0.0520.212	0.0360.384	0.0360.391	0.0520.212
Decreasing number of businesses	0.0620.135	0.0180.654	0.0140.725	0.0770.057	−0.0110.794	0.0700.095	0.0490.236	0.107*0.010	0.0440.289	0.0070.873
Young people moving out of municipality	0.0140.742	0.0010.986	−0.0320.430	0.0230.564	−0.0030.952	0.0390.353	0.0110.801	0.0670.109	0.0520.210	−0.0150.713
Difficulties in accessing knowledge	0.097*0.018	0.0001.000	−0.032 0.426	0.0440.277	0.096*0.021	−0.032 0.450	0.0190.643	0.0570.174	0.0540.191	0.0450.279
Decreasing transport accessibility/accessibility to municipality	0.086*0.038	0.0200.625	0.0120.771	0.0410.317	−0.0140.734	−0.0080.855	0.0800.054	0.1030.013	0.119**0.004	0.100*0.015
Pandemic effects	0.141**0.001	0.0660.107	0.0660.106	0.0700.087	0.0200.631	0.090*0.032	0.125**0.003	0.164**0.000	0.190**0.000	0.152**0.000

Mann-Whitney U-test results for assessing collaborative relationships (rating the impact of relationships in the municipality on its development – on a scale of -2 to 2, where 2 is definitely positive)_

Collaborative relationships	Mann-Whitney test statistics	Active	Passive	Poor	Prosperous	Central	Peripheral	Imitative	Innovative	Labour-based	Self-employmentbased	Accessible space	Space with limited accessibility
Local administration – local administration	Average rank	35.2	28.0	50.0	41.4	65.7	107.1	63.7	49.4	49.2	42.6	38.9	41.5
	Z	−1.634		−1.524		−5.536		−2.474		−1.229		−0.994
	Significance	0.102		0.128		<0.001		0.013		0.219		0.320
Local administration – business	Average rank	33.4	37.4	48.8	47.9	73.8	93.0	62.2	55.8	52.0	38.6	40.4	38.5
	Z	−0.894		−0.160		−2.570		−1.090		−2.548		−0.435
	Significance	0.371		0.873		0.010		0.276		0.011		0.663
Local administration – science / education	Average rank	39.0	29.2	50.9	44.2	71.1	100.0	61.1	54.9	49.7	40.9	40.9	36.8
	Z	−2.218		−1.138		−3.849		−1.049		−1.735		−0.926
	Significance	0.027		0.255		<0.001		0.294		0.083		0.354
Local administration – residents / non-governmental organisations	Average rank	37.7	33.5	53.7	41.0	69.0	106.3	62.7	52.1	51.1	42.2	39.5	38.5
	Z	−0.925		−2.202		−4.904		−1.862		−1.675		−0.218
	Significance	0.355		0.028		<0.001		0.063		0.094		0.828
Business – business	Average rank	30.1	37.4	43.7	54.7	76.4	70.8	46.7	59.9	45.7	40.5	38.7	36.1
	Z	−1.662		−2.001		−0.749		−2.343		−1.012		−0.553
	Significance	0.096		0.045		0.454		0.019		0.311		0.580
Business – science / education	Average rank	32.0	30.7	45.5	47.2	73.0	88.8	49.6	55.9	42.3	44.0	36.3	34.6
	Z	−0.290		−0.287		−2.163		−1.099		−0.341		−0.390
	Significance	0.772		0.774		0.031		0.272		0.733		0.696
Business – residents / non-governmental organisations	Average rank	33.4	33.7	46.1	50.7	69.0	96.8	52.6	55.7	45.9	43.7	37.7	36.3
	Z	−0.085		−0.848		−3.763		−0.553		−0.447		−0.310
	Significance	0.932		0.396		<0.001		0.580		0.655		0.757
Science / education – science / education	Average rank	31.4	35.6	47.0	43.1	67.2	99.5	51.9	54.5	45.1	44.9	35.2	39.1
	Z	−0.917		−0.665		−4.453		−0.454		−0.027		−0.877
	Significance	0.359		0.506		<0.001		0.650		0.978		0.381
Science / education – residents / non-governmental organisations	Average rank	34.6	34.3	44.1	50.9	63.9	105.4	53.3	56.0	43.6	46.9	37.5	38.7
	Z	−0.061		−1.265		−5.741		−0.851		−0.655		−0.274
	Significance	0.951		0.206		<0.001		0.395		0.513		0.784
Residents / non-governmental organisations – residents / non-governmental organisations	Average rank	34.8	37.7	46.7	49.2	67.3	97.6	50.5	57.2	41.4	51.2	38.6	39.5
	Z	−0.676		−0.437		−4.144		−1.212		−1.938		−0.187
	Significance	0.499		0.662		<0.001		0.225		0.053		0.852

Mann-Whitney U-test results for assessing the level of significance of the barrier (rating on a scale of 0 to 5, where 5 means the problem is crucial)_

Barriers	Mann-Whitney test statistics	Active	Passive	Poor	Prosperous	Central	Peripheral	Imitative	Innovative	Labour-based	Self-employmentbased	Accessible space	Space with limited accessibility
Difficulties in accessing EU development funds	Average rank	31.9	42.9	54.6	42.6	70.2	112.2	69.3	53.0	47.5	47.4	39.1	41.1
	Z	−2.315		−1.973		−5.329		−2.623		−0.020		−0.409
	Significance	0.021		0.049		<0.001		0.009		0.984		0.683
Difficulties in accessing national development funds	Average rank	32.0	42.8	55.8	39.6	75.6	99.3	63.4	57.5	48.7	45.7	40.9	39.0
	Z	−2.291		−2.688		−3.090		−0.950		−0.537		−0.404
	Significance	0.022		0.007		0.002		0.342		0.591		0.686
Decline in quality of services provided by municipality	Average rank	35.1	38.5	53.0	46.3	73.6	104.1	60.0	60.0	45.1	51.0	37.0	43.5
	Z	−0.683		−1.091		−3.903		−0.014		−1.061		−1.299
	Significance	0.495		0.275		<0.001		0.989		0.288		0.194
Decreasing investment opportunities for local authorities	Average rank	30.4	45.1	53.4	38.3	78.1	93.3	57.2	62.1	44.7	51.7	42.7	37.0
	Z	−3.102		−3.023		−2.058		−0.790		−1.257		−1.209
	Significance	0.002		0.003		0.040		0.429		0.209		0.227
Reducing wealth of population	Average rank	30.0	45.6	58.0	34.5	75.9	98.4	67.6	54.3	48.8	45.6	41.4	38.5
	Z	−3.250		−3.918		−3.018		−2.139		−0.577		−0.640
	Significance	0.001		<0.001		0.003		0.032		0.564		0.522
Ageing of local community	Average rank	31.2	43.9	53.5	45.2	75.8	98.7	64.3	56.8	52.9	39.5	41.2	38.7
	Z	−2.894		−1.544		−3.336		−1.270		−2.474		−0.579
	Significance	0.004		0.123		<0.001		0.204		0.013		0.562
Decreasing population in municipality	Average rank	26.1	51.0	54.5	42.6	71.8	108.5	70.0	52.5	52.8	39.7	41.3	38.6
	Z	−5.191		−2.172		−4.801		−2.826		−2.383		−0.585
	Significance	<0.001		0.030		<0.001		0.005		0.017		0.559
Decreasing number of active NGOs	Average rank	29.9	45.7	51.9	48.9	75.5	99.5	66.6	55.1	50.1	43.7	40.8	39.1
	Z	−3.258		−0.488		−3.051		−1.839		−1.148		−0.344
	Significance	<0.001		0.626		0.002		0.066		0.251		0.731
Decreasing number of businesses	Average rank	31.6	43.4	57.8	34.9	75.9	98.4	66.7	55.0	54.0	37.9	39.3	40.8
	Z	−2.445		−3.862		−2.959		−1.874		−2.916		−0.292
	Significance	0.014		<0.001		0.003		0.061		0.004		0.771
Young people moving out of municipality	Average rank	32.5	42.1	52.7	46.9	75.9	98.4	68.3	53.8	53.5	38.7	41.2	38.6
	Z	−2.137		−1.158		−3.136		−2.379		−2.652		−0.615
	Significance	0.033		0.247		0.002		0.017		0.008		0.539
Difficulties in accessing knowledge	Average rank	32.7	41.8	53.6	44.8	73.2	105.1	75.0	48.8	50.2	43.6	36.8	43.6
	Z	−1.872		−1.448		−4.040		−4.273		−1.193		−1.362
	Significance	0.061		0.148		<0.001		<0.001		0.233		0.173
Decreasing transport accessibility / accessibility to municipality	Average rank	31.1	44.0	55.4	40.5	70.5	111.6	73.3	50.2	49.8	44.1	38.0	42.3
	Z	−2.675		−2.560		−5.272		−3.689		−1.026		0.939
	Significance	0.007		0.010		<0.001		<0.001		0.305		0.348
Pandemic effects	Average rank	39.8	31.8	52.5	47.5	77.0	95.8	53.0	65.3	50.2	43.5	38.7	41.5
	Z	−1.648		−0.887		−2.506		−1.995		−1.217		−0.603
	Significance	0.099		0.375		0.012		0.046		0.223		0.547

The Quadruple Helix Versus Barriers to Local Development: The Example of ‘Dual Municipalities’

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Spearman’s correlation results for the co-occurrence of development barriers and the impact of relationships on municipal development_

Mann-Whitney U-test results for assessing collaborative relationships (rating the impact of relationships in the municipality on its development – on a scale of -2 to 2, where 2 is definitely positive)_

Mann-Whitney U-test results for assessing the level of significance of the barrier (rating on a scale of 0 to 5, where 5 means the problem is crucial)_

Paradigm

My account