1

Lamprecht M., Small towns and development of rural areas: the case of the voivodship of

Łódź, [in:] European Spatial Research and Policy, vol.11, no.2, University of Łódź, University

of Groningen, Charles University - Praque, University of the West of England - Bristol 2004,

s. 41-56.

Abstract: Small towns form a very important element of the settlement network. Difficult to define, highly

diversified regionally, on the one hand falling into typical spatial forms, on the other however exhibiting

a wealth of individual characteristics and genius loci attract the attention of the representatives of many scientific

disciplines: geographers, economist, architect, sociologists and others.

This article investigates the role of small towns in the development of rural areas, using as example the

voivodship of Łódź – an area situated in the central part of Poland, where these small settlements having less

than 10 thousand inhabitants constitute 45% of all towns.

Key words: small cities, urban development, settlement system

Introduction

The interrelationship between the town and its hinterland has for long come within the

geographers’ sphere of interest. The hierarchically structured settlement network, and

particularly its division into town and country originating from the feudal period has

determined the emergence of settlements nodes (central places) providing the population of

the surrounding areas with goods and services. This type of the spatial-functional settlement

pattern, based on mutual relations and interdependencies, is found at different levels from

supraregional (supranational) to local. The relationships between the central place and the

area they serve have been the subject of numerous studies resulting in a number of theories,

such as F. Perreux`s theory of growth poles, which contributed to the development of such

instruments of regional policy as the growth pole concept or they key village concept (see

inter alia Cloke 1979; Drobek, Heffner 1994; Peake 1922).

The unquestionably prominent role that small towns play in the development of the

entire country, and rural areas in particular, has been addressed by many researchers

(Courtney, Errington 2000; Heffner 2000, 2002; Kusiński 1993; Mathur 1984; Stola 1988;

Zaniewska 1978 and others), who painted out that in respect of the town – country

relationships small towns are of major importance. Small towns have always, from their

earliest existence served as places where agricultural products are exchanged for goods that

for various reasons are attractive for rural populations. They have therefore become not only

2

nodal settlement serving the population of the surrounding rural areas, but also centres of

social and cultural life, thus contributing to the transformation of the rural landscape,

economy and society.

Without going into the complicated question of the definition of towns – settlement

units whose complexity and diversity affords many problems, including identification criteria

of the urban centre itself, it should be pointed out that the specific character of small towns

and resulting classification problems is largely responsible for difficulty in defining a town.

This is due to the fact that small towns (like village with urban past) frequently undermine the

relevance of the dychotomic division of human settlements into towns and villages. Attempts

to identify settlement units with characteristics regarded, as typically urban and rural often

result in obtaining, apart from sets of towns and villages, a set of settlement units hard to

classify. An alterative solution is to place settlement units on a scale of an urban-rural

continuum (see Drobek 1999; Kirk 1980; Pahl 1960, Sokołowski 1999b).

It is not possible to identify universal quantitative and qualitative characteristics which

determine whether a given settlement is a town or not. The characteristics which differentiate

a small town from its rural environment are usually, generally speaking, relative to the

surrounding settlement network. Regional determinants (genetic: historical and cultural,

economic: demographic potential and level of economic development, and many other e.g.

those arising from spatial planning rules) decide whether a particular settlement is regarded by

society (or statistics) as town or village. For instance, population density makes the size of

a town relative. In Europe the concept of town is fairly flexible. In Norway for instance, for

statistical purposes, a town (or rather a settlement having urban character) is a settlement with

at least 200 inhabitants, in with the distance between habitation does not exceed 50 meters

thus the urban settlement limits do not necessarily coincide with administrative boundaries of

a settlement (Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2003). In Ireland too, such small settlement

centres may be classified as towns. In the early 1970s the number of urban settlements

numbering between 200 and 499 inhabitants constituted 43% of the total settlement network

(Bannon 1978). In Luxemburg (Grosbush 1983) or France (Guelton 1996) the criteria for

a settlement to be regarded as a small town are: at least 2 thousand inhabitants, sufficient

compactness of built-up areas and low shared agricultural employment. In Switzerland the

required number of inhabitants is 5 thousand.

In Poland the granting of municipal status has largely a formal, legal character

although there are no clearly defined criteria for classifying a settlement as a town. Some

characteristics indicating urban character of a settlement include: above 2 thousand

3

inhabitants, 75-80% of the population employed outside agriculture, sufficient compactness of

built-up areas, and urban lifestyle. The broad rang of exceptions from these rules indicates

that there are no hard and fast criteria determining the classification of a particular settlement

(Drobek, Heffner 1993). According to the Central Statistical Office, small town generally are

urban settlements with up to 10 thousand residents. In professional literature, however, the

disparities in the upper limit accepted as distinguishing a small town from a medium sized one

are considerable – as many as 50 thousand inhabitants is acceptable, too (Heffner 2000). In

Poland the upper limit is 10-20 thousand, sometimes 25 thousand (Dziewoński 1962, Ginsbert

1965, Kachniarz 1993, Malanowski 1964, Sokołowski 1999). Sometimes, due to availability

of statistics a number facilitating the conduct of research is chosen as the upper limit.

Delimiting the bottom threshold in Poland is relatively easy if the administrative

criterion is adopted (possession of civic rights). Is should be noted, however, that adoption of

the administrative criterion is frequently criticized in this case. It is regarded as inadequate

because the difference between the smallest towns and rural settlements that are functionally

and morphologically developed is hardly discernible. Classification problems are posed,

among others, by towns now reduced to the status of village which mostly provide the

administrative function of local centres1. In the voivodship of Łódź there are at least 60 such

villages (see fig. 2). There is no doubt, however that enjoying urban status does play a certain

role in the development of a settlement and affects the relationships between the central place

and its hinterland. The very fact of having civic rights granted, or even their restitution

promised, has a stimulating effect on the inhabitants, and is viewed by local authorities and

local community as development incentive (Drobek, Heffner 1993). The fact that the number

of towns on the settlement map of Poland is increasing as a result of local governments’ and

resident’s efforts suggests that enjoying urban status brings concrete advantages.

Owing to the variability of urban forms in time and space none of the numerous

definitions taking into account different characteristics of the town is generally accepted, not

only on the European scale, but also at the national level. What it always stressed, though as

the necessary attribute of a town is the existence of its hinterland – an area having economic

links with the town which provides for it the central functions. The sustained relationships

between the town and the surrounding area seems to be the common feature of all towns,

regardless of the time and space within which they exist. This view is reflected in the

generally recognized and used theory of the economic base. The area surrounding the town

1 In the voivodship of Łódź there are at least 16 downgraded towns (including failed locations and former towns

administratively assigned to other urban centres).

4

can be considered in three categories: as a zone served by the town, an area cooperating with

the town on area changing as a result of urban expansion (spreading of urbanization beyond

town limits) (Maik 1992). These three aspects of the relations between town and its hinterland

are closely connected with each other. The qualitative and quantitative dimension of these

relations depend on a broad range of local determinants, including the size of a town. The size

of the central place (its gravitational potential) determine its impact on the surrounding

settlements. The larger the town, the stronger its influence on rural areas and better

opportunities for development and growth of socio-economic activity of the rural population.

This does not mean, however, that small towns play a marginal role in the sphere of town-

country relationships. A great proportion of activities associated with larger towns is carried

out in local centers, which not only mediate in the provision of growth opportunities, but also

take over most of them. This is largely due to easy (direct) contact of the rural population with

town (Heffner 2002). Also it is argued that life outside a large urban center does not bar

access to opportunities that are afforded by them, e.g. cultural (entertainment) or economic

(jobs) opportunities, while at the some time diminishing the negative effect of urbanization on

man (Davison 1995).

Small towns of the voivodship of Łódź

A set of small towns encompassed by the voivodship of Łódź has been established

using administrative and size-based classification criteria (urban status and less than 10

thousand inhabitants). There are 19 such towns in all (tab. 1), which constitutes 45% of the

total number of towns in this voivodship.

5

Table 1. Small towns (up to 10 thousand) within Łódź voivodship today and changes

in their population size in 1939-2002

Town Population size

1939 1946 1960 2002

Biała Rawska 3300 2088 2039 3305

Błaszki 5050 3030 2622 2294

Drzewica --- --- --- 4084

Działoszyn --- --- --- 6767

Kamieńsk --- --- --- 2814

Krośniewice 3600 3250 3318 4836

Pajęczno --- --- 3139 6428

Poddębice 4400 2937 3262 7839

Przedbórz 7100 3503 3805 3919

Stryków 4900 2603 3281 3446

Sulejów 7100 4329 4854 6288

Szadek 3200 2191 2164 2130

Tuszyn 4600 3696 7323 7212

Uniejów 4000 2074 2066 3004

Warta 4500 2896 3679 3588

Wieruszów 6000 3102 3296 8858

Zelów --- --- 6949 8173

Złoczew 5300 2948 2535 3417

Żychlin 8600 6019 7694 9151 --- – no civic rights

Source: author’s research based on: Statystyka miast i osiedli 1945-

1965, GUS, Warszawa, Statistical Yearbook of Łódź voivodship,

2003, Statistical Office in Łódź

Development processes taking place in the towns and cities of Central Poland were

affected like in other parts of Poland, by range of political, economic and social factors. In the

past, the central part of Poland was influenced by the neighbouring regions: Greater Poland,

Mazowia, Lesser Poland and Silesia, so its primary characteristic has been a degree of

transience, both in the socio-economic and the cultural sphere (see Kulesza, Koter 1998).

Geographical determinants played a significant role too. A watershed of the I order cuts right

across the center of the territory now comprising the voivodship of Łódź. This elevated belt

(so called Łódź Ridge) was for long time inaccessible for settlement and peripheral in relation

to Poland’s chief geographical regions (see fig. 1). For this reason the voivodship of Łódź

(formed as late as 1919) encompassed territories which had for centuries belonged to various

duchies, principalities, counties and gubernyas (Straszewicz 1967). Later modifications of the

administrative division of the country resulting in the present shape of the voivodship of Łódź

6

cannot have had a significant influence on its cultural and economic mosaic, shaped by its

centuries – long history.

Figure 1. Voivodship of Łódź on the map of Poland

Source: author’s research based on: Piskozub A., 1987, Dziedzictwo polskiej przestrzeni, Warszawa, Podręczny

Atlas Polski, 2002, PPWK, Warszawa.

The development of small towns in Łódź has also been influenced by other processes,

both those confined to Poland and those common to the entire European continent. These

where primarily the partitionings of Poland with resulting reduction of the economic life in

Polish town and cities to the level typical of the peripheral provinces of the invading

countries, and numerous wars, the most destructive to the economy of small towns, and their

environs being the Swedish wars and ww. II. The devastating effects included not only

material damage, but also destruction of the population potential of small towns. Many of

these urban centers have not as yet reached their former (1939) population size and some of

them, as is the case with the town of Błaszki, have not to date recreated even half their prewar

7

population potential (tab. 1). Another important destructive factor is the negative effect on the

economic development of small towns of many years of the centrally planned, socialist

economy. Today, a major process affecting the economic situation of small towns in Poland is

the systemic transformation. Transition from central planning to a market – based system

involve, among other things, economic restructuring of towns which given severe economic

recession, may result in unsettling the economic balance of the town. The changes currently

taking place can significantly affect not only the further development of small towns, but also

of the surrounding areas.

History is still in evidence in the settlement network of central Poland. Due to

changing socio-economic determinants of the settlement network development and

consequences of historical events the number of small towns in Poland changes overtime.

After period of constant fluctuations in the number of towns after ww. II, in the years 1977-

2001 their number in Poland grew steadily from 808 to 884.2 The nation-wide phenomenon of

the appearance of new towns (mostly as a result of restitution of formerly lost civic rights) is

accompanied by a general tendency consisting in the passing of the largest small towns to the

group of medium-sized towns. Present dynamics of changes in urban settlement network is

almost entirely the result of “movements” within the settlement hierarchy of the smallest

centers – small towns and villages (see Drobek 2002, Szymańska 1998, Drobek, Heffner

1993).

In Łódź voivodship the changes in the settlement network follow a similar pattern.

Most settlement centers enjoying now the municipal status lost their civic rights in the past

(14 centres), to have them restituted at a later time. Frequent cases of loss and subsequent

restitution of municipal rights are a reflection of the turbulent economic history of not only

the small towns, but also the entire region of Central Poland. The history of Łódź voivodship

has recorded at least 129 cases of granting the municipal status to 103 localities. The towns of

Biała Rawska and Poddębice are record-holders in this area – they were granted civic rights

three times. After considerable variations in the number of towns in the interwar period and in

the first years after ww. II, changes in the settlement network of the voivodship consisted in

an increasing number of towns. These were cases of restitution of civic rights: Pajęczno

(1958), Drzewica (1987), Działoszyn (1994), Kamieńsk (1994), and establishment of new

town of Zelów (1957). Today there are 42 towns with 22 towns enjoying municipal status

2 This increase resulted from 82 location being granted civic rights and 6 cases of loss of municipal status as

a result of being assigned to another town.

8

without any break since it was granted (fig. 2), and a number of them (e.g. Rzgów,

Parzęczew) taking steps to have it restituted (Sobczyński, Głowacka 2000).

Figure 2. Towns of the voivodship of Łódź by the population size and villages with

urban past (deprived of civic rights)

Source: author’s research based on Województwo łódzkie, mapa administracyjno drogowa, scale 1:200 000,

Katowice, Statistical Yearbook of Łódź voivodship, 2003, Statistical Office in Łódź.

The role of small towns in the development of rural areas in the voivodship of

Łódź

A town is not only a place serving the needs of region; just the opposite – its presence

often becomes a factor actively shaping the areas surrounding a town (see Geddes 1915).

There is a close direct relationship between the condition of a small town and the surrounding

area, and vice versa, because of mutual interaction and interdependence.

9

Even very small towns have always distinguished themselves from the rural

surroundings. There usually were churches gathering people from nearby villages and weekly

markets and sometimes fairs and hospitals. Although production activity in small town was

mainly connected with agriculture and livestock forming, they were inhabited by a different

type of people than the peasants: free socially mobile and culturally different. It is the

population or more specifically, the population (gravitation) potential that is regarded as

a crucial factor determining the extent of a center sphere of influence. At present small towns

occupy only 7,3% of the area of their communes while they account for 43,3% of their

population. Interestingly, however he economic potential of small towns human resource,

considered in terms of working age, is average. On average, small town concentrate 43,3 % of

their communes’ pre-working age population, 46,7% of the working age population, and

44,3% of the post-working age population. Except for the working age population group these

percentages are similar to the proportion of urban population in the total number of people in

the communes. Thus there is no significant difference in this respect between small towns and

their rural environs. However, the economic burden on the population of small towns,

expressed by the number of people of non-working age per 100 persons of working age is

58,5, which is significantly better than in the country, where this index is 74,2 persons. It

should be stressed that there has been some improvement in relation to preceding years (60,7

in 2000 and 59,0 in 2001). This, however, is a tendency common to both towns in general and

the entire voivodship of Łódź.

All the small towns exept Pajęczno, Poddębice, Wieruszów and Biała Rawska have

a negative natural increase of population (natural decrease) which resulted in a decrease of the

population of all small towns by 0,2% in 2002 r. At the scale of the voivodship (with the

exclusion of Łódź – a 800 000 city with a different scale of economic problems) it is the

highest figure, because in all towns of Łódź voivodship the population decreased by 0,14%

and in the voivodship as a whole – by 0,19%. In medium-sized towns this percentage is still

lower – 0,11%. Net migration in small towns exhibits on equally unfavorable tendency. As

a result of out-migration they lost 0,21% of the population in 2002, while the voivodship of

Łódź overall lost 0,06% of this population, and the towns of this voivodship – 0,13%.

Excluding Łódź and small towns, the voivodship lost 0,03% of its population, whereas the

remaining towns of the region lost 0,05%. Although in the settlement hierarchy small towns

are “closest” to rural areas (which have positive net migration), depopulation of small urban

centers is more intensive than of all other areas of the voivodship (with the exclusion of Łódź

and in relative terms). This tendency gives rise to concerns about future demographic

10

potential of small towns and can be on indication of low attractiveness of small towns in the

perception of the region’s inhabitants.

One of the primary functions trough which a town, even a very small one, exerts

influence over a region, is the administrative function. This function forms top-down links

between the urban center and the region, determining at the same time the status of the town

within the settlement structure. The administrative function stimulates the development of

transport, commercial and other services, thus playing a major role in respect of central place

– hinterland connetions (Matczak 2002, Świć1994). It can be assumed that each small town of

the voivodship of Łódź plays an important role in the development of the surrounding area,

since all of them are capitals of urban-rural communes, having thus an allocated hinterland.3

In addition, three towns (Pajęczno, Poddębice, Wieruszów) are district capitals, which

expands the extent of their sphere of influence. It is also important to note that none of the

small towns borders directly on another town; only in the case of two urban centres their

associated hinterlands (communes) border upon another town (the commune of Stryków

adjoining Głowno and Łódź and the commune of Sulejów adjoining Piotrków Trybunalski).

Overall areas administratively associated with small towns comprise nearly ¼ (24,2%) of the

voivodship’s total area.

The location of small towns and their hinterlands is an important factor determining

their influence. Most of them, that is 13, are situated within the inner belt of the voivodship

(up to 20 km from the boundary) and three (Kamieńsk, Sulejów, Szadek) are in the border

area or in its immediate neighbourhood (fig. 3).

3 The administrative function assignts a specified area to a town. The inhabitants, thus bound to a town, are

forced to visit the offices located there. In this way the sphere of a town’s influence develops, further

strengthened by the multiplier effects: contacs of the hinterland’s population with the central place stimulate

among other things the development of transport, commercial and cathering services (see Matczak 2002).

11

Figure 3. Administrative areas allocated to small towns of the voivodship of Łódź

Source: author’s research based on Województwo łódzkie, mapa administracyjno drogowa, scale 1:200 000,

Katowice.

The existence of small towns away from major urban centres confirms the thesis that

small towns form an intermediary link between the large city and the country. The location of

a town is an important element determining its role in the development of the region: being

situated in peripheral areas of the voivodship and thus replacing larger cities in serving these

areas enhances the status of small towns in the settlement network.

A major function performed by the small towns of the voivodship of Łódź is provision

of services to the surrounding areas. Services and trade have always been those elements of

12

the economy which distinguished towns. Modern small towns in the past were mostly local

market centres engaged in circulation o goods and service activities. The area of the present

voivodship of Łódź has for long been dominated by small towns providing primarily the

service function. The existence of a relation between the service function fulfilled by a town

and its economic condition is confirmed by the frequent phenomenon of economic stagnation

in small towns which suffered a loss of weakening of the basis for providing the service

function to the surrounding area. The causes of unsettling the economic balance of small

service centres in the voivodship of Łódź were many and various: growing emancipation of

the villages, industrialization processes at the turn of 19th century (which deprived small

towns of a considerable range of crafts providing goods to rural populations), wars resulting

sometimes in complete destruction of material and human capital of many small towns,

political decisions of the invaders, and negative effects of the economic development model

pursued under socialism.

Today the service function is found in all towns of the voivodship of Łódź including

the small towns. Ten small towns represents the functional service type (Poddębice, Tuszyn,

Pajęczno, Krośniewice, Przedbórz, Warta, Biała Rawska, Uniejów, Kamieńsk, Błaszki). In

another six urban settlements the service function plays a significant role, too (Stryków,

Sulejów, Szadek, Zelów and Żychlin are service – agricultural type) (Szafrańska 2000). Small

towns concentrate 28% of elementary schools and 66,7% of post-elementary schools located

within their administratively associated areas, as well as nearly all high schools and other

secondary – level schools. Health care services, too are mostly situated in small towns –

nearly all clinics (96,9%), most pharmacies (94,7%) and most health care centres (69,6%). Six

towns (Wieruszów, Warta, Przedbórz, Poddębice, Pajęczno, Tuszyn) have hospitals, which

offer over 1100 beds. 71% of the shops are located in small towns, which accounts for 52

customers per 1 shop in urban areas, while in rural regions this indicator is 167 customers. It

is evident that small towns concentrate most of the services operating in their communes.

The role of a town in the regions economy is largely determined by industry, because

the development of industrial centres effects the spatial development of areas being within the

sphere of direct influence (urban expansion, increased employment and purchasing power of

the region’s population, attraction of new industries) and the spatial structure of areas situated

even at a great distance from urban centres through e.g. development of the recreational

function serving the needs of the population employed in industry. Industrial activity in the

voivodship of Łódź is concentrated in its urban centres, the share of industry in a town’s

economy being inversely proportional to its size. Three from among the four towns where the

13

industrial functions dominates (the functional industrial service type) have less than 10

thousand residents (Działoszyn, Drzewica, Wieruszów). Besides these centres the industrial

function is provided in 5 more towns: Stryków, Sulejów, Szadek, Zelów, Żychlin (the service

industrial type) (Szafrańska 2000).

The agricultural function plays a for less important part in the development of towns in

Łódź voivodship. It is clearly visible in only one town (Złoczew) and is rather insignificant in

towns above 5 thousand residents (Szafrańska 2000).

The favourable situation, outlined above, regarding the concentration in small towns

of functions which strengthen their status in the settlement network and facilitate the

provision of services to the surrounding areas, is disturbed by unfavourable changes in the

number of business entities operating in small towns. In 2000 from among the total number of

businesses located in areas administratively associated with small towns (14 409) 65% (9 359)

were located in small towns. In 2001 this percentage dropped to 63,5% (9 225 from among 15

045), and in 2002 – to 63% (9 975 from among 15 832). This means that average increase in

the number of businesses is larger in rural areas surrounding the small towns than in those

towns. This phenomenon may indicate a decreasing importance of small towns in the

perceptions of Łódź voivodship’s inhabitants, who prefer to invest outside these centres, and

leads to a weakening of the status of small towns, which are less distinguishable from the

surrounding areas. Lack of growth, and sometimes even a fall in the dynamics of economic

activity in small towns can be interpreted as a sign of stagnation or economic recession of

these centres.

Conclusion

Small towns are the best, historically, culturally and sociologically conditioned growth

poles for rural settlement networks and in a majority of cases play a positive stimulating role

in the development of rural (peripheral) areas. The importance of small towns in Poland has

been growing since the shift away from the socialist system because “inclusion of small towns

in socio-economic cooperation and collective construction of foundations for local

development is an element of change in the national development conception, generally based

on a dychotomic division into urban areas (agglomerations) and agricultural, rural regions

(peripheral)” (Heffner 2000).

Without detailed research it is difficult to precisely establish the influence of small

towns on the economic development of rural regions of the voivodship of Łódź. There is no

doubt that small towns continue to be an important element of the settlement and economic

14

system of the voivodship. They are chief locations serving over 200 thousand people

inhabiting nearly 25% of the voivodship’s area. However, there is much to indicate that the

influence of small towns on the surrounding areas is primarily based on the administrative

function, which binds formally rural populations with these centres and has contributed to

development of a wider set of services.

Spatial behaviour of the population seems to point to unfavourable economic changes

in small towns and their diminishing influence on the region’s economy. Because of negative

net migration and natural decrease of population small towns (apart from Łódź) are places

with the highest depopulation rates in the voivodship. Changes in the spatial concentration of

business enterprises over the past few years may be indicate of greater locational

attractiveness (and initiative of the population) of rural areas forming the hinterland of small

towns than of these urban centres. Given the statistical data available, it is difficult to evaluate

whether and to what extent small towns are stimulating the development of rural areas. It may

be a manifestation of a frequently occurring process of obliterating differences between town

and country that is at play here. There are isolated cases of more dynamic development of

small towns, such as Tuszyn and Stryków, but most small urban settlements of the voivodship

of Łódź are weak elements on the economic map of the region, with low development

potential and little influence on the economic life of neighbouring areas (see Potencjał

rozwojowy miast…, 2000).

It is not possible to state definitely whether centuries-long tradition of commercial

service and production activity in small towns is currently only in a state of stagnation, or

whether we are dealing with a case of economic recession of these urban centres. It may be

that the words of A. Harańczyk best describe the evolution of small towns: “Towns emerge

grow, go through crises, sometimes fall, to rise again after some time; for there is no “target

state” to which urban development is leading – each successive stage is only a transitory state,

a starting point for further transformations, for the next development phase.” (Harańczyk

1998). Much earlier M. Sorre wrote about town in a similar way: “fluctuat nec mergitur” –

undergoes fluctuations but does not dies” (Kiełczewska-Zaleska 1972). These words and

history point out that economic crisis is not and should not be nothing new for many Polish

small towns.

In the 1990s Polish towns entered a new development road, and now, after Poland’s

integration into the European Union structures they can more fully participate in economic

processes of the European continent. The administrative function and advantageous location

mostly away from larger urban centres, still provide their opportunities for growth. Even the

15

smallest towns still have a chance to play a significant part in the present period of economic

transformations. They can, first of all, act as a driving force of rural development opening up

its economy for the incoming capital. They also can absorb rural population forced to more

away from agricultural occupations. Small towns after building lots at lower prices, cheaper

labour, direct supply of raw materials for food-processing, timber and building industry, and

more attractive natural environment favourable to the development of recreational and tourists

services. It is important to be quick in seeing and seizing the opportunities, because time, as it

is, is working against many of the small urban settlements.

REFERENCES

Bannon M., J., 1978, Processes and patterns of urbanization in Ireland, Geographia Polonica, vol. 39, p. 91-107.

Cloke P. J., 1979, Key settlements in rural areas, Methuen, London.

Courtney P., Errington E., 2000, The role of small towns on the local economy and some implications for

development policy, Local economy, vol. 15, no 4., p. 280-301.

Davison I., 1995, Do we need cities any more?, Town planning review, vol. 66, No. 1, p. iii-iv.

Domański R., 1976, Zarys teorii procesów w systemie osadniczym, Przegląd Geograficzny, t. XLVIII, z. 2, p.

211-231.

Drobek W., 1999, Rola miast zdegradowanych w sieci osadniczej Śląska, Instytut Śląski w Opolu, Opole.

Drobek W., 2002, Polskie nowe miasta (1977-2001) [w:] Przemiany bazy ekonomicznej i struktury przestrzennej

miast, pod red. Janusza Słodczyka, Uniwersytet Opolski, p. 71-84.

Drobek W., Heffner K., 1993, Problemy i uwarunkowania restytucji praw miejskich ośrodka lokalnego [w:]

Problematyka lokalnych systemów osadniczych, pod red. W. Maika, Toruń, p. 87-96.

Drobek W., Heffner K., 1994, Koncepcja wsi kluczowych a procesy osadnicze na obszarach wiejskich, Przegląd

Geograficzny t. LXVI z. 1-2, p. 19-31.

Dziewoński K., 1962, Procesy urbanizacyjne we współczesnej Polsce. Stopień poznania, próba syntezy, Przegląd

Geograficzny t. XXXIV, z. 3, p. 459–508.

Geddes P., 1915, Cities in evolution, London.

Ginsbert A., 1965, Ekonomiczne przesłanki rozwoju małych miast [w:] Teoretyczne problemy rozmieszczenia sił

wytwórczych, Warszawa.

Grosbusch J., C., 1983, Rural Louxembourg, Ekistics, No 303, p. 430-441.

Guelton S., 1996, Finansowanie rozwoju lokalnego we Francji [w:] Gospodarka przestrzenią i zarządzanie

miastem. Z perspektywy doświadczeń krajów Unii Europejskiej, red. Tadeusz Marszał, Łódź, p. 86 – 98.

Harańczyk A., 1998, Miasta Polski w okresie globalizacji, PWN, Warszawa.

Heffner K., 2000, Rola małych miasteczek w rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, [w:] Przedsiębiorczość wiejska w

Polsce i krajach Unii Europejskiej, (red.) M. Kłodziński i B. Fedyszak-Radziejowska, Instytut Rozwoju Wsi i

Rolnictwa PAN, Warszawa, p. 74-100.

Heffner K., 2002, Czynniki osadnicze wpływające na potencjał rozwojowy obszarów wiejskich, Wieś i rolnictwo,

nr 2 (l15), p. 27-48

Kachniarz T., 1993, Zagospodarowanie przestrzenne małych miast, Instytut Gospodarki Przestrzennej

i Komunalnej, Warszawa.

Kiełczewska-Zaleska M., 1972, Geografia osadnictwa, zarys problematyki, PWN, Warszawa.

Kirk W., 1980, The rural-urban continuum: perception and reality, [w:] G. Enyedi, J. Meszaros (red.)

Development of settlements systems, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, p. 11-19.

Kulesza M. Koter M., 1998, Kształtowanie się sieci miast na obszarze Polski Środkowej [w:] Transformacja

społeczno-ekonomiczna Polski Środkowej, UŁ, Łódź, p. 17-37.

Kusiński W., 1993, Rola małych miast w kształtowaniu lokalnych systemów osadniczych [w:] Problematyka

lokalnych systemów osadniczych, pod red Wiesława Maika, Toruń, p. 49-59.

Maik W., 1992, Podstawy geografii miast, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń.

16

Malanowski J., 1964, Przemiany społeczne w podwarszawskim miasteczku, Studia Socjologiczne, PWN,

Warszawa.

Matczak A., 2002, Delimitacja zaplecza społeczno-ekonomicznego Łęczycy [w:] Przemiany bazy ekonomicznej

i struktury przestrzennej miast, pod red. Janusza Słodczyka, Uniwersytet Opolski, p. 205-218.

Mathur O. P., 1984, The role of small- and intermediate-sized urban settlements in national development, [w:]

Ekistics No 304, p. 26-34.

Pahl R. E., 1960, The rural-urban continuum, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 6, 299-329.

Peake H., 1922, The English village, Benn, London.

Piskozub A., 1987, Dziedzictwo polskiej przestrzeni, Warszawa.

Podręczny Atlas Polski, 2002, PPWK, Warszawa

Potencjał rozwojowy sieci miast regionu łódzkiego, Studia Regionalne nr 27, Rządowe Centrum Studiów

Strategicznych, Łódź 2000 r.

Sobczyński M., Głowacka W., 2000, Układ lokalizacyjny miast województwa łódzkiego a christallerowski model

sieci osadniczej [w:] Potencjał rozwojowy sieci miast regionu łódzkiego, Studia Regionalne nr 27, Rządowe

Centrum Studiów Strategicznych, Łódź, p. 13-42.

Sokołowski D., 1999a, Funkcje centralne w zbiorze małych miast i większych osiedli wiejskich w Polsce,

Przegląd Geograficzny, t. LXXI, p. 295–316.

Sokołowski D., 1999b, Zróżnicowanie zbioru małych miast i większych osiedli wiejskich w Polsce w ujęciu

kontinuum wiejsko-miejskiego, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń.

Sorré M.,1952, Les fondements de la géographie humaine, t. 3, L’Habitat, Paris.

Statistical yearbook of Łódź voivodship, 2001, 2002, 2003, Urząd Statystyczny w Łodzi, Łódź.

Statistical Yearbook of Norway, 2003, http:www.ssb.no.

Statystyka miast i osiedli 1945-1965, GUS, Warszawa

Stola W., 1988, Struktura funkcjonalna obszarów wiejskich a relacje miasto-wieś w Polsce, Przegląd

Geograficzny, t. LX, z. 1-2, p. 17-25.

Straszewicz L., 1967, Województwo łódzkie, zarys geograficzno-ekonomiczny, PWN, Warszawa.

Szafrańska E., 2000, Analiza funkcjonalna miast województwa łódzkiego [w:] Potencjał rozwojowy sieci miast

regionu łódzkiego, Studia Regionalne nr 27, Rządowe Centrum Studiów Strategicznych, Łódź, p. 43-56.

Szymańska D., 1998, Nowe miasta w Polsce i ich struktura społeczno-ekonomiczna, Czasopismo Geograficzne,

t. LIX, z. 4, p. 403-413.

Świć H. 1994, Rozwój miejskiej sieci osadniczej w makroregionie środkowowschodnim, Czasopismo

Geograficzne, LXV, z. 3-4, p. 291-230.

Województwo łódzkie, mapa administracyjno drogowa, skala 1:200 000, 2000, Katowice.

Zaniewska H., 1978, Rola małych miast w kształtowaniu wiejskiej sieci osadniczej, Miasto, nr l, p. 11-17.