ATTRACTIVENESS OF INVESTING IN SMALL TOWNS
The Gdansk Institute for Market Economics (Gdansk-Warsaw) has carried out the third ranking of attractiveness of investing in small towns already, this time focusing on 508 Polish small towns (which are not seats of voivodship or poviat authorities). The report presenting the obtained results, drew up by Pawel Swianiewicz and Wojciech Dziemianowicz in September 2001, is available on the Institute's website
The basis for the ranking was provided by official data coming from numerous institutions (the Central Statistical Office, the Ministry of Finance, the National Bank of Poland, the Polish Agency for Foreign Investment), which allowed to adopt the following criteria:
# absorption of the local market, size of the market, wealth of the local community, level of economic activity of the community,
# quality of the labour market, level of inhabitants' education, existence and quality of scientific, research and educational institutions,
# atmosphere in the community, activity of the community, initiating of institutions for civic community, political stability,
# technical infrastructure, condition of roads and telecommunication network, availability of power engineering media, ecologically friendly devices and installations,
# business environment infrastructure, chain of banks, insurance companies and other institutions supplying needs of the economic life,
# transport availability, location with respect to main roads and railways, planned motorways, ports, airports and border checkpoints,
# effectiveness of economic transformation, private sector development, foreign investors activity so far, diversity of economic trade structure,
# marketing activity, activity of local self-government authorities aiming to present their town by various means and various media, disseminating of data concerning development opportunities,
# recreational opportunities, nearness to areas of high natural and cultural values, quantity and quality of tourist accommodations.
On the basis of the collected data, a synthetic index of investing attractiveness has been specified for 272 small towns, which were next classified to attractiveness classes (in descending order) A, B, C or D, whereas 15 leaders became A1 class. The remaining group of 236 towns were classified to E, F or G classes, however their synthetic index is not given in the report. The classes represent relative attractiveness in relation to towns included in the research.
Leaders - first fifteen towns
(highest synthetic index - A1 class)
1. Łomianki - Mazowieckie Voivodship, 2. Kórnik - Wielkopolskie Voivodship, 3. Podkowa Leśna - Mazowieckie Voivodship, 4. Karpacz - Dolnośląskie Voivodship, 5. Swarzędz - Wielkopolskie Voivodship, 6. Józefów - Mazowieckie Voivodship, 7. Konstancin-Jeziorna - Mazowieckie Voivodship, 8. Szklarska Poręba - Dolnośląskie Voivodship, 9. Chojna - Zachodniopomorskie Voivodship, 10. Kostrzyn - Wielkopolskie Voivodship, 11. Ustroń - Śląskie Voivodship, 12. Wesoła - Mazowieckie Voivodship, 13. Zielonka - Mazowieckie Voivodship, 14. Duszniki-Zdrój - Dolnośląskie Voivodship, 15. Ciechocinek - Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship.
Top voivodship "fives" apart from the leaders
(next to voivodships, number of their small towns with A1-D classes is given; before town - its ranking position; after town - its synthetic index - class)
(38 above E class):
16. Oborniki Śląskie (A), 32. Polanica-Zdrój (A), 33. Kąty Wrocławskie (A), 37. Kudowa-Zdrój (A), 51. Szczawno-Zdrój (B).
(13 above E class):
99. Chełmża (C), 110. Solec Kujawski (C), 167. Szubin (D), 182. Kowalewo Pomorskie (D), 196. Brześć Kujawski (D).
(6 above E class):
49. Nałęczów (B), 101. Międzyrzec Podlaski (C), 144. Dęblin (C), 149. Terespol (C), 172. Kazimierz Dolny (D).
(22 above E class):
29. Gubin (A), 30. Sulechów (A), 38. Łęknica (A), 44. Rzepin (A), 54. Wschowa (B).
(10 above E class):
61. Tuszyn (B), 107. Stryków (C), 109. Głowno (C), 111. Koluszki (C), 122. Aleksandrów Łódzki (C).
(23 above E class):
40. Niepołomice (A), 41. Rabka (A), 43. Skawina (A), 53. Krzeszowice (B), 57. Trzebinia (B).
(26 above E class):
19. Sulejówek (A), 20. Ożarów Mazowiecki (A), 22. Milanówek (A), 23. Błonie (A), 25. Brwinów (A).
(8 above E class):
95. Grodków (C), 121. Niemodlin (C), 141. Praszka (C), 156. Głuchołazy (C), 189. Otmuchów (D).
(6 above E class):
108. Lesko (C), 125. Iwonicz-Zdrój (C), 159. Rymanów (C), 170. Dukla (D), 184. Baranów Sandomierski (D).
(2 above E class):
190. Ciechanowiec (D), 215. Łapy (D); the rest below D class.
(16 above E class):
21. Żukowo (A), 24. Rumia (A), 34. Reda (A), 39. Sztum (A), 55. Ustka (B).
(22 above E class):
48. Czeladź (B), 56. Czechowice-Dziedzice (B), 63. Wisła (B), 66. Skoczów (B), 85. Szczyrk (B).
(4 above E class):
194. Połaniec (D), 238. Suchedniów (D), 244. Sędziszów (D), 262. Stąporków (D); the rest below D class.
(14 above E class):
42. Mikołajki (A), 60. Olsztynek (B), 82. Pasłęk (B), 83. Biskupiec (B), 135. Morąg (C).
(35 above E class):
18. Pniewy (A), 27. Puszczykowo (A), 28. Stęszew (A), 31. Luboń (A), 45. Trzcianka (A).
(27 above E class):
17. Międzyzdroje (A), 59. Łobez (B), 65. Cedynia (B), 68. Nowogard (B), 74. Wolin (B).
absorption of the local market
quality of the labour market
atmosphere in the community
business environment infrastructure
effectiveness of economic transformation
- recreational opportunities - Karpacz, Międzyzdroje, Szklarska Poręba, Kazimierz Dolny, Hel.