Page 130 - RIMD_4
P. 130
130 R e v u ed el ’ I n s t i t u td uM o n d ee td udéveloppement
As far as the competences, these were transferred from the subsystem of
state administration to the relevant territorial self-government units, i.e.
communities and superior territorial units in several periods (Buček, 2011).
The reason why the interested actors took a decision on such periodical
approach was an accentuation of necessity to provide an adequate time for
both the superior territorial units and communities to prepare themselves
for a proper execution of those competences. However, even if the men-
tioned periods were longer, it would not be possible for the most of com-
munities to be prepared for it. The problem is that there are too many very
small communities (Figure No. 2), especially in the countryside of Eastern
and Southern parts of the SR. For better understanding, I can choose just
two numbers and use one example: nearly 70 percent of all Slovak com-
munities have less than 1,000 inhabitants (Csachová and Nestorová-Dická,
2011), and only a bit more than 16 percent of total population of the SR
lives in these 70 percent of all Slovak communities; the smallest community
called Príkra has only seven inhabitants but, under the rule of the Act No.
369/1990 Coll. on Communal Establishment as amended, it has the same
competences as the biggest Slovak community with a one-level communal
self-government – Prešov, with more than 90,000 inhabitants.
o
Figure n 2: Size structure of the communities in the SR (2004)
Key: “bez údajov (vojenské obvody)” – without any data (army zones).
Source: Zvolenský in: Čavojec and Sloboda, 2005, p. 19.
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
As far as the competences, these were transferred from the subsystem of
state administration to the relevant territorial self-government units, i.e.
communities and superior territorial units in several periods (Buček, 2011).
The reason why the interested actors took a decision on such periodical
approach was an accentuation of necessity to provide an adequate time for
both the superior territorial units and communities to prepare themselves
for a proper execution of those competences. However, even if the men-
tioned periods were longer, it would not be possible for the most of com-
munities to be prepared for it. The problem is that there are too many very
small communities (Figure No. 2), especially in the countryside of Eastern
and Southern parts of the SR. For better understanding, I can choose just
two numbers and use one example: nearly 70 percent of all Slovak com-
munities have less than 1,000 inhabitants (Csachová and Nestorová-Dická,
2011), and only a bit more than 16 percent of total population of the SR
lives in these 70 percent of all Slovak communities; the smallest community
called Príkra has only seven inhabitants but, under the rule of the Act No.
369/1990 Coll. on Communal Establishment as amended, it has the same
competences as the biggest Slovak community with a one-level communal
self-government – Prešov, with more than 90,000 inhabitants.
o
Figure n 2: Size structure of the communities in the SR (2004)
Key: “bez údajov (vojenské obvody)” – without any data (army zones).
Source: Zvolenský in: Čavojec and Sloboda, 2005, p. 19.
o
RIMD–n 4–2013
