Public space of the post-modern epoch is a conglomerate or blend of discontinuous functions, a collection of loosely connected fragments, increasingly more frequently unrelated to a city. People compose for themselves their own town from individual trajectories that are outlined by means of motor roads. Neo-liberal logic of city development recognizes the rule of spontaneity wherever the interest of big capital groups dominates, pushing onto the sidelines the more important task of contemporary urban planning – the protection and development of public spaces. Due to the crisis it is undergoing at present (commercial pressure), the efforts are taken to regain its social and spatial significance. The purpose of these transformations is bonding public spaces with broader surroundings (with open terrains, waterside zones, promenades, playgrounds, etc). These changes use programmed connections, contacts, passages, links, connecting areas and other relations that invest new sociological and cultural meanings into public spaces. The integration process gives positive results in numerous cities of Western Europe. One of them, perhaps the most essential, is development of more attractive and deeper relationships of inhabitants with their urban environment. Although the task fails to be easy (integrating tendencies compete with inclinations for disintegration), it is an important step towards the enhancement of urban life quality. The evidence can be numerous discussions and conferences on the issue of public space.

The problem of centralization and decentralization is very interesting and important in management science, political science, sociology, political economy, economics and regional sciences. The discussion over the centralization versus decentralization is a never-ending one. It is an age-old battle of standardization versus autonomy, corporate efficiency versus local effectiveness and pressure on costs and resources versus accommodation of specific local needs. The advantages of each model are, in essence, the disadvantages of the other. Decisions to decentralize or centralize must be derived from a careful cost–benefit analysis. The debate over whether to centralize or decentralize is not so much over which type of strategy is more effective but the degree to which each strategy is used in combination with one another.

European Union programs are a vital source of financial help in the field of employment increase. Such initiatives are available both in structural programs, Community Initiatives and Community Programs. A great number of them are designed for communities, which, as an independent beneficiary or a partner in a project, can influence the improvement of local and regional labour market situation. One of the essential factors which influence the commitment to the initiatives for employment increase is the way beneficiaries perceive their attractiveness. Therefore, in the article the author presented results of the research in which communities’ attitudes to each activity connected to a labour market, available in EU programs, had been analyzed and assessed. This allowed to determine the initiatives which are perceived as the most desirable and which, according to communities, can best contribute to decreasing of the unemployment rate, and the ones which are the least attractive in this respect. Another part of the above research is the analysis of communities’ expectations regarding creating new initiatives for employment increase, which are not available within the limits of the current programs. This scrutiny allowed to estimate more precisely to what extent current activities match communities requirements. These results made it possible to assess to what degree the presumable lack of desirable initiatives for employment increase constitutes a factor that limits the commitment to the implementation of the currently available initiatives

Regional differentiation of the state may be caused by geopolitical factors. Different European states have seen the formation of so-called ideological regions. In Germany, such a region was Prussia and in Poland – East Borderland (Kresy Wschodnie). Both of them were relatively undeveloped, and peripherally situated. These features were accompanied by strong cultural position that is great significance of regional problems in cultural circulation of Germany and Poland. An analysis of long-term processes shows that after Germany’s reunion, Prussian areas play the same economical role as in the 19th century.

The article presents selected results of studies presented in the Report of the State and Conditions of Planning Works as at the End of 2006. The report was prepared in the Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization, Polish Academy of Sciences, for the Ministry of Construction in autumn 2007. In this article attention is focused on the analysis of the Local Development Spatial Plans coverage and agricultural land changes in 2004–2006. In the studies, delimitation and classification based on the administrative-settlement structure, routes of the transport corridors and land use kind and intensity were taken into consideration.

The essay concerns “widely closed spaces” in today’s metropolises. By this term I understand territories that belong to private firms and syndicates and are predominantly situated in big office buildings. These places have certain features both of the public and the private space. They also co-create one of the zones in which the processes of fragmentation and appropriation of the urban space take place. It is so because they construct symbolic and literal barriers to access. The text provides an analysis of the functioning of “widely closed spaces” and their role in today’s metropolises.