The main aim of this article is to apply the concept of “identity” to the analysis of phenomena and processes associated with the formation and functioning of clusters and cluster initiatives. Cluster structure is a kind of social group, and therefore should be subject to the same trends as other social groups. One of its most important characteristics (directly related to identity), observed particularly in groups whose aim is to survive for a long time, is their willingness to create mechanisms that distinguish the group and its members, and that build internal coherence and a sense of belonging of its members to the structure as a whole, and their attachment to each other.
The article discusses the extent to which the national (Polish) cluster-based policy reflects scientifically-based industrial cluster identification methods as well as policy selection criteria. The framework of the current Polish cluster-based policy is discussed, followed by the presentation of eight well-grounded cluster identification methods. A four-level qualitative scale was used to determine the degree of compliance of 17 selection criteria with the identification methods. Only insignificant links were found in such criteria as “critical mass” (the number of the cluster members and the cluster structure), “concentration” (the number of the entities acting within some distance from their coordinator) and “economic cluster’s potential” (employment rate and sales values).
The Act of 11 January 2018 amending certain acts in order to increase participation of citizens in the process of selecting, functioning and controlling certain public bodies (Journal of Laws 2018, item 130) obliged all local government units to establish a citizens’ resolution initiative and to regulate the basic procedures related to the preparation and submission of applications by a resolution of their law-making body. The article analyses the implementation activities undertaken in cities with county rights. It indicates that before the entry into force of the Act, 55 cities out of 66 had already implemented such an arrangement, and, in their case, the Act helped unify the procedures. The article also points out that some cities did not implement these regulations before the beginning of the 8th term of office of local governments, and in several cases there were problems with the implementation, which prevented citizens from exercising their resolution initiative. The article presents the legal status as of 31 December 2019.
