Decision-making in a conflict situation in public policy practice is most often associated with conflicts of interest. One of the frequent forms of this conflict is the so-called NIMBY phenomenon, which has become a subject of interest mainly because of the distinctive spatial characteristics of the conflicts. A very rich base of empirical research has been provided by the Polish geographical sciences, which allowed us to attempt in this study to propose an analysis of NIMBY-type conflicts in terms of different types of collectivised interests. Hypothetically, on this basis, it would be possible to find a new approach to the resolution of these conflicts no longer only in the processes of participation of stakeholders but based on merit-based criteria. When making these decisions, it is necessary, first, to check whether there are legitimate supra-individual (group) interests at stake, since sometimes this legitimacy is questionable, and it may be only an individual interest. Different types of individual interests are justified and collectivised according to different criteria. When it comes to legitimate interests, there may be a conflict between the vertically differentiated bearers of these interests. However, even in this case, the higher hierarchical position of one of the bearers cannot imply a preference for his/her legitimate interest. As in the case of a horizontally-situated conflict, the decisive factor is the content, where interests with a higher degree of substance should be privileged over others: interests that are already concerned at the individual level with values such as human life, health, etc., must be privileged over others. They must be privileged over the interests of an economic nature, etc., and these over ordinary short-term interests. It turns out to be obvious that it is the degree of legitimate collectivised supraindividual interests that is the primary criterion for assessing preferences in decision-making in conflicts of public interests, rather than the simple preference of legitimate supra-individual interests only according to the position of their bearers in the vertical hierarchy.
Revitalisation, which is defined as a planned process of restoring deprived areas, entails the difficult challenge of achieving long-lasting spatial, economic and social effects. In Poland, the accompanying inflow of European Union funds not only fosters a wide range of activities for entities involved in urban renewal, but also raises a question about the potential dysfunction of investments in deprived areas. Based on the experiences of Kraków, the paper presents some undesirable effects of projects implemented under the Local Revitalisation Programmes (LRP) in the years 2007-2013. The goal of the LRP projects was to promote the rehabilitation of deprived housing areas. The initial results, however, indicate that these projects are characterised by specific pitfalls, which include touristification, uniformisation, gentrification and social polarisation.
The article aims to identify the geographical dimension of social (in)justice in the context of the existing permanent differences in the level of socio-economic development in Poland from the geographical and historical point of view. It also discusses the consequences of these inequalities for development policy on regional and local levels. The study consists of two essential parts. The first one presents synthetic deliberations on the geographical aspect of the social justice discussed. In the second part, an attempt was made to exemplify a geographical dimension of social (in)justice through the analysis of the spatial distribution of the socio-economic development level (a synthetic indicator) and selected partial indicators. In addition, the presence of dependencies of the socio-economic development level and the degree of political support for political fractions proclaiming the slogan of “social justice” was verified. The results of the conducted research confirm the existence of considerable developmental differences in the Polish space. Their strength is historically determined and, despite the passage of time, their pattern invariably corresponds to the former partition boundaries. These disparities are not minimised and the influence of economic growth on the income rise remains limited, especially in economically weaker areas, which leads to growing social dissatisfaction. As a result, one can conclude that in Poland those differences constitute the geographical dimension of social (in)justice.