Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Representativeness of survey
| Number of inhabitants | Czech Republic | Survey | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percent | Count | Percent | |
| 0–199 | 1,432 | 22.9 | 236 | 15.2 |
| 200–499 | 1,992 | 31.8 | 483 | 31.0 |
| 500–999 | 1,379 | 22.0 | 368 | 23.6 |
| 1,000–1,999 | 755 | 12.1 | 230 | 14.8 |
| 2,000–4,999 | 427 | 6.8 | 134 | 8.6 |
| 5,000–9,999 | 142 | 2.3 | 52 | 3.3 |
| 10,000–19,999 | 69 | 1.1 | 26 | 1.7 |
| 20,000–49,999 | 44 | 0.7 | 19 | 1.2 |
| 50,000–99,999 | 12 | 0.2 | 8 | 0.5 |
| 100,000 and more | 6 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 |
| Total | 6,258 | 100.0 | 1,557 | 100.0 |
Preferred form of cooperation according to municipal size groups
| Count | VAMs % | LAG % | Contracts % | A joint venture % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–199 | 224 | 65.63 | 57.14 | 20.98 | 0.89 |
| 200–499 | 460 | 68.48 | 67.83 | 22.17 | 3.91 |
| 500–999 | 360 | 76.39 | 76.67 | 25.56 | 8.61 |
| 1,000–1,999 | 223 | 76.23 | 84.30 | 30.94 | 10.31 |
| 2,000–4,999 | 130 | 70.00 | 76.92 | 31.54 | 9.23 |
| 5,000–9,999 | 49 | 75.51 | 77.55 | 40.82 | 16.33 |
| 10,000–19,999 | 26 | 61.54 | 61.54 | 34.62 | 23.08 |
| 20,000–49,999 | 18 | 55.56 | 50.00 | 61.11 | 22.22 |
| 50,000–99,999 | 8 | 50.00 | 12.50 | 62.50 | 25.00 |
| 100,000 and more | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| Total | 1,499 | 71.05 | 71.25 | 26.48 | 7.07 |
Preferred benefits from using the IMC form
| Perceived benefit | Statement | Average value |
|---|---|---|
| Increasing administrative capacity | IMC allows us to solve those problems so that we lack sufficient capacity because of their complexity (HR, knowledge, etc.). | 2.75 |
| Reducing costs | IMC helps us to reduce costs on services provided by the municipality. | 2.91 |
| Efficiency of services | IMC helps increase the efficiency of municipal administration. | 3.11 |
| Scope of services | IMC allows for increasing the scope of public services provided. | 3.05 |
| Development of municipalities | IMC supports the development of your municipality. | 2.65 |
| Grants | IMC helps in obtaining subsidies/grants/additional funding to finance projects in the territory of our municipality. | 2.81 |
Selected respondents for interviews with different characteristics
| No. of case | Number of VAM member municipalities | Total population in VAM area | Average municipal population in VAM area | Interviewed representative | FTE | Presence of ORP in VAM organization | Membership fee policy | Fee for other services provision implementation | CSS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12 | 8,500 | 708 | CH, EM | 5.7 | No | 5 € per inhabitant | Yes | Yes |
| 2 | 27 | 34,700 | 1,285 | EM, PM | 3 | Yes | Initial rate of 0.8 € per inhabitant, then floating level with the average rate about 1.2 € per inhabitant | Yes | Yes |
| 3 | 14 | 13,000 | 929 | CH | 0.5* | No | 0.8 € per inhabitant (occasionally is collected extraordinary contribution) | Yes | No |
| 4 | 10 | 9,000 | 900 | CH | 2.4 | No | 0.4 € per inhabitant (occasionally is collected extraordinary contribution) | No | Yes |
| 5 | 9 | 4,000 | 444 | EM | 3 (1) | No | Approximately 4 € per inhabitant | Yes | Yes |
| 6 | 26 | 34,000 | 1,308 | EM, PM | 12.2 (8) | Yes | Approximately 0.7 € per inhabitant (occasionally is collected extraordinary contribution) | Yes | Yes |
| 7 | 42 | 55,000 | 1,310 | EM | 6 (3) | Yes | 0 (revenues from other economic activities) | No | Yes |
| 8 | 22 | 8,500 | 386 | CH | 6 | Yes | Approximately 2.4 € per inhabitant | Yes | Yes |