Table 1
Number of municipal splits in Central and Eastern Europe
| Number of municipalities in 1990 | Number of newly-established municipalities in(*): | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990–1994(**) | 1995–2000 | 2001–2009 | 2010–2018 | ||
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 109 | 0 | 33 (30.3%) | 0 | 0 |
| Bulgaria | 274 | 0 | 6 (2.2%) | 2 (0.6%) | 1 (0.3%) |
| Croatia | 116 | 372 (321%) | 69 (59.5%) | 10 (8.6%) | 0 |
| Czech Republic | 4100 | 2130 (52%) | 25 (0.6%) | 11 (0.3%) | 4 (0.1%) |
| Hungary | 1586 | 1563 (98.5%) | 9 (0.6%) | 18 (1.1%) | 3 (0.2%) |
| Lithuania | 58 | 0 | 2 (3.4%) | 0 | 0 |
| Macedonia | 34 | 0 | 89 (262%) | 0 | 0 |
| Moldova# | 959 | 0 | 0 | 249 (26.0%) | 0 |
| Montenegro | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (9.5%) |
| Poland | 2383 | 96 (4.0%) | 21 (0.9%) | 0 | 1 (0/1%) |
| Romania | 2948 | 2 (0.1%) | 5 (0.2%) | 229 (7.8%) | 1 (0.1%) |
| Slovakia | 2669 | 196 (7.3% | 44 (1.6%) | 8 (0.2%) | 0 |
| Slovenia | 62 | 85 (137%) | 45 (72.6%) | 18 (29.0%) | 2 (3.2%) |
| Total | 15319 | 4444 | 348 | 545 | 14 |
(**) figures for 1990–1994 are not very precise, since they are estimations based on changes in numbers of municipal governments. Source: own elaboration
# The case of Moldova is very specific. In 1999 there was an amalgamation reform reducing the number of municipalities from 959 to 649. But this reform was considered unsuccessful and was almost totally reversed in 2003 when the number increased again to 898. Technically speaking it meant over 200 splits concentrated in one year. And it was perhaps the only known case from Europe in which splits were not the result of bottom-up pressures exerted in individual cases, but rather of a change in state-level policies. Because of this untypical character, we exclude the case of Moldova from further analysis.
Table 2
Municipal splits and size of local governments
| Number of splits since 1995 | Mean population size | Median population size | % of “pre-split” municipalities which were smaller than: | % of new “post-split” municipalities which are smaller than: | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean | median | mean | median | ||||
| Bulgaria | 9 | 32105 | 15087 | 29 | 0 | 100 | 100 |
| Croatia | 79 | 8127 | 3335 | 69 | 18 | 97 | 91 |
| Czech Rep. | 40 | 1787 | 416 | 23 | 3 | 95 | 28 |
| Hungary | 30 | 3217 | 888 | 13 | 0 | 90 | 57 |
| Lithuania | 5 | 47465 | 28342 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 80 |
| Montenegro | 2 | 29581 | 19451 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 |
| Poland | 22 | 16201 | 7515 | 68 | 21 | 89 | 84 |
| Romania | 235 | 7032 | 3604 | 78 | 14 | 100 | 97 |
| Slovakia | 52 | 1868 | 638 | 19 | 3 | 100 | 55 |
| Slovenia | 65 | 10367 | 5106 | 35 | 15 | 100 | 91 |
[i] Source: own elaboration
Figure 1
Typology of municipal secesions 1995–1999
Note: in this and the next figure we use following abbreviations for the countries: CZ- Czech Republic, SK- Slovakia, HU – Hungary, BG – Bulgaria, SLO – Slovenia, PL – Poland, HR – Croatia, LT- Lithuania, MNG – Montenegro, RO – Romania.
Source: own elaboration
Figure 2
Typology of municipal secessions since 2000
Source: own elaboration
Source: own elaboration
Figure 3
Factors influencing the emergence and implementation of municipal secession initiatives.
Source: own elaboration
Table 3
Formal regulations concerning municipal split initiatives in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
| Country | Conditions (thresholds) to be met by new municipality | Process of decision making on secession | Direction of changes of regulations after 1995 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bulgaria | Minimum population size 6,000 Distance to the town hall must not exceed 40 km Financial viability of the new municipality | Petition by 25% of population of the part to secede Legal check by regional governor Local referendum Final decision of Central Government approved by the President | Increased population threshold from 4 to6,000 (1998) Increased acceptable distance to town hall from 20 to 40 km (1998) |
| Croatia | No clear conditions or criteria | Initiative of the municipal council or at least 33% of residents of the part which wants to secede The secession has to be approved by the Parliament | Compulsory consultations with residentsin the case of a split initiated by the localcouncil (1997) and in all cases of split initiatives (2006) Compulsory opinion of local council and county assembly (1997) Compulsory approval of the Ministry of Finance (1997), of the whole cabinet (2006) |
| Czech Rep. | Minimum population size 1,000 | Local referendum with threshold consent of 50% of registered voters Formal approval of regional government | Increasing threshold from 300 to 1,000 population (2000) |
| Hungary | Positive demographic trend Infrastructure developed above national average Operating costs below national average | Referendum in the whole municipality (not only part to secede) with turn-out threshold of 50% Minister can reject the proposal, and local government may appeal to the court | Much lighter rules before 2013. Minimum population size 300 until 2011 Until 2013 the referendum was organized only in the part which wanted to secede Conditions concerning costs and infrastructure introduced in 2013 |
| Lithuania | Minimum population size 15,000 with central settlement unit of minimum 3,000 Sufficient administrative capacity and financial resources | Central government initiative with local consultation process Formally the initiative may be undertaken by local governments, and the final approval requires decision of the Parliament | |
| Poland | The new local government must not be smaller than the smallest currently existing (ca. 1,300 population) and not poorer than the current lowest per capita local tax base. Required opinion of the Ministry of Finance. | Neither the initiatives of local government nor the results of consultations (which may take the form of a local referendum, but this is not obligatory) are binding for the final decision of the Central Government | |
| Romania | Minimum population size 1,500 Sufficient financial resources Transport network from the proposed municipal centre to other villages Sufficient social infrastructure facilities (school, health care centre etc.) At least 25% population not in the agriculture sector More than 45% of houses built after 1960 | Application checked formally at county level Local referendum with turnout threshold Approval by Parliament requires 2/3rds majority | In 2001–2003 Central Government sent proposals to the Parliament not on an individual basis, but as one list of all applications, which made the process much smoother. This was part of the 2001 government strategy for public administration reform which set the objective of “giving commune status to 1000 villages which meet the legal criteria, so as to make local administration closer to the citizens”. The current, stricter rules were imposed in 2007 |
Slovakia | Minimum population size 3,000 New municipality must not have infrastructure which serves the whole territory of the old, pre-split municipality | Splits formally possible in election years only. Required referendum with 50% turn-out threshold. Agreement to secession is the discretionary decision of Central Government. | Central Government stopped issuing permits for splits after 2002 Since 2002, splits are formally possible in election years only. A population size limit was also introduced in 2002 |
| Slovenia | Minimum population size 5,000 Capacity to “satisfy needs of citizens” | Required referendum Formal approval by the Parliament | Before 2010 exceptions to the rule of “minimum 5,000” were allowed in case of justified “geographical, historical or economic reasons” and the list of actors who could initiate the split process was longer (e.g. 2010 amendment eliminatedsub-municipal units from that list) |
[i] Source: own elaboration.
Table 4
The Average number of splits per annum before and after changes to relevant formal requirements
| Country | Year of change in legislation | Average number of splits per annum | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before the change | After the change | ||
| Bulgaria | 1998 | 1 | 0.1 |
| Croatia | 1997, 2006 | 15.8 | 1.9 after 1997, 0 after 2006 |
| Czech Republic | 2000, 2003 | 3.8 | 2.7 after 2000 and 0.5 after 2008 |
| Hungary | 2013 | 1.5 | 0.2 |
| Romania | 2001–2003(*), 2007 | 47.3 | 2.3 and 0.5 after further tightening of the procedure in 2007 |
| Slovakia | 2002 | 4 | 0 |
| Slovenia | 2010 | 2.8 | 0.25 |
(*) in Romania the period of softened regulations (2001–2003, but with the peak of splits effective in 2004) is compared with years before and after this period.
Note: Lithuania and Poland are omitted from the table since there have been no significant modifications to the rules related to municipal splits.
Source: own elaboration.