| Abstrakt: |
The conclusion of the state commission addressed in 1972 to Zakopane was: "in Zakopane, the state is in a position worse than in capitalism. It has been reduced to the role of not even a night-watchman, but of an unpaid street-sweeper". The peculiar "autonomy" of Podhale (Tatra Mountain Region) was affect by historical, social, cultural and geographical conditions that are usually mentioned, on the other hand the state was also an important actor and nowise ambiguous. The tendency to take a strict (or at least closer) supervision of sectors decisive for the image and the importance of Zakopane and the Tatra region -- tourism and sport, existed at the central level since the mid of 50s to the 80s, but at the regional level, the policy encountered very strong limitations. On the one hand, the reason for that was the emergence of specific social networks linking the private sector with the structures of local government, state and party, or even with the police and judicatory, on the other only thanks to them it was possible -- under the organizational inefficiency of the state -- to fulfil the modernizing society needs for leisure and related services, that were instantly growing after 1956. The stability of such structures was proven by the failure of two attempts (in the mid-70s and early 80s) of a top-down "ordering" of the situation in Zakopane and enhancing the role of the state as the (re)distributor of tourist services. In the first half of 70s the socialist state was able to provide a relatively rational program, thanks to being an influential factor for modernization mostly thanks to still being in disposal of material resources. However in the period of disintegration of the system, in the end o f '70s and in the '80s, state's program was no longer a barrier and alternative for the social actors. Both the previous researches and the ongoing ones allow for a broad, interdisciplinary analysis of the functioning of Zakopane and Tatra-region as a unique area (probably in the whole Soviet bloc), but also ambiguous. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
