Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Łódź, Wojciech Grabowski Faculty of Economics and Sociology

Published byRosemary O’Neal’ Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Łódź, Wojciech Grabowski Faculty of Economics and Sociology"— Presentation transcript:

1 Łódź, Wojciech Grabowski Faculty of Economics and Sociology Department of Econometric Models and Forecasts Socio-economic development indicators and the quality of life in Polish cities. Particular Focus on Lodz

2 SOCIAL DIAGNOSIS 1) The aim of the social diagnosis is:
to analyse of living conditions, state of mind and attitudes of households and their members 2) In this project different dimensions of life are taken into account: conditions for treatment, chances for good education, participation in culture, using ICT technologies. 3) Panel data are collected 11

3 SATISFACTION WITH CONSECUTIVE ASPECTS OF LIFE
IN SOCIAL DIAGNOSIS SOCIAL ASPECTS (satisfaction with marriage, with relationships with the nearest family, with the realtionships with colleagues). FINANCIAL ASPECTS (satisfaction with financial situation of family, with living conditions). ENVIROMENTAL ASPECTS (evaluation of a situation of the country, evaluation of a place of living, sense of security in town/city). HEALTH ASPECTS ( satisfaction with health and ways of spending free time). ASPECTS ASSOCIATED WITH SELF-ESTEEM ( satisfaction with achievements, level of education, future perspectives). 11

4 QUESTION CONCERNING LOCAL PATRIOTISM IN SOCIAL DIAGNOSIS
What is the level of your satisfaction with the city/town, where you live? Possible answers: very high, high, moderately high, moderately low, low, very low

5 FRACTION OF CITIZENS VERY SATISFIED OR SATISFIED
WITH THE CITY/TOWN OF LIVING IN POLISH CITIES AND THE LARGEST TOWNS IN 2015 CITY/TOWN FRACTION Gdynia 0.872 Szczecin 0.649 Opole 0.533 Gdansk 0.792 Bielsko-Biala 0.615 Lodz 0.507 Torun 0.731 Poznan 0.604 Sosnowiec 0.503 Krakow 0.705 Rzeszow 0.590 Zabrze 0.478 Bialystok 0.683 Katowice 0.583 Bydgoszcz 0.477 Warsaw 0.676 Kielce 0.575 Ruda Slaska 0.456 Wroclaw Radom 0.561 Jaworzno 0.435 Olsztyn 0.675 Czestochowa 0.551 Bytom 0.407 Zielona Gora 0.667 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.536 Walbrzych 0.239 Gliwice 0.661 Lublin

6 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF FRACTIONS OF VERY SATISFIED AND SATISFIED CITIZENS
Fraction of very satisfied and satisfied citizens in Lodz is unfortunatley relatively low. In general, very high level of satisfaction with the place of living is observed in the largest Polish cities (Krakow, Warsaw, Wroclaw) Fraction of very satisfied and satisfied citizens is very high in cities/towns located at the seaside (Gdansk, Gdynia). Citizens of cities/towns with high percentage of forests and green areas seem to be more satisfied with the place of living (Torun, Bialystok, Olsztyn, Zielona Gora, Szczecin). Citizens of cities/towns characterized with very high level of pollution are less satisfied with their place of living (Sosnowiec, Zabrze, Ruda Slaska, Jaworzno). Especially low level of satisfaction is observed in cities/towns, where systemic transformation and industrial restructuring played important role (Czestochowa, Lodz, Bytom, Walbrzych). Citizens of towns, which lost the status of the capital of region, are generally less satisfied with their town as place of living (Radom, Czestochowa, Walbrzych).

7 SOME OPTIMISTIC DATA FOR LODZ
YEAR 2011 2013 2015 FRACTION OF VERY SATISFIED AND SATISFIED CITIZENS 0.424 0.381 0.507 POSITION OF LODZ IN RANKING 25 26 22

8 GENERAL COEFFICIENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN 2015
CITY/TOWN SCORE Poznan 0.52 Jaworzno 0.17 Gorzow Wlkp. -0.09 Zielona Gora 0.38 Szczecin Bialystok -0.18 Krakow 0.37 Wroclaw 0.15 Walbrzych Olsztyn 0.33 Zabrze 0.12 Czestochowa -0.19 Torun 0.32 Sosnowiec 0.03 Radom -0.22 Gliwice Bielsko-Biala 0.00 Ruda Slaska -0.28 Warsaw 0.30 Lublin -0.01 Opole -0.35 Gdansk 0.20 Lodz Kielce -0.39 Rzeszow 0.19 Katowice -0.03 Gdynia 0.18 Bydgoszcz -0.06

9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH THE PLACE OF LIVING AND QUALITY OF LIFE
H0: Ranking of satisfaction and ranking of quality of life are independent Spearman’s rho = 0.563, p-value=0.002, H0 is rejected. 2) However some cases seem to be interesting: Satisfaction Quality of life VERY LOW MEDIUM VERY HIGH Bialystok MODERATELY HIGH Jaworzno, Zabrze Gdynia Poznan

10 Socio-economic development indicators affecting quality of life/satisfaction with place of living

11 DIMENSIONS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
WEALTH OF CITIZENS PERFORMANCE OF ENTERPRISES AND CONDITIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURS CULTURE AND SPORT OFFER LEVEL OF SAFETY OF CITIZENS FACILITIES FOR CITIZENS ECOLOGY LIVING CONDITIONS 11

12 VARIABLES REFLECTING WEALTH OF CITIZENS
Revenues from personal income tax / Population, Unemployment rate, Ratio of new cars, Wage

13 VARIABLES REFLECTING PERFORMANCE OF ENTERPRISES AND CONDITIONS
FOR ENTREPRENEURS Investment outputs in enterprises / Population Gross value of fixed assets / Population Sold production of industry / Population (Number of new registered enterprises – Number of unregistered enterprises) / Population

14 VARIABLES REFLECTING CULTURE AND SPORT OFFER
Number of community centres / Population Expenditure in division „culture and national heritage” / Population Expenditure in division „physical education”/Population Number of sport clubs/Population Number of art and entertainment events, interdisciplinary and sports events / Population Number of performances in theatres/ Population

15 VARIABLES REFLECTING THE LEVEL OF SAFETY OF CITIZENS
Expenditure in division „public safety and fire care” / Population, The rate of detectability of the deliquents in ascertained crimes, Number of ascertained crimes by the police / Population, Number of road traffic accidents / Population

16 VARIABLES REFLECTING FACILITIES FOR CITIZENS
Children in preschool education establishments per 1000 children aged 3-5 years, Percentage of children in care in nurseries, Expenditure in division „Education” / Population, Expenditure in division „Health care” / Population, Number of pupils per 1 computer with broadband internet access.

17 VARIABLES REFLECTING ECOLOGY
Share of forests, parks, lawns and green areas of the housing estate areas in the total area, Industrial and municipal wastewater purified in percentage of wastewater requiring treatment, Area of bicycle lanes to total area, Expenditure in division „Municipal economy and enviromental protection”/ Population 11

18 VARIABLES REFLECTING LIVING CONDITIONS
dwellings per 1000 population, - dwellings fitted with installations (water supply system, bathroom, central heating) in % of the total numer of dwellings 11

19 RANKING OF POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN TERMS OF WEALTH OF CITIZENS
CITY/TOWN SCORE Warsaw 0.985 Rzeszow 0.455 Ruda Slaska 0.243 Katowice 0.760 Jaworzno 0.421 Bialystok Poznan 0.665 Olsztyn 0.408 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.231 Gdansk 0.567 Szczecin 0.365 Zabrze 0.203 Gdynia 0.565 Lublin 0.345 Czestochowa 0.196 Wroclaw 0.550 Zielona Gora 0.337 Sosnowiec 0.182 Krakow 0.526 Torun 0.323 Radom 0.055 Gliwice 0.504 Kielce 0.304 Bytom 0.042 Opole 0.475 Bydgoszcz 0.303 Bielsko-Biala 0.462 Lodz 0.301

20 CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF LODZ IN YEARS 2011-2015
2013 2015 SCORE 0.306 0.299 0.301 POSITION 19 20

21 RANKING OF POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE OF ENTERPRISES AND POSITION OF ENTREPRENEURS
CITY/TOWN SCORE Warsaw 0.853 Jaworzno 0.316 Czestochowa 0.177 Gdansk 0.563 Opole 0.307 Zabrze 0.171 Bielsko-Biala 0.550 Olsztyn 0.284 Kielce 0.170 Gliwice 0.545 Gdynia 0.258 Bialystok 0.167 Poznan 0.535 Torun 0.223 Radom 0.093 Katowice 0.502 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.219 Sosnowiec 0.091 Wroclaw 0.407 Lublin Ruda Slaska 0.084 Rzeszow 0.377 Lodz 0.206 Bytom 0.033 Krakow 0.370 Szczecin 0.182 Zielona Gora 0.344 Bydgoszcz

22 CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF LODZ IN YEARS 2011-2015
2013 2015 SCORE 0.159 0.193 0.206 POSITION 24 18

23 RANKING OF POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN TERMS OF CULTURE AND SPORT OFFER
CITY/TOWN SCORE Torun 0.631 Szczecin 0.360 Gdynia 0.273 Opole 0.552 Wroclaw 0.354 Czestochowa 0.269 Bielsko-Biala 0.528 Jaworzno 0.345 Zabrze 0.266 Katowice 0.502 Kielce 0.333 Bydgoszcz 0.222 Olsztyn 0.484 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.303 Radom 0.190 Rzeszow 0.477 Gliwice Sosnowiec 0.164 Krakow 0.452 Poznan 0.294 Ruda Slaska 0.147 Zielona Gora 0.426 Warszawa 0.289 Bytom 0.136 Lublin 0.390 Lodz 0.282 Bialystok 0.380 Gdansk 0.275

24 CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF LODZ IN YEARS 2011-2015
2013 2015 SCORE 0.218 0.273 0.282 POSITION 22 20 19

25 RANKING OF POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN TERMS OF LEVEL OF SAFETY OF CITIZENS
CITY/TOWN SCORE Radom 0.734 Gdynia 0.590 Zabrze 0.478 Torun 0.724 Ruda Slaska 0.585 Gdansk 0.457 Jaworzno 0.717 Bytom 0.576 Szczecin 0.456 Bialystok 0.707 Warsaw 0.571 Rzeszow 0.411 Bielsko-Biala 0.701 Kielce 0.570 Krakow 0.403 Bydgoszcz 0.670 Lublin 0.563 Katowice 0.361 Gliwice 0.637 Olsztyn 0.557 Wroclaw 0.352 Czestochowa 0.622 Opole 0.548 Lodz 0.316 Zielona Gora 0.618 Sosnowiec 0.503 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.592 Poznan 0.498

26 CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF LODZ IN YEARS 2011-2015
2013 2015 SCORE 0.325 0.316 POSITION 27 28

27 RANKING OF POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN TERMS OF LEVEL OF FACILITIES FOR CITIZENS
CITY/TOWN SCORE Opole 0.804 Wroclaw 0.541 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.395 Warsaw 0.704 Krakow 0.532 Gdansk 0.390 Rzeszow 0.697 Radom 0.510 Zabrze 0.369 Zielona Gora 0.640 Katowice 0.488 Szczecin 0.364 Lublin 0.584 Gliwice 0.479 Gdynia 0.310 Kielce 0.579 Sosnowiec 0.466 Bytom 0.290 Poznan 0.563 Lodz 0.456 Ruda Slaska 0.223 Olsztyn 0.555 Torun 0.446 Jaworzno 0.192 Bialystok 0.546 Czestochowa 0.424 Bielsko-Biala 0.545 Bydgoszcz 0.394

28 CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF LODZ IN YEARS 2011-2015
2013 2015 SCORE 0.496 0.479 0.456 POSITION 13 15 17

29 RANKING OF POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN TERMS OF ECOLOGY
CITY/TOWN SCORE Olsztyn 0.800 Gdansk 0.522 Sosnowiec 0.398 Wroclaw 0.680 Szczecin 0.502 Katowice 0.381 Rzeszow 0.639 Opole 0.486 Czestochowa 0.369 Bialystok 0.631 Gdynia 0.484 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.362 Poznan 0.618 Bydgoszcz 0.462 Bytom 0.355 Warszawa 0.615 Zielona Gora 0.448 Gliwice 0.297 Torun 0.600 Radom 0.429 Zabrze 0.289 Lodz 0.574 Bielsko-Biala 0.413 Ruda Slaska 0.218 Lublin 0.563 Kielce 0.410 Krakow 0.562 Jaworzno 0.399

30 CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF LODZ IN YEARS 2011-2015
2013 2015 SCORE 0.600 0.622 0.574 POSITION 4 6 8

31 RANKING OF POLISH CITIES/TOWNS IN TERMS OF LIVING CONDITIONS
CITY/TOWN SCORE Rzeszow 0.880 Gorzow Wlkp. 0.598 Gliwice 0.381 Wroclaw 0.873 Kielce 0.568 Sosnowiec 0.369 Krakow 0.867 Opole 0.566 Czestochowa 0.351 Gdansk 0.831 Lublin 0.563 Radom 0.342 Warszawa 0.796 Torun 0.553 Zabrze 0.257 Poznan 0.718 Szczecin 0.504 Ruda Slaska 0.219 Olsztyn 0.715 Bielsko-Biala 0.503 Bytom 0.174 Zielona Gora 0.703 Jaworzno 0.470 Lodz 0.090 Bialystok 0.694 Katowice Gdynia 0.653 Bydgoszcz 0.454

32 CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF LODZ IN YEARS 2011-2015
2013 2015 SCORE 0.108 0.088 0.090 POSITION 28

33 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH A CITY/TOWN OF LIVING AND VARIABLES REFLECTING WEALTH OF CITIZENS VARIABLE PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU REVENUES FROM PIT 0.384 (0.000) 0.461 0.303 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 0.514 0.523 0.340 RATIO OF NEW CARS 0.475 0.557 0.382 WAGES 0.271 (0.012) 0.369 0.251 (0.001)

34 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND VARIABLES REFLECTING WEALTH OF CITIZENS
PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU REVENUES FROM PIT 0.479 (0.000) 0.478 0.337 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE 0.481 0.468 0.331 RATIO OF NEW CARS 0.407 0.366 0.251 WAGES 0.451 0.535 0.373

35 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH A CITY/TOWN OF LIVING AND VARIABLES REFLECTING PERFORMANCE OF ENTERPRISES AND CONDITIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURS VARIABLE PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU INVESTMENT OUTPUTS 0.331 (0.002) 0.338 0.235 GROSS VALUE OF FIXED ASSETS 0.355 (0.001) 0.454 (0.000) 0.303 SOLD PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRY 0.211 (0.054) 0.228 (0.037) 0.163 (0.028) (NEW REGISTERED – UNREGISTERED) PER CAPITA 0.487 0.550 0.367

36 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND VARIABLES REFLECTING PERFORMANCE OF ENTERPRISES AND CONDITIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURS VARIABLE PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU INVESTMENT OUTPUTS 0.363 (0.000) (0.001) 0.248 GROSS VALUE OF FIXED ASSETS 0.449 0.469 0.335 SOLD PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRY 0.048 (0.668) 0.202 (0.071) 0.138 (0.069) (NEW REGISTERED – UNREGISTERED) PER CAPITA 0.477 0.458 0.308

37 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH A CITY/TOWN OF LIVING AND VARIABLES REFLECTING CULTURE AND SPORT OFFER VARIABLE PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU COMMUNITY CENTRES -0.021 (0.852) 0.078 (0.482) 0.075 (0.315) EXPENDITURE – „CULTURE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE” 0.320 (0.003) 0.357 (0.001) 0.243 EXPENDITURE – „PHYSICAL EDUCATION” 0.188 (0.086) 0.222 (0.042) 0.159 (0.032) SPORT CLUBS 0.196 (0.073) 0.217 (0.047) 0.143 (0.054) ART., ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS EVENTS 0.319 0.256 (0.019) 0.169 (0.022) PERFORMANCES IN THEATRES 0.389 (0.000) 0.426 0.288

38 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND VARIABLES REFLECTING CULTURE AND SPORT OFFER
PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU COMMUNITY CENTRES 0.053 (0.637) 0.034 (0.764) 0.012 (0.877) EXPENDITURE – „CULTURE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE” 0.346 (0.002) 0.445 (0.000) 0.309 EXPENDITURE – „PHYSICAL EDUCATION” 0.129 (0.252) 0.095 (0.396) 0.065 (0.394) SPORT CLUBS -0.129 (0.251) -0.134 (0.234) -0.097 (0.203) ART, ENTERTAINMENT AND SPORTS EVENTS 0.367 (0.001) 0.331 (0.003) 0.233 PERFORMANCES IN THEATRES 0.221 (0.048) 0.226 (0.043) 0.158 (0.037)

39 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH A CITY/TOWN OF LIVING AND VARIABLES REFLECTING LEVEL OF SAFETY OF CITIZENS VARIABLE PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU EXPENDITURE 0.227 (0.037) 0.260 (0.017) 0.168 (0.024) RATE OF DETECTABILITY -0.329 (0.002) -0.336 -0.231 ASCERTAINED CRIMES -0.005 (0.966) -0.057 (0.609) -0.025 (0.739) ROAD ACCIDENTS 0.167 (0.128) 0.190 (0.083) 0.124 (0.097)

40 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND VARIABLES REFLECTING LEVEL OF SAFETY
PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU EXPENDITURE -0.023 (0.840) -0.029 (0.799) -0.012 (0.877) RATE OF DETECTABILITY -0.276 (0.013) -0.262 (0.018) -0.176 (0.020) ASCERTAINED CRIMES -0.172 (0.125) -0.231 (0.038) -0.146 (0.053) ROAD ACCIDENTS 0.202 (0.071) 0.178 (0.111) 0.120 (0.113)

41 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH A CITY/TOWN OF LIVING AND VARIABLES REFLECTING FACILITIES FOR CITIZENS VARIABLE PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU AVAILABILITY OF KINDERGARDENS 0.301 (0.005) 0.249 (0.022) 0.175 (0.019) CHILDREN IN CARE IN NURSERIES 0.152 (0.168) 0.223 (0.041) 0.162 (0.029) EXPENDITURE – „EDUCATION” -0.048 (0.666) -0.138 (0.211) -0.086 (0.248) EXPENDITURE – „HEALTH CARE” 0.190 (0.083) 0.271 (0.013) 0.165 (0.027) BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS 0.099 (0.372) 0.107 (0.331) 0.069 (0.353)

42 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND VARIABLES REFLECTING FACILITIES FOR CITIZENS
PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU AVAILABILITY OF KINDERGARDENS 0.233 (0.036) 0.193 (0.084) 0.131 (0.085) CHILDREN IN CARE IN NURSERIES 0.060 (0.596) 0.170 (0.130) 0.116 (0.125) EXPENDITURE – „EDUCATION” 0.054 (0.631) -0.069 (0.543) -0.044 (0.565) EXPENDITURE – „HEALTH CARE” -0.195 (0.081) -0.167 (0.135) -0.095 (0.209) BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS -0.147 (0.189) -0.089 (0.427) -0.049 (0.521)

43 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH A CITY/TOWN OF LIVING AND VARIABLES REFLECTING ECOLOGY
PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU GREEN AREAS 0.143 (0.196) 0.195 (0.075) 0.129 (0.083) PURIFICATION OF WASTEWATER 0.191 (0.081) 0.156 (0.157) 0.097 (0.192) AREA OF BICYCLE LANES 0.407 (0.000) 0.471 0.316 EXPENDITURE – „MUNICIPAL ECONOMY AND ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION” 0.057 (0.605) 0.072 (0.516) 0.052 (0.482)

44 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND VARIABLES REFLECTING ECOLOGY
PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU GREEN AREAS 0.337 (0.002) 0.331 0.226 (0.003) PURIFICATION OF WASTEWATER 0.040 (0.725) 0.022 (0.848) 0.021 (0.787) AREA OF BICYCLE LANES 0.201 (0.072) 0.246 (0.027) 0.170 (0.025) EXPENDITURE – „MUNICIPAL ECONOMY AND ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION” 0.154 (0.169) 0.182 (0.105) 0.111 (0.142)

45 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH A CITY/TOWN OF LIVING AND VARIABLES REFLECTING LIVING CONDITIONS VARIABLE PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU NEW BUILT FLATS 0.563 (0.000) 0.618 0.423 FLATS EQUIPPED 0.599 0.629 0.451

46 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND VARIABLES LIVING CONDITIONS
PEARSON CORRELATION SPEARMAN’S RHO KENDALL’S TAU NEW BUILT FLATS 0.413 (0.000) 0.435 0.282 FLATS EQUIPPED 0.412 0.538 0.374

47 RESULTS OF THE ESTIMATION
AGGREGATE VARIABLE SATISFACTION QUALITY OF LIFE WEALTH OF CITIZENS 0.249 0.504 PERFORMANCE OF ENTERPRISES AND CONDITIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURS - CULTURE AND SPORT OFFER 0.310 0.405 LEVEL OF SAFETY OF CITIZENS 0.407 FACILITIES FOR CITIZENS ECOLOGY 0.045 0.282 LIVING CONDITIONS 0.484 0.338

48 Thank you very much for your attention

Download ppt "Łódź, Wojciech Grabowski Faculty of Economics and Sociology"

Similar presentations

PIONIER and its usability for GEANT extension to Eastern Europe Michał Przybylski, CEF Networks Workshop, 16-19 May 2005.

PIONIER and its usability for GEANT extension to Eastern Europe Michał Przybylski, CEF Networks Workshop, May 2005.
NAT testing in Poland E. Brojer, M. Łętowska, A

NAT testing in Poland E. Brojer, M. Łętowska, A
THE ICT RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2007- 2013 Grzegorz Żbikowski Department of Information Systems for Science Ministry of Science and.

THE ICT RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME Grzegorz Żbikowski Department of Information Systems for Science Ministry of Science and.
Polish Tier-2 Ryszard Gokieli Institute for Nuclear Studies Warsaw.

Polish Tier-2 Ryszard Gokieli Institute for Nuclear Studies Warsaw.
Government final consumption expenditures Buyung Airlangga.

Government final consumption expenditures Buyung Airlangga.
Zagreb, 2002-09-22 NATO ANW: The Third CEENet Workshop on Network Management, Piotr Sąsiedzki POL-34 Silesian University of Technology Computer Centre.

Zagreb, NATO ANW: The Third CEENet Workshop on Network Management, Piotr Sąsiedzki POL-34 Silesian University of Technology Computer Centre.
Ghent, February 26, 2013 Embassy of Poland Trade & Investment Promotion Section Krzysztof Turowski, Counsellor, Head of Section INVESTMENT CLIMATE AND.

Ghent, February 26, 2013 Embassy of Poland Trade & Investment Promotion Section Krzysztof Turowski, Counsellor, Head of Section INVESTMENT CLIMATE AND.
Berlin -> 180 km Rotterdam-> 842 km Prague -> 269 km Moscow -> 1664 km Warsaw -> 428 km Szczecin -> 213 km Poznań -> 129 km Wrocław -> 156 km Gorzów Wlkp.

Berlin -> 180 km Rotterdam-> 842 km Prague -> 269 km Moscow -> 1664 km Warsaw -> 428 km Szczecin -> 213 km Poznań -> 129 km Wrocław -> 156 km Gorzów Wlkp.
Role and potential small and medium-sized urban areas Latvia’s case

Role and potential small and medium-sized urban areas Latvia’s case
Community Happiness Index Gwendolyn Hallsmith, Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Montpelier.

Community Happiness Index Gwendolyn Hallsmith, Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Montpelier.
DKM Presents The Property Boom In Poland Davidoff Kleeberg & Maresch Residential & Commercial Real Estate in Poland.

DKM Presents The Property Boom In Poland Davidoff Kleeberg & Maresch Residential & Commercial Real Estate in Poland.
Polish Tier-2 Andrzej Olszewski Institute of Nuclear Physics Kraków, Poland October 2005 – February 2006.

Polish Tier-2 Andrzej Olszewski Institute of Nuclear Physics Kraków, Poland October 2005 – February 2006.
WORKSHOP ON INDUSTRIAL STATITICS, 8 – 10 JULY 2013 COUNTRY PRESENTATION MALDIVES.

WORKSHOP ON INDUSTRIAL STATITICS, 8 – 10 JULY 2013 COUNTRY PRESENTATION MALDIVES.
1 UN Statistics Division Data items for industrial statistics (Part 3)

1 UN Statistics Division Data items for industrial statistics (Part 3)
“Science and technology potential in Poland” - Dr Olaf Gajl, Information Processing Centre OPI Warsaw, Pl International Conference “Scientific and Technological.

“Science and technology potential in Poland” - Dr Olaf Gajl, Information Processing Centre OPI Warsaw, Pl International Conference “Scientific and Technological.
Business opportunities in Poland Dawid Tomaszewski Political-Economic Section Embassy of the Republic of Poland Jelgava, December 01, 2010.

Business opportunities in Poland Dawid Tomaszewski Political-Economic Section Embassy of the Republic of Poland Jelgava, December 01, 2010.
LOCAL SELF- GOVERNMENT IN SLOVENIA. Legal context Slovenia is a territorially unified and indivisible State“ (art. 4 of the Constitution). It has a bicameral.

LOCAL SELF- GOVERNMENT IN SLOVENIA. Legal context Slovenia is a "territorially unified and indivisible State“ (art. 4 of the Constitution). It has a bicameral.
The approach taken by a Central/Eastern European Blood Transfusion Organisation: POLAND Magdalena Łętowska National Centre for Transfusion Medicine Warsaw,

The approach taken by a Central/Eastern European Blood Transfusion Organisation: POLAND Magdalena Łętowska National Centre for Transfusion Medicine Warsaw,
UNIT C ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS AND FINANCING 5.02 Explain the relationship between economic measurements and economic growth.

UNIT C ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS AND FINANCING 5.02 Explain the relationship between economic measurements and economic growth.
B.Batbayar Chief of Division Economic statistics of STATISTICS DEPARTMENT CAPITAL CITY POPULATION AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF CAPITAL CITY.

B.Batbayar Chief of Division Economic statistics of STATISTICS DEPARTMENT CAPITAL CITY POPULATION AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF CAPITAL CITY.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google