—A NATIONAL LEVEL VIEW
2.1 Public Opinion on Local Governments Throughout the 1990–2000 Period
2.1.3 To What Degree Are Citizens Satisfied with Local Government Performance?
In the IVVM surveys [2], we found a number of indicators pointing to overall levels of satisfaction with local self-government. First came questions dealing with general satisfaction, then with contentment with the performances of councilors and officials, and eventually the level of satisfaction with local services. The comparison of these views, among them and in time (as well as their differentiation with respect to characteristics of communities and respondents), represent a sufficiently wide sampling to assess the level of satisfaction with local self-government in the Czech Republic during the last seven or eight years.
Developments regarding the general level of satisfaction can be seen in Figure 2.4, where respondents’ answers to the question of “are you satisfied with your local council performance?”
are shown (IVVM Report, 2 DEC 1999). (Percents summing up to 100 represent the answers
“cannot draw conclusions about”.)
After a decrease between 1991 and 1993, the satisfaction level steadily grows. In 1999, it almost achieved its former level (51% of very satisfied or generally satisfied in 1991, to 48% of those in 1999). It is also worth noting that the percentages of extreme answers declined in favor of a growth in intermediate answers.
27 30 19
16 11
22
29
30
Do you know your councilors?
10 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
09.93 11.93 05.94 09.94 05.95 11.95 07.96 05.97 05.98 10.98 05.99 11.99 05.00
31 29
18
34 30 25 28 30
23 33
26
27 24
23
29 30
29 29 28
24 27
23
21 22
27
18 22
24 23 21
26 20
25 20
17 17 12 11 14 12 11 12
14 14
All or most Some One or two None
Figure 2.4
Development of General Satisfaction with Local Councils
The level of satisfaction with local councils was in close relation to the size of the community, as can be seen in the 1999 data depicted in Figure 2.5; a ratio of very or generally satisfied with respect to community size categories.
Figure 2.5
Ratio of Citizens Satisfied with Local Government According to Community Size
20
7 6 3
16
44
4 23
32
21 1 2 4 3
Satisfaction with local councils
06.91 09.93 09.94 11.96 09.98 11.99
10 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
37 32
1 27
19 4
43 20
40 17 4
Very satisfied Quite satisfied Quite dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
over 100 000 20–100 000 5–20 000 2–5 000 500–2 000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
37 42
48
58 66 60
It can be seen that the satisfaction level is in reverse linear relation with the size of the community:
the satisfaction grows with decline of community inhabitants1. A similar distribution of satisfaction can be observed in previous years, too. Since 1993, the direct linear relation between the levels of satisfaction with local councils and the knowledge of councilors is also noticeable each year.
Various responses as to why so many people seem so dissatisfied with local councils, based on the 1996 and 1998 data cast another key indicator of the level of satisfaction. The most common responses were variations on the following types of grievances:
• councilors do little or nothing for the community, nothing happens in the community (40% in 1996; 39% in 1998);
• councilors are not concerned about their constituents (25% in 1996);
• councilors take care only of their own interests, and are easily corruptible (25% in 1996;
20% in 1998);
• councilors do various favors for their relatives and friends (14% in 1998);
• Councilors do not keep their promises (12% in 1998).
It can be seen that the reasons for dissatisfaction with local councils did not change much in the two years covered by the survey.
Citizen satisfaction levels with local government performances are a multifaceted phenomenon. This is clearly indicated by the answers to the question “are you satisfied with the way your local government handles your affairs?” (IVVM Report, 17 DEC 1996). Figure 2.6 shows results from 1993 to 1996.
Figure 2.6
Citizen’s Satisfaction with Handling of Their Affairs by Local Government
Satisfaction with how local governments handl citizens’ affairs
20
33
19
33
48
05/93 0 20 40 60 80 100
09/94 11/95 11/96
21
33
46
17
31
52
Satisfied Partially satisfied Dissatisfied
45
The strongest factor, which differentiates the citizens’ satisfaction with the handling of their affairs by local government, is the issue of whether or not they have ever been participants in local authority proceedings (cf. local government responsibilities). The citizens who had made visits to their local authorities expressed more frequently their satisfaction with local government in this regard. This demonstrates that contact with local authority is a significant factor reducing negative attitudes towards local self-government. That correlation was observed in the years mentioned, and in subsequent years, too. (The last available data are from September, 1998.) One of the most important aspects of community life is the issue of safety, which is obviously connected to citizens’ assessment of local police performance2. Figure 2.7 shows the variety of answers to the question “are you satisfied with local police performance in your domicile?”
(IVVM Report, 26 MAY 2000). (Percents summing up to 100 represent the answer “don’t know”.)
Figure 2.7
Development of Citizen’s Satisfaction with Local Police, 1990–2000
The level of citizens’ satisfaction with local police performance showed a distinctly positive trend.
We can consider this as an important improvement with respect to the fact that citizens have consistently regarded safety as an urgent problem in all findings (see Table 2.2), and that tension between urgency and satisfaction with safety was very significant in 1995 (see Table 2.3).
Satisfaction with local police 100
0 20 40 60 80
10/90 05/91 11/92 10/93 02/94 10/94 02/95 02/96 10/96 02/97 05/98 10/98 05/99 10/99 05/00
29 37 33 33 40 42 42 43 42 47
56 56 56
59 54 59 60 55 47 47 46 50 44
38 38 40
Satisfied Dissatisfied
56 39
24 70
• The level of satisfaction grew steadily from 24% in 1990, to over 40% in 1995–97, to 56% from late 1998 until 2000.
• The same trend, in the opposite direction, can be observed in the changes of the level of dissatisfaction, which fell from 70% in 1990, to around 50% in 1995–97, to around 39%
from late 1998 until 2000.
• The first reversal of satisfaction levels came at the beginning of 1995, when a near balance of satisfaction and dissatisfaction was achieved. The second reversal was observed at the end of 1998, when satisfaction significantly outweighed dissatisfaction.
The groups generally more satisfied with local police performance are represented by people of 30 to 44 years of age, by people with better living standards, by inhabitants of smaller communities (under 5 000), and by voters of a right-centrist political orientation.
Finally, we should turn our attention to the expressed levels of satisfaction with local services and living standards in Czech communities. In IVVM surveys, 17 living conditions were formulated, with the respondents being asked to voice their satisfaction with them (IVVM Report, 12 DEC 1997, data of September 1994 and November 1997). In the following Figure 2.8, percentages of satisfied respondents (answers “certainly yes” and “generally yes”) in both years are shown for all 17 living conditions. The respective living conditions were ranked by the relative differences between 1997 satisfaction percentages, and those of 1994 [(yes1997–yes1994)/yes1994].
(The living standards with the highest relative improvement are placed at the top of Figure 2.8;
those with the highest relative worsening are at the bottom.)
To draw any conclusions from relations among these 17 living conditions and between changes of their satisfaction levels is neither simple, nor easy. We would like to point out the following:
• The level of satisfaction with community living conditions grows a little: In 1997, there were 11 of 17 living conditions with higher levels of satisfaction than in 1994. The level of satisfaction remained the same in two categories, and was lower in four categories.
• Local governments are generally successful in handling with community living conditions.
Among nine living conditions with increased level of satisfaction, five of them could be directly connected with initiatives taken by local governments.
• safety with highest increase of satisfaction (+13 points);
• living environment and post office functioning (both +8 points);
• disposal of household waste (+7 points);
• Street cleanliness (+5 points).
• Local government possibilities of influence on worsening living conditions are often beyond their current capabilities, mainly because of financial restrictions, e.g.:
• job (work) opportunities (–7 points);
• City transport and vicinity transport links (both –6 points).
Figure 2.8
Changes in Citizen’s Satisfaction with Local Services and Living Conditions From 1994 to 1997