Coordination and cooperation within the area of administration (with a particular focus on the district level)

The praxeological approach considers coordination a process consisting of harmonising actions of many entities by one entity with respect to the subject, time and space. In turn, in the institutional context, coordination means existence of legal bases for agreeing on actions taken by coordinated entities by the coordinating entity, irrespective of any actual organisational links. The theory of administration and jurisprudence generally reduces coordination within the public administration to the harmonisation of actions taken by various administration bodies and public agencies in order to accomplish the intended objectives. Due to huge fragmentation of administrative apparatus in the contemporary state, it is not enough to have one form of coordination or one coordinating centre, yet there must be plenty of such centres that shall employ even more modi operandi. Irrespective of the applied coordination measures, it shall be necessary to establish appropriate conditions for facilitating coordination and for establishing by law that it is not possible to eliminate coordination measures. However, the most important precondition for coordination is to ensure appropriate information about actions taken by coordinated entities or entities subject to coordination. When it comes to actions aiming at ensuring safety and public order at the district level, especially the preventive ones, the provisions of Articles 38a-38c of the Act on the local government at the district level deserve particular attention, as they jointly constitute a legal rule determining the basis of and the conditions for operation of a district safety and order committee that is a local body tasked with actions consisting of coordination and cooperation in the area of safety and public order and that is chaired by the district governor. Unfortunately, it has not been referred to as such in the Act. Coordination and cooperation between local government units are unique phenomena, as they occur within decentralised spheres, i.e. within spheres that comprise non-hierarchical units that are independent of each other and that act autonomously, i.e. on their own behalf and responsibility and using their own funds (resources). Unfortunately, the concept of coordination is not explicitly referred to in the acts governing the organisation of local governments. However, it is obvious in the theory of administration that it always applies where it is mentioned that the local government manages certain issues or fulfils certain public obligations. It may also be noted, in connection with the subsidiarity principle that is enshrined in the Constitution, that in this case coordination may be transformed into facilitation, i.e. into actions that merely simplify independent decision-making processes carried out by autonomous entities. Such a model is justified by ensuring (through seizing opportunities more effectively, as well as through the synergy between enterprising spirit and cooperation) that the needs of local communities are met in a better way. Currently, actions taken by public administration bodies, in particular by the local governments, go well beyond the classic sphere of maintaining order and rationing, as they are focused on meeting collective social needs and on managing the development, which to a large degree consists of taking non-authority measures.