Search results

In Poland, the problem of air pollution has not been given due attention for a long time. As a consequence, Poland is classified as one of the countries with the highest level of air pollution in Europe. Due to the fact that the problem is of a transboundary nature, air quality policy constitutes an important element of the EU's supranational policy. The aim of the article is to analyze the impact of the EU policy on counteracting the problem of air pollution by Poland and to assess whether the problem can be effectively solved thanks to the implementation of the new growth strategy – the European Green Deal. The research results show that Poland's membership in the EU has had the greatest impact on the process of building public awareness of the threat posed by air pollution. Despite the generally low effectiveness of the policy pursued so far, the new EU growth strategy (together with the financial instruments supporting its implementation) offers a real opportunity to significantly reduce the level of air pollution in Poland.

Nowadays, air pollution constitutes one of the most serious threats to human health and life. Poland belongs to the group of countries with the highest level of air pollution in the EU and OECD. The scale of the threat posed by air pollution shows its importance when it comes to the health security of the Polish citizens. However, the ongoing (political and scientific) debate on health security in Poland often ignores the problem of air pollution. The aim of the article is to 1) assess the threat currently posed by air pollution to health security in Poland, 2) locate the threat in the area of health security, and 3) analyse the process of transferring the problem of air pollution from the sphere of politics to the area of security, in accordance with the theory of securitization, developed by the Copenhagen School of Security Studies. Qualitative analysis of documents together with the application of the theory of securitization show that, in Poland, the state has started to play the role of an actor securitizing air pollution as an existential threat. Nevertheless, this process is at an early stage, and its further success depends, inter alia, on decisions and possibilities related to taking extraordinary measures to eliminate the threat posed by air pollution.

Purpose: In June 2018, the European Union ("EU") decided to use missions as tools of innovation policy in accordance with the market-shaping, mission-oriented innovation policy approach. It stemmed from the EU's efforts to improve the efficiency of innovation policy when it comes to handling major social challenges. In the first quarter of 2020, the EU had to unexpectedly face another social challenge, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the economic and social crisis that followed. This article analyses the actions undertaken by the EU at the supranational level within its innovation policy in relation to the COVID-19 crisis. It also aims to assess the coherence of the EU's interventions with the mission-oriented innovation policy approach implemented and promoted by the EU. Design/Methodology/Approach: The research is descriptive and analytical in nature. First, it covers a case study of the EU's supranational innovation policy. Second, it searches, on a theoretical level, for the reasons of discrepancies between the market-shaping and mission-oriented policy approach promoted by the EU and the interventions that the EU in fact conducts in relation to the COVID-19 crisis. Findings: The results of the research point to certain incoherence in the EU's innovation policy when tackling major policy platforms. On one hand, the EU implements and promotes a mission-oriented policy as a more efficient way of solving major social challenges. On the other hand, its actions (and plans) hardly consider the application of an innovation policy mission as a means for fighting the most recent and crucial challenge, namely the COVID-19 crisis. Originality/Value: This is the first study to point out the incoherence that currently characterise the EU's innovation policy on the supranational level. ; peer-reviewed

W ujęciu globalnym bodźce podatkowe są obecnie jednym z najpopularniejszych narzędzi interwencji państwa, mających na celu wsparcie rozwoju działalności badawczo-rozwojowej. W ujęciu historycznym wzrost popularności ww. instrumentów można zaobserwować zarówno w perspektywie długookresowej, jak i w ciągu ostatniej dekady. Jeżeli chodzi o Polskę, bodźce podatkowe wspierające działalność B+R były do niedawna stosowane jedynie w bardzo ograniczonym zakresie. Instrument ten został udostępniony szerokiemu gronu podmiotów gospodarczych dopiero na początku 2016 r. Celem artykułu jest analiza interwencji państwa polegającej na wprowadzeniu bodźców podatkowych wspierających działalność B+R, w tym w szczególności odpowiedź na następujące pytania: (1) Kiedy państwo powinno podejmować interwencję za pomocą instrumentów polityki innowacyjnej? (2) Jakie czynniki zadecydowały o popularności i coraz większej hojności bodźców podatkowych wspierających działalność B+R? (3) Jakie były okoliczności i powody wprowadzenia ww. bodźców podatkowych w Polsce?

Globally, tax incentives belong to the group of the most popular state intervention tools which are directed to support R&D activities. From a historical perspective, the prevalence of R&D tax incentives has increased both in the long-run and also over the past decade. When it comes to Poland, until the beginning of 2016 R&D tax incentives were used only to a very limited extent. Afterwards they became available to a wide range of entrepreneurs. The aim of the article is to analyze state interventions involving the introduction of R&D tax incentives, and in particular to answer the following questions: (1) When should the state intervene with the use of innovation policy instruments? (2) What factors have determined the popularity and increasing generosity of R&D tax incentives? (3) What were the circumstances and reasons for the introduction of R&D tax incentives in Poland?

The paper aims to answer the question why the process of institutionalization of the EU's external relations with its six neighboring countries, representing the Eastern dimension of European Neighbourhood Policy (i.e., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine), has failed to perform its stabilization role. The study is exploratory and descriptive in nature. Its results indicate three main reasons for which the aforementioned institutionalization process has not been successful, and thus – the EU's neighbourhood has become even more unstable than it was over a decade before. The first reason is rooted in the applied integration model. The model expected the EU's neighbours to undergo deep reforms, without offering them the EU membership 'reward'. In this regard, the EU's offer not only failed to meet the expectations of the neighbours in question, but also appeared to be partly misunderstood. In consequence, the Eastern ENP countries considered the decision on their potential EU membership to be exclusively political, as well as underestimated the importance of the previously agreed reforms. As regards the second reason for the unsuccessful development of the institutionalization process, the Eastern ENP countries found it very difficult to reach a high level of 'embeddedness' of the transferred formal institutions in their socio-economic environment. Finally, the institutionalisation process has also faced difficulties due to the geopolitical rivalry between the EU and Russia over the region. The actions and policies undertaken by Russia not only influenced the (political and economic) decisions of the EU's Eastern neighbours, but also clearly showed that the institutionalisation of their relations with the EU neither provided for them protection nor guaranteed defence. According to the presented theoretical approach, this serves as an explanations why the stabilisation function of the institutionalization process was not able to perform its role.DOI: ...

The paper aims to answer the question why the process of institutionalization of the EU's external relations with its six neighboring countries, representing the Eastern dimension of European Neighborhood Policy (i.e., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine), has failed to perform its stabilization role. The study is analytical and descriptive in nature. Its results indicate three reasons for which the aforementioned institutionalization process has not been successful, and thus – the EU's neighborhood has become even more unstable than it was over a decade ago. The first reason is rooted in the applied integration model. The model expected the EU's neighbors to undergo deep reforms, without offering them the EU membership 'reward'. In this regard, the EU's offer not only failed to meet the expectations of the neighbors in question, but also appeared to be partly misunderstood. In consequence, the Eastern ENP countries considered the decision on their potential EU membership to be exclusively political, as well as underestimated the importance of the previously agreed reforms. As regards the second reason for the unsuccessful development of the institutionalization process, the Eastern ENP countries found it very difficult to reach a high level of 'embeddedness' of the transferred formal institutions in their socio-economic environment. Finally, the institutionalization process has also faced difficulties due to the geopolitical rivalry between the EU and Russia over the region. The actions and policies undertaken by Russia not only influenced the (political and economic) decisions of the EU's Eastern neighbors, but also clearly showed that the institutionalization of their relations with the EU neither provided for them protection nor guaranteed defense. According to the presented theoretical approach, this serves as an explanations why the stabilization function of the institutionalization process was not able to perform its role.

The purpose of this article is analysis of innovation policy, understood as a factor conditioning the institutional and organizational efficiency and effectiveness of the National System of Innovation (NSI), suggesting desirable areas of state intervention in relation to the NSI in Poland. The article consists of four parts. The first part presents the stages in the development of innovation policy and recognizes the links between innovation policy and the development of research on innovation processes. The second part presents potential areas of state intervention and the main instruments used within the framework of innovation policy. The third part presents the theory of NSI which – while referring to the links between various NSI elements – indicates a wide range of potential possibilities of indirect support for innovation processes. The last part identifies the areas of state intervention which are important from the point of view of Poland's NSI development.

European Union is principal example of the so-called fourth current of institutionalization of international relations. What makes it special in the context of other state-like communities is the level of integration and what follows the level of institutionalization of intra-communal relations. There are two levels of institutionalization of intentional relations in integration organizations. On the first level international relations are institutionalized within the community of states. The second level concentrates on institutionalization of relations between the community and other subjects of international relations. The European Union is an example of organization that is advanced on both levels of institutionalization. This paper analyzes institutionalization of international relations between EU and developed states (Australia and New Zealand) and Mercosur – another integrational organization. Recommencement of negotiation between EU and Mercosur on a treaty of association, as well as commencement of negotiations between EU and Australia on the conditions of a Framework Agreement, have taken place at the moment when it was certain that world economy has to cope with the effects of a serious recession. Those actions, although they may seem irrational, are thoroughly rational as they increase the chances of reaching a compromise. Crisis helps to concentrate on the core problems and states (or organizations of states) are more willing in that distinctions to reach an agreement, provided that the balance tilts in their favor (even if the results of negotiations are very diff erent from what was assumed at the beginning).

European Union is principal example of the so-called fourth current of institutionalization of international relations. What makes it special in the context of other state-like communities is the level of integration and what follows the level of institutionalization of intra-communal relations. There are two levels of institutionalization of intentional relations in integration organizations. On the first level international relations are institutionalized within the community of states. The second level concentrates on institutionalization of relations between the community and other subjects of international relations. The European Union is an example of organization that is advanced on both levels of institutionalization. This paper analyzes institutionalization of international relations between EU and developed states (Australia and New Zealand) and Mercosur – another integrational organization. Recommencement of negotiation between EU and Mercosur on a treaty of association, as well as commencement of negotiations between EU and Australia on the conditions of a Framework Agreement, have taken place at the moment when it was certain that world economy has to cope with the effects of a serious recession. Those actions, although they may seem irrational, are thoroughly rational as they increase the chances of reaching a compromise. Crisis helps to concentrate on the core problems and states (or organizations of states) are more willing in that distinctions to reach an agreement, provided that the balance tilts in their favor (even if the results of negotiations are very diff erent from what was assumed at the beginning).

The continuous uncertainty concerning the final consequences of the economic crisis in the Eurozone, as well as the level of recession in Poland, increase the risk of introducing the common currency and giving up the monetary policy instruments. However, the Polish economy and the economy of the Eurozone are so much interrelated that an emergence of a deep recession in the EMU which would be able to sidestep Poland is hardly probable. Hence, the influence of the current economic crisis on the Polish membership in the Eurozone should be analyzed mainly from the point of view of Poland's ability to ful%ll the convergence criteria under the economic slowdown. Such an analysis is the aim of this article. The biggest challenge for Poland is a substantial reduction in the budget deficit. In 2010 the budget deficit in Poland - instead of decreasing (as it was planned in the Polish "Convergence Programme") - continued to increase. Growing budget deficit means an increase in the public debt. Furthermore, the inability to fulfill the fiscal criterion leads to the serious problems concerning the other convergence criteria (that is, the level of nominal interest rates and the stability of the exchange rate). Moreover, under such circumstances it would be dificult for the fiscal policy to play the role of so-called stabilizer if Poland decided to enter ERM II (and such a role would be very helpful regarding the limited autonomy of the monetary policy).