The following publication elaborates on the notion of international tax competition and international tax avoidance in the light of cross-border public policy. In terms of intercommunity relations, tax competition may be defined as a phenomenon consisting in application of various tax instruments for the purpose of developing a state's economy and prosperity by means of increasing competitiveness of the domestic business activity or attracting foreign investments. Tax competition is a natural consequence of the processes of globalization since in the reality of growing business interrelations, tax considerations exert more and more influence over investment decisions of holding companies. It reveals the dissonance between the interests of the particular member states in the EU and the interest of the European Union as a whole. Usually it is difficult to mark the border between a harmful and an advantageous tax competition.
The examination of public policy in Poland should refer to the terms, analytical categories as well as theories, which have already been postulated in this research field. The article aims to present an overview of the development of public policy theories in the long run. To begin with, the typological and stages approaches were presented. The theories of public policy were presented as two broader classes based on the differentiation into rational and interpretative paradigms. The application of the first one was examined in greater detail in the area of defining the choices of the ways to address public issues. The interpretative paradigm was presented mainly in connection with the argumentative approach as well as an attempt to combine the rational and interpretative approaches in the context of a rational discussion. The overview ends with the presentation of a few ways of organising the public policy research field through the research questions, the research areas, the theoretical-methodological framework as well as the archetypes of the public policy analysts' activity.
The paper presents the implementation phases of EU funds illustrated by the example of Rural Development Programme for 2014-2020. The author emphasizes the role of authorities and institutions, both the European Union and member states which are responsible for programming EU funds for rural development. The paper indicates the most relevant events and documents necessary to organize financial support from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development in Poland. Furthermore, it focuses on the programming of EAFRD assistance in the form of the RDP, which is implemented in Poland in the form of a single programme, together with the presentation of the allocation of funds and their changes between the initial and the final programme. The analysis of the implementation of the RDP 2014-2020 is complemented by a management area in which the division of competencies between institutions is diversified. The article also highlights problems and negligence in the implementation of selected RDP actions, whose total budget in the financial perspective of 2014-2020 in Poland is 13.5 billion zlotys.
The study investigates genesis of the European Union Social Policy and the changes in common social issue over the years. The European Union is not only economic and monetary integration, it is also unify the activities in the social areas. Integration endeavors are not only based on the European Union further enlargement to new members, but also are based on adoption of new regulations on social issues, with the need to enforce them by the Member States. EU regulations only of an economic nature, without social guidelines may lead to incomplete and unstable functioning of the European Union and Single European Market. Over the past decade, the process of European integration has intensified and included more issues and life areas, therefore the position of social policy has strengthen consistently. The increasing globalization and regionalization of economic and social life causes more important role for international institutions such as the European Union, in solving various social matters. European countries are more acutely affected by problems such as high unemployment, poverty, social exclusion and the progressive aging of the population. Consequently cooperation at EU level can lead to stop these processes and can find ways to eliminate the negative effects that appeared among the citizens of Europe.
The goal of the article is to present a theoretical and practical evaluation of experience of apolitical civil servants working in committee-style preparatory bodies of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. In the first part the hypotheses resulting from three theories of integration of different range (liberal intergovernmentalism, fusion theory, and deliberative supranationalism) are presented. The second part consists of the verification of those hypotheses, based on an empirical study conducted by the Author in 2013 in the period between January and June. The survey included Polish officials attending the meetings of committees and was followed by interviews.The thesis of the article is based on the assumption that the majority of decisions of the Council and the Commission are actually made in apolitical preparatory bodies. Both "bargaining" and "problem solving" attitudes, representing both political and apolitical models of EU decision making, are present at this level. Theoretically, the most appropriate attitude is the combination of the liberal intergovernmentalism, the fusion theory, and the deliberative supranationalism. Those approaches can serve as general theories of integration and can be used to explain other elements of EU functioning.
The goal of the article is to present a theoretical and practical evaluation of experience of apolitical civil servants working in committee-style preparatory bodies of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission. In the first part the hypotheses resulting from three theories of integration of different range (liberal intergovernmentalism, fusion theory, and deliberative supranationalism) are presented. The second part consists of the verification of those hypotheses, based on an empirical study conducted by the Author in 2013 in the period between January and June. The survey included Polish officials attending the meetings of committees and was followed by interviews.The thesis of the article is based on the assumption that the majority of decisions of the Council and the Commission are actually made in apolitical preparatory bodies. Both "bargaining" and "problem solving" attitudes, representing both political and apolitical models of EU decision making, are present at this level. Theoretically, the most appropriate attitude is the combination of the liberal intergovernmentalism, the fusion theory, and the deliberative supranationalism. Those approaches can serve as general theories of integration and can be used to explain other elements of EU functioning.
The European Union currently operates three types of competence: exclusive, shared and supporting (complementary and harmonization). For each country, it is very important autonomous power of taxation and the ensuing independence in shaping tax policy. Countries acceding to the European Union, however, have to reckon with the fact that 80 Artur Kuś Studia z Polityki Publicznej since joining will not have a kind of monopoly on the creation of a fully independent and autonomous tax regulations. EU tax law is primarily the proper functioning of the EU internal market. The aim of the tax legislation is mainly provide income for the state. Thus, the main feature of the national tax law is fiscal function and the EU's - the proper functioning of the internal market. EU tax law in the broad sense (sensu largo) is the collection of EU law (primary and secondary) concerning and affecting the tax law of the Member States. EU tax law in the strict sense (sensu stricto) is a set of rules while EU law relating to and used directly in the tax law of the Member States of the EU. In the simplest terms it can be assumed that these are the rules relating to the taxation mainly indirect taxes.
In this article we show why a major initiative announced by the European Commission in 2006 to reform the EU anti-dumping policy after two years of very intense political activity became bogged down in a fully preserving the legislative status quo. Adapted from the source document.
China's soft-power practice in its international activity boils down to four areas: culture, education, diplomacy, and economy. The most important element of China's soft-power policy seems to be the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Announced in 2013, the BRI is a complex, long-term and large-scale strategic political and economic project by the Chinese government with an infrastructure character. In this way, China is seeking to invest its capital surpluses in resurrecting the ancient Silk Road to create railroad and maritime networks with its most important trading partner – the European Union. In these circumstances, in September 2015, the presidents of Central and Eastern EU member states announced the establishment of the separate Three Seas Initiative (TSI), a political and economic project bringing together 12 EU states, including 11 'new' members and Austria. These entities constitute an informal bloc of states between the Adriatic, Baltic and Black seas, though without a permanent secretariat but with rotating leadership. In addition to the lack of a formal structure, the TSI region, located mainly in the EU's eastern part, is characterized by a weaker infrastructure network than Western Europe, lower GDP (except Austria), and high dependence on gas supplies from Russia (except Croatia). To overcome these disparities, the TSI has developed a catalogue of 48 investment priorities in three economic areas: energy, transport, and digitalisation. China's soft-power policy towards the 'new' EU members may be decided by the American patronage of the TSI and the fact that one of the flagship projects is the North-South Gas Corridor, which will enable the sale of American LNG in Central Europe, which has been dependent on gas supplies from Russia, China's partner in the BRI. In the context of the US-China trade war, White House planners recognise Central Europe as both a peripheral and key area for their policy and seek to strengthen the Three Seas project, which may lead to limiting areas of cooperation under the '17+1' format, involving CEE countries and China. On the other hand, the development of better energy, transport and digital connections in the EU's east clearly intersects with China's idea of building a New Eurasian Land Bridge under the BRI to connect the most economically developed edges of Eurasia. The new US strategy towards the countries of the CEE seems to boil down to involvement in specific energy-related projects. Instead of blocking or diminishing BRI-related infrastructure projects in China, they seem in fact to complement the Chinese activity in the CEE. Increased investment by American enterprises in the region may allow the administration in Washington to maintain control of Chinese infrastructure investments, and the US involvement may even lead to the participation of American companies in projects originally started by Beijing.
The validity of the current global development agenda, known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) ends on December 31, 2015. International community has worked on the new development agenda since 2010. The new development agenda will replace the MDGs from 1 January 2016. The European Union is a very active participant in the work on the shape of the new development agenda. EU activity in this area is coming clearly both from the organization's ambition, wanting to play the role of a "global player" and the importance of global development policy objectives for the EU's development cooperation. Not coincidentally, the European Union announced the 2015 European Year of Development (EYD). The article presents the position of the most important institutions of the EU towards a new agenda for development (Post 2015 agenda). ; Ważność aktualnej, globalnej agendy rozwojowej, znanej pod nazwą Milenijne Cele Rozwojowe (MDGs), kończy się 31 grudnia 2015 r. Od 2010 r. trwają prace analityczne, programowe i polityczne nad nową agendą rozwojową, która zastąpi MDGs począwszy od 1 stycznia 2016 r. Unia Europejska jest bardzo aktywnym uczestnikiem prac nad kształtem kolejnej agendy rozwojowej. Aktywność UE w tym obszarze wynika zarówno z ambicji tej organizacji, chcącej odgrywać rolę "globalnego gracza", jak i znaczenia założeń globalnej polityki rozwojowej dla unijnej współpracy rozwojowej. Nieprzypadkowo Unia Europejska ogłosiła rok 2015 Europejskim Rokiem na rzecz Rozwoju – European Year for Development (EYD). Artykuł przedstawia stanowisko najważniejszych instytucji UE wobec nowej agendy rozwojowej (Post 2015).
Ważność aktualnej, globalnej agendy rozwojowej, znanej pod nazwą Milenijne Cele Rozwojowe (MDGs), kończy się 31 grudnia 2015 r. Od 2010 r. trwają prace analityczne, programowe i polityczne nad nową agendą rozwojową, która zastąpi MDGs począwszy od 1 stycznia 2016 r. Unia Europejska jest bardzo aktywnym uczestnikiem prac nad kształtem kolejnej agendy rozwojowej. Aktywność UE w tym obszarze wynika zarówno z ambicji tej organizacji, chcącej od¬grywać rolę "globalnego gracza", jak i znaczenia założeń globalnej polityki rozwojowej dla unijnej współpracy rozwojowej. Nieprzypadkowo Unia Europejska ogłosiła rok 2015 Europejskim Rokiem na rzecz Rozwoju - European Year for Development (EYD). Artykuł przedstawia stanowisko najważniejszych instytucji UE wobec nowej agendy rozwojowej ; The validity of the current global development agenda, known as the Millennium Develop¬ment Goals (MDGs) ends on December 31,2015. International community has worked on the new development agenda since 2010. The new development agenda will replace the MDGs from 1 Jan¬uary 2016. The European Union is a very active participant in the work on the shape of the new de¬velopment agenda. EU activity in this area is coming clearly both from the organization's ambition, wanting to play the role of a "global player" and the importance of global development policy objectives for the EU's development cooperation. Not coincidentally, the European Union announced the 2015 European Year of Development (EYD). The article presents the position of the most important institutions of the EU towards a new agenda for development (Post 2015 agenda).
In the modern world the expansion of the semantic field of security takes place, which is the reason for the existence of a number of risks, with a very wide dimension. In addition to traditional natural hazards and existing threats to civilization, there is a new one that is closely related to the implementation of modern technologies, information systems, and communication systems. They are a sign of the times and an inevitable consequence of progress. At the same time society (especially informed civil society) requires more and more of their country, demanding ever higher levels of security and protection to enable its further development. Providing such protection requires considerable strengths and resources, and the intersectoral cooperation of public and private subjects. Developing international contacts and extensive cooperation in this dimension is necessary, but existing forms of security protection are limited to the territory of one state and cannot fulfill these tasks. The fight against terrorism is also a question of access to information about people traveling regularly or prolonging their stay in other states. In the face of these processes we should look for new solutions and undertake such activity, with a scale corresponding to the scale of risk. The cooperation of various entities – understood as combining expertise, manpower and resources – while engaging modern technology, seems to be most appropriate. ; We współczesnym świecie następuje stałe rozszerzanie się zakresu znaczeniowego bezpieczeństwa, czego powodem jest istnienie wielu zagrożeń, mających bardzo szeroki wymiar. Obok tradycyjnych zagrożeń naturalnych i dotychczasowych zagrożeń o charakterze cywilizacyjnym pojawiają się wciąż nowe, które mają ścisły związek z wdrażaniem nowoczesnych technologii, systemów informatycznych, systemów komunikacji. Są one znakiem czasu i nieuchronną konsekwencją postępu. Jednocześnie społeczeństwo (zwłaszcza informacyjne społeczeństwo obywatelskie) wymaga coraz więcej od swojego państwa, żąda coraz wyższego poziomu zabezpieczenia i ochrony, umożliwiającego mu dalszy rozwój. Zapewnienie takiej ochrony wymaga zaangażowania znacznych sił i środków oraz międzysektorowej współpracy podmiotów publicznych i prywatnych. Rozwijanie kontaktów międzynarodowych i szeroko zakrojonej współpracy w tym wymiarze powoduje, że dotychczasowe formy ochrony bezpieczeństwa ograniczone do terytorium jednego państwa przestają spełniać swoje zadania. Nie należy zapominać, że warunkiem ograniczania oddziaływania przedstawionych zagrożeń bezpieczeństwa jest reakcja na ich źródła. Walką z terroryzmem jest również kwestia dostępu do informacji o osobach podróżujących regularnie lub przedłużających pobyt w państwach. W obliczu tych procesów należy poszukiwać nowych rozwiązań i podejmować takie działania, których skala będzie odpowiadała skali zagrożeń. Współpraca różnych podmiotów – rozumiana jako łączenie wiedzy, sił i środków – przy jednoczesnym zaangażowaniu nowoczesnych technologii, wydaje się być najodpowiedniejsza.
The paper presents the implementation phases of EU funds illustrated by the example of Rural Development Programme for 2014–2020. The author emphasizes the role of authorities and institutions, both the European Union and member states which are responsible for programming EU funds for rural development. The paper indicates the most relevant events and documents necessary to organize financial support from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development in Poland. Furthermore, it focuses on the programming of EAFRD assistance in the form of the RDP, which is implemented in Poland in the form of a single programme, together with the presentation of the allocation of funds and their changes between the initial and the final programme. The analysis of the implementation of the RDP 2014–2020 is complemented by a management area in which the division of competencies between institutions is diversified. The article also highlights problems and negligence in the implementation of selected RDP actions, whose total budget in the financial perspective of 2014–2020 in Poland is 13.5 billion zlotys. ; Artykuł omawia etapy projektowania i wdrażania funduszy europejskich na przykładzie Programu Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich na lata 2014–2020. Przedstawia odpowiedzialne za programowanie środków na rozwój obszarów wiejskich organy i instytucje po stronie Unii Europejskiej, jak i państwa członkowskiego. Wskazuje na najważniejsze wydarzenia i dokumenty niezbędne do uruchomienia pomocy finansowej ze środków Europejskiego Funduszu Rolnego na rzecz Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich. Koncentruje się na programowaniu pomocy z EFRROW w postaci PROW, który w Polsce realizowany jest jako jednolity program, wraz z przedstawieniem alokacji środków oraz jej zmian pomiędzy wstępnym a finalnym projektem programu. Analiza wdrażania PROW 2014–2020 uzupełniona jest o obszar zarządzania, w którym podział kompetencji pomiędzy instytucjami i organami państwa jest zróżnicowany. Artykuł wskazuje również na problemy i zaniedbania we wdrażaniu wybranych działań PROW, którego całkowity budżet w perspektywie finansowej 2014–2020w Polsce wynosi 13,5mld PLN.
