Suchergebnisse

For years, the cost of capital in Poland has been among the highest in the EU. While in 2005–2015, interest rates on long-term loans for enterprises in Czechia and Estonia were at levels similar to Germany, in Poland, rates were always higher – in 2009–2013, even twice as high. Throughout the 18-year analysis period, enterprises in Poland paid 35% more interest than those in Czechia, and 41% more than in Estonia. Over the entire period, Polish enterprises paid PLN 57 bn more interest than if rates had been the same as in Czechia, PLN 74 bn more than in Estonia, and PLN 118 bn more than in Germany. This has resulted in higher debt among Polish enterprises, along with lower levels of innovation, creditworthiness, competitiveness, salaries, tax base, and investment profitability, and thus slower development and weaker future development prospects for the Polish economy.

Narzędzia polityki gospodarczej generują różnorakie skutki – nie tylko te pożądane i łatwo dostrzegalne. Dlatego zwłaszcza w przypadku Polski, gospodarki nadrabiającej dystans rozwojowy do państw Zachodu, ważne są umiejętności analitycznego myślenia i korzystanie z doświadczeń nie tylko własnej polityki gospodarczej, by nie popełniać błędów, których można było uniknąć, i zapobiec tym samym obniżeniu bezpieczeństwa finansowego polskiego społeczeństwa i pogorszeniu poziomu jego życia w nadchodzących dekadach. NBP, utrzymując zbyt długo zbyt niskie stopy procentowe, wzmaga nie tylko presję inflacyjną w Polsce, ale również przyczynia się do pogłębiania problemu nadmiernego zadłużenia (nie tylko) gospodarstw domowych w Polsce w relacji do poziomu zamożności i zdolności kredytowej. Obniża tym samym bezpieczeństwo finansowe Polski i Polaków. Dlatego tak istotne jest, by bank centralny w XXI w., zgodnie z opiniami rosnącej liczby ekspertów, zapewniał szerzej rozumianą stabilność finansową – a nie pilnował jedynie inflacji – i przeciwdziałał nierównowagom finansowym.

The ongoing process of shutting down the QE programme by ECB and possible reduction of its balance sheet might result in rapid corrections in the capital cost and the occurrence of the sudden stop phenomenon in the case of countries that are less credible and strongly depending on external sources of financing, thus more sensitive and less resistant towards external shocks, i.e. in countries which are the greatest beneficiaries of risk underestimation in the case of unprecedented increase in global liquidity made by major central banks after the crisis of 2008. This threat is essentially related to Poland as, apart from strong dependence from external capital which is necessary to finance the process of developmental catch-up and rolling over of the dynamically growing both public and private debt, which is additionally increased by lack of membership in the Eurozone; this is reflected in lower ratings or market cost of capital which suppress developmental possibilities of Polish economy and contribute to faster debt accumulation.

Central and Eastern-European countries are strongly linked to the international economic and financial systems, which results in their dependence on foreign capital and on the upturn in the global markets. This situation also makes them vulnerable to external shocks. Resilience of the economies of CEE countries was additionally diminished by their relatively quick and uncompromising opening up to the process of globalization and European integration. All the economies subject to scrutiny have quite a substantial external debt level (reaching 55–139% of GDP), their net international investment position is quite strongly in the negative (constituting 25–71% of GDP). They are also characterized by high level of foreign liabilities (85–350% of GDP), a significant degree of trade openness (export and import of goods and services amounting to 41–94% of GDP), considerable rate of foreign liquid portfolio investments (even as much as 32% of GDP). Another common feature is the strong financial support received from the EU budget, with CEE countries being its net beneficiaries (with the accumulated value of funds received from the EU budget in 2004–2015 at the level of 21–42% of GDP). It should be borne in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia and Slovakia are members of the Eurozone, i.e. operate an international currency, which improves their creditworthiness and augments the trust of the global markets. What seems not without significance for investors is the fact that the IMF classified these five CEE countries – as well as the Czech Republic – as advanced economies. In light of the above, it should be stated that the Polish economy is characterized by a relatively strong external exposure relative to the creditworthiness the country boasts. This exposure increases Poland's vulnerability to shocks and makes it less immune thereto. These circumstances partially explain the higher estimation of the risk premium for investments in Poland, which reduces the state's opportunities and prospects of development in comparison with other CEE economies. It should be stressed that when assessing the external exposure one must take into account not only its particular characteristics, but also the economic and political stability of a given country – or, more specifically and importantly, their assessment by financial markets. ; Central and Eastern-European countries are strongly linked to the international economic and financial systems, which results in their dependence on foreign capital and on the upturn in the global markets. This situation also makes them vulnerable to external shocks. Resilience of the economies of CEE countries was additionally diminished by their relatively quick and uncompromising opening up to the process of globalization and European integration. All the economies subject to scrutiny have quite a substantial external debt level (reaching 55–139% of GDP), their net international investment position is quite strongly in the negative (constituting 25–71% of GDP). They are also characterized by high level of foreign liabilities (85–350% of GDP), a significant degree of trade openness (export and import of goods and services amounting to 41–94% of GDP), considerable rate of foreign liquid portfolio investments (even as much as 32% of GDP). Another common feature is the strong financial support received from the EU budget, with CEE countries being its net beneficiaries (with the accumulated value of funds received from the EU budget in 2004–2015 at the level of 21–42% of GDP). It should be borne in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia and Slovakia are members of the Eurozone, i.e. operate an international currency, which improves their creditworthiness and augments the trust of the global markets. What seems not without significance for investors is the fact that the IMF classified these five CEE countries – as well as the Czech Republic – as advanced economies. In light of the above, it should be stated that the Polish economy is characterized by a relatively strong external exposure relative to the creditworthiness the country boasts. This exposure increases Poland's vulnerability to shocks and makes it less immune thereto. These circumstances partially explain the higher estimation of the risk premium for investments in Poland, which reduces the state's opportunities and prospects of development in comparison with other CEE economies. It should be stressed that when assessing the external exposure one must take into account not only its particular characteristics, but also the economic and political stability of a given country – or, more specifically and importantly, their assessment by financial markets.

Central and Eastern-European countries are strongly linked to the international economic and financial systems, which results in their dependence on foreign capital and on the upturn in the global markets. This situation also makes them vulnerable to external shocks. Resilience of the economies of CEE countries was additionally diminished by their relatively quick and uncompromising opening up to the process of globalization and European integration. All the economies subject to scrutiny have quite a substantial external debt level (reaching 55–139% of GDP), their net international investment position is quite strongly in the negative (constituting 25–71% of GDP). They are also characterized by high level of foreign liabilities (85–350% of GDP), a significant degree of trade openness (export and import of goods and services amounting to 41–94% of GDP), considerable rate of foreign liquid portfolio investments (even as much as 32% of GDP). Another common feature is the strong financial support received from the EU budget, with CEE countries being its net beneficiaries (with the accumulated value of funds received from the EU budget in 2004–2015 at the level of 21–42% of GDP). It should be borne in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia and Slovakia are members of the Eurozone, i.e. operate an international currency, which improves their creditworthiness and augments the trust of the global markets. What seems not without significance for investors is the fact that the IMF classified these five CEE countries – as well as the Czech Republic – as advanced economies. In light of the above, it should be stated that the Polish economy is characterized by a relatively strong external exposure relative to the creditworthiness the country boasts. This exposure increases Poland's vulnerability to shocks and makes it less immune thereto. These circumstances partially explain the higher estimation of the risk premium for investments in Poland, which reduces the state's opportunities and prospects of development in comparison with other CEE economies. It should be stressed that when assessing the external exposure one must take into account not only its particular characteristics, but also the economic and political stability of a given country – or, more specifically and importantly, their assessment by financial markets. ; Central and Eastern-European countries are strongly linked to the international economic and financial systems, which results in their dependence on foreign capital and on the upturn in the global markets. This situation also makes them vulnerable to external shocks. Resilience of the economies of CEE countries was additionally diminished by their relatively quick and uncompromising opening up to the process of globalization and European integration. All the economies subject to scrutiny have quite a substantial external debt level (reaching 55–139% of GDP), their net international investment position is quite strongly in the negative (constituting 25–71% of GDP). They are also characterized by high level of foreign liabilities (85–350% of GDP), a significant degree of trade openness (export and import of goods and services amounting to 41–94% of GDP), considerable rate of foreign liquid portfolio investments (even as much as 32% of GDP). Another common feature is the strong financial support received from the EU budget, with CEE countries being its net beneficiaries (with the accumulated value of funds received from the EU budget in 2004–2015 at the level of 21–42% of GDP). It should be borne in mind that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia and Slovakia are members of the Eurozone, i.e. operate an international currency, which improves their creditworthiness and augments the trust of the global markets. What seems not without significance for investors is the fact that the IMF classified these five CEE countries – as well as the Czech Republic – as advanced economies. In light of the above, it should be stated that the Polish economy is characterized by a relatively strong external exposure relative to the creditworthiness the country boasts. This exposure increases Poland's vulnerability to shocks and makes it less immune thereto. These circumstances partially explain the higher estimation of the risk premium for investments in Poland, which reduces the state's opportunities and prospects of development in comparison with other CEE economies. It should be stressed that when assessing the external exposure one must take into account not only its particular characteristics, but also the economic and political stability of a given country – or, more specifically and importantly, their assessment by financial markets.

The ongoing process of shutting down the QE programme by ECB and possible reduction of its balance sheet might result in rapid corrections in the capital cost and the occurrence of the sudden stop phenomenon in the case of countries that are less credible and strongly depending on external sources of financing, thus more sensitive and less resistant towards external shocks, i.e. in countries which are the greatest beneficiaries of risk underestimation in the case of unprecedented increase in global liquidity made by major central banks after the crisis of 2008. This threat is essentially related to Poland as, apart from strong dependence from external capital which is necessary to finance the process of developmental catch-up and rolling over of the dynamically growing both public and private debt, which is additionally increased by lack of membership in the Eurozone; this is reflected in lower ratings or market cost of capital which suppress developmental possibilities of Polish economy and contribute to faster debt accumulation.

More and more results of econometric modeling research are showing the relationship between the value of general government deficit and the costs of public debt service. The correlation analysis conducted for the purposes of this work confirms strong negative dependence between the average general government balance (in relation to GDP) and the average yield of 10-year treasury bonds in 15 Western countries within the EU in the 1995–2015 period (sustaining higher deficits of general government are accompanied with higher costs of public debt service over a long period of time). Pearson's correlation coefficient for the entire research period amounted to –0,78. This dependence increased after the breakout of the financial crisis – within the 2008–2015 period, Pearson's r = –0,71, whereas during the 1995–2007 period, it was –0,63, which is consistent with the research results pointing out that the condition of public finances affects the decisions of investors in crises greater than in the relatively calm periods.

More and more results of econometric modeling research are showing the relationship between the value of general government deficit and the costs of public debt service. The correlation analysis conducted for the purposes of this work confirms strong negative dependence between the average general government balance (in relation to GDP) and the average yield of 10-year treasury bonds in 15 Western countries within the EU in the 1995–2015 period (sustaining higher deficits of general government are accompanied with higher costs of public debt service over a long period of time). Pearson's correlation coefficient for the entire research period amounted to –0,78. This dependence increased after the breakout of the financial crisis – within the 2008–2015 period, Pearson's r = –0,71, whereas during the 1995–2007 period, it was –0,63, which is consistent with the research results pointing out that the condition of public finances affects the decisions of investors in crises greater than in the relatively calm periods.

Economic changes in the Eastern bloc countries which currently belong to the European Union can be characterized as incredibly strong and important. In the process of catching up with the general development, some problems have been reduced. Unfortunately, other issues are starting to increase. The main aim of the present review is to show changes of the period 2003-2014 in major economic areas of these countries and also to point out potential sources of economic issues in the future.

Economic changes in the Eastern bloc countries which currently belong to the European Union can be characterized as incredibly strong and important. In the process of catching up with the general development, some problems have been reduced. Unfortunately, other issues are starting to increase. The main aim of the present review is to show changes of the period 2003-2014 in major economic areas of these countries and also to point out potential sources of economic issues in the future.