The novel coronavirus pandemic has triggered an economic slowdown worldwide, aggravating those steadily accumulated inequalities in income and wealth redistribution. Western-type capitalism, international cooperation, and European integration have found themselves at risk. This article points out the resemblances and dissimilarities in policies combating the recessions of 2008 and 2020 on both sides of the Atlantic, focusing specifically on the EU and Canada. It assesses the rising popularity of the welfarestate concept applied both to individuals and entire businesses deemed essential for democracy, notably in the EU, for which the protection of citizens' well-being and solidarity values are at the core of bloc integration. Conceptually conflicting solutions for those crises reflect a profound shift in policy making, reinforcing state interventions vs the neoliberal approach and intensifying discussions on a universal basic income as a tool in redressing socio-economic inequalities. This paper highlights the need for a trans-disciplinary approach to benefi t policy making.
Public funds should play important role in rationalization of the social security system as they allow greater control over expenses redistribution and thus over changes in society. However, as the rule of parainsurance is not followed while creating public funds, one cannot hope for public support for fiscal burdens and for diminishing political influence on the tax collection for social expenses and social expenses itself. The lack of public support should not limit possibilities of using public funds to rationalize public finances, particularly social security.
Poland as well as many European countries is facing demographic crisis. Aging society, changing model of the family and reduced birth rate are serious issues that demand a reaction. Above matters are beyond doubt. However, there is a doubt answering the question what do we do in order to prevent those trends and if we are effective. This paper analyses demographic threats Poland is facing, factors which have impact on birthrate, as well as pro-family and pro-social policy of state. In pursuit of alternatives, solutions from USA shall be presented. Differences in redistribution level, and relation to it will be a subject of analysis, as they should become the source of refl ection and inspiration in order to fi nd solutions for problems in Poland and Europe.
For the past decade the focus of the U.S. security policy has been changing. After a period of global American hegemony, which took place at the end of the Cold War, the international position of the country is declining; countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia are moving alongside the United States and Europe as centres of power. Focusing U.S. interest on Asia and the Pacifi c ("Asia Pacifi c pivot") causes a reduction of its interests in Europe. Given these trends U.S and EU policymakers face the challenge to redefine their security and defence cooperation. This applies both to the acquisition by European allies more responsibility for their own safety as well as to develop new mechanisms for cooperation on the line US-NATO-EU relations. The article aims to answer about the current situation and perspectives of EU's place and role in U.S. security policy in the context of redistribution of power in the world politics. The analysis is carried out in the neorealistic paradigm.
Benefits from the social assistance system in Poland at the local level may be paid in cash or non-cash forms. The purpose of the article is to present selected benefits in the social assistance system and identify trends in changes occurring in the provision of social assistance benefits in 2012-2018. In the analysed period in Poland there was an increase in employment in the social assistance sector, with a simultaneous decrease in the employment of social workers. During 2012-2018, a negative trend was also observed, consisting in an increase in the number of recipients of benefits in the form of cash, with a decrease in the number of persons covered by non-cash support. In Poland the number of benefits in the social assistance system granted due to health dysfunction and disability has increased, while the number of benefits due to unemployment and poverty has decreased. The analyses carried out for the purposes of the article indicate that in Poland public policy in the area of social assistance consisting in the activation and strengthening of social assistance beneficiaries and the abandonment of redistribution of funds to those in need is only declarative.
In 2009–2017, the European Union continued its prior policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nonetheless, taking into consideration the rapidly changing internal and international situation, this policy is becoming increasingly less effective. Problems confronting the European Union and its member states over the recent years, Brexit, the destabilization of North Africa and the Middle East, the Ukrainian crisis, the redistribution of power in the world system, to name a few – are the most significant determinants of the current EU policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Compared to other actors, the role of the European Union in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been decreasing. ; W latach 2009–2017 Unia Europejska kontynuowała swoją dotychczasową politykę wobec konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego, jednak w obliczu dynamicznie zmieniających się uwarunkowań wewnętrznych i międzynarodowych polityka ta staje się coraz mniej efektywna. Problemy, z jakimi Unia Europejska i jej państwa członkowskie borykają się od kilku lat – Brexit, destabilizacja obszaru Afryki Północnej i Bliskiego Wschodu, kryzys ukraiński, zmieniający się układ sił w świecie – to najważniejsze determinanty obecnej polityki UE wobec konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego. W ich wyniku rola Unii Europejskiej w rozwiązywaniu konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego, na tle innych aktorów, maleje.
W latach 2009–2017 Unia Europejska kontynuowała swoją dotychczasową politykę wobec konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego, jednak w obliczu dynamicznie zmieniających się uwarunkowań wewnętrznych i międzynarodowych polityka ta staje się coraz mniej efektywna. Problemy, z jakimi Unia Europejska i jej państwa członkowskie borykają się od kilku lat Brexit, destabilizacja obszaru Afryki Północnej i Bliskiego Wschodu, kryzys ukraiński, zmieniający się układ sił w świecie to najważniejsze determinanty obecnej polityki UE wobec konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego. W ich wyniku rola Unii Europejskiej w rozwiązywaniu konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego, na tle innych aktorów, maleje. ; In 2009–2017, the European Union continued its prior policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nonetheless, taking into consideration the rapidly changing internal and international situation, this policy is becoming increasingly less effective. Problems confronting the European Union and its member states over the recent years, Brexit, the destabilization of North Africa and the Middle East, the Ukrainian crisis, the redistribution of power in the world system, to name a few are the most significant determinants of the current EU policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Compared to other actors, the role of the European Union in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been decreasing.
Gerhard Schröder's appointment as Chancellor of Germany in 1998 marked the first clear signs of Germany's emancipation from the EU's decision-making center in Brussels. It was, however, only after 2008, when the global economic crisis resonated across Europe, that Berlin maturely redefined its European policy priorities. Following that, the federal government gained more confidence in applying international policy tools to protect the German raison d'état in the Old Continent. For this reason Chancellor Angela Merkel has made the struggle with the financial problems of the eurozone one of the priorities of her second-term in office. The quality of bilateral cooperation between the leaders of Germany and France plays an important role in this respect, especially in view of Nicolas Sarkozy's defeat in the latest presidential election. François Hollande has already proved that Paris has a different attitudeto the issue of the redistribution of the eurozone members' debt than Germany, and reaching a consensus will require the CDU leader to be more submissive than before. Angela Merkel is aware of the ongoing reconfiguration of European political alliances, therefore she is prepared to soften Germany's diplomatic language to maintain the stability of the European currency, to which Germany owes its current position in Community decision-making structures. The main focus of this paper is to explore the formula of "European solidarity" of Germany in the context of the eurozone debt crisis, with particular emphasis on the case of the Hellenic Republic. Angela Merkel's standpoint is tested in the context of German-French cooperation with respect to the eurozone debt clearing policy. ; Gerhard Schröder's appointment as Chancellor of Germany in 1998 marked the first clear signs of Germany's emancipation from the EU's decision-making center in Brussels. It was, however, only after 2008, when the global economic crisis resonated across Europe, that Berlin maturely redefined its European policy priorities. Following that, the federal government gained more confidence in applying international policy tools to protect the German raison d'état in the Old Continent. For this reason Chancellor Angela Merkel has made the struggle with the financial problems of the eurozone one of the priorities of her second-term in office. The quality of bilateral cooperation between the leaders of Germany and France plays an important role in this respect, especially in view of Nicolas Sarkozy's defeat in the latest presidential election. François Hollande has already proved that Paris has a different attitudeto the issue of the redistribution of the eurozone members' debt than Germany, and reaching a consensus will require the CDU leader to be more submissive than before. Angela Merkel is aware of the ongoing reconfiguration of European political alliances, therefore she is prepared to soften Germany's diplomatic language to maintain the stability of the European currency, to which Germany owes its current position in Community decision-making structures. The main focus of this paper is to explore the formula of "European solidarity" of Germany in the context of the eurozone debt crisis, with particular emphasis on the case of the Hellenic Republic. Angela Merkel's standpoint is tested in the context of German-French cooperation with respect to the eurozone debt clearing policy.
Health insurance expenditures on drug refunds in 2004-2012Drug expenditures in each country account for a large share in total health expenditures. Hence experts, media and societies are becoming very interested in the drug policy in their country, where one of the important components is reimbursement/refund policy. Good governance in the drug sector means not only taking up allocation, redistribution and stabilization tasks that belong to the government, but also taking into consideration differences in interests of different stakeholders on the drug market. If it is disregarded, even ideal theoretical solutions will not work in market reality. This article presents and comments basic facts on development of universal health insurance expenditures on drug refund in the last 13 years in Poland, especially in 2012 after implementation of the new bill on refund policy. This law led to a dramatic decrease in drug refund cost share in total expenditures of the National Health Fund (Narodowy Fundusz Zdrowia, NFZ) from 15% in 2011 to 11.2% in 2012. Still the share of drug refund has already had a decreasing tendency in NFZ expenditures starting from 2005. Available data contradict suspicions that savings on drug refunds in NFZ has led to an increase in patients' health expenditures on prescription drugs. Costs of substitutive full-price drugs (equivalents for refunded ones) bought by Polish patients in 2012 increased only by 650 mln PLN, while NFZ's refund expenditures decreased by almost 2 billion PLN, and patients' copayment in the case of refunded drugs dropped by one billion PLN. However, drug consumption was reduced. Conducted analysis also showed a systematic, and positive for patients, growth in the share of almost fully refunded drugs – drugs with low fixed copayments (from 49% in 2004 to almost 65% in 2012) and lower 30% patients' copayment in NFZ refunds. Which in fact is in contradiction with the common opinion that NFZ is running a policy of shifting more drug costs on patients. What is concerning are regional discrepancies (between regional – voievodship branches) in refund expenditures per insured person (the difference between the highest and lowest is 49 PLN – 28%).
Official Development Aid as an idea is an implement of assistance, a kind of redistribution of the global income on the governmental level. Nevertheless, it is also a source of influence and as a result peculiarly understood imperialism. The opposition between political vision and reality is the factor which backs up this thesis. Political plans and prospects of the EU aid policy, such as "The European Consensus of Development" or "The EU and Africa: Towards a Strategic Partnership", are concerned about supporting good governance and providing fair conditions of international trade. On the other hand, introducing this policy often, more or less, increases dependency of poor economies on the rich. It is also not eradicated from the European Union policy, for example in the case of the European Development Bank. However, EU development aid, coming to 49 billions euro, could be named munificent when compared to the United States. U.S. Official Development Aid amounts to only 0,19% of GDP, when the obligations confirmed by the government in a few declarations, among which is the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations, are about 0,7% of GDP. Secondly it is commonly shaped as an interrelated aid, which augment dependency of the recipient country. International institutions established in Bretton Woods, like International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group, have also a huge impact on the way of development of poor countries. There are a lot of groups of interest whose opinions are clear – above-mentioned institutions are the U.S. instruments of imperialism. It is caused by American predominance in these institutions and the line of policy which it supports. In the XXI century imperial aspirations are also present in recently developing countries – like China or Brazil. Changing roles in the system of international relations are now coming, creating a diffusion between clubs of rich North and poor, developing South. Leaders of development from developing countries are trying to build a strong position in relations with recipients of ODA. It is easier for them than for the West, mostly because of the lack of bad, colonial past relations. Their imperialism is not linked with history whatsoever, making their role of foreign relations easier to build up. Despite these cases of using development assistance in order to build up an imperium, there are a lot of non-governmental institutions whose perception of aid is beyond politics and burdens of imperialism. Best example of that is Grameen Bank – an institution founded by M. yunus, a Noble Prize winner. Its way of helping people is mainly intended to being unprofitable. There are a lot of ideas about how to describe development aid – more like a charity or kind of imperialism. Some aspects of business are desirable in ODA, partly because of increasing efficiency. It is economically proved that the return of capital in any way of benefit will strengthen willingness to providing aid. On the other hand, people are naturally liable to help and perform activities which do not give them any interest or gain. What is most interesting – nowadays developing countries are strengthening and they are evaluating theirs powers as equal partners of the rich, developed world. It comprises change in the system of international relations. Moreover United Nations should find a way of enforcing obligations of donors – like 0,7 percent of GDP for ODA to 2015. If the line of politics is steady, similar to current line, this goal will not be reached, so ODA will be more seen as a way of imperialism than help. In general, there are a lot of aspects of development which indicate that ODA is an implement of imperialism. On the other hand – some kind of interest improves the willingness of donors to provide aid. Besides that question – imperial or not – development aid is still increasing the number of people whose conditions of living are better because of ODA.
Official Development Aid as an idea is an implement of assistance, a kind of redistribution of the global income on the governmental level. Nevertheless, it is also a source of influence and as a result peculiarly understood imperialism. The opposition between political vision and reality is the factor which backs up this thesis. Political plans and prospects of the EU aid policy, such as "The European Consensus of Development" or "The EU and Africa: Towards a Strategic Partnership", are concerned about supporting good governance and providing fair conditions of international trade. On the other hand, introducing this policy often, more or less, increases dependency of poor economies on the rich. It is also not eradicated from the European Union policy, for example in the case of the European Development Bank. However, EU development aid, coming to 49 billions euro, could be named munificent when compared to the United States. U.S. Official Development Aid amounts to only 0,19% of GDP, when the obligations confirmed by the government in a few declarations, among which is the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations, are about 0,7% of GDP. Secondly it is commonly shaped as an interrelated aid, which augment dependency of the recipient country. International institutions established in Bretton Woods, like International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group, have also a huge impact on the way of development of poor countries. There are a lot of groups of interest whose opinions are clear – above-mentioned institutions are the U.S. instruments of imperialism. It is caused by American predominance in these institutions and the line of policy which it supports. In the XXI century imperial aspirations are also present in recently developing countries – like China or Brazil. Changing roles in the system of international relations are now coming, creating a diffusion between clubs of rich North and poor, developing South. Leaders of development from developing countries are trying to build a strong position in relations with recipients of ODA. It is easier for them than for the West, mostly because of the lack of bad, colonial past relations. Their imperialism is not linked with history whatsoever, making their role of foreign relations easier to build up. Despite these cases of using development assistance in order to build up an imperium, there are a lot of non-governmental institutions whose perception of aid is beyond politics and burdens of imperialism. Best example of that is Grameen Bank – an institution founded by M. yunus, a Noble Prize winner. Its way of helping people is mainly intended to being unprofitable. There are a lot of ideas about how to describe development aid – more like a charity or kind of imperialism. Some aspects of business are desirable in ODA, partly because of increasing efficiency. It is economically proved that the return of capital in any way of benefit will strengthen willingness to providing aid. On the other hand, people are naturally liable to help and perform activities which do not give them any interest or gain. What is most interesting – nowadays developing countries are strengthening and they are evaluating theirs powers as equal partners of the rich, developed world. It comprises change in the system of international relations. Moreover United Nations should find a way of enforcing obligations of donors – like 0,7 percent of GDP for ODA to 2015. If the line of politics is steady, similar to current line, this goal will not be reached, so ODA will be more seen as a way of imperialism than help. In general, there are a lot of aspects of development which indicate that ODA is an implement of imperialism. On the other hand – some kind of interest improves the willingness of donors to provide aid. Besides that question – imperial or not – development aid is still increasing the number of people whose conditions of living are better because of ODA.
This article examines the institutional changes in 22 post-communist countries during the 1990-2020 period. The objective of the study was to find out why some countries achieved democracy while others failed to establish or strengthen democratic institutions, and what factors influenced the political stability of post-communist countries. During the study, available statistical information on the functioning of the main institutions was collected and processed. The analysis shows that the most significant institutional changes were observed among the non-democratic countries and those that fell into the category of hybrid political regimes. The correction of the initially chosen form of government is evidence in support of the theory of endogenous change, indicating "path-dependency". The influence of endogenous factors determines the quality of democratic change and the level of political stability in post-communist countries. Democratic changes in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe were associated with a commitment to rapid reform in the early stages, and Euro-Atlantic integration only supported the democratic quality of the institutions. The institutional framework of the countries, that embarked on the path of European integration, was relatively stable during the period under the study, and did not deal with changes in the system of power distribution. While the countries of the former Soviet Union most often resorted to changes in the primary law of the country, and these changes were related to the redistribution of powers between the branches of power and the extension of the time in the office of the President. In addition to the overall level of democratization of the country, the level of emancipatory values and the weight of presidential power have the greatest impact on political stability. ; Ten artykuł analizuje zmiany instytucjonalne w 22 państwach postkomunistycznych w latach 1990-2020. Celem badania było znalezienie odpowiedzi na pytanie, dlaczego niektóre kraje osiągnęły demokrację, podczas gdy inne nie zdołały stworzyć lub wzmocnić instytucji demokratycznych oraz jakie czynniki wpłynęły na stabilność polityczną państw postkomunistycznych. W trakcie badania zebrano i opracowano dostępne informacje statystyczne na temat funkcjonowania głównych instytucji. Analiza pokazuje, że najbardziej znaczące zmiany instytucjonalne zaobserwowano w państwach niedemokratycznych oraz tych, które zaliczały się do kategorii hybrydowych reżimów politycznych. Korekta początkowo wybranej formy ustroju jest dowodem na rzecz teorii zmian endogenicznych, wskazującym na "zależność od ścieżki" (path-dependency). Wpływ czynników endogenicznych determinuje jakość przemian demokratycznych i poziom stabilności politycznej w państwach postkomunistycznych. Przemiany demokratyczne w państwach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej wiązały się z zaangażowaniem w szybkie reformy na wczesnym etapie, a integracja euroatlantycka jedynie wspierała demokratyczną jakość instytucji. Struktura instytucjonalna państw, które wkroczyły na drogę integracji europejskiej, była w analizowanym okresie względnie stabilna i nie dotyczyła zmian w systemie podziału władzy. Z kolei państwa byłego Związku Radzieckiego najczęściej uciekały się do zmian w ustawie zasadniczej państwa, a zmiany te dotyczyły redystrybucji kompetencji między gałęziami władzy oraz wydłużenia kadencji prezydenta. Obok ogólnego poziomu demokratyzacji państw, największy wpływ na stabilność polityczną ma poziom wartości emancypacyjnych oraz waga władzy prezydenckiej. ; В статье рассматриваются институциональные изменения в 22 посткоммунистических странах в течение 1990-2020 годов. Целью исследования было выяснить, почему одни страны достигли демократии, а другие не смогли создать или укрепить демократические институты и какие факторы влияли на политическую стабильность посткоммунистических стран. Во время исследования была собрана и обработана доступная статистическая информация о функционировании основных институтов. Анализ показывает, что наиболее существенные институциональные изменения наблюдались среди недемократических стран и тех, которые попали в категорию гибридных политических режимов. Коррекция исходно выбранной формы правления свидетельствует в пользу теории эндогенных изменений, указывающих на «зависимость от выбранного пути» (path-dependency). Влияние эндогенных факторов определяет качество демократических изменений и уровень политической стабильности в посткоммунистических странах. Демократические изменения в странах Центрально-Восточной Европы были связаны с приверженностью к быстрому проведению реформ на ранних этапах, а евроатлантическая интеграция лишь поддерживала демократическое качество институтов. Институциональная основа стран, которые стали на путь европейской интеграции, была относительно стабильной в течение исследуемого периода и не касалась изменений системы распределения власти. В то же время страны бывшего Советского Союза чаще всего прибегали к изменениям основного закона страны и эти изменения касались перераспределения полномочий между ветвями власти и продления срока пребывания президента у власти. Кроме общего уровня демократизации страны, наибольшее влияние на политическую стабильность имеет уровень эмансипативных ценностей и вес президентской власти.
