Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
CHAPTER 1. From liberalism to interventionism (1918–1939) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
1.1. Post-partition challenges and the Polish economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. From inflation to stabilised development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. The shock of the Great Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4. Belated economic interventionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17 22 28 31 33
CHAPTER 2. The communist experiment (1945–1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
2.1. Instead of an introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Socialist industrialisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. An attempt to harmonise the development and to reform the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. After the martial law, or market socialism without the market and self-government . . . 2.5. Conclusions, or the roots of the concept of transition to capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37 40 45 55 61
CHAPTER 3. Winding paths to build a market economy (1990–2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
3.1. Transformational shock and postponed active adaptations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The first attempt to integrate development processes – “Strategy for Poland” . . . . . . 3.3. Towards public sector reforms and supply adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Has the local government reform broken the monopoly of uniform state authority? . . . 3.5. Deregulation of the labour market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6. Controversial recipes for reforms of formal education and science development . . . . 3.7. Attempts to overcome disintegration of the health care system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8. Unfortunate liberalisation of the pension system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9. Effects of implementing the EU socio-economic coherence pattern and continuing diffusion-polarisation development (2004–2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10. Responsible development (2016–?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71 80 86 95 98 105 116 123 133 156