Transcript Slajd 1

Adam Oleksiuk
University of Warmia and Mazury
Economic Situation and Implementation of the
Cohesion Policy in Poland between 2007-2013
Budapest, April 08, 2014
1
MaMaiin dmevelopment trends in Poland:
 High –compared to the EU - economic growth and progress in
convergence with the EU,
 Changes in the economy’s structure resulting from the cohesion
policy’s implementation and from the global economic crisis:
shrinking share of sector I (agriculture) and slightly declining share
of sector III (services) coupled with growing share of the sector II
(industry and construction)
 Growth slowdown in 2012, deteriation of macroeconomic situation in
numerous important spheres: economic growth, situation of public
finance, labour market
 Potential threats to future economic growth: weak external and
domestic demand, impact of public finance’s consolidation (i.a.
lower public investment)
 Decline of population’s real disposable incomes in the period 20112012
2
GDP growth rate in Poland
(annual changes in %)
8
7,0
5,2
6
3,8
4
6,2
7,1
5,0
5,3
4,5 4,3
3,9
2,6
1,2 1,4
2
6,2
6,8
5,1
3,9
3,6
1,6
4,5
1,9 1,6
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
-2
-4
-6
-8
-7,0
-7,5
-10
Source: CSO
Main development trends in Poland
In 2012 GDP per capita (at PPS) reached 67% of the EU-27 average.
Dynamic convergence vis-a-vis the EU average –faster than in all the other New Member States. The
process of real convergence towards the EU was observed in all regions of Poland; however it was
slower in the less developed regions
229
263
300
250
67
67
64
62
Hungary
Poland
Latvia
Croatia
47
71
Estonia
Bulgaria
72
Lithuania
50
75
Greece
Romania
76
Portugal
81
Czech Republic
76
84
Slovenia
.
Slovakia
86
Malta
92
96
100
99
100
106
109
115
120
123
126
126
150
128
130
200
50
Cyprus
Spain
Italy
EU-28
United Kingdom
France
Finland
Belgium
Germany
Danmark
Sweden
Netherlands
Austria
Ireland
Luxembourg
0
Source: Eurosta database, access, January 31, 2014
4
GDP growth in the Central and Eastern
European Countries
1989=100
Country
1995
1998
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
2012
Bulgara
70.2
62.4
68.9
71.8
75.2
84.7
90.1
95.9
105.5
Czech Republic
92.7
95.8
101.5
104.7
106.9
116.1
120.8
129.3
138.7
Estonia
66.0
83.4
91.2
96.9
103.3
118.4
128.9
141.9
145.0
Lithuania
55.8
67.9
75.4
80.5
85.9
101.8
109.7
118.3
126.9
Latvia
57.3
67.4
73.8
79.2
84.9
99.5
109.5
121.8
117.3
103.1
123.1
134.2
135.8
137.7
150.7
156.1
165.8
209.1
Romania
82.3
79.1
80.0
84.6
88.9
101.5
105.7
114.1
123.7
Slovakia
84.7
98.7
100.1
103.6
108.3
119.3
127.3
137.8
168.4
Słovenia
88.8
100.0
109.8
113.0
117.3
126.0
131.1
138.7
140.7
Hungary
85.5
91.9
98.9
102.5
107.1
116.6
121.3
126.0
120.0
Poland
Sources: Own estmiate, based on Eurostat’s data base and on UNECE statistical database.
Main development trends in Poland
Relatively high rate of economic growth, compared to the EU
average
Average annual rate of growth in the period 2007-2012 amounted to
4% (as against the EU-27 average of 0.4%)
Economic slowdown in 2012 and in 2013; GDP increased by
respecitvely 1.9% and 1.6% (4.5% in 2011).
GDP growth rate (%) in Poland and in the EU (q/q-4) i
8,0
UE-27 average
(SA)
EU-27,
Polska
(SA)
Poland
6,0
4,0
2,0
0,0
Iq
0
II q 7
0
II I 7
q0
IV 7
q0
7
Iq
0
II q 8
0
II I 8
q0
IV 8
q0
8
Iq
09
II q
0
II I 9
q0
IV 9
q0
9
Iq
10
II q
1
II I 0
q1
IV 0
q1
0
Iq
1
II q 1
1
II I 1
q1
IV 1
q1
1
Iq
12
II q
1
II I 2
q1
IV 2
q1
2
Iq
13
II q
13
-2,0
-4,0
-6,0
6
Development trends in Poland
 Slowdown in domestic demand observed in 2012 – very low
growth in consumption, coupled with fall in accumulation (including
gross fixed capital formation).
 In the period 2009-2012, expenditures on gross fixed capital
formation recorded growth only in 2011, while the consumption
growth has been slowing since 2010
Growth (in %) of selected GDP components
in the period 2007-2013 (q/q-4)
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
Iq
07
IIq
07
III
q0
IV 7
q0
7
Iq
08
IIq
08
III
q0
IV 8
q0
8
Iq
09
IIq
09
III
q0
IV 9
q0
9
Iq
10
IIq
10
III
q1
IV 0
q1
0
Iq
11
IIq
11
III
q1
IV 1
q1
1
Iq
12
IIq
12
III
q1
IV 2
q1
2
Iq
13
IIq
13
0,0
-5,0
-10,0
-15,0
Gross Fixed Capital Formation
GDP
Total consumption
7
Development trends in Poland

Investment rate declined from 20.2% in 2011 to 19.4% in 2012, with the
simultaneous decline in public investments from 5.7% of the GDP to
4.6%
The Convergence Programme 2013 forecasts decline in infrastructural
investment- at both central and self-government level - from 3.8% in
2013 to 3.5% in 2014
Investment rate (% of GDP)
25,0
20,0
18,1
18,2
19,7
21,6
22,3
21,2
19,9
20,2
19,4
15,0
%

10,0
5,0
4,2
4,6
5,2
5,7
3,4
3,9
5,6
3,4
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
4,6
0,0
investment rate
stopaTotal
inwestyjcji
ogółem
2012
Public
sector’s investment
rate
stopa
inwestycji
publicznych
8
65
60
55
50
71,4
Luxembourg
Source: Eurostat Database, accessed February 27, 2014
68,3
68,1
Slovenia
Latvia
55,4
55,3
Croatia
Greece
Spain
Italy
59,3
61,0
62,1
63,0
Bulgaria
Hungary
63,1
63,7
Ireland
Malta
63,8
64,7
Poland
Romania
65,1
66,5
Slovakia
Portugal
67,2
68,4
EU-28
Belgium
68,5
69,3
Lithuania
France
70,2
71,5
Czech Republic
Cyprus
72,1
74,0
Finland
Estonia
74,2
75,4
Denmark
United Kingdom
75,6
Austria
76,7
70
Germany
75
77,2
79,4
80
Netherlands
Sweden
Employment rate in EU-28
age group 20-64 in 2012 (in %)
85
12,9
Bulgaria
Greece
18,6
27,8
26,7
30
Spain
Croatia
17,3
15,5
20
Cyprus
Portugal
14,0
12,7
Italy
Slovakia
12,3
Ireland
11,3
Lithuania
12,0
10,9
EU-28
15
Latvia
10,8
France
10,2
9,9
Slovenia
Poland
9,5
9,0
Hungary
Estonia
8,4
Belgium
7,3
Romania
8,4
7,2
United Kingdom
Finland
6,9
Czech Republic
8,0
6,9
Netherlands
Sweden
6,9
6,4
Malta
10
Denmark
6,1
Luxembourg
5,2
Germany
0
4,8
5
Austria
Harmonised unemployment rate in EU-28
(December 2013, in %)
25
Main development Trends in Voivodeships
(NTS-2 regions)
 Progress in convergence with the EU is more pronounced in economically
leading voivodeships (mazowieckie, dolnośląskie, wielkopolskie)
 The highest values of Local Human Development Index (health, education,
affluence) are observed in highly developed voivodeships (mazowieckie,
małopolskie, pomorskie), while the most dynamic progress in this area in
the years 2007-2010 was recodred in lubuskie and łódzkie voivodeships.
 Differentiated situation in voivodeships – higher economic growth in the
most developed regions, coupled with growing investment rate in
economically weaker ones
 Deterioration of situation in many labour market segments– youth
unemployment and long-term unemployment in rural areas and in areas
distant from large urban centers
 Worsening net balance of internal migration in many peripheral eastern,
central and northern areas
 Progress in improving the communication accessibility of regional centers
and in the quality of technical infrastructure.
11
Convergence of voivodeships towards
the EU
In 2011 GDP per capita (at PPS) ranged from 44 % of the EU-28 average (in lubelskie and
podkarpackie) to 107% (in mazowieckie voivodeship). In 2010 the ratio ranged from 42%
(podkarpackie) to 102% (mazowieckie). In the period 2004-2011 the GDP per capita in
mazowieckie voivodeship has increased in relation to the EU-28 average by 31p.p.,
while lubelskie, warmińsko-mazurskie, podkarpackie and zachodniopomorskie have
narrowed the distance towards the EU-28 average by 9 p.p.
12
Registered unemployment at NUTS-3 level
High long-term unemployment in Eastern Poland
13
Differentiation at the NTS 3 level
IN 2010 GDP per capita of NUTS-3 units in relation to the national average
ranged from 53.2% in przemyski subregion (podkarpackie voivodeship) to
301.1% in Warsaw (differentation rate of 1:6).
GDP per capita in subregions (NUT- 3) in 2010 ( Poland=100), in %
350
max
m. Warszawa
min
average
300
250
m. Poznań
200
legnicko-głogowski
m. Kraków
150
trójmiejski
tyski
m. Łódź
m. Szczecin
bydgosko-toruński
lubelski gorzowski
100
50
wałbrzyski
grudziądzki
opolski
rzeszowskibiałostocki
nyski
łomżyński
przemyski
kielecki olsztyński
zielonogórski
puławski
radomski
sieradzki
nowosądecki
gdański
bytomski
sandomiersko
ełcki
-jędrzejowsk
pilski
stargardzki
0
14
Entrepreneurship, investments,
expenditures of innovative activity
• Highly differentiated
development potential
of the entreprise
sector across the
country
• Investment outlays
are incurred mostly
by enterprises located
in subregions where
economic activity is
concentrated in large
urban centres.
15
Expenditures on innovative activity
• Significant regional
concentration – in 2012 almost
40% of expenditures on
innovative activity were
incurred in enterprises located
in the mazowieckie
voivodeship, whille close to
14% in śląskie voivodeship
• Services sector – 78.4% of
expenditures on innovative
activity incurred by enterprises
from the mazowieckie
voivodeship
• Industrial sector – almost 70%
of innovative activity originates
in 5 voivodeships: śląskie
(19.3%), mazowieckie
(18.8%), łódzkie,
wielkopolskie and dolnośląskie
16
Research & Development Expenditures
• High concentration - in 2011
4 voivodeships (mazowieckie,
małopolskie, śląskie and
vielkopolskie) responsible for
67% of the said expenditures.
• Highest R&D expenditures per 1
person employed in the R&D
sphere recorded in mazowieckie
voivodeship (PLN 125 thousandi.e. 43.8% higher than the
national average). 2nd place of
świętokrzyskie voivodeship, with
podkarpackie and warmińskomazurskie ranked 3rd and 4th.
kujawsko-pomorskie placed last
(with expenditures almost two
times lower than the national
average)
• In 2010 the largest share of regional GDP was earmarked for financing R&D activity in
mazowieckie (1.35%), małopolskie (1.05%) and podkarpackie (0.97%)
• In case of Eastern Poland situation is not uniform. The share of said expenditures was quite
significant in podkarpackie voivodeship (where i.a. the so-called Aviation Valley is located)
and in lubelskie (0.67%) where the dynamic academic center is located. However, in
warmińsko-mazurskie and in świętokrzyskie the said share amounted to 0.45 i 0.47% of
regional GDP, while in podlaskie it stood at mere 0.32% of the region’s GDP
17
Road infrstructure
Network of highways and expressways
in Poland
Network in operations
higways
expressways
other roads
Roads and highways
co-financed with the EU resources
in the period 2007-2013
higways
expressways
other roads
Bez okna
Source: GDDKiA, MRD (August, 2013)
• According to the Ministry of
Transport, at the end of 2012
there were 1365,1 km of
highways (as against 205 km in
2009) and 2052,4 km of
expressways (as against 225,6
km in 2003.
• Simultanenous lack of
expressways and of highways is
one of the reasons of low
transport accessibility of
podlaskie, podkarpackie and
warmińsko-mazurskie
voivodeships. There are also
bottlenecks (low share of
highways and expressways in
mazowieckie voivodeship.
• Despite high value added and positive network effects generarated by highways and expressways across
the country, at the local level construction of such categories of roads is necessary but not sufficient to
assure the rapid grwoth of gminas and powiats. The said growth is determined by a wider set of factors.
The demand effect related to the investment process was significantly lower than expected.
18
Condition of public finance
•
•
•
Deficit of the entire general government sector, as well as the deficit of the selfgovernment units has narrowed in 2011, for the first time since 2008
This positive trend, particularly strong in the case of self-governments, was
maintained in 2012, with the deficit amounting to 3.9% of the GDP (that is 1.1 p.p.
lower than in 2011)
Such a level of the deficit places Poland on the 15th position in the EU (where the
average was slightly higher – 4% of the GDP).
Spain
Greece
Ireland
Portugal
United Kingdom
Cyprus
France
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Netherlands
Slovenia
EU-27
Denmark
Poland
Belgium
Malta
Lithuania
Italy
Romania
Austria
Finland
Hungary
Latvia
Bulgaria
Luxembourg
Sweden
Estonia
Germany
-12,0
-10,0
-8,0
-6,0
-4,0
-2,0
0,0
2,0
19
Territorial structure
of the UE funds allocation
• High pace of the EU funds’ allocation and implementation in Poland.
• In the period 2010- June 30 2013 - 86.5% of the 2007-2013 allocation
was alloted to specific projects;
• The highest EU co-financing per capita was observed in: warmińskomazurskie (PLN 8967), podkarpackie (8840 PLN) and mazowieckie (7530
PLN);
• The lowest amount of per capita co-financing was recorded in:
kujawsko-pomorskie (PLN 4372), wielkopolskie (PLN 4644) and opolskie
(PLN 5054) voivodeships
• Significant focus of the EU financing in capital subregions of
voivodeships. In the majority of voivodeships EU funds in the said
regions amount to almost half (or even more) of expenditures incurred
in a given voivodesh
• Sizeable internat differentiation in terms of EU co-financing per capita
20
Territorial structure
of the UE funds’ allocation
16 000
rzeszowski
max
14 000
średnia w województwie
min
trójmiejski
12 000
m.Wrocław
sieradzki tarnowski m.Warszawa
lubelski
10 000
gorzowski
elbląski
gliwicki
białostocki
szczeciński
m.Poznań
kielecki
8 000
6 000
bydgosko-toruński
4 000
2 000
opolski
m.Łódź
wałbrzyski
zielonogórski
chełmsko-zamojski
grudziądzki
nowosądecki
nyski
radomski
ełcki
suwalski
krośnieński
słupski
sandomierski
rybnicki
koszliński
pilski
0
In the podkarpackie, śląskie and dolnośląskie voivodeships sub-regions leading in
the implementation of the cohesion policy, received over 3.5 times more financing
than the regions with the lowest co-financing levels. Among the NUTS-3 units, the
Rzeszów subregion stands out as a leader - with the EU co-financing per capita
reaching almost PLN 15 thousand (over two times higher than the national average
of PLN 6354). The lowest degree of internal differentiation in this field is observed
21
in: opolskie, kujawsko-pomorskie and lubuskie voivodeships.
Territorial structure
of the UE funds allocation
In the majority of areas
characterized
by
the
highest concentration of
the EU support, there
were large infrastructural
investments implemented
(mostly in raliways and
road
infrastructure),
amounting to half of the
value
of
projects
implemented in those
areas.
There is a visible concentration of EU expenditures in the central-eastern belt, as
well as in the Western part of the country – the areas where the S7, S8 and S3
expressways, A1 i A4 highways and the modernized railway Warszawa – Gdynia are
located
22
Thank you for attention