Until a few years ago,
Poland was regarded by the Western press as the showpiece of the
transition economies, an example of the joys and benefits that a rapid
shift to privatisation, liberalised markets and incentives to capitalists
could deliver. The Polish example could be cited with relief by free
market enthusiasts who were confronted with economic chaos and falling
rates of economic activity in other formerly socialist countries.
The period of the mid-1990s, when most other economies in transition were
still struggling, was when the Polish economy supposedly took off.
National income grew rapidly at around 7 per cent per annum at the peak of
the boom, and the unemployment rate fell below 10 per cent. Poland became
one of the most important recipients of foreign direct investment in the
region. Of course, most of this was directed towards purchase of the newly
privatised state assets, since Poland's privatisation programme has been
one of the most comprehensive of all the transition economies. Other
foreign investment was dominantly in the trading and distribution sector,
which became the most dynamic in terms of employment and income
generation.
But this growth was unevenly spread. The cities, especially Warsaw,
thrived with the growth of medium to large private businesses. But the
rural sector was badly hit, especially from 1996 onwards when the fall in
international crop prices (and the continued subsidies offered by the
industrial countries to their own farmers) affected the viability of
Polish farmers who were being newly exposed to free trade.
The rural-urban inequality was mirrored in the growing differentiation
within the urban population, as workers in the old state-run enterprises,
pensioners, and other more vulnerable groups found their material position
deteriorating even as some new capitalists prospered quickly.
From 2000, the Polish economy was hit by the world economic slowdown,
which affected the European Union and especially Germany, Poland's main
trading partner. Meanwhile, part of Poland's comprehensive neoliberal
reform measures had entailed granting "independence" to the central bank.
This made the central bank free of government control and democratic
accountability, but increased its subservience to financial markets,
making it focus on the single aim of containing inflation regardless of
the state of the real economy.
Consequently, even in the face of the economic slowdown, the Polish
central bank imposed a deflationary policy, with high interest rates aimed
at stabilising the value of the currency, the zloty. Obviously, this had
further negative effects in terms of lower exports and greater import
penetration. Since then, economic growth has slackened to the point where
it was only 1 per cent last year, and the growth is expected to be even
less this year.
Unemployment surged as large companies shed workers and smaller companies
were forced to close. The current unemployment rate is 18 per cent of the
labour force, which is projected to rise to 20 per cent by the end of the
year. One-quarter of the population is estimated to be below the official
poverty line.
Some analysts have argued that this is simply part of a cyclical slowdown
which is affecting the E.U. and the world as a whole, and that Poland has
only shown that it is no exception to the international trend. But, in
fact, the current downturn has revealed deep structural weaknesses in the
Polish economy.
The boom in the 1990s was based on a combination of pent-up demand from
consumers for "new" goods, and inflows of resources which were largely
directed towards purchasing previously state-owned assets. (At this level,
the story sounds very similar to that of Argentina, with the difference
that the Polish government's external debt, while substantial, is less
worrisome.)
But neither of these factors is likely to play much of a role in the
future, as those with purchasing power have made at least first-time
acquisitions of many desired durable consumer goods, and there is precious
little left in terms of state assets that can be sold. Future economic
expansion will have to come from other sources.
Thus far, successive Polish governments have pinned their hopes on
accession into the E.U. as the engine of future dynamism. This has been
delayed (along with another nine European applicants) from 2000 to 2002,
and is now planned for 2004. But the enthusiasm for membership is waning
among growing sections of the Polish population. Prevarication by the E.U.
over membership is one reason, but there are other more significant
reasons.
While the E.U. has set stringent conditions for Poland to fulfil in order
to be considered for membership, it is not willing to grant Polish farmers
the same level of subsidies as it provides its own farmers. Nor is it
likely to make provision for as much aid as would be required to allow
smaller Polish entrepreneurs to cope with the difficulties associated with
import competition from more developed E.U. members. Since many of the E.U.
countries, including Germany, are themselves in recession at the moment,
there are also doubts about the extent to which they will act as positive
stimuli for Poland's economy.
The macroeconomic decline is not the only reason for the growing
unhappiness with market-oriented policies in Poland. These policies have
also meant a significant increase in economic insecurity, as many of the
basic goods and services that were previously guaranteed by the state have
been privatised and have become more expensive and difficult to access.
These services range from housing, health and education to electricity and
water supply. Higher prices charged by privatised utilities and health
providers as well as exorbitant charges for higher education have all
reduced access not just for the absolutely poor but even for ordinary
Polish citizens.
Popular dissatisfaction has expressed itself in frequent changes of
government. Most recently, a centre-left coalition, led by former
communists with Leszek Miller as Prime Minister, was elected to power. The
current government is trying to walk the tightrope between the marketist
requirements of entry into the E.U., and alleviating some of the current
difficulties of the people, with not much success. A law to bring the
central bank under some degree of government control is being contested.
Because of these growing insecurities, the popular mood is restive and
there is a strong sense of disillusionment with and alienation from the
established political parties. There is a surge in support for two extreme
parties, one of which stems from the religious right-wing that had earlier
formed part of the support for Solidarity. The other, called "Self Defence",
is a movement led by Andrzej Lepper, a populist demagogue who expresses
nationalist sentiments similar to those of the far right in western
Europe, but also harks back to the greater security of the socialist
regime.
While Lepper's ideology is problematic and his rhetoric tends to be
confused, his movement is gathering support. This is because some of his
proposals - especially those demanding greater state control over markets
and private activities - are seen by many people as necessary for both
growth and equity.
The Polish shipyards were the home, in the 1980s, of the Solidarity
workers' movement which culminated in the collapse of the communist system
in Poland. It is ironic, then, that one of the most recent moves of the
government - which has been welcomed by the same workers who were closely
involved in the Solidarity trade union in the past - relates to the
renationalisation of a shipyard. The Szczecin shipyard was closed since
March, and 6,000 workers have not been paid since. When violence loomed in
May, the government stepped in to save jobs and try to rescue the
shipyard.
But saving one individual shipyard, while it may have symbolic value, is
not likely to be enough to bring a sustainable recovery to the Polish
economy. For that, there may have to be a more consistent redirection of
economic strategy, away from that of the recent past.
|