Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States
as a result of the implementation of cohesion
policy in Poland
2010 update
2010
Warsaw
Author: Łukasz Skrok
Authors
of the original report: Jakub Growiec, Julian Zawistowski (editor), Łukasz Skrok,
Piotr Bartkiewicz, Maciej Lis, Karol Pogorzelski, Andrzej Regulski
Cooperation:
Piotr Bartkiewicz, Jan Gąska, Andrzej Regulski
Coordination:
Julian Zawistowski
Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the
implementation of cohesion policy in Poland
– 2010 update
© Ministry of Regional Development
Warsaw 2010
Study prepared by
Institute for Structural Research
commissioned by the Ministry of Regional Development
Issuer:
Ministry of Regional Development
ul. Wspólna 2/4, 00-926
www.mrr.gov.pl
www.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl
ISBN:
978-83-7610-258-0
Department of Structural Policy Coordination
Phone: (+48 22) 461 39 07
Fax: +(48 22) 461 32 63
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Translation – Contact Language Services
Free of charge
MINISTRY
OF REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result
of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland
Updated in 2010
Table of contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Research context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1. Economic sense of EU cohesion policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2. EU Cohesion Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.1. EU Cohesion Policy in Europe after 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.2. Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3. Expected channels of impact of the implementation of EU Cohesion Policy in Poland on EU-15
and net payer states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.3.1. Short­‑term effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.3.2. Long­‑term effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Evaluation of direct benefits gained by EU-15 companies as a result of the implementation of EU
cohesion policy in Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of cohesion policy
in Poland – research method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1. The objective and scope of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Research method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Data used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Problems with data availability and imputations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. Research assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4. Macroeconomic analysis step by step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Evaluation of total benefits (direct and indirect) gained by EU-15 States as a result of the
implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland – update of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
28
29
31
32
34
39
4.1. Update of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2. Survey results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.1. Additional demand on goods and services imported from EU-15 States . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2.2. Additional demand for imported goods and services manufactured in particular economy
sectors of EU-15 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.3. Impact on the growth of profits and payroll funds among EU-15 companies and taxes
paid by them in mother countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.2.4. Impact on the growth of profits and payroll funds of companies from particular sectors
of EU-15 economies and taxes paid by them in mother countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2.5. Changes in the value and structure of goods and services exported by the EU-15
countries to Poland as a result of emergence of an additional production, consumption
and investment demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2.6. Influence of increase in trade with Poland on the GDP in the EU-15 countries . . . . . . . . 56
4.3. Total benefits – summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
7. Methodological Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
7.1. Validity of the EU cohesion policy assumptions according to the economic literature . . . . . . . 70
7.2. Microeconomic research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3
7.2.1. Methodology of CAWI survey research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2. Survey results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3. Detailed results of the CAWI survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.4. Methodology of extrapolation for 2009-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.5. Microeconomic forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. Statistical tables presenting the results of the macroeconomic research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5. Questionnaire used in CAWI survey – exemplary path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
73
81
89
91
92
96
103
Introduction
This report presents the updated results of the comprehensive research carried out in 2008-2009
by the Institute for Structural Research for the Ministry of Regional Development. The study was
devoted to the benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of EU Cohesion
Policy in Poland. The analysis covers both the benefits gained directly by companies from these
countries resulting from the participation in Cohesion Policy, as well as benefits obtained by entire
economies – the research applied both micro and macroeconomic approach to the analysed issue.
It needs to be underlined here that the research has not analysed the overall impact of the Polish
accession to EU, which is undoubtedly far greater, but only an isolated effect of Cohesion Policy
implementation.
Complete results of initial analyses have been presented in the report entitled Evaluation of
benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland of
2009. A much wider accessibility to data allowed the research to be updated in 2010. In order to
retain coherence, the larger part of the report of 2009 has been saved. This means unavoidable
cases of repetitions. Elements not subject to update and not directly linked to updated parts have
been omitted.
A significant difference between the original report and its updated version is the scale of final
results of indirect impact evaluation. The research, results of which were used for the 2009
report, indicated that the total additional export from EU-15 States to Poland resulting from the
implementation of projects co‑financed from Community funds amounted to EUR 25 billion, but
the newest estimations indicate the revenue in the amount of EUR 38 billion. Such a considerable
change results mostly from the possibility to use more recent data, in particular concerning input­
‑output analyses (Eurostat data). As far as it was possible to use in 2009 some indices estimated
on the basis of data from 2000 (or combined data from 2000 and 2004), then in 2010 complete
data for 2005 were available. This also allowed the introduction of detailed modifications of
research methods, which were adjusted in 2009 to take account of data availability. Meanwhile,
trade exchange between Poland and EU-15 States intensified in 2000-2005, which was perceived
as a very important process. This phenomenon could have been observed and identified in the
research period of 2008-2009 through macroeconomic data analysis, despite the lack of sufficient
data. However, application of macroeconomic data in calculations would require the adoption of
several other ad hoc assumptions. Taking into account the research objective, this possibility has
been rejected in favour of the practice commonly used in scientific research, i.e. accepting conservative assumptions. Thus, as far as the results presented in the 2009 report indicated additional
exports, assuming trade intensity at the level of the year 2000, then the current report also takes
into account the influence of market unification within the European Union and a more broadly
understood internationalisation process regarding production.
Benefits gained by EU-15 States have been divided into direct and indirect ones. The former is
understood as the situation, where a company from an EU-15 State is a contractor of a project
co‑financed from Community funds, executed in Poland. In such situation, contributions of EU-15
States into funds return to payer States in the form of payments for goods and services delivered
5
to Poland. The estimations applied in this study indicate that this happens to 5 % of funds spent
in Poland. A direct benefit gained this way by EU-15 States in 2000-2008 amounts to PLN 4.6 billion (EUR 1.18 billion), at fixed prices of 2008. These data concern projects implemented as part
of pre‑accession programmes and the National Development Plan for 2004-2006.
However, indirect benefits are far greater, as they result from an increased demand of Poland –
thanks to the implementation of EU cohesion policy – for imported goods and services. These
imports are threefold: production (i.e. imports of goods and services used in production processes
in Poland), consumption and investment. Occurrence of these imports is related both to the fact
that the implementation of projects co‑financed from Community funds generates the demand
for subcontracting and delivery of goods and services related to project needs, as well as to more
long­‑term effects of economic modernisation of Poland and increasing its production potential,
resulting in the growth in demand for various goods and services. According to estimations included
in this study, the total (i.e. direct and indirect) benefits gained by EU-15 States in 2004-2009 in
relation to the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland amount to EUR 4.5 billion (PLN 17.8
billion) at prices of 2008, i.e. 27 % of the total value of funds flowing into Poland under this policy.
We need to bear in mind, however, that these benefits are unevenly distributed over time. This
happens due to the fact that the amounts of co‑financing that Poland was entitled to within the
2004-2006 programming period (expended until 2008) were significantly lower than the amounts
for 2007-2013. Delays in the emergence of indirect effects, particularly those resulting from the
increased purchasing potential of Poland, are an important factor. Therefore, according to forecasts included in this report, we should expect that benefits gained by EU-15 in 2004-2015 will
amount to the total of EUR 37.8 billion (PLN 151 billion), at fixed prices of 2008. Thus, a previously
observed effect would constitute only 12 % of the value expected for the entire period of 20042015. With time, the significance of indirect effects will also grow: according to forecasts, they
will constitute as much as 91% of all observed effects until 2015.
At the same time, the impact of induced exports on macroeconomic aggregates in UE-15 countries
is low, which results mostly from the fact that the cohesion policy is being implemented in Poland
to a limited extent as compared to the value of these States’ economies. However, additional Polish
imports considerably lower the actual costs of financing interventions by the States in question.
In particular, from each Euro spent on the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland, EU-15
countries receive the return of 36 cents in the form of additional export of goods and services, or
even 46 cents if we deduct their own payments under cohesion policy from the cost.
The abovementioned summary results have been obtained by aggregating partial results characterised, in the case of smaller projects, by considerable disaggregation. Individual chapters discuss results broken down to particular EU-15 countries and economy sectors, according to NACE
classification. It also needs to be emphasised that these are conservative estimations. Research
methodology was structured in a way to, above all, avoid overestimation errors. Therefore, it
is possible that the results observed in reality are slightly stronger than suggested by research
results. This is confirmed if we compare the current results with those included in the report of
2009. Abandoning of some conservative assumptions (which was possible due to greater data
availability), significantly increased the values of indirect effects estimations.
Finally, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, we would like to once again emphasise the fact
that the benefits gained by EU-15 States, estimated in this research, in relation to the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland, constitute an additional effect, simultaneous to far greater
6
benefits gained in the same period by Poland. Obviously, Polish companies and citizens benefit
the most from the implementation of co‑financed projects.
The structure of this report is the following: The first chapter outlines the economic background
for further considerations. Therefore, the economic reference books were discussed, which provide justifications for EU cohesion policy and showing its consequences in a broader context; then
facts concerning the implementation of EU cohesion policy were presented, with particular focus
on its implementation in Poland; finally, the expected channels of impact of EU cohesion policy
on EU-15 economies were presented, including, in particular, on net payer states. This chapter
is a repeated first chapter of the 2009 report. It is supplemented by Appendix 7.1 containing the
discussion on the economic reference literature justifying the concept of the cohesion policy.
Chapter two synthetically presents the estimation of the value of direct benefits gained by EU-15
States due to the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland. Direct benefits have been
quantified in this research through an Internet survey covering projects with a total value amounting to one‑third of total financing. It is worth stressing that the results of Internet survey, carried
out on a broad scale, provide detailed information on the sectoral structure of expenditure from
structural funds in Poland (also broken down by operational programmes of NDP 2004-2006) –
information which is very important to analyses of the impact of EU funds on the Polish economy,
not only in the context of this project. A forecast of the impact of EU cohesion policy on EU-15
States’ companies in 2009-2015 has also been formulated. Detailed results, as well as methodological description, are presented in Appendix 7.2. Compared to 2009 report, only the forecast
has been updated.
Chapter three presents the objective and method of a macroeconomic research. It has been based
on input­‑output analysis and sectoral foreign trade accounts. Despite a high degree of disaggregation, its character was macroeconomic. Due to greater data availability, a method was modified
compared to the year 2009. Additionally, Appendix 7.4 presents the juxtaposition of main research
questions and methods used to provide answers.
Chapter four – undoubtedly the most important to this study – characterises total benefits gained
by EU-15 States, including both direct and indirect benefits resulting from the implementation
of EU cohesion policy in Poland. All estimations have been made at the level of NACE sectors,
which allowed for highly detailed analyses and which provided a possibility to answer research
questions related to specific aspects of the impact of structural funds on the Polish economy and
(indirectly) on EU-15 economies. The results have been broken down by particular States, years
and economy sectors. Apart from the impact of Community funds on EU-15 economies in 20042009, their expected impact in 2010-2015 has also been quantified. This chapter describes results
which are the main object of an update. Appendix 7.3 is a drill­‑down of the chapter, as it contains
additional tables with numerical results.
Chapter five is a summary.
Due to the lack of close connection with the evaluation of indirect benefits, presented in Chapter
4, this report omits research elements from the 2008-2009 period. In particular, the 2009 report
presents results of supplementary analyses (in‑depth interviews, documentation analyses, case
studies). They cover such aspects as external effects of basic infrastructure, impact of ­INTERREG
initiative on international cooperation and foreign capital flows. If you would like to find out more
on these topics, please see the 2009 report: Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States as
a result of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland of 2009.
7
1 . Research context
This chapter is an introduction to the report’s subject matter. It is a repeated, analogous version
of the part of the report Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland of 2009, however, to introduce the issues to interested
readers it has been fully retained.
1.1. E conomic sense of EU cohesion policy
The fundamental reason behind the decision to implement EU cohesion policy by European
Communities is the will to support sustainable economic growth in the entire area (of all Member
States) of the European Union. In order to achieve this effect, it is necessary to first level out the
developmental differences between particular States and their regions, so that the grounds for
a long­‑term economic growth are established also in the areas where income per capita is the
lowest. In this sense, cohesion policy is supposed to accelerate and facilitate real convergence
processes between regions. The real need for it is reflected in a disproportion between Member
States when it comes to product per capita (chart 1.1).
­C HART 1.1. ­GROSS ­D OMESTIC ­P RODUCT PER ­C APITA IN EU-27 ­S TATES IN 2007 (­M EASURED
BY ­P URCHASING ­P OWER ­PARITY, EU-27=100)
Luxembourg
Ireland
Netherlands
Austria
Denmark
Sweden
Belgium
UK
Finland
Germany
France
Spain
Italy
Greece
Cyprus
Slovenia
Czech Rep.
Malta
Portugal
Estonia
Hungary
Slovakia
Lithuania
Latvia
Poland
Romania
Bulgaria
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Source: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.
EU cohesion policy is of a regional character, i.e. instead of countries, regions are the basic territorial units. This allows the aid to be granted not only to less wealthy countries but also to regions
with serious structural problems located in developed countries.
8
The possibility of large divergences between regions within particular countries was reflected,
among others, in Poland in the pre‑accession period (figure 1.1):
­F IGURE 1.1. ­CONVERGENCE AND ­D IVERGENCE ­P ROCESS OF ­P OLISH ­R EGIONS (IN THE
­P ERIOD 1995-2004), ­M EASURED BY GDP PER ­C APITA
I – regions around national average
II – regions losing advantage over national average
III – regions catching up to national average
IV – regions developing lags compared to national average
V – regions increasing their advantage over national
average
Source: Own elaboration based on the data from Regional Data Bank of CSO.
A fundamental question, in the context of justifying the usefulness of cohesion policy, apart from
the existing developmental disproportions, is the question of selecting economic policy instruments
and their efficiency and effectiveness. Here we can make use of findings of the theory of economy.
The possibility to increase the investment into a (broadly understood) capital is a key economic
channel, through which Community funds are to influence the acceleration of the real convergence
process. According to predictions of nearly all models proposed by economic growth theories
(starting from the Solow model of 1956 to contemporary theories of endogenous and semi­
‑endogenous growth), countries with a lower growth level will converge in the direction of better
developed economies, thanks to a faster accumulation of physical capital, the source of which
lies in the above­‑average rates of return. Real convergence requires the simultaneous removal
of barriers such as insufficient development of basic infrastructure or high risk related to running
a business activity. Moreover, due to mobility limitations, adjustments take place gradually. Aid
from structural funds, addressed to the relatively most poorly developed EU regions, eliminating
the abovementioned barriers, delivering a necessary infrastructure and additional incentives for
private investments, may largely contribute to accelerated convergence process.
The analogous convergence mechanism may also relate to the accumulation of human capital
(cf. e.g. Mankiw, Romer and Weil, 1992, cf. discussion below). Since the difference in human
resources is in fact one of the significant reasons for the developmental lags of Poland compared
to the wealthiest EU States, EU funds supporting the human capital in Poland – especially funds
expended by SOP Human Resources Development – can considerably accelerate Polish convergence with these States.
However, investment acceleration requires limited consumption in a short time, and along with
the modernisation of physical capital (cf. Greenwood, Hercowitz and Krusell, 1997) it can also be
related to outdated qualifications of a part of the workforce, resulting in the decline in real remunerations and (potentially) with unemployment growth. Therefore, the aim of cohesion policy is
9
to facilitate the less affluent EU States and regions to go through the transitional period related
to modernization.
A further discussion of economic reference books related to this research is presented in the
Appendix. To shortly sum up, it needs to be emphasised that the significance of cohesion policy
to the process of economic convergence is analogous to the impact of public investments or subsidising private investments, broadened by redistribution at the international level. The channels
of EU cohesion policy’s short­‑term and long­‑term impact on the economy are following:
• subsidies to private investments, aiming at increased accumulation of modern forms of
physical capital;
• public investments in broadly understood infrastructure, enhancing the ultimate productivity of private capital;
• supporting investments in human capital, that is, increasing labour productivity;
• supporting scientific research leading to increased productivity of all production factors in
a long perspective (due to the implementation of innovations obtained)
Temporary multiplier effects on the demand side may also occur as they result from increased
consumption or public investments. These effects may be strong, albeit short­‑term, if households do not fear the increased expenditure in the future, resulting from the increased public
expenditure in the current period, financed by public debt. In the case of the inflow of external
funds (i.e. coming from other European Community States) this is justified, thus the effect can be
stronger than in the case of activities financed from national funds.
The theory of economy indicates a number of channels for potentially positive impact of interventions from Structural Funds on subsidised economy. It is indispensable though, to allocate
funds to productivity­‑enhancing investments, which includes e.g. enhancing the quality of human
capital – especially in the field of science and engineering or expenditure on research and development. Geographical concentration of aid is also significant, depending on the expected results.
In accordance with conclusions from empirical analyses, investments in road infrastructure and
human capital have the most significant impact on convergence rate between EU regions among
economy sectors supported by EU cohesion policy.1 This impact, with the scale of funds as the
one in Poland in 2004-2013, may trigger the increase in gross domestic product (GDP) by 3.5 %.
This means that benefits gained thanks to funds are higher than funds allocated to them (for
more details, see Chapter 1.2, charts 1.6 and 1.7), which translates into positive net effect on the
European scale.
EU cohesion policy also strives to fulfil objectives consisting in supporting the labour market.
Creating incentives to increase the employment rate among the population or changes of sectoral
employment structure in particular regions may significantly contribute to a higher convergence
rate when it comes to GDP per capita and also, in a short perspective, to a higher economic
growth rate of the entire area. Apart from the impact on convergence rate, this activity has a serious additional economic justification. When economic lagging of certain regions exists in one
socio­‑economic organism, which the European Community is supposed to form, it may result in
abandoning these areas by most mobile persons (who usually have the highest human capital at
their disposal) aspiring to improve their living standard. In the scale of the entire economy, such
“Reakcja gospodarki polskiej na fundusze strukturalne w latach 2007–2013 – wnioski dla Polski”, Institute for Structural Research,
2007.
1
10
process is beneficial, since it allows the increased efficiency of workforce allocation; however, it
may also lead to a partial depopulation of less affluent regions and, above all, to their further
marginalisation and social exclusion of these areas residents. Since such perspective is a potential threat to the integrity of the European Union, the role of EU cohesion policy seems to be
immensely important.
The implementation of (in particular) ­INTERREG initiatives is supposed to favour the reduction of
divergences between EU regions via strengthening the cooperation between neighbouring regions.
The environmental protection­‑promoting policy requires particular attentions as well. It allows
to limit environmental pollution by particular states, with a particular focus on a situation when
pollution adversely influences neighbouring countries.
1.2. E U Cohesion Policy
The conviction that it is necessary to act towards increasing socio­‑economic cohesion of Europe
at the international level was outlined as early as in the Treaty of Rome of 1957. The execution of
this task was supposed to be based on two first structural funds established in 1958: the European
Social Fund, whose task was to finance the activities on the labour market, and the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, supposed to support the agricultural restructuring
and modernisation, as well as rural development processes.
Later on, accepting other countries with varied levels of development to the European Communities
resulted in growing divergences between particular regions, which led to intensified activities for
increasing cohesion within the Community area. This was accompanied by the following system
reforms: on the accession of Denmark, Ireland and United Kingdom in 1973, the European Regional
Development Fund was established, the task of which was to support less developed, particularly
industrial, areas. This meant the beginning of direct redistribution of funds between better and
worse developed Community areas. Accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal in 1986 preceded
the thorough reform of structural funds that began in 1989. The official objectives of the executed
policy were formulated at that time:
• supporting economic growth in the least affluent Community regions;
• supporting entrepreneurship and improvement of the natural environment’s quality in
industrial areas;
• flexible programmes focused on labour market policies;
• acceleration of structural adjustments of agriculture to reforms under Common Agricultural
Policy.
In 1992 the Cohesion Fund was established, aiming at supporting large public investments – dealing mainly with infrastructure and environmental protection – in less developed Member States.
It was decided that the Cohesion Fund is of a national scope instead of a regional one, contrary
to other structural funds.
The accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to EU in 1995 was accompanied by the establishment of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.
11
Another reform concerning the cohesion policy management system took place in 1999 and was
related to the preparation of the accession of 10 countries (including Poland), which took place
in 2004. The following objectives have been reformulated:
• development and structural adjustment of less developed regions;
• economic and social changes in regions dealing with structural problems;
• adaptation and modernisation of national policies, as well as education, training and
employment systems.
Until end-2006, funds allocated from structural funds were expended through Operational
Programmes and initiatives, aiming at solving specific problems, inscribing into cohesion policy
objectives. Financial aid from the Cohesion Fund was allocated directly to the financing of public
investments in authorised countries.
In developing the 2007-2013 perspective, the Cohesion Fund was integrated with structural funds.
New objectives have been formulated (convergence, regional competitiveness and employment,
cooperation), whereas most funds (ca. 80 %) were supposed to be allocated for the implementation of the first mentioned objective, consisting in supporting real convergence of the least­
‑developed EU regions. In order to increase cohesion between development levels of particular
regions, entrepreneurship, increasing flexibility of labour markets and modification of educational
systems are to be supported alongside with co‑financing infrastructural investments. Methods of
managing structural policies at the national level are also supposed to be modernised. Moreover,
actions for the quality of natural environment in industrialised areas are also to be undertaken.
Care for natural resources is also executed as part of programmes directed at agriculture and
fisheries sectors.
Structural reforms of the cohesion policy have been accompanied by the gradual increase in funds
allocated to their implementation over years.
1.2.1. EU Cohesion Policy in Europe after 2004
The period between 2004 and 2006, falling for the last years of the planning perspective 2000-2006
and the accession of 10 new Member States to European Communities was characterised by the
domination of EU-15 in the structure of cohesion policy beneficiaries (chart 1.2). Particularly large
subsidies were directed at relatively poor Mediterranean countries: Spain, Portugal and Greece,
as well as to Italy (supporting the development of southern regions) and to Germany (mostly
post‑GDR regions).
12
­C HART 1.2. ­ALLOCATION OF ­F UNDS ­E XPENDED FOR ­C OHESION ­P OLICY IN 2004-2006
Spain
22,37%
Other
9,80%
Germany
12,50%
Czech Rep.
1,47%
Hungary
2,10%
France
6,43%
Italy
12,28%
Poland
7,34%
UK
7,86%
Greece
8,92%
Portugal
8,93%
Source: Own elaboration based on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy.
The picture showing the domination of selected (poorer) EU-15 States in 2004-2006 is also visible
in the data concerning the expenditure under EU cohesion policy per capita. The largest amounts
fell on the residents of Greece and Portugal in this period. High per capita amounts were also
directed to Spain and Baltic States, which joined EU in 2004 (chart 1.3).
­C HART 1.3. E XPENDITURE ­U NDER ­C OHESION ­P OLICY PER ­C APITA (IN EURO, ­F IXED ­P RICES
OF 2008)
Portugal
Estonia
Spain
Lithuania
Latvia
Hunhary
Ireland
Poland
Slovakia
Italy
Slovenia
Czech R.
Finland
Malta
Germany
UK
Cyprus
France
Sweden
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
Denmark
Greece
2006
2005
2004
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Source: Own elaboration based on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy and http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/.
At the same time, Community budget in 2004-2006, the fourth part of which consisted of expenditure on cohesion policy, was to a great extent financed by EU-15 States (chart 1.4).
13
­C HART 1.4. S HARE OF ­PAYMENTS TO ­C OMMUNITY ­B UDGET IN 2004-2006
Germany
21,23%
Other
9,00%
Denmark
2,04%
Sweden
2,71%
Poland
1,92%
France
16,61%
Austria
2,19%
Belgium
3,88%
Netherlands
5,33%
Spain
8,59%
Italy
13,71%
UK
12,80%
Source: Own elaboration based on http://ec.europa.eu/.
Taking into account, on the one hand, the total payments to budget, and on the other hand, the
sum of all benefits (including direct payments to farmers), most EU Member States were net
payers; only ten countries were net beneficiaries in 2004-2006. The largest net beneficiary in this
period was Spain (over EUR 9 billion, at prices of 2008), while the largest net payer was Germany
(approximately EUR 160 billion, at prices of 2008). Among EU-15 States, only the following were
beneficiaries: Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. Among states that joined in 2004, the following
were beneficiaries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. The remaining new
Member States, i.e. Slovenia, Czech Republic, Cyprus and Malta were net payers.
FIGURE 1.2. E U ­M EMBER ­S TATES – NET ­B ENEFICIARIES AND ­PAYERS IN 2004-2006
Net beneficiary states have been marked red and
pink. Net payer states have been marked yellow.
The more intense the colour the larger the difference between payments to budget and benefits
gained.
Source: Own elaboration based on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy.
14
Moreover, the distribution of direct benefits and burdens resulting from the cohesion policy will
change in the perspective of 2007-2013 to the disadvantage of most EU-15 States. Although certain EU-15 States will remain significant beneficiaries of structural funds, a considerably greater
concentration of expended funds in new Member States is visible.
This means that the share in benefits resulting from the implementation of cohesion policy by EU-15
States will be limited, which is a natural result of enlarging the European Communities by 10
countries (and by other 2 in 2007 – Romania and Bulgaria), the majority of which are characterised by a lower productivity level or GDP per capita compared to EU-15. We should additionally
expect that the share of the majority of EU-15 States in Community budget financing will remain
high (at least in proportion to their population), which results from basing contribution levels on
the gross domestic product. Therefore, as long as the cohesion policy does not fully achieve its
basic objective, i.e. convergence of regions, the most affluent EU-15 States will have to finance
larger parts of the Community budget.
­C HART 1.5. A LLOCATION OF ­F UNDS ­E XPENDED FOR ­C OHESION ­P OLICY IN THE 2007-2013
­P ERSPECTIVE
Poland
19,40%
Spain
10,25%
Other
17,47%
Italy
8,34%
France
4,14%
Romania
5,63%
Czech Republic
7,70%
Greece
5,92%
Portugal
6,22%
Hungary
7,30%
Germany
7,62%
Source: Own elaboration based on http://ec.europa.eu/.
A particular role in this scope is played by the Cohesion Fund, which due to supporting public
investments of the infrastructural and environmental nature, is supposed to support the stability
of least developed economies. In the 2007-2013 perspective, this fund’s resources will be directed
only to countries which joined the European Union in 2004 and later, as well as Greece and Portugal
(Figure 1.3). Spain will be included in the transition period resulting from the fact of receiving Fund
aid until 2006 and in accordance with “n+2” rule will be granted funds until end-2008.
15
­F IGURE 1.3. E U ­M EMBER ­S TATES – ­C OHESION FUND ­B ENEFICIARIES IN 2007-2013
Countries which are Cohesion Fund beneficiaries
in the 2007-2013 perspective have been marked
red. Other European Union states have been
marked yellow.
Source: Own elaboration based on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/.
Summing up, the information presented in this item suggests the low profitability of participation
in the system on the part of large EU-15 States, particularly Germany. It needs to be noted, though
that supporting the growth of poorer economies may tighten the international cooperation, as
well as intensify trade. This may lead to a situation where indirect benefits level direct disadvantages concerning net payers out. The analysis being the subject of this report will help answer the
question concerning the relation between increasing the stream of international trade between
Poland and EU-15 States and financing the Community budget by these states.
1.2.2. Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy in Poland
EU cohesion policy, financed from structural funds, was implemented in Poland in 2004-2006
through six Sectoral Operational Programmes and two Community Initiatives. Moreover, funds
from the European Regional Development Fund were transferred to Poland through Operational
Programme Technical Assistance as well. The Rural Development Plan was also financed from the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Table 1.1 presents a detailed structure of
programme financing.
16
­TABLE 1.1. I MPLEMENTATION OF ­C OHESION ­P OLICY IN ­P OLAND IN THE 2004-2006
­P ERSPECTIVE
European
Regional
Development
Fund (ERDF)
European Social
Fund (ESF)
European Agriculture
Guidance and
Guarantee Fund
(­EAGGF)
Financial Instrument
for Fisheries Guidance
(FIFG)
Equal CI
Interreg CI
Rural Development
Programme
Technical Assistance OP
SOP Restructuring and
Modernisation of the
Food Sector and Rural
Development
SOP Human Resources
Development
SOP Fisheries and Fish
Processing
SOP Transport
SOP Improvement of the
Competitiveness of Enteprises
SOP Integrated Regional
Operational Programme
Source: www.mrr.gov.pl.
Cohesion Fund resources were not expended in the 2004-2006 perspective through operational
programmes. Expenditure was divided between “Transport” and “Environment” categories.
Funds flowing to Poland in the 2004-2006 perspective were significantly increased only in 2006.
Despite a longer period of European Union membership in 2005 compared to 2004, the total value
of funds remained on a low level. Funds received by Poland in 2004-2009 constituted a small part
of Polish GDP (Chart 1.6).
6
Udział w PKB Polski
Miliardy euro (2008)
­C HART 1.6. V OLUME OF ­F UNDS ­F LOWING TO ­P OLAND IN 2004-2009 AS PART OF THE
­N ATIONAL ­D EVELOPMENT PLAN AND ­N ATIONAL ­C OHESION ­S TRATEGY
5
4
3
2.0%
1.8%
1.6%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
2
0.6%
0.4%
1
0.2%
0.0%
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Source: Own elaboration based on data of MRD, Eurostat and NBP.
17
In the 2007-2013 perspective, the allocation of funds for Poland is supposed to increase significantly, which is going to make Poland the largest recipient of assistance funds among EU-27 states.
In regards to the size of Polish economy, this means the more than a double increase of previous
aid. Therefore, we can expect a considerably greater influence of cohesion policy on the Polish
economy. This effect may abate only in the final years of the period 2007-2013, due to the higher
economic growth rate than the assistance funds allocation growth (Chart 1.7). In the context of
imports from EU-15 States, this means that the part of inflow triggered by Community Funds will
be replaced by an autonomous economic growth.
10.5
Udział w PKB Polski
Miliardy euro (2008)
­C HART 1.7. A LLOCATION OF ­F UNDS FOR ­P OLAND IN THE 2007-2013 ­P ERSPECTIVE ­U NDER
­C OHESION ­P OLICY (IN EUR ­B ILLION AND AS % OF GDP)
10.0
9.5
9.0
2.7%
2.6%
2.5%
2.4%
2.3%
2.2%
8.5
2.1%
8.0
2.0%
1.9%
7.5
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Source: Own elaboration based on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy and ISR macroeconomic forecast.
In the 2007-2013 perspective the organisation of cohesion policy implementation system has also
been reformed in Poland. Compared to the years 2004-2006 more emphasis has been placed on
regional development, which corresponds to the greater meaning accredited to convergence
objective in cohesion policy assumptions. In the case of Poland, this is manifested in the separation of divisible regional programmes for each Voivodeship, as well as the establishment of
the Operational Programme Development of Eastern Poland (all these programmes have been
financed from ERDF). Moreover, more emphasis has been placed on supporting innovativeness and
development of human capital and less emphasis – on direct assistance activities. Apart from the
aforementioned ones, Operational Programme Innovative Economy and Operational Programme
Infrastructure and Environment (co‑financed from the Cohesion Fund) will also be financed from
ERDF. Operational Programme Human Capital will be financed from ESF.
Apart from increasing the amount of aid, different management of Polish economy should contribute to the reinforcement of positive impact on it, according to conclusions from Chapter 1.1.
This should also translate into higher additional imports of goods and services from EU-15 States.
At the same time, funds flowing to Polish economy from EU-15 payments, constitute a minute
proportion of gross domestic product of these countries, which is indicated in Table 1.2. This
means that the flow of funds should result in a stronger positive effect for the Polish economy
than a negative one for EU-15 economies, even without taking into account return effects in the
form of increased trade exchange.
18
TABLE 1.2. PAYMENTS TO ­C OMMUNITY ­B UDGET IN THE PART ­D EDICATED TO THE
­I MPLEMENTATION OF ­C OHESION ­P OLICY IN ­P OLAND IN ­R EGARD TO GDP OF
EU-15 ­S TATES
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2004-2010
Austria
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.06 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
Belgium
0.03 %
0.03 %
0.04 %
0.10 %
0.10 %
0.12 %
0.12 %
0.08 %
Denmark
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.08 %
0.08 %
0.09 %
0.09 %
0.06 %
Finland
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.06 %
0.07 %
0.08 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
France
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.08 %
0.08 %
0.05 %
Greece
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.09 %
0.09 %
0.06 %
Spain
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.09 %
0.09 %
0.10 %
0.10 %
0.06 %
the
Netherlands
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.08 %
0.09 %
0.10 %
0.10 %
0.07 %
Ireland
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.08 %
0.08 %
0.05 %
Luxembourg
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.06 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
Germany
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.06 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
Portugal
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.09 %
0.08 %
0.06 %
Sweden
0.02 %
0.02 %
0.03 %
0.06 %
0.06 %
0.07 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
United
Kingdom
0.01%
0.01%
0.02 %
0.05 %
0.05 %
0.06 %
0.06 %
0.04 %
Source: ISR own calculations based on http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy, as well as data and forecasts of GDP by Eurostat.
1.3. E xpected channels of impact of the implementation of EU
Cohesion Policy in Poland on EU-15 and net payer states
Concept of cohesion policy is not limited to the redistribution of funds between particular EU
regions, though, but it also covers the expectation of beneficial economic effects for the entire
Community, including its wealthier net payer countries and regions.
Description of economic relations, within which these benefits may arise, is best understood from
the angle of a basic accounting equation
Y = C + I + G + X – Z,
according to which the disposable product (i.e. product generated in Y country with Z total import)
is divided between C consumption, I investment, G government expenditure and X exports. After
a slight transformation this identity takes the form of:
(S - I) + (T - G) = (X - Z),
in which foreign trade balance (X‑Z) is equal to private savings surplus over investments (S‑I) in
terms of identity, added up to central budget surplus (T‑G). Thus, if there is an inflow of EU-15 funds
to Poland (via governmental sectors of EU-15 States) supporting Polish investments (I private and
G governmental), then, assuming that in the short perspective, tax savings and revenues of the
government will be roughly constant, net payments to Poland must return abroad – in particular
to EU-15 States – in the form of additional imports of goods and services (cf. Figure 4). Obviously,
19
the impact of this effect does not have to be proportional to funds invested by particular EU-15
States. A significant role will be played here by the structure of investments co‑financed under
cohesion policy, as well as the structure of Polish foreign trade – especially the share of imports
from particular EU-15 States by particular sectors of the Polish economy.
Additional positive effects of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland should be
expected for EU-15 States also in the long perspective. These effects will be discussed in detail
in paragraphs below; it is these long­‑term effects, albeit only indirect that are the basic reason
(apart from the feeling of transnational and transregional solidarity) for which the wealthier EU-15
States agree to be net payers of Structural Funds and EU Cohesion Fund.
­F IGURE 1.4. D IAGRAM OF ­P RODUCT ­C IRCULAR ­C YCLE IN ­E CONOMY
C+I+G+X–Z
Export (X)
Taxes
Transfers
Private income
Net taxes (T)
Savings (S)
EU-15 States
C+I+G–Z
Government
Consumpon (C)
Private
sector
(S–I)
(T–G)
Other
countries
Investments (S)
Import (Z)
Government purchases (G)
C+I+G
C+I
Source: Own elaboration.
It needs to be emphasised then that the mechanisms analysed in this research, dealing with the
impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on EU-15 economies are based
both on short and long­‑term phenomena.2 In the short perspective, the main effect consists in
the fact that additional investment incentives (public or private) will translate themselves into
additional demand for goods and services, which are obviously partly imported, largely from EU-15
States. This demand (both direct and indirect) appears both at the investment implementation
stage and later on, when physical or human capital accumulated is used in production processes.
In the long perspective, the key benefits are related to material effects of the implementation
of EU cohesion policy, i.e. with real changes of the sectoral economic structure, development
of modern branches of industry and services, increased purchasing power among consumers in
Unfortunately, due to the fact that primary data available only cover the years 2004-2007, i.e. too short a period for the longterm effects to manifest themselves visibly, the microeconomic part of the research identifies mostly short-term effects. The
macroeconomic part, whose description is a significant part of this partial report, will contain a formulation of a long-term forecast
which will also take long-term effects into account.
2
20
regions supported by structural funds etc. From the perspective of EU-15 States, the long­‑term
external effects of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland are also very important,
as these are additional “side­‑benefits” of its implementation, but their emergence was not the
reason behind the process. These effects include: (i) increased possibility to explore the Polish
market (including local and regional markets) by goods and services supplied by EU-15 companies,
(ii) increased internal and external trade exchange of EU-15, including with post­‑Soviet republics,
(iii) reduction of operational costs of EU-15 companies operating in Poland.3
1.3.1. Short­‑term effects
We should expect that additional investments in Poland, separately supported under EU Cohesion
Policy, will trigger the development of modern sectors of the Polish economy. This would mean
the increase in production and investment demand (concentrated around selected branches),
and indirectly, in consumption demand as well. This in turn means, in particular, the increase in
demand for imported goods and services, especially those coming from EU-15 States. The effect
of foreign trade creation is in fact the main channel via which direct benefits for countries other
than direct beneficiary of funds are executed.
Investments supported under the EU Cohesion Policy in Poland will lead to a change in the
structure of Polish production and imports. Due to the structure of directions of Polish imports
(modern sectors supported by EU cohesion policy require the imports of considerable amounts
of goods and services from medium and high technology sectors; a vast majority of such goods
and services is imported to Poland from EU-15 States), we should expect that this change will
trigger additional growth of imports from EU-15 States, to the disadvantage of third countries in
terms of the share and not total values (we are dealing here with the trade creation effect instead
of forcing out certain directions by other ones), especially those third countries from which only
low‑processed goods are imported. Therefore, it is crucial to answer the question: which EU-15
States and which sectors of their economies have gained, or will gain, the highest direct benefits
from the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland.
In order to understand better what sort of EU-15 companies will benefit from the implementation
of EU cohesion policy in Poland, three categories of such companies need to be separated. First
of all, certain companies from EU-15 States can directly use structural funds or the EU Cohesion
Fund – as contractors of projects co‑financed from these funds and executed in Poland. The second
category is “direct beneficiaries”, that is, suppliers of goods and services, for which the additional
demand was generated by executed projects. The third category of companies is all enterprises
which neither directly, nor indirectly participated in project execution, but in spite of this, can
experience positive external effects of projects, such as an increased volume of trade with Poland
due to the development of Polish internal market, or an increased value of Polish trade with other
countries, including non‑EU countries. This may also be companies benefiting from the reduction
of operational costs in Poland, e.g. due to the execution of infrastructural projects.
Applying only macroeconomic methods, all these three categories of cohesion policy beneficiaries were treated jointly; their separation is possible thanks to the analysis on the microeconomic
3 An important, however difficult to express in economic terms, external effect relating to the effective implementation of the
Cohesion Policy - i.e. efficient reduction of developmental disparities within the European Union - is the increase of social, economic and political stability of the EU as a whole, reduction of the probability of the emergence of economic conflicts as well as
better integration of Member States, also in non-economic terms.
21
scale. Accuracy of evaluation of the strength of structural funds’ impact on particular categories
of companies will become lower with the fall of directness of this impact and, consequently, the
effect measurability level. Moreover, the impact on suppliers of indirect goods, particularly companies experiencing positive external effects of projects, may emerge with a certain delay (it is
indeed a long­‑term effect). That delay will be the longer, the weaker are the company’s links to
the discussed project. Unfortunately, the dynamic nature of a discussed phenomenon cannot be
fully identified in this research, since the currently available data include only 5 years of observations (2004-2008).
1.3.2. Long­‑term effects
Inasmuch as the key mechanism of the impact of EU cohesion policy implementation in Poland on
EU-15 economies, including net payer countries (such as, e.g. Germany), is in the short perspective
the effect of foreign trade creation and sectoral reallocation, then in the long perspective indirect
effects related to the modernisation of sectoral structure of the Polish economy, its improved basic
infrastructure, accumulation of additional resources of physical and human capital and adaptation of new technology will play an even more significant role. EU-15 States may (indirectly) gain
benefits from these phenomena owing to at least four different mechanisms.
First mechanism, which was already indicated in the previous chapter, is based on external
effects of the implementation of additional investments, including, in particular, investments in
basic infrastructure. Side­‑effects of such investments include the increased possibility to explore
the Polish market by goods and services supplied by foreign companies (including EU-15 ones),
increased internal (through multiplier effects initiated by the direct effect consisting in the creation of additional trade with Poland) and external trade exchange of EU-15, including post­‑Soviet
republics, as well as reduction of operational costs of companies operating in Poland, Including
from EU-15 States. Obviously, such external effects will be observed with a considerable delay
in regards to the initial investment process. Such delays may appear due to a long investment
execution period, time needed to begin the activity, numerous stages of certain investments, time
needed to execute multiplier effects etc.
Second mechanism of long­‑term impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland
on EU-15 economies is based on the growth of wealth among the Poles, since it means, in macroeconomic scale, the growth of aggregated demand for goods and services, including imported
ones, particularly from EU-15 States. In order for the discussed effect to be effective, it is necessary
that the investments executed with support from structural funds or the Cohesion Fund translate
themselves first into the total productivity growth of production factors in Poland. This requires
time and requires for Community funds to be allocated to those sectors of the Polish economy,
whose development will result in the growth in average productivity in our country. In the case
of infrastructural investments, it is crucial that benefits related to the improvement of infrastructure strengthen the incentives of private companies to increase their investments to the extent
allowing the total productivity in the national (or regional) scale to grow. In the light of previous
experiences related to the implementation of cohesion policy in other EU States, it was visible that
it was able to considerably accelerate capital accumulation and modernisation, followed by real
convergence. This is reflected, above all, in the case of Ireland and Spain. Unfortunately, this effect
is not fully guaranteed: Greece, southern regions of Italy and eastern regions of Germany have
provided examples that structural investments are sometimes wasted.
22
Third mechanism is based on benefits related to enhanced quality of technology used in particular
branches of the Polish economy. Modernisation of physical capital and accumulation of human
capital – both these effects are supported under EU cohesion policy – not only do they lead to
labour productivity growth in Poland, but also to innovativeness growth among Polish companies and public institutions. In the situation of higher innovativeness in Poland, the transfer of
technology from our country to EU-15 States is possible, in longer perspective, which positively
influences their productivity. We have observed only the reverse phenomenon so far; however,
this fact is directly related to the technological distance between Poland and most technically
advanced EU-15 States.
Fourth mechanism is based on more comprehensive economic integration between Poland
and other EU States. Owing to a more comprehensive integration, particular EU markets should
become more competitive and efficient; there will be a better chance for fuller utilisation of locally
available benefits of scale in those branches of industry and services where they appear. Due to
the inclusion of Poland into the group of signatory states of the Schengen Treaty, progress aiming at full implementation of EU Single Market and persistent upward trend of trade exchange
between Poland and EU-15 States, the level of economic integration between Poland and other
EU States is ever higher already. Only the full real convergence and the entry of Poland to the
Euro zone will allow the complete integration. If then the implementation of EU cohesion policy
in Poland accelerates its real convergence, benefits from resulting economic integration will be
surely experienced by EU-15.
All abovementioned mechanisms of long­‑term impact of the implementation of cohesion policy
in Poland on EU-15 economies work indirectly. An accurate quantification of their impact is very
difficult – if not impossible taken into account a five­‑year period of data availability for the needs
of this analysis. The microeconomic part of the research will therefore focus mostly on short­‑term
effects. In the macroeconomic part, due to the utilisation of long­‑term macroeconomic forecasts
and assumption of Leontief’s model in regards to particular years of analysis, it will also be possible to additionally take into account the long­‑term effect, based on the growth of aggregated
demand for goods and services, including the ones imported from EU-15 States. Impact of the
third and fourth mechanisms mentioned above is unverifiable at currently available data.
23
2. E valuation of direct benefits gained by EU -15
companies as a result of the implementation of EU
cohesion policy in Poland
This report presents synthetic results of Computer Aided Web Interview carried out by ISR at the
turn of 2008 and 2009. It has been executed as part of the work upon the report Evaluation of
benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland of
2009. A full description of methodology and analysis results is included in Appendix 7.2 to this
report.
As part of the analysis, hereinafter referred to as a microeconomic analysis, questionnaires were
sent to all project coordinators whose proper and updated email address was available. The
analysis covered 24,631 projects; 6,187 completed questionnaires were returned, which means
the sample was executed at the level of 25 % of population. Owing to questionnaires, data concerning the value of particular projects, value of contracts with contractors and countries of their
origin have been collected. Analysed projects had been implemented since 2004 in the case of
programmes co‑financed from structural funds and since 2000 in the case of ISPA and Cohesion
Fund co‑financing.4
Cumulated value of co‑financing the final sample of projects amounts to 33 % of the total amount
of Community funds expended in Poland in 2000-2008 under EU cohesion policy. Such proportion
of population and sample size are sufficient to draw conclusions concerning the entire population
covered by projects.
It needs to be said that direct impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on
EU-15 companies being project contractors is significant – in absolute volumes.
A vast majority of funds from European Programmes has been allocated to construction
works (73 %), including particularly works financed by Cohesion Fund and Integrated Regional
Development Programme. Due to low, fourteen percent share of contractors from EU-15 States
in the total value of construction contracts, they amounted to 2.3 % of contractors with regard
to number of companies and 7.8 % with regard to the value of contracts. Their share in supplying
machines and devices was significant when it comes to proportion. They utilised Cohesion Fund
resources to a largest extent (when it comes to value), as well as SOP HRD and SOP ICE. A vast
majority of the companies were German, although a significant share of funds found its way also
to Danish and Austrian companies.
4 ISPA – Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession and the Cohesion Fund are characterised by a common, constant
reporting, which makes it impossible to separate financing from these instruments. As indicated by Chart 7.5, funds expended in
the period 2000–2003 constitute a small part of the total research results.
24
Most important results of macroeconomic study
• Direct impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on EU-15
companies being project contractors in 2000-2008 amounted to EUR 1.18 billion
i.e. PLN 4.6 billion.
• The above impact constitutes 7.8 % of the whole amount contracted to contractors, which at the very slight share of foreign (non‑EU-15) contractors translates
into a considerable impact of the implementation of Cohesion Policy in Poland on
Polish enterprises.
• It may be expected that in 2009-2015 the value of direct impact on EU-15 companies
will increase almost 4 times – by EUR 2.7 billion (PLN 10.9 billion), where the % of
the whole amount remains at the level of 4.6 %.
• Largest beneficiaries (apart from Polish beneficiaries) of the discussed impact were
and will be the German companies and companies from the construction sector.
• An important role in the additional import caused directly by the implementation
of the Cohesion Policy in Poland is played by the modern production capital, which
on the one hand increases the productivity of Polish economy and on the other
provides considerable benefits to the suppliers from highly productive branches of
the economy.
• EU-15 companies become contractors the more often, the larger the projects are.
• Projects financed from the resources of the European Social Fund practically do not
use the goods and services generated by EU-15 companies.
This shows that the direct share of foreign companies, particularly those from EU-15 States, was
low in terms of direct use of Community funds. Their participation mostly consisted in supplying
machines and devices which would be hard to obtain on the domestic market.
Moreover, a larger part of the direct impact of cohesion policy on EU-15 companies, forecasted
for 2004-2015, is yet to come (for more details see forecast included in Appendix 7.2).
Direct impact constitutes only a small part of the total impact that the implementation of EU
cohesion policy in Poland has on EU-15 companies. Production process is complex and multistage,
thus it often requires contractors supplying semi­‑finished products, sub‑contractors or external
companies providing various services, some of which are foreign companies, including those from
EU-15 States. An additional demand incentive is not without importance, as it relates to, among
others, the increased demand for consumption and investment imports and is generated due to
the inflow of additional Community funds to Poland. In order to quantify the summary effect of
all mentioned ingredients, it is necessary to focus on the macroeconomic level. Apart from the
sectoral structure of induced demand, obtained in CAWI, data from national accounts and international exchange account have also been used. Such analysis providing a comprehensive picture
of the impact of cohesion policy on EU-15 companies, has been described further in the report.
25
3. E valuation of benefits gained by EU -15 States as
a result of the implementation of cohesion policy in
Poland – research method
3.1. T he objective and scope of the research
A general objective of the research discussed in this chapter is to evaluate indirect benefits and –
after adding them up to direct benefits – total benefits obtained by economies of EU-15 States
due to the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland. A general objective formulated in such
a way is divided into two detailed objectives.
First detailed objective is the quantification of the impact of funds expended under projects
co‑financed from EU structural funds on the growth of consumption and investment demand in
Poland and its impact on the growth of imports of goods and services from EU-15 States, including net payers of EU cohesion policy. This objective requires macroeconomic analyses: they will
focus on comprehensive characteristics of economies, as well as indicators related to their price
structure.
Second detailed objective of the research is to carry out direct evaluation at a company level, aimed
at identifying indirect benefits gained by EU-15 companies, resulting from the growth in demand
for goods and services imported due to the expenditure of structural fund and EU Cohesion Fund’s
resources in Poland. The impact of the implementation of EU Cohesion Policy in Poland on profits
and payroll funds of EU-15 companies will be subject to analysis, as well as taxes paid by these
companies in mother countries.
A research objective formulated above specifies the thematic scope thereof, as well as largely
determines the selection of research tools used. Methodology of this research has been structured
this way, so as to allow the comprehensive answer to questions posed. As regards the research on
a macroeconomic level, evaluation will be based on the analysis of data concerning aggregated
characteristics of economies and economic indicators broken down by particular sectors, separated
according to NACE classification.
The scope of the macroeconomic part of the research has been formulated in the context of first
detailed objective and individual evaluation questions this objective comprises. Methodological
details and descriptions of datasets used in the research will be presented in the next sub‑chapter.
Time scope of the research covers the impact of structural funds and EU Cohesion Fund on EU-15
economies in 2004-2009 under all operational programmes in the 2004-2006 programming period
and taking into account (through applications, recommendations and forecasts) the programming
period 2007-2013, the implementation of which will take place until 2015.
In accordance with research assumptions, the analysis on the “macro” level abstracts from specific mechanisms of the impact of EU cohesion policy on EU-15 companies. At this stage, only the
26
total value of indirect impact and total impact has been quantified, as well as their decomposition
between particular economy sectors.
Therefore, we need to remember about separating direct effects from indirect effects of the
implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland. The results of macroeconomic analysis presented
in Chapter 2 have been used to achieve this. At this stage the division of companies benefiting
from the execution of projects co‑financed from structural funds and EU Cohesion Funds into two
categories has been made: (i) project contractors and (ii) suppliers of indirect goods and services
necessary for project execution.
The analyses of the impact of funds expended under projects co‑financed from EU structural funds
for the growth of consumption and investment demand in Poland and its impact on the growth
of imports of goods and services from EU-15 States, including net payer states, will assume the
perspective of the following detailed research questions:
1. What volume of additional demand (in terms of production, consumption and investment) generated by the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland is oriented
at goods and services imported from the respective sectors of the economy of)
EU-15 countries?
2. What is the influence of projects co‑financed by the EU structural funds in Poland on
the increase in the profits and payroll funds of companies from (respective sectors
of the economy of) the EU-15 countries, providing (a) goods, (b) services necessary
for the implementation of these projects and taxes paid by those companies in their
countries of origin?
3. How has the value and structure of goods and services exported by the EU-15
countries to Poland changed as a result of emergence of an additional production,
consumption and investment demand?
4. What is the influence of increasing trade with Poland (as a result of increased
demand gained owing to the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland) on
the GDP in the EU-15 countries?
Among the abovementioned questions, only question three requires explicite consideration of
the sectoral structure of imports in the Polish economy (or its excerpt whose development was
financed from structural funds or EU Cohesion Fund). It turns out, though that the use of data
concerning a detailed sectoral decomposition of the Polish economy will allow a more accurate
estimation of the impact of cohesion policy in Poland on EU-15 States also in questions one, two
and four. Therefore, as discussed in methodological Appendix, this decomposition was used at
providing answers to all four abovementioned research questions.
27
3.2. Research method
The description of research methodology is divided into four parts. First one presents data used in
the research: their sources, basic characteristics and legitimacy of their use in the research will be
provided. Second part focuses on the problems to deal with while collecting data at the aggregated
and sectoral level. Cases in which even the best available data are incomplete or contain outdated
observation will be presented along with the methodology of imputing such missing observations
used in the research. The third part analyses in detail the assumptions made for the research. The
last sub‑chapter of this chapter is devoted to step‑by‑step discussion of the procedure which was
applied to execute the first detailed objective of this evaluation research.
Glossary of terms relating to the inter­‑sectoral flow charts
• Global product of economy branch – total value of goods or services produced
by a given branch of domestic economy in a given year, regardless of further purpose.
Global product is divided into indirect use (use of materials needed for production
in certain branches of economy) and final use, i.e. consumption, investments and
exports.
• Final product of a branch of the economy – global product minus intermediate consumption. Global product is divided between consumption, investments in fixed capital, changes in stocks and exports. On the basis of the identity of national accounts,
the summed‑up final product of all branches of the economy (including final imported
goods) is the same as the GDP of the country (i.e. sum of added value of all domestic
products produced in a given year) plus total import.
• Production (material) imports – import of goods and services with the aim to use
(consume) in the production process of respective branches of the domestic economy.
• Consumption imports – import of goods and services for consumption (including
government consumption).
• Investment imports – import of goods and services used in investments in fixed capital.
• Import intensity rate of economy branches – percentage share of production import
in the global product of a given economy branch.
• Added value of a given branch of the economy is the sum of profits and payroll funds
of all companies in a given economy branch. On the basis of a balance equation,
global product generated in a given sector of the economy requires incurring costs
equalling the sum of material costs (including cost of imported goods and services),
use of fixed assets and wages. The remaining part of the global product constitutes
company profit.
28
3.2.1. Data used
In order to estimate the impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on the
growth of imports in 15 pre-2004 EU Member States, the data from the following sources have
been used:
• STAN OECD base, from which the information on bilateral and global trade inflows between
analysed states has been drawn, broken down by branches (except for services). The base
includes data until 2008. In the majority of cases, the division of data into sectors overlaps
NACE classification. Certain NACE sectors of a similar character have been grouped together.
These are:
a) agriculture, forestry and fishery,
b) mining and quarrying,
c) production of foodstuffs, beverages and tobacco products,
d) production of textiles, wearing apparel, leather and leather products,
e) production of paper and paper products and printing and reproduction of saved information carriers.
The research utilises data concerning exports to Poland from EU-15 States (for all available sectors or NACE sector groups) from the years 2003-2008. The database is available at OECD portal.
• Statistics on International Trade in Services OECD base, from which the information on
bilateral and global volumes of trade in services between analysed countries has been
taken, broken down by branches. Structure and contents of the base are analogous to the
STAN OECD base described above. This base allows to supplement the data concerning
international trade by information related to services sectors. Data gathered in the discussed
base do not include all services sectors specified in NACE classification, but the majority
of omitted sectors is not subject to international exchange. This concerns the following
sectors:
a) wholesale and retail trade in vehicles and motorcycles and their repair,
b) accommodation and catering services,
c) scientific research and development work,
d) rental and lease.
In the scale of the entire research, chances for potential distortion of results resulting from the
omission of these sectors are very low – a total estimated induced demand for these sectors
amounts only to ca. 1 percent of the total impact.
Similar as in the case of STAN OECD, the research utilises data concerning exports to Poland from
EU-15 States (for all available sectors or NACE sector groups) from 2004. The database is available
at OECD portal.
• ESA 95 Supply, Use and Input­‑Output Tables base, available on Eurostat portal, containing supply tables, input­‑output tables, use tables and imported goods input­‑output tables
of selected countries. All tables describe economies broken down by 55 (as in the case of
Poland) or 59 branches, according to NACE classification.
29
Use tables describe the absorption of products of particular branches broken down by use
in production processes of other sectors, consumption, investments, changes in stocks and
exports.
Supply tables contain data on the manufacturing of products by particular branches within
particular sectors5 and their imports.
Input­‑output tables describe volumes of use of products manufactured within particular
economy branches to production of other products. They also take into account the data
on imports, exports and consumption and investment use. It needs to be noted here that
data concerning international exchange for each type of tables mentioned are available in
breakdown into two groups of trade partners: EU-15 States and others.
Imported goods input­‑output tables contain information on the use of goods of particular
sectors manufactured abroad by sectors of an importing economy. Data availability for
particular years depends on countries and table types. All mentioned matrices are available for Poland for the year 2005.
• Macroeconomic forecast for Poland, worked out by Institute for Structural Research experts.
A forecast concerns the years 2010-2015. This research uses forecasts concerning the level
of the Gross Domestic Product.
• Estimation of impact of funds expenditure under structural funds on the Polish economy,
prepared with the EUImapactMOD model, prepared under projects executed by the
Institute for Structural Research. Results are quantified here as a deviation from the level
of the product of Polish economy, which could be obtained in a given year, if these funds
were not expended. Impact estimation concerns the period 2000-2020. Estimations were
prepared by use of DSGE model (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium), which allows
the evaluation of the impact of structural policy taking into account adjustment activities
of all entities operating in economy. Complete reports from 2008 and 2009 describing the
model assumptions, “Impact of Community funds on the Polish economy in 2004-2020”
are available on websites of the Ministry of Regional Development and the Institute for
Structural Research. However, the model is subject to constant development work and is
supplied with updated data, whereas the results are used by the Ministry. The research
uses recently published results (as of July 2010), from November 2009.
• Data and forecasts of the changes in exports of goods and services of EU-15 States, Gross
Domestic Product, price indices, population, income and labour productivity, as well as
labour productivity in industry in 2004-2006, taken from Eurostat database. The research
uses historical data concerning the dynamics of above­‑mentioned macroeconomic and
demographic aggregates for the years 2004-2007/2008/2009 (depending on availability,
and in exceptional cases, also data for the years 2000-2003), as well as forecasts for the
years 2009-2011. In the case of dynamics of international exchange, separate information
is available for goods and services.
Historical data and forecasts of gross domestic product, population, income and labour
productivity have been used in step eight of the research (cf. sub‑chapter 3.2.4), allowing
It needs to be noted here that products of particular sectors are not manufactured only by sectors these products are accredited to. For example, in 2004 over 15 % of production of simple metals, being the product of simple metals processing sector, was
manufactured by metal mining industry.
5
30
the estimation of the impact of the changing value of exports streams on the economy
in relation to its actual level, i.e. calculations of impact in absolute terms. Price indices
served to the realign all dynamics values and absolute values estimated and forecasted in
the research. It allows to obtain a direct comparability of data from particular years.
• Official information by the European Commission as regards annual budgets of the European
Union and allocation of structural funds. Data concerning payments to budget are available
for the years 2004-2010, whereas data on the allocation of structural funds and Cohesion
Fund – for the years 2004-2013. Data are available on the European Commission website
broken down by particular years and particular Member States of European Communities.
• Average annual NBP exchange rates. For the period 2010-2015 the exchange rate of PLN
to EUR was assumed at 4. This assumption is made both at preparing estimations aided
by EUImpactMOD model and at all further calculations.
3.2.2. Problems with data availability and imputations
Unfortunately, due to the high level of specificity of data needed to execute this research, problems
with their availability or validity have been experienced several times. In many cases – which could
be noticed in the previous sub‑chapter – available data concerned, unfortunately, a more limited
period and higher aggregation level than required by the needs of this research. This concerns
the following problems:
A. Aggregation of selected processing sectors, agriculture, forestry and fishery, as well as mining
and quarrying in the case of STAN OECD data. Due to a similar character and technological
advancement of particular sectors included in the aforementioned groups (within these
groups), this does not distort conclusions resulting from the performed analysis.
B. Lack of data for selected services sectors in the case of bilateral streams of international
exchange. As mentioned in the sub‑chapter devoted to the discussion of data sources used,
in the case of large part of sectors this problem applies to, estimated imports are running
at zero level. This results from the lack of trade exchange in services of this branch in 2004.
Due to the specific character of these branches (these are, among others, education and
public administration), we should not expect the emergence of significant international
flows in these areas. Lack of data about the international trade in services also concerns
three sectors for which estimated additional imports are positive. These are:
a) sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive fuel,
b) research and development,
c) renting of machinery and equipment without operator and of personal and household
goods.
In abovementioned cases, the structure of foreign trade (broken down by exporting countries)
has been approximated by an average structure for other service branches, the data of which
had been included in Statistics on International Trade in Services OECD database. In the scale
of an entire research, a potential distortion resulting from this approximation is low due to
marginal meaning of the abovementioned branches – a total estimated additional demand
for these branches amounts to 0.2 % of the total impact of EU funds expenditure in Poland.
31
Moreover, other data are available only for 2004. When it comes to other years, Eurostat
data concerning the national structure of Polish imports from EU-15 States for total services
have been used. It has been assumed that, compared to 2004, the changes of the share
of each EU-15 States in Polish imports for each services sector took place at a rate corresponding to total services. Identical problem concerns construction. Services related to
accommodation and catering, towards which the dynamics corresponding to the imports of
tourist services, are an exception. Again, this assumption should not significantly exceed the
results – total services constitute less that 4.5 % of additional imports (construction – 4.5 %)
and the applied estimations concern only the dynamics. The share of EU-15 States in Polish
imports of particular services should not be subject to totally different trends.
C. In the case of data concerning payments to the European Communities budget, available only for the years 2004-2010, it was necessary to extrapolate observed trends for the
years 2011-2015. In order to maximise the reliability of imputations made, the following
assumption has been made: for the years 2011-2013 changes in volumes of payments to
Community budget will be proportional to the changes in quantity of funds transferred to
particular countries under structural funds and EU Cohesion Fund. For the years 2014-2015
the maintenance of average annual rate of changes for the period 2009-2013 has been
assumed. This means the assumption that at least in the initial period of another perspective of Community policies, its assumptions will not be significantly different from current
perspective’s assumptions as regards the structure of budget payments and withdrawals.
D. Price indexes in EU-15 States and in Poland (historical data for the years 2004-2009 and
a forecast for the years 2010-2011). In the case of the years 2012-2015, the dynamics of
price changes equal to average dynamics of 2005-2011 has been assumed for particular
EU-15 States, whereas for Poland it amounts to 2.5 % annually, which is close to the average
dynamics of price levels in 2005-2009. Estimations for EU-15 States have been necessary
only for the forecasts concerning the budget of European Communities and withdrawals
from the budget, since they were expressed at current prices exclusively. All other forecasts, both external and carried out as part of the research, concern the dynamics of real
variables expressed at fixed prices of 2008.
E. The results of CAWI for projects implemented as part of the National Development Plan
2004-2006 and a forecast for the National Cohesion Strategy 2007-2013 prepared on the
basis of the former, both of which were discussed in detail in the part of the report devoted
to the analysis of direct benefits of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland.
3.2.3. Research assumptions
The macroeconomic analysis, used for the quantification of indirect benefits gained by EU-15 States
as a result of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland, has been carried out based
on a number of assumptions. Making these assumptions was a necessary condition to conduct
such analyses – based on data largely from secondary sources; failure to meet the assumptions
in reality may distort the results to a certain extent.
The research is based on the following assumptions:
1. Proportionality of impact of structural funds on the Polish economy in relation to sectoral
structure of allocation of funds expended as part of the implementation of the cohesion
policy in Poland (in the form of contracts for Polish contractors), obtained as a result of
32
CAWI. Since CAWI was performed at a higher level of aggregation than calculations made
as part of steps 1-5 of the macroeconomic analysis, it was necessary in six cases to break
down the obtained structure. To this end, the data on production structure in Poland in
2004 coming from a supply table were used.
Moreover, it has been assumed that funds not allocated to contracts with contractors had
been expended – directly or indirectly – on consumption. Distribution of expenditure on
consumption has been taken from a use matrix for the Polish economy for 2004.
For the years 2009-2015, i.e. the period not covered by CAWI, the structure of impact has
been obtained on the basis of extrapolation described in items 7.2.4 and 7.2.5.
2. Stability of the input­‑output matrix for the Polish economy in time (estimated as above).
In fact, due to technological changes, this matrix will undergo gradual changes (usually
slight and evolutionary). However, we do not have any information concerning sectors
which will change their cost structure due to the implementation of EU cohesion policy
in Poland after 2005. Comparison of only two observations – data of 2000 and 2005 (for
which all matrices are available) does not allow to draw conclusions about possible future
trends. Assumption of this matrix’ stability seems to be an assumption which influences
the obtained results to a small extent.
3. Constant level of relative (intersectoral) prices in Poland and EU-15 States. At data processing stage an assumed unit was Euro at prices from 2008. Final results will be presented
both in PLN and EUR. In order to obtain coherence of external data expressed at monetary
values, deflators from Eurostat database have been used. This assumption is closely related
to the second one.
4. Stability in time of relation between internal (i.e. as part of Polish economy) and external
(i.e. through imports) method of satisfying indirect demand for particular economy sectors’
products. These relations have been assumed at the level of 2005, i.e. the most recent for
which data are available. This means that it has been assumed that the annual growth of
Polish GDP will be divided, in demand terms, into imported and domestic goods and services,
at a set level. We might however suspect that import intensity of the Polish economy will
grow instead of falling down; in recent years we have observed that the volume of Polish
foreign trade grows faster than GDP in the process of convergence of the Polish economy
in relation to EU-15. This means that the assumed stability of import intensity rates regarding the Polish economy may lead to (a slight) underestimation of benefits for EU-15 States
gained from the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland.
5. Stability over time of the relation between the demand for consumption and investment
imports and the total final use of products from particular branches. Due to low availability of sectoral data regarding consumption and investment imports, included only in
the intersectoral flows matrix for imported products, made available by Eurostat (ESA 95
Supply, Use and Input­‑Output Tables), the assumed relation is based on data for 2005 –
the only year available in the case of Poland within the research period. Similar, as in the
abovementioned case, this assumption may lead to a slight underestimation of the strength
of discussed effects.
6. Stability in time of matrix of production imports structure. These relations have been
assumed at the level of 2005. However, technological changes will most probably trigger changes of this matrix; unfortunately, no macroeconomic forecasts of these changes
33
have been formulated and their construction significantly expands the range of this study.
We should not expect, though, that estimation errors resulting from the failure to meet
this assumption, could systematically disturb the obtained results, neither upwards, nor
downwards.
7. Stability in time of the matrix of total Polish imports broken down by sectors and particular
EU-15 States after 2008. We should expect that generally, directions of imported goods
and services’ inflow to Poland may change over time, since the processes of technological
change will favour those countries which have specialized in given production or services
branches. However, we do not have any information concerning countries which will change
their percentage share in Polish imports due to the implementation of EU cohesion policy in
Poland. Assumption of this matrix’s stability seems to be an assumption which influences
the obtained results to a small extent.
Having presented assumptions on which the analysis made here is based, we would like to present
its methodology in detail.
The macroeconomic analysis has been executed in the eight subsequent steps. Next sub‑chapter
is dedicated to their detailed discussion.
3.2.4. M acroeconomic analysis step by step
Step 1. Estimation of gross product growth, induced by the inflow of structural funds, broken
down by sectors of the Polish economy.
This step utilises the following data: (i) estimation of the impact of the implementation of cohesion policy on the Polish economy in 2004-2009, alongside with a forecast for 2010-2015; (ii) data
on the volume of Polish GDP in particular years, alongside with a forecast for 2010-2015 and
(iii) results of CAWI, alongside with a microeconomic forecast.
Evaluation of the impact of structural funds on the Polish economy, obtained thanks to
EUImpactMOD model, has been quantified as a percentage deviation from the product level,
which would be obtained in a given year, had these funds not been expended. Therefore, in order
to obtain an absolute volume of this impact, it was necessary to multiply this deviation by the
total value of GDP in Poland in particular years. In the case of the forecast for the coming years,
a forecast of GDP level, made by ISR experts during work on the model, has been used.
A vector of absolute values of the impact of structural funds on the Polish economy broken down
by years, obtained in the abovementioned way, has been multiplied by vector of sectoral structure
of the allocation of structural funds and Cohesion Fund, obtained on the basis of CAWI.
As a result, a table of the impact of structural funds on gross product of particular sectors of the
Polish economy and particular years 2004-2009 has been obtained, as well as a forecast for the
years 2010-2015. All these volumes are measured at absolute values, i.e. either in PLN or in EUR
at fixed prices of 2008.
34
Step 2. Estimation of additional investment6 and consumption7 imports broken down
by sectors from which the imported products come.
This step utilises the following data: (i) results of step 1, (ii) import intensity rates8 of particular
sectors of the Polish economy, estimated on the basis of supply and use tables and (iii) investment
and consumption imports intensity rates, estimated on the basis of import structure tables and
supply tables.
Import intensity rates for each branch of the Polish economy have been calculated by dividing
imports of final goods (the values of which, broken down by imports from EU-15 States and all
other economies, are presented in imported goods and services flow table) by the value of domestic added value of particular branches’ products (information is available in domestic products
flow table).
However, since the impact of funds in step 1 is calculated as an impact on gross product of particular sectors, an additional final product (i.e. gross product growth, that is, added value, plus
imports growth) has been estimated (for each branch and analysis year) as the sum of gross
product growth and the result of multiplication of gross product growth and the abovementioned
import intensity rate.
Vectors of impact of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland on final products of particular
branches (used in Poland) obtained this way have been multiplied by consumption and investment
imports intensity rates of the Polish economy, calculated as a relation of consumption and investment imports of particular branches’ products (available in imported goods flow table) and final
product of these products (available in general input­‑output table). An estimation of an additional
investment and consumption imports obtained this way, has been broken down by branches from
which the imported products come, i.e. appropriate branches of exporting economies. Then, these
results were multiplied by the share of imports of particular products from EU-15 States in the
total Polish import of a given product (available in supply table).
As a result, in this step a table of additional investment and consumption imports, broken down
by branches of exporting economies, has been obtained. The result is separate for particular years
of the period 2004-2009 and 2010-2015 (forecast).
Step 3. Estimation of global product growth9, broken down by sectors of the Polish economy.
This step utilises the following data: (i) result of step 1, i.e. table of additional domestic final product of particular economy branches and (ii) input­‑output table for Poland.
According to Leontief’s method, global product growth in particular branches of the Polish economy
(i.e. final product of particular branches, magnified by indirect use) has been determined on the
basis of input­‑output table. The following formula has been used here:
x = (I‑A)–1y,
Investment imports – imports of goods and services used in investments in fixed capital.
Consumption imports – imports of goods and services for consumption.
8 Import intensity rate of economy branches – percentage share of imports in final or global product of a given economy branch.
9 Global product of economy branch – total value of goods or services produced by a given branch of domestic economy in
a given year, regardless of further purpose. Global product is divided into indirect use (use of materials needed for production in
certain branches of economy as “semi­‑finished products”) and final use, i.e. consumption, investments in fixed capital, changes
in stocks and exports.
6
7
35
where A is a matrix of the structure of costs of the Polish economy (i.e. each element of matrix
A calculated directly from an input­‑output table, aij=xij/Xj, is the share of materials from i‑branch
in the total product of j‑branch), I is a unit matrix, y is a vector of final domestic product growth
and x is a global growth vector. This formula has been used separately for each year in the period
2004-2009 (and for each year of the forecast for the period 2010-2015).
As a result, due to the application of Leontief’s method, a table of global product growth has been
obtained, broken down by particular branches of the Polish economy and the years 2004-2009
and 2010-2015 (forecast).
Step 4. Estimation of additional production imports broken down by particular branches of
the Polish economy.
This step utilises the following data: (i) result of step 3 and (ii) productive import intensity rates
estimated on the basis of supply matrix and use matrix (analogously to the estimation of the
input­‑output table in step 3).
Production import intensity rates of particular branches have been calculated on the basis of the
imported goods flow matrix and domestic goods flow matrix by dividing imports used in production processes of products in given branches by their (domestic) global product. Rates obtained
this way have been multiplied by a forecasted global product growth of each branch, due to the
implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland. Such activity was repeated for each year in the
period 2004-2009 and 2010-2015 (forecast).
As a result, a table of production imports growth of particular branches of the Polish economy,
broken down by years 2004-2015 was produced.
Step 5. Estimation of additional production imports of Poland broken down by particular
branches of exporting economies (i.e. EU-15 economies).
This step utilises the following data: (i) result of step 4 and (ii) matrix of sectoral structure of
Polish imports.
Matrix of sectoral structure of imports has been estimated on the basis of input­‑output table of
imported products. This matrix comprehensively describes a sectoral structure of imports of each
sector of the Polish economy: each of its bij/bj elements means the share of imports of products
from i‑branch in the total import of j‑branch. Then, for each separate year, the same matrix of
imports structure has been multiplied by productive imports growth vector of particular branches
of the Polish economy in a given year, obtained in step 4.
As a result, a table of additional production imports induced by the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland has been developed, broken down by branches of exporting economies and
particular years in the period 2004-2009 and 2010-2015 (forecast). Particular values have been
multiplied by corresponding rates describing the share of EU-15 States in the total Polish imports
of products of a given branch (see step 2). The resultant table is a supplement to the table of
additional investment and consumption imports, obtained in step 2.
36
Step 6. Breakdown of additional Polish imports induced by EU cohesion policy implemented
here, by particular EU-15 States.
This step utilises the following data: (i) final result of step 2, (ii) final result of step 5 and (iii) matrices of imports structure of the Polish economy for the years 2004-2008 broken down by particular
EU-15 States and particular branches of economy, estimated on the basis of data of STAN OECD,
OECD Statistics on International Trade in Services and ­EUROSTAT on international flows of services.
The main element of this step was the multiplication of vectors of additional consumption and
investment imports, as well as material imports by matrix of imports structure of the Polish economy from EU-15 States, by branches of economy. As a result, two matrices describing, respectively,
additional consumption and investment imports, as well as production imports induced by the
implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland, by particular EU-15 States and their economy
branches for particular years (method of obtaining it was presented in a more detailed way in
item 3.2.3). For the period 2009-2015 an averaged structure for the years 2004-2008 has been
used. Due to the lack of significant changes in the period 2004-2008, it has been judged that this
approximation is sufficient.
Final estimations of additional imports have been obtained by adding up consumption and
investment imports, as well as production imports and direct impact, that is, values of contracts
concluded with EU-15 companies, which were estimated on the basis of CAWI (in the case of
2004-2006 perspective) and a microeconomic forecast based on it (for 2007-2013 perspective).
In order to reduce the number of dimensions and to present obtained results more clearly, in this
chapter we will also use results aggregated for the entire period 2004-2009, 2010-2015 (forecast)
and for the entire period 2004-2015. Indirect consumption and investment demand, indirect production demand and direct demand will also be subject to comprehensive analysis.
Step 7. Relation of obtained results to the previous structure of EU-15 States’ international
trade.
This step utilises the following data: (i) volumes of additional imports of products from particular
economy branches of particular EU-15 States induced by the implementation of EU cohesion
policy in Poland, estimated in step 6, (ii) data on changes of Polish imports from particular EU-15
States according to branches in 2004-2008, also used in step 6 and (iii) data on payments to the
European Union budget by particular EU-15 States in 2004-2015 (see also description in item 3.2.3).
The final effect of this step is the possibility to carry out the analysis of a relative meaning of
imports induced by the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland. Obtained estimations have
been related to actual changes of trade exchange.
Moreover, values of additional exports of particular EU-15 States to Poland, induced by the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland, have been related to the volume of funds these states
allocate to the financing of the European Union budget. To this end, official data of the European
Union have been used.
37
Step 8. Drawing conclusions on the impact of the implementation of EU Cohesion Policy in
Poland on GDP of EU-15 States on the basis of reference books
The impact of the export growth of particular EU-15 States on their GDP has been estimated secondarily, using the results of other analyses from various sources. The results of the performed
meta­‑analysis form the basis to answer the research questions discussed in Chapter 3.1.
38
4. E valuation of total benefits (direct and indirect) gained
by EU -15 States as a result of the implementation of
EU cohesion policy in Poland – update of results
The evaluation of total benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland has been made at two analysis levels: microeconomic (CAWI, documentation
analysis, in‑depth interviews) and macroeconomic (use of input­‑output tables, multidimensional
data concerning foreign trade and national accounts). Only the comprehensive consideration of
these two levels – which is a subject of this chapter – allows a complete, reliable and detailed
evaluation of indirect benefits gained by EU-15 States thanks to the implementation of cohesion
policy in Poland. The basis for drawing conclusions related to indirect benefits is the results of the
questionnaire described synthetically in Chapter 2, but methodology used here mainly utilises
an input­‑output model described in Chapter 3. Therefore, it also takes into account a broad range
of alternative (secondary) data sources and the inference is of a secondary character.
This chapter is an updated version of the corresponding chapter from the report Evaluation of
benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of cohesion policy in Poland of
2009.
4.1. U pdate of results
As emphasised in the introduction to the report, this chapter is an updated version of the report
of 2009. Among all research elements, estimations of indirect impact have undergone most
significant changes. The main reason for this is the application of input­‑output matrices for the
Polish economy in 2005, which were not available at preparations of the report of 2009. The use
of tables from 2004 was necessary and, in some calculations, data from 2000 were used (as the
most up‑to‑date ones). At the same time, conservative assumptions were made at additional estimations. In the case of updates, this was not necessary – it was possible to use the existing data.
In consequence, import intensity rates have grown (which is understood due to the tightening
of economic relations between Poland and EU-15 States). Effective import intensity (i.e. relation
between additional imports and the growth of product of a given category in the Polish economy,
presented in chart 4.4) has nearly doubled. These changes mostly influence the scale, sectoral
and national structure of additional imports.
The aforementioned changes of the research method and data used have contributed to a significant increase in estimated impact. In particular, total additional imports from EU-15 States to
Poland in 2004-2015, resulting from the implementation of cohesion policy, in accordance with
the report of 2009, amounted to EUR 25 billion (PLN 87.6 billion). According to updated calculations, it amounts to EUR 37.8 billion (PLN 151 billion). A different scale of difference in both currencies results first of all from the changes in impact distribution over time and from the modified
39
assumption regarding the exchange rate. The report of 2009 for the years 2009-2015 applied the
exchange rate of 3.5 PLN/EUR, whereas this report uses a higher real rate for the year 2009 and
4 PLN/EUR for the years 2010-2015.10
It needs to be noted that funds allocated for Poland as part of cohesion policy are specified in Euro.
Thus, its application at result analysis is less susceptible to assumptions regarding the exchange rate.
Moreover, estimations from 2010 indicate a higher share of industrial products, particularly
high and medium technology ones, in an additional import stream. This should be accredited to
changes of the sectoral structure of the Polish economy, indicated in input­‑output tables. With
a rapid development of the country, the growth of demand for high­‑performance products leads
to the situation, where the domestic producers are unable to deliver in a sufficient amount,
which is a natural process. The growth of effective import intensity of demand for final goods
also contributes to this (i.e. consumption demand and demand of enterprises for capital goods)
in the research.
Division of additional imports between particular EU-15 States has not changed significantly. As in
the report of 2009, the German economy takes the dominant position. Italian and French economies have improved their position in relative terms. The Austrian economy has lost is second place.
At the same time, comparing detailed results presented in reports of 2009 and 2010, we have
to remain cautious. As mentioned before, a considerably higher data availability has allowed to
avoid the need for substitute assumptions, which means a modification of a research method in
practice. Due to basing on a more updated and broader set of information, the version of 2010
corresponds to reality to a greater extent.
4.2. Survey results
Presentation of results of the macroeconomic analysis will be divided in two time periods:
a) the years 2004-2009, for which an evaluation of impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on EU-15 States has been made, formulated in the form of an answer
to four abovementioned detailed research questions;
b) the years 2010-2015, for which a forecast has been made.
This chapter analyses jointly the direct effects resulting from the conclusion of contracts between
contractors from EU-15 States and contractors of projects co‑financed from Community funds,
and the indirect effects resulting from the increase in demand needs of the Polish economy due
to the implementation of these projects.
Additional imports, comprising production, consumption and investment imports have been estimated by use of input­‑output tables. This method allows the calculation of the impact of added
value produced in Polish sectors, received as a result of the implementation of EU cohesion policy,
on the global demand structure (including imports).
This sub‑chapter focuses on already observed effects, as well as summary ones in the entire period
2004-2015; detailed tables have been included in the Appendix (part 7.3). In certain cases it is
legitimate to treat the research period and forecast period together, without making separate
Exchange rate at the level of 4 PLN/EUR was also used in the previous version, as part of sensitivity analysis. This rate does not
lead to considerable differences, as the one noticeable between both reports.
10
40
analyses for the years 2004-2009 and 2010-2015 – especially where questions concern the total
impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on the exports, GDP and employment in particular EU-15 States.
Methodological differences between an estimated historical impact and preparing future forecasts
are low. They only result from:
• the use of CAWI results for the sectoral structure of the impact of Community funds on
the Polish economy and an additional demand on imported goods and services resulting
directly from these funds’ impact in the period 2004-2008 and the need to extrapolate
these results for the years 2009-2015, taking into account differences in the allocation
of funds in programming perspectives of 2004-2006 (funds expended in 2004-2008) and
2007-2013 (funds expended in 2009-2015);
• the use of macroeconomic historical data for the years 2004-2009 and forecasts for the
years 2010-2015.11
4.2.1. Additional demand on goods and services imported from EU-15 States
The analysis, carried out according to the procedure described in detail in the Methodological
Appendix, indicated a significant impact of expenditure of structural funds and Cohesion Fund
resources on the Polish imports from EU-15 States. All in all, in the entire period of 2004-2015
EU cohesion policy will be a reason for the growth of exports from the aforementioned group
of countries to Poland by a total amount of nearly EUR 37.8 billion (PLN 151 billion), at prices of
2008. This amount includes both direct and indirect effects. However, a highly asymmetrical distribution of additional imports in time results in the fact that until end-2009 a growth in imports
by over EUR 4.5 billion (PLN 17.8 billion) was observed according to estimations, i.e. only 12 %
of the total effect. At the same time, such amount constitutes 27 % of the co‑financing amount
for Poland under cohesion policy in 2004-2009. In the entire period 2004-2015 the value of this
index will amount to 52 %.
We need to remember that the figures above refer to the total effect, thus the aforementioned
amount of EUR 4.5 billion of the total impact includes EUR 525 billion12 of direct impact (resulting
directly for the supply of goods and services by companies from EU-15 States as part of projects
financed from European funds, corrected by the contribution of Polish funds into co‑financed
investments), EUR 186 million of forecasted direct impact (resulting from projects executed
in 2007-2013 perspective) and EUR 3.8 billion of indirect impact, resulting from the increased
demand for production imports (i.e. imports of indirect goods and services declared by Polish
companies involved in the execution of projects under EU cohesion policy), as well as consumption and investment imports.
Due to delays in collecting and publishing data by specialised institutions (e.g. Eurostat), values for the historical period 20042008 for particular macroeconomic categories (such as input­‑output tables) are estimated.
12 This value is lower than the whole value of contracts of project promoters with contractors with registered office within the
EU-15 States, estimated at the basis of CAWI study (EUR 624.5 million), since some projects within the sample (financed under
the Cohesion Fund) were implemented also in 2000-2003 (through ISPA). These projects were also taken into account because
throughout both periods reporting was ensured on a continuous basis.
11
41
hZďŝůůŝŽŶ;ϮϬϬϴͿ
­C HART 4.1. ­ESTIMATED ­A DDITIONAL ­E XPORTS FROM EU-15 ­S TATES TO ­P OLAND ­I NDUCED
BY THE ­I MPLEMENTATION OF ­C OHESION ­P OLICY IN 2004-2015 (IN EUR ­B ILLION,
­P RICES OF 2008) – ­D IVISION BY ­C OUNTRIES
ϭϴ
ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϭϱ
ϭϲ
ϮϬϬϰͲϮϬϬϵ
ϭϰ
ϭϮ
ϭϬ
ϴ
ϲ
ϰ
Ϯ
>ƵdžĞŵďŽƵƌŐ
'ƌĞĞĐĞ
WŽƌƚƵŐĂů
&ŝŶůĂŶĚ
ĞŶŵĂƌŬ
^ƉĂŝŶ
/ƌĞůĂŶĚ
^ǁĞĚĞŶ
ƵƐƚƌŝĂ
ĞůŐŝƵŵ
h<
EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ
&ƌĂŶĐĞ
/ƚĂůLJ
'ĞƌŵĂŶLJ
Ϭ
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
According to estimations, the largest beneficiary of the increased demand of the Polish economy
for imported goods and services will be the German economy (see Chart 4.1). This results from the
fact that, on the one hand, enterprises with headquarters in Germany, apart from the ones located
in Poland, dominate among contractors of undertakings executed under projects co‑financed from
Community funds (for more details see Chapter 2), and on the other hand, Germany is the most
important Polish partner in foreign trade, which is reflected in estimations of indirect impact.
We should not expect that the situation could change in the next years, therefore an obtained
result is fully compliant with intuition.
At the same time, Charts 4.1. and 4.2 indicate a strongly asymmetrical division in time of additional
imports induced by structural funds and Cohesion Fund. Until end-2009, according to estimations,
only 12 % of the total impact forecasted for the years 2004-2015 has been executed, while a large
part of this amount (8 % of the total impact) falls for the years 2008-2009. This means that we should
expect a greater increase of imports in the future than it is now and previous experiences with intensification of exports from EU-15 to Poland do not fully show the phenomenon’s intensity. Absolute
values of additional imports in the period 2004-2009 by EU-15 States are presented in Table 4.1.
EUR billion (2008)
­C HART 4.2. ­ESTIMATED ­A DDITIONAL ­E XPORTS FROM EU-15 ­S TATES TO ­P OLAND ­I NDUCED
BY THE ­I MPLEMENTATION OF ­C OHESION ­P OLICY IN 2004-2015 (IN EUR ­B ILLION,
­P RICES OF 2008) – ­D IVISION BY ­Y EARS
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
42
2013
2014
2015
According to estimations, around 91.4 % of the total growth of imports from EU-15 in the entire
period 2004-2015 will be direct effects, i.e. benefits which emerged as a result of the development of the Polish economy due to the inflow of Community funds (Chart 4.3). Direct effects
described in Chapter 2 – constituting the remaining 8.6 % of the total effect – are a minute part
of the additional flow of goods and services.
It needs to be noted here that direct impact will have a relatively greater significance in 20042009 (15.5 %) than it will in 2010-2015 (7.6 %), which is in accordance with forecasts. This results
from the simultaneous emergence of the following effects:
• reduced share of EU-15 contractors in the total expenditure of structural funds in Poland
(which was discussed in Appendix 7.2);
• significant intensification of the impact of structural funds on the Polish economy, in line
with forecasts based on EUImpactMOD.
Moreover, nearly half of this indirect impact is of a production character, i.e. related to demand
for indirect goods and services, needed by Polish companies at manufacturing final goods and
services (or indirect goods and services of a higher level). Considering only amounts contracted
by EU-15 enterprises (direct impact), extended only by additional investment and consumption
demand, would therefore mean a significant underestimation of the value of induced exports
from EU-15 States to Poland.
­ HART 4.3. ­A DDITIONAL ­E XPORTS FROM
C
­ HART 4.4. ­A DDITIONAL (­I NDIRECTLY
C
EU-15 TO ­P OLAND IN 2004-20015 ­A CCORDING ­I NDUCED) ­I MPORTS FROM EU-15 ­R ELATED
TO ­D EMAND ­C HARACTER
TO THE ­G ROWTH OF ­D EMAND OF THE
­P OLISH ­E CONOMY (IN 2004-2015)
12%
direct
demand
9%
10%
indirect producon
demand
44%
8%
6%
4%
Indirect investment
and consumpon
demand
47%
2%
0%
value of addional investment and consumpon
import as compared to the growth of
final product
value of addional producon
import as compared to the growth of the
global product
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
Chart 4.4 indicates the total import intensity of the Polish economy. The value on the left shows
which part of goods and services available on the market as final goods has been manufactured
in EU-15. The chart on the right shows an analogous relationship for indirect goods, i.e. those
used in production processes in the Polish economy. An additional consumption and investment
imports constitutes over 10 % of the total growth of final product in the Polish economy, whereas
material import – over 10 % of the global product growth. This indicates a relatively high import
intensity of the Polish economy branches, which are influenced by the implementation of the
cohesion policy in Poland.
43
­TABLE 4.1. E STIMATED ­A DDITIONAL ­I MPORTS FROM EU-15 TO ­P OLAND IN 2004-2009
BY ­E XPORTING ­E CONOMIES AND ­Y EARS
PLN million (prices of 2008)
EUR million (prices of 2008)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Austria
35.2
48.4
100.0
151.8
176.9
328.0
7.8
12.0
25.7
40.1
50.3
75.8
Belgium
–3.2
7.3
53.6
120.0
164.1
348.1
–0.7
1.8
13.8
31.7
46.7
80.4
Denmark
6.2
133.1
165.9
87.4
103.7
223.7
1.4
33.1
42.6
23.1
29.5
51.7
Finland
–1.9
3.5
28.9
62.6
113.6
174.4
–0.4
0.9
7.4
16.6
32.3
40.3
France
3.4
32.1
138.3
262.6
345.4
772.0
0.7
8.0
35.5
69.4
98.2
178.4
Greece
–0.3
0.4
3.2
7.5
9.6
30.8
–0.1
0.1
0.8
2.0
2.7
7.1
Spain
–3.0
4.3
35.1
82.5
126.5
240.1
–0.7
1.1
9.0
21.8
36.0
55.5
the Netherlands
2.5
22.6
124.4
228.9
387.6
597.1
0.6
5.6
31.9
60.5
110.2
138.0
Ireland
5.0
11.2
49.0
85.9
166.3
241.1
1.1
2.8
12.6
22.7
47.3
55.7
Luxembourg
–0.3
0.5
3.8
8.1
14.5
28.4
–0.1
0.1
1.0
2.1
4.1
6.6
Germany
77.6
270.0
17.1
67.1
209.1
370.1
488.1
781.6
Portugal
1.7
3.0
9.2
15.2
21.9
53.7
0.4
0.7
2.4
4.0
6.2
12.4
Sweden
–3.7
7.2
46.4
94.5
133.3
279.9
–0.8
1.8
11.9
25.0
37.9
64.7
United Kingdom
–4.7
15.4
91.4
191.3
235.1
505.8
–1.0
3.8
23.5
50.6
66.8
116.9
Italy
–6.8
55.3
174.9
325.5
426.3
770.4
–1.5
13.7
44.9
86.1
121.2
178.0
814.4 1400.2 1716.4 3382.2
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
Results presented in Table 4.1 show the volume of additional exports of EU-15 States to Poland
which took place in 2004-2009 due to the implementation of EU cohesion policy in our country.
It is easy to notice, apart from a clear upward trend observed year by year, large disproportions
between particular EU-15 States. Additional imports from Germany is more than four times higher
than from second­‑best Italy and constitute 43 % of total imports. Only in the case of Germany
additional imports until end-2009 exceeded the value of EUR 1 billion. As mentioned before,
forecasted benefits gained from the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland will be far
higher in the future.
4.2.2. Additional demand for imported goods and services manufactured in
particular economy sectors of EU-15 States
Apart from the total value of additional stream of exports from EU-15 to Poland, induced by the
implementation of EU cohesion policy, calculated in division into particular countries and years
of the period 2004-2015, a sectoral structure of analysed flows is also significant. Methodology
adopted in this analysis makes the division of total effects between particular sectors, in line with
NACE classification fairly easy.
First of all, the relationship between the growth of exports and the development of a given sector
of exporting economy is natural. In this analysis, we are assuming that estimated growths of Polish
imports are equivalent to the increase in Polish demand for given goods and services from EU-15,
which, depending on the possible inflexibilities on the supply and price side, will translate themselves
into prices growth or production volume. Due to a medium­‑term perspective of the analysis and
44
a relative openness of EU-15 markets, we should rather expect greater intensity of the latter process.
Production growth (as well as higher prices) will translate itself into higher remuneration and/or
higher employment in a given sector. In the case of young and developing branches, we should expect
an additional development growth, due to the increased interest in a given branch shown by workers and entrepreneurs. Such sectors include, in particular, high­‑tech sectors and business services
sector, characterised by very high productivity of production factors. A relatively rapid development
of such branches means an increase in average productivity and, consequently, an increase in social
welfare. For this reason, additional external demand is particularly desired in the case of modern
economy branches – especially high­‑tech processing and business services sectors.
However, the above statement does not mean that additional imports of goods and services
produced in low‑tech sectors is a negative phenomenon for the exporting economy. In particular,
additional external imports can mitigate the results of gradual decline in internal demand for goods
and services produced in traditional sectors, which is particularly important for the workforce.
A strong positive impact on economic growth, measured by GDP growth, share of exports of products from high­‑tech sectors has been demonstrated in an empirical study by Crespo­‑Cuaresma and
Wörz (2005). This study also states that exports of goods and services produced in non‑processing
sectors has a weaker, albeit still positive and statistically significant, impact on GDP. The value of
exports of low‑tech sectors’ products does not significantly affect the GDP growth.
In the case of this study, aggregation of particular economy sectors in groups of branches by the
level of technical advancement (in line with Eurostat classification) indicates a high share of high
or medium­‑high technology goods in additional exports from EU-15 to Poland. They constitute
over a half of the value of additional export of the EU-15 States to Poland. In the context of the
impact of additional export on economic growth of exporting countries, such situation should
be judged as positive. Not only does it mean a considerable impact of the implementation of EU
cohesion policy in Poland on the development of EU-15 companies, but also an impact facilitating
a more rapid development of “future” sectors. Taking into account the entire period 2004-2015,
the share of low and medium‑low technology construction is higher, at the expense of construction. Imports structure in 2010-2015 is similar to the entire analysed period.
­C HART 4.5. ­ADDITIONAL ­E XPORT OF THE EU-15 ­S TATES TO ­P OLAND ­B ROKEN DOWN
BY ­T ECHNOLOGICAL ­A DVANCEMENT OF ­B RANCHES ­P RODUCING ­G OODS AND
­S ERVICES FOR ­E XPORT
YEARS 2004-2009
agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
mining and excavaon
1,4%
construcon
8,2%
services to a limited extent
based on knowledge (LKIS)
0,7%
services based
on knowledge (KIS)
4,0%
producon sectors
of low technology and
lower average
27,6%
YEARS 2004-2015
producon sectors
of high technology and
higher average
58,2%
agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
mining and excavaon
1,8%
construcon
5,7%
services to a limited extent
based on knowledge (LKIS)
0,7%
producon sectors
of high technology and
higher average
56,9%
services based
on knowledge (KIS)
4,0%
producon sectors
of low technology and
lower average
31,0%
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of CAWI, data described in the Appendix and classification of technological
level of branches according to NACE Eurostat – http://europa.eu.int/estatref/info/sdds/en/htec/htec_agg_nace.pdf.
45
The value of additional imports from EU-15 States in 2004-2009 and 2010-2015 (for dominating
sectors of the economy) is presented in Chart 4.6. Sectoral structure of export for largest beneficiaries of discussed impact is presented in Charts 4.7 – 4.9. Data for all sectors, due to legibility
of report, are to be found in the Appendix (Table 7.12).
­C HART 4.6. A DDITIONAL ­E XPORT OF ­PARTICULAR ­S ECTORS IN ­D YNAMIC ­T ERMS (DATA IN
EUR ­B ILLION OF 2008)
Producon of chamicals and chemical products
and pharmaceucal goods
Producon of machines and equipment
not otherwise classified
Producon of computers and peripheral devices
as well as machines and office equipment
Producon of vehicles, wagons and trailers
Producon of rubber and plasc goods
Construcon
2004 -2009
2010 -2015
Producon of metals
Producon of telecommunicaon equipment
Producon and processing of coke and products
of crude oil refining
Producon of food, beverages and tobacco
products
Average (for 36 sectors with addional impact)
EUR billion (2008)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
­C HART 4.7. S ECTORAL ­S TRUCTURE OF ­A DDITIONAL ­I MPORTS FROM ­G ERMANY (2004-2015)
Other
19,14%
Producon of precise instruments
and medical devices
4%
Producon of chemicals
and chemical products and
pharmaceucal products
19%
Producon of food beverages
and tobacco products
4%
Producon of
telecommunicaon equipment
4%
Producon of metals
5%
Producon and processing of coke
and products of crude oil refining
6%
producon of machines and
equipment not otherwise
classified
11%
Producon of compiters and peripheral
devices and machines and office equipment
6%
Producon of rubber
and plasc products
7%
Producon
of vehicles
7%
Construcon
9%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
46
­C HART 4.8. S ECTORAL ­S TRUCTURE OF ­A DDITIONAL ­I MPORTS FROM ­I TALY (2004-2015)
Producon of machines and
wequipment not otherwise
classified
24%
Other
11,40%
Producon of goods from other
mineral non-metal raw materials
3%
Producon of chemicals
and chemical products and
pharmaceucal products
15%
Producon of food, beverages
and tobacco products
3%
Producon of orecise
equipment and medical devices
4%
Producon of metal
finished products
4%
Producon of metal finished
products except for
machones and devices
4%
Producon
of metals
4%
Producon of texle products
clothes, leather and goods made
fromleather
12%
Producon of rubber
and plasc products
7%
Producon
of vehicles
9%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
­C HART 4.9. S ECTORAL ­S TRUCTURE OF ­A DDITIONAL ­I MPORTS FROM ­F RANCE (2004-2015)
Other
16,39%
Producon of chemicals
and chemical products and
pharmaceucal products
34%
Construcon
3%
Producon of texle products clothes,
leather and goods made fromleather
3%
Producon of food, beverages
and tobacco products
4%
Producon of metals
4%
Producon of
electrical equipment
4%
Producon of compiters and peripheral
devices and machines and office equipment
4%
Producon of
telecommunicaon equipment
6%
Producon of rubber
and plasc products
6%
Producon
of vehicles
8%
Producon of machines and
equipment not otherwise
classified
8%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and data described in the Appendix.
4.2.3. Impact on the growth of profits and payroll funds among EU-15 companies
and taxes paid by them in mother countries
Total growth of Polish demand for imported goods and services, described and characterised
in the sub‑chapter above, resulting from the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland,
translating itself into the growth of exports from EU-15 to Poland, translates itself directly into
microeconomic sphere of these countries’ economies. One of the objectives of this study is to
measure this impact in the context of growth of enterprises’ profits (approximated by net operational surplus), their payroll funds (including the burdening of labour factor by taxes and social
contributions) and net taxes paid by them in mother countries. We need to remember that all
47
these categories are included in an estimated growth of exports to Poland. This means that this
sub‑chapter describes in what way additional demand is divided between profits of enterprises,
net remuneration of workforce and taxes and other income of public institutions.
These elements can be easily calculated following an assumption that they are low enough not
to considerably disturb the market structure in which particular companies operate (thus, they
do not increase their competitiveness, which would result in the reduction of profit­‑cost ratio).
Comparing the scale of obtained marginal effects to total size of markets in which these companies
operate, this assumption should be judged as legitimate.
Described effects have been quantified on the basis of twofold data types: total effects estimated
in other sub‑chapters of this chapter and the ratio of profits, payroll funds and net taxes to global
product in particular EU-15 States, calculated on the basis of sectoral data (for particular countries and years) included in Eurostat base. In order to estimate a tax burden of labour factor, data
concerning tax wedge have been used, which are also made available by Eurostat.
Results referring to additional profits are presented in Chart 4.10.
EUR million (2008)
­C HART 4.10. ­SUMMARY ­G ROWTH OF ­E NTERPRISES’ ­P ROFITS IN 2004-2015 IN EUR ­M ILLION
(­F IXED ­P RICES OF 2008)
1400
Services
Goods
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Luxembourg
Portugal
Greece
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
Belgium
Spain
Italy
Netherlands
Ireland
Austria
UK
France
Germany
0
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
As presented in Chart 4.10, the expected growth of exports to Poland in 2004-2015 will increase
the profits of German enterprises the most (by ca. EUR 1.3 billion, i.e. by ca. PLN 4.9 billion), and
next the French, British, Irish and Austrian ones. Obviously, the geographic structure of the stream
of additional profits of enterprises is largely a reflection of the size of particular economies and
the scale of their trade exchange with Poland. Separation of production13 and services sectors
additionally allows the indication of the heterogeneity of expected results: on one end there are
countries in which 90–95 % of additional profits in 2004-2015 will be obtained by production sector enterprises. These are Scandinavian countries, Greece and Spain. On the other end we have
got economies whose services sectors will acquire up to 43 % of the pool of additional profits of
enterprises: the Netherlands, Portugal and Austria.
13
Which includes all areas not classified as services, i.e. all industrial branches, as well as agriculture and mining.
48
EUR million (2008)
­C HART 4.11. ­SUMMARY ­G ROWTH OF ­PAYROLL FUND OF ­E NTERPRISES IN 2004-2015 IN EUR
­B ILLION (­F IXED ­P RICES OF 2008)
4000
Services
Goods
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Greece
Luxembourg
Protugal
Ireland
Finland
Spain
Sweden
Denmark
Austria
Belgium
Netherlands
UK
Italy
France
Germany
0
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
Considering this part of the stream of additional profits of enterprises, which is translated into
the growth of payroll fund, we receive similar, albeit a little different, results. Greatest benefits
are still observed in large EU-15 States (Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy). In particular,
the total amount exceeds EUR 3.5 billion in Germany (over PLN 14 billion) at prices of 2008, for
the entire period 2004-2015.
Moving towards the analysis of net volume of additional taxes paid by EU-15 companies in their
mother countries as a result of benefits gained by them from the implementation of EU cohesion
policy in Poland, it needs to be noted that additional demand incentive coming from Poland may
be linked to a decline in net taxes volume in many EU-15 States. This results from negative net
taxation of certain sectors, i.e. their subsidisation and the share of net taxation in final product
nearing zero for the majority of other branches (these estimations are included in the statistical
Appendix). This concerns agriculture, forestry, fishery, mining and quarrying the most. The distribution of benefits in the form of increase in tax flows is different than in the case of benefits
gained by private entities.
The country, whose budget should experience the highest growth of inflows from enterprises is
United Kingdom – and it is more than twice as much as in the majority of other countries (apart
from France and Germany). This result should be treated a bit cautiously, though. The reason for
such situation can unfortunately be the relatively worst quality of macroeconomic data for this
country14, found in Eurostat base, due to which it was necessary to apply the oldest data used in
this research concerning the levels of net taxation in particular sectors of the economy, in order
to approximate further proportions.
14 A similar problem regards Spain and Ireland, in the case of which the available data concern only one year of the analysed
period.
49
­C HART 4.12. ­GROWTH OF NET ­TAXES IN 2004-2015 IN EUR ­M ILLION (­F IXED ­P RICES OF 2008)
EUR million (2008)
100
Services
Goods
80
60
40
Spain
Greece
Denmark
Finland
Portugal
Luxembourg
Belgium
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
Italy
Austria
-20
France
UK
0
Germany
20
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
In the group of countries whose total volume of net taxes paid by their companies will decline
(negative result) due to the increase in exports to Poland, this decline is a result of the production sector – which is not surprising, where branches enjoying preferential treatment as regards
taxation policy may experience significant benefits. In other countries, the share of production
sector in additional stream of taxes oscillates between ca. 37 % in Austria and as much as 97 % in
Ireland and Italy.
However, the above results do not mean negative estimations of total changes of inflows to public
authorities’ budget. In particular, the growth of payroll fund includes the taxation of labour factor.
In sum, the impact on the volume of disposable funds for public authorities is positive, which is
indicated by Chart 4.13.
EUR million (2008)
­C HART 4.13. T OTAL ­C HANGES OF NET ­I NFLOWS TO ­P UBLIC ­B UDGETS IN EUR ­M ILLION (­F IXED
­P RICES OF 2008)
2000
Services
1800
Goods
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
50
Greece
Luxembourg
Protugal
Ireland
Finland
Spain
Denmark
Sweden
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
UK
Italy
France
Germany
0
In time perspective, all three analysed variables are characterised by very similar dynamics in the
period 2004-2015, replicating in its substance the dynamics of additional EU-15 exports to Poland.
After a period of growth, the growth of total volume of profits of enterprises – both those operating in production sectors and in services sectors – becomes inhibited and even slightly reversed
in the course of achieving the forecasted perspective. Dynamics of these variables is presented
in Chart 4.14.
­C HART 4.14. E STIMATED ­A DDITIONAL ­P ROFITS AND ­G ROWTH OF ­PAYROLL FUND OF EU-15
­E NTERPRISES IN 2004-2015 IN EUR ­M ILLION (­F IXED ­P RICES OF 2008)
1600
Payroll
Profits
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2010
2011
2012
2013 2014
2015
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
Therefore, it should be emphasised that the distribution in time of the impact of direct and indirect benefits of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on the growth of profits and
payroll funds of EU-15 companies, as well as taxes paid by them in their mother countries indicates
that until 2009 only a small part of benefits expected for the entire period 2004-2015 could be
observed. In future, these positive effects will intensify, which will be related to intensified inflow
of Community funds to Poland and a gradual emergence of delayed effects.
Among all expected results, the summary effect of the growth of payroll funds, especially in
the case of German companies is the strongest. An induced growth of profits experienced (and
forecasted to be experienced also in the future) especially by German, French, British, Irish and
Austrian companies is also significant.
4.2.4. Impact on the growth of profits and payroll funds of companies from
particular sectors of EU-15 economies and taxes paid by them in mother
countries
A sectoral structure of the growth of profits and payroll funds of EU-15 companies due to the
implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland is, obviously, highly correlated with the structure
of exports from EU-15 countries to Poland. At the same time, sectors observing the highest export
volumes are the ones which are forecasted to experience the largest growth of profits and payroll
funds. High benefits are thus forecasted for such industrial sectors, as production of chemicals and
chemical products, pharmaceutical products and machines and devices (over 60 % of the growth of
payroll fund and nearly 50 % of the profits growth). Among services sectors, the greatest benefits
51
are forecasted for construction. This general model of a sectoral distribution of benefits gained
by EU-15 companies undergoes changes in certain countries related to a more than average role
of the agricultural sector (Spain) or services related to lease and real estate (Ireland).
Additional tax burdens, resulting from the growth of exports to Poland in 2004-2015, are distributed in a heterogeneous way among particular economy sectors of EU-15 States. Those economy
sectors, in which the value of total benefits is the highest, i.e. production of chemicals and chemical products, production of pharmaceuticals, machines and devices, metals and finished metal
products, as well as production of rubber and plastic products, are responsible for the key part
of additional tax inflows (nearly 70 % of the total value).
Detailed results in sectoral and dynamic terms are presented in Charts 4.15 – 4.20.
­C HART 4.15. ­EXPECTED ­G ROWTH OF ­PAYROLL FUND OF ­E NTERPRISES IN ­S ECTORAL ­T ERMS
IN 2004-2015
Other
17%
Producon of machines and
electrical equipment
21%
Producon of texle products clothes,
leather and goods made from leather
4%
Producon of transport
equipment
6%
Producon of rubber
and plasc products
6%
Producon of chemicals
and chemical products
and pharmaceucal products
18%
Construcon
7%
Producon of metals
and metal finished goods
7%
Producon other
machines and equipment
14%
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis.
­C HART 4.16. E XPECTED ­G ROWTH OF ­P ROFITS OF ­E NTERPRISES IN ­S ECTORAL ­T ERMS IN
2004-2015
Other
23%
Producon of rubber
and plasc products
4%
Producon metals and
metal finished products
6%
Producon of chemicals
and chemical products
and pharmaceucal products
25%
Lease, rent and other
services
9%
Construcon
10%
Producon other
machines and equipment
11%
Producon of machines
and electrical equipment
12%
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
52
­C HART 4.17. E XPECTED ­G ROWTH OF NET ­I NFLOWS TO ­P UBLIC ­B UDGETS IN ­S ECTORAL
­T ERMS IN 2004-2015
Other
15%
Producon of machines and
electrical equipment
19%
Producon of texle products clothes,
leather and goods made from leather
4%
Producon transport
equipment
6%
Producon of rubber
and plasc products
7%
Producon of chemicals
and chemical products
and pharmaceucal products
18%
Construcon
7%
Producon metals and
metal finished products
8%
Producon other
machines and equipment
16%
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
­C HART 4.18. G ROWTH OF ­PAYROLL ­F UNDS OF ­C OMPANIES FROM ­PARTICULAR ­S ECTORS IN
­D YNAMIC ­T ERMS (DATA IN EUR ­M ILLION OF 2008)
Producon of machines and electrical equipment
Producon of chemicals and chemical products and pharmaceucal products
Producon other machines and equipment
Producon metals and metal finished products
Construcon
Producon of rubber and plasc products
Producon of transport equipment
Producon of texle products clothes, leather and goods made from leather
Producon of food, beverages and tobacco products
Lease, rent and other services
Producon of paper and paper producys and polygraphy
Producon of goods from other mineral raw materials
Transport services
Agriculture, foresrty and fisheries
Producon and processing of coke and refined petroleum products
Producon of furniture and producon of products
Financial services
Producon of wood and cork products, excluding furniture
Mining and quarrying
Educaon
Municipal services
Producon and provision of electric energy, gas
2004-2009
2010 -2015
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
53
­C HART 4.19. G ROWTH OF ­P ROFITS OF ­C OMPANIES FROM ­PARTICULAR ­S ECTORS IN
­D YNAMIC ­T ERMS (DATA IN EUR ­M ILLION OF 2008)
Producon of chemicals and chemical products and pharmaceucal products
Producon of machines and electrical equipment
Producon other machines and equipment
Construcon
Lease, rent and other services
Producon metals and metal finished products
Producon of rubber and plasc products
Agriculture, foresrty and fisheries
Producon of food, beverages and tobacco products
Producon of paper and paper producys and polygraphy
Producon of texle products clothes, leather and goods made from leather
Producon and processing of coke and refined petroleum products
Transport services
Producon of other non-metallic mineral products
Producon of transport equipment
Financial services
Mining and quarrying
Producon of furniture and produconof products
Producon of wood and cork products, excluding furniture
Municipal services
Producon and provision of electric energy
Educaon
2004-2009
2010 -2015
0
200
400
600
800
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
­C HART 4.20. G ROWTH OF NET ­I NFLOWS TO ­P UBLIC ­B UDGETS IN ­PARTICULAR ­S ECTORS IN
­D YNAMIC ­T ERMS (DATA IN EUR ­M ILLION OF 2008)
Produc
on of machines and electrical equipment
Produc
on of chemicals and chemical products and pharmaceu
cal products
Produc
on other machines and equipment
Produc
on metals and metal finished products
Construc
on
Produc
on of rubber and plas
c products
Produc
on of transport equipment
Produc
on of tex
le products clothes, leather and goods made from leather
Produc
on of food, beverages and tobacco products
Lease, rent and other services
Produc
on of paper and paper producys and polygraphy
Produc
on of other non-metallic mineral products
Transport services
Produc
on and processing of coke and refined petroleum products
Financial services
Produc
on of furniture and produc
on of products
Produc
on of wood and cork products, excluding furniture
Mining and quarrying
Educa
on
Municipal services
Produc
on and provision of electric energy, gas
Wholesale and retail sale of cars and vehicles
2004-2009
2010 -2015
0
200
400
600
800
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of macroeconomic analysis and data by Eurostat.
4.2.5. Changes in the value and structure of goods and services exported by the
EU-15 countries to Poland as a result of emergence of an additional
production, consumption and investment demand
Following the quantification of the absolute strength of impact exerted by EU funds on the development of companies from the EU-15 countries, their profits, payroll funds and tax payables, it
will be discussed how additional import that is induced by the implementation of the EU cohesion
policy in Poland has influenced the value and structure of export of the EU-15 countries to Poland
54
in 2004-2008. To that end, additional import was referred to the actual changes in that period
(according to the OECD STAN data and Eurostat data on import of services).
In the context of dependencies between the structure of export and the total wealth of an exporting
country, particular attention should be given to the growth, achieved due to the implementation
of the EU cohesion policy, in the importance of the structure of export of the EU-15 countries to
Poland of high­‑technology manufacturing industry products, including telecommunication equipments, computers and peripheral devices, machinery and office equipment, as well as precision
appliances and instruments. Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that the results should be treated
carefully. The results within the range of 70–80 % can be indicated, firstly, by a reduction in import
due to reasons attributable to the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland. Secondly, it
partially results also from the adopted assumptions concerning the stability of the material and
final demand structure. Therefore, neither limitation on the side of supply, nor the probable
acceleration effect for the growth in the national production capabilities are included. The third
reason for the achievement of such values is that real data (i.e. the point of reference) describe
the economy subject to a business cycle. The induced impact is practically acyclic. The comparison
covers individual observations. Yet, it does not affect the conclusion that a substantial influence
is exerted by the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland on the import of products of
discussed production sectors. This result should be confronted with the frequently mentioned
economic theory according to which modern computer and telecommunication technology constitute a breakthrough in terms of the perspectives for growth in productivity of economies since
by gradually becoming a commonly applied technology (see Greenwood, Hercowitz and Krusell,
1997; Timmer, Ypma and van Ark, 2003), they also enable growth in per unit productivity for the
remaining sectors. This leads to the conclusion that the EU’s structural funds flowing to Poland
can, firstly, indirectly reform the structure of economies (to an insignificant extent) which are net
withholding agents, and thus, secondly, increase their productivity.
­C HART 4.21. S HARE OF ­A DDITIONAL ­D EMAND IN THE ­G ENERATION OF ­E XPORT (­C HANGE IN
2004-2008)
Producon of telecommunicaon equipment
Producon of computers and office equipment
Mining and extracon
Producon of goods from other mineral raw materials
Producon of precision and medical instruments
Producon of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
Producon and processing of coke and crude oil
Producon of goods made of rubber and plascs
Producon of chemical and pharmaceucal goods
Producon of electric devices
Producon of goods made of wood and cork
Producon of prefabricated products
Producon of texle goods and wearing apparel
Producon of metals
Producon of paper and paper products and prinng
Producon of furniture and producon n.e.c.
Producon of foodstuffs
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Producon of motor vehicles
Services
Producon of the remaining transport equipment
Total (excluding construcon)
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Source: Own elaboration based on the results of the macroeconomic research and OECD and Eurostat data.
NOTE: Since there were no data available with sufficient reliability, this part of the analysis does not include construction.
55
The changes induced by the implementation of the EU cohesion policy in the sectoral structure of
export of the EU-15 countries to Poland should be assessed as advantageous. A gradual growth
is noticeable in the share in the total volume of export of high end medium technology products,
and it is these sectors that feature an extraordinary per unit productivity. Their relatively faster
development should translate into the growth in profits of companies and payroll funds in the
economies of the EU-15 countries, both in general terms and per individual employee.
4.2.6. Influence of increase in trade with Poland on the GDP in the EU-15 countries
The answer to the question about the influence of increase in trade with Poland on the aggregated
macroeconomic variables has been obtained owing to the secondary analysis of empirical research
in this field. The studies used for the needs of the current research include scientific literature in
the field of empirical economics in which estimations of the influence of the increase in export on
the GDP growth rate are presented (for more, see Table 4.3). In most cases, the conducted analyses were based on the research on effects of changes in the total export (without any breakdown
by sectors); this analysis was conducted on the basis of more detailed data only in very few cases.
However, these were never the data broken down by 55-59 NACE sectoral categories.
Export directly affects the volume of GDP since it is a component thereof. Nonetheless, there are
numerous reasons to expect that the influence of trade on the GDP will be in fact higher than the
change in its volume alone in 1-1 proportion. As early as in 1776, Adam Smith has pointed out
the importance of specialisation increasing the efficiency of production. Increased production
volume, resulting from the accessibility of a larger market, might allow for the use of the effects
of the scale. Growth in trade intensity may also increase the competition on the market, thus
creating incentives for increased innovativeness and more efficient management. In the recent
years, emphasis has been also put on the positive role of trade in the dissemination and exchange
of knowledge and technology.
Despite intuitively clear dependencies, there is no consensus in the economic literature as regards
the scale of influence exerted by export on the volume of product. One of the essential problems
in this case is the methodology of research – econometric models based on the conventional
method of least squares are not resistant to the problem of endogeneity of export in relation to
the product. Therefore, it is necessary to apply more sophisticated econometric methods, e.g.
the ones based on the methodology of instrumental variables.
An important difficulty in this case is represented by the necessity of controlling these regressions
by a possibly large number of additional clarifying variables (such as e.g. changes in the economic
and monetary policy), which, failing to be included, might lead to biasedestimates of the influence
of trade on the GDP (so‑called omitted variables bias). This problem is partially resolved through
the study of countries that have noticeably changed their trade policy by means of e.g. lowering of
duties or opening of a market to trade. This provides an opportunity of direct comparison of two
economy states (closed and open) and an opportunity to obtain more reliable results. However,
such a study is not possible in relation to the EU Member States among which most barriers in
internal trade have been abolished several dozen years ago. What is more, the changes in the
volume of trade between the countries feature moderate growth rate and due to that it is harder
to express the scale of impact.
The above­‑mentioned problems result in high sensitivity of the research on the scale of impact
exerted by export on the GDP to methodological differences, which in consequence lead to
56
significant differences between the results. Despite all these inaccuracies, one should bear in mind
that there are differences that concern only the scale of impact, but not the direction thereof.
The area of impact is unambiguously positive: export increases the GDP more than it is indicated
by the fact that it is a component thereof. Therefore the review of literature conducted by Giles
and Williams (2000)15 confirmed the positive influence of export policies in 68 out of 75 reported
studies and no influence in the remaining 7 studies.
Also under the subject literature initially analysed under this research, the influence of foreign
trade (in particular export) on the volume of product turns out to be unambiguously positive.
This literature is focused mainly on developing countries, although there are also available studies that examine the influence of changes in highly developed countries. In particular Frankel and
Romer (1999)16 indicate that growth in the volume of trade (relation of export and import to the
volume of GDP) by 1 percentage point will increase the volume of per capita income by 0.9 %.
On the other hand, Badinger and Breuss (2005)17 estimate that the growth of the export indicator (export/import) by 1 percentage point will increase the productivity of the production sector
by 0.6 %. Lewer and Van den Berg (2003)18, depending on the specification of the model and the
examined country, estimate that the change of the volume of trade by 1 pp causes a growth of
product by 0.1–0.6 %. These authors also indicate that the structure of export is of importance
for the scale of influence exerted by trade on the product and employment. The export of highly
processed and technologically advanced goods accelerates the growth to a much greater degree
than the export of raw materials or low‑processed products.
The impact of export on employment is, alternatively, less unambiguous. On the one hand, the
growth in demand should cause a growth in employment in companies that produce goods for
which increased demand emerged, and, on the other hand, however, Greenaway et al. (1999)19
indicate that increased openness of the market causes an increase in efficiency of using the labour
force in the company. Hoekman and Winters (2005)20 indicate that the fact whether increased
trade affects to a greater extent the employment or amount of salaries depends on the labour
market institutions, efficiency of capital markets and social policies. These authors indicate at
the same time that the influence of changes in the volume of trade exerts insignificant impact on
the situation on the labour market. To sum up, this influence might turn out to be both positive
and negative, yet positive effects are indicated more often in the literature, but in no case did the
strength of this impact turn out to be substantial.
Following the analysis of available literature, it was decided to use four alternative estimations
of extreme influence of increase in export on the increase in labour productivity and per capita
GDP in the present study. They served the purpose of transposing the value of additional export
resulting from the implementation of the EU cohesion policy in Poland, referred to the forecasts
of global export of the economies of particular EU-15 countries into the growth rate of these
macroeconomic variables.
Giles J., Williams C., Export‑led Growth: A Survey of the Empirical Literature and Some Non‑causality Results. Part 1, The Journal
of International Trade & Economic Development, 2000.
16 Frankel J., Romer D., Does Trade Cause Growth?, American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, (Jun., 1999), p. 379-399.
17 Badinger H., Breuss F., Trade and Productivity: An Industry Perspective, EI Working Paper No. 66, 2005.
18 Lewer J., Van den Berg H., Does Trade Composition Influence Economic Growth? Time Series Evidence for 28 OECD and Developing
Countries, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2003.
19 Greenaway D., Hine R., Wright P., An empirical assessment of the impact of trade on employment in the UK, European Journal
of Political Economy Vol. 15, p. 485-500, 1999.
20 Hoekman B., Winters A., Trade and Employment: Stylized Facts and Research Findings, DESA Working Paper No. 7, November
2005.
15
57
Table 4.3 presents the results obtained in reference to the per capita GDP and labour productivity. It should pointed out at this moment that in order to increase the transparency of estimated
results, the total additional export of the EU-15 countries to Poland, i.e. the aggregated export
for the entire period of 2004-2015 has been taken into consideration. This means that additional
increase in particular measures of income, or alternatively the productivity, resulting from the
implementation of the EU cohesion policy in Poland, is distributed throughout this entire period.
As already mentioned before, in the case when influence is exerted by export on the volume of
employment, empirical studies are usually inconclusive. The obtained results depend strongly on
the adopted research methodology and applied data, and they are generally not resistant to the
change of specification. Although it is the positive effects rather than negative ones that should be
intuitively expected (since the growth in export might cause the willingness to increase employment by the exporting companies), this impact is in reality inconsiderable and insignificant in
terms of statistics. It should be remembered that a growth in export might often indicate a change
of target markets of particular companies rather than additional production, and even if such
a creation in fact takes place, then it might be a non‑employment growth, i.e. growth reflected
solely in the growth of capital resources or per unit productivity of factors. Therefore, a decision
was taken to adopt a hypothesis, according to the reliable assessment of results of the scientific
literature that the influence of additional export to Poland induced by the implementation of the
EU cohesion policy in Poland on the employment in the EU-15 countries will be insignificant on
the scale of the entire economy.
TABLE 4.3. C HOSEN ­E STIMATIONS OF THE ­I NFLUENCE OF ­A DDITIONAL ­E XPORT TO ­P OLAND
ON ­A GGREGATE ­M ACROECONOMIC ­VARIABLES OF THE ­E XPORTING ­C OUNTRIES
(IN 2004-2015)
Research
Aggregate affected
by export
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Greece
Spain
the Netherlands
Ireland
Luxembourg
Germany
Portugal
Sweden
United Kingdom
Italy
In relative categories
Badinger, Breuss
Greenaway, Morgan,
Frankel, Romer (1999)
(2005)
Wright (1999)
Labour productivity in Increase in per capita Increase in per capita
the industry
income
GDP
0.0274 %
0.0411%
0.0878 %
0.0243 %
0.0364 %
0.0502 %
0.0242 %
0.0364 %
0.0820 %
0.0234 %
0.0351%
0.0902 %
0.0094 %
0.0141%
0.0554 %
0.0033 %
0.0049 %
0.0243 %
0.0058 %
0.0086 %
0.0335 %
0.0246 %
0.0369 %
0.0561%
0.0331%
0.0496 %
0.0568 %
0.0193 %
0.0289 %
0.0211%
0.0316 %
0.0474 %
0.1278 %
0.0074 %
0.0111%
0.0380 %
0.0193 %
0.0289 %
0.0666 %
0.0059 %
0.0088 %
0.0353 %
0.0121%
0.0181%
0.0717 %
Crespo­‑Cuaresma,
Wörz (2005)
Increase in GDP21
0.0113 %
0.0097 %
0.0090 %
0.0079 %
0.0042 %
0.0007 %
0.0023 %
0.0110 %
0.0185 %
0.0035 %
0.0123 %
0.0025 %
0.0061%
0.0026 %
0.0045 %
→
The authors have separately estimated the influence of export of high technology products, low technology products and
non-industrial products. Table 4.3 presents the final, aggregated influence of additional export to Poland on the per capita GDP.
21
58
Research
Aggregate affected
by export
In absolute categories (fixed prices for 2008)
Badinger, Breuss
Greenaway, Morgan,
Frankel, Romer (1999)
(2005)
Wright (1999)
Labour productivity in Increase in per capita Increase in per capita
the industry
income
GDP
Currency
euro
zloty
euro
zloty
euro
zloty
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Greece
Spain
the Netherlands
Ireland
Luxembourg
Germany
Portugal
Sweden
United Kingdom
Italy
0.26
0.27
0.22
0.28
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.25
0.76
0.18
0.28
0.02
0.18
0.06
0.08
1.05
1.08
0.86
1.13
0.30
0.08
0.15
1.00
3.03
0.72
1.11
0.09
0.71
0.23
0.30
146.26
120.94
151.55
124.46
43.87
10.27
19.23
139.60
190.14
209.46
158.80
18.37
108.66
30.51
47.19
584.41
483.36
605.44
496.77
175.40
41.10
76.83
557.21
758.58
836.99
634.51
73.49
434.27
121.93
188.42
25.59
14.58
28.23
26.67
15.88
4.63
6.38
16.23
17.35
11.53
31.87
5.36
20.94
10.20
19.20
102.34
58.30
112.80
106.56
63.51
18.53
25.49
64.81
69.17
46.06
127.41
21.46
83.71
40.76
76.73
Crespo­‑Cuaresma,
Wörz (2005)
Increase in GDP
million
euro
382.23
347.74
216.76
149.47
874.22
17.41
253.96
703.64
344.30
15.54
3394.50
48.90
226.36
575.47
724.90
million
zloty
1,527.64
1,390.03
865.43
597.07
3,495.63
69.59
1,014.70
2,807.28
1,374.08
61.98
1,3562.99
195.56
904.40
2,299.59
2,893.68
Source: Own elaboration on the basis of the conducted research and H. Badinger, F. Breuss – Trade and productivity: an industry perspective, EI Working Paper No. 66, 2005; J.A. Frankel, D. Romer – Does trade cause growth?, American Economic
Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, 1999; D. Greenaway, W. Morgan, P. Wright – Exports, export composition and growth, The Journal
of International Trade & Economic Development, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999; J. Crespo­‑Cuaresma, J. Wörz – On Export Composition
and Growth, Review of World Economics, Vol. 141, No. 1, 2005.
Table 4.3 presents an insignificant influence of the increase in trade of the EU-15 countries with
Poland as a result of implementation of projects in Poland that were co‑financed by Community
funds, at the GDP level and labour productivity. However, it should be pointed out that, firstly, there
is in fact a positive impact. Secondly, low influence does not result from the insignificance of the
influence of the volume of export on the economies of the EU-15 countries, but from the inconsiderable volume of aid provided for Poland under the EU cohesion policy in relation to the total
level of discussed macroeconomic aggregates (GDP and export streams, for more, see Chart 4.23).
­C HART 4.23. R EFERENCE OF THE ­T OTAL ­F UNDS ­R ECEIVED BY ­P OLAND ­U NDER THE ­C OHESION
­P OLICY TO THE ­V OLUME OF THE ­E CONOMY OF THE EU-15 ­C OUNTRIES
0.25%
in relaon to GDP of UE-15 countries
in relaon to export of UE-15 countries
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Source: Own elaboration based on the European Commission data, Eurostat data and forecasts and own forecasts.
59
It is also interesting how export to Poland caused by the implementation of the programmes
co‑financed by structural funds and the EU Cohesion Fund is related to the payments made by the
EU-15 countries to the budget of the European Community. This will allow for the answer to the
question about the real cost of implementing the cohesion policy in Poland incurred by the EU-15
countries.
To that end, additional export was referred to the payments made by particular EU-15 countries
to the Community budget (gross category). Furthermore, the difference between the above­
‑mentioned payments and disbursements for particular countries due to the implementation of
the cohesion policy (net category) has been adopted as a point of reference.
It should be pointed out that the value adopted as “net payments” does not include funds transferred under the Common Agricultural Policy (due to the absence of data for the period after 2006).
An assumption that in 2007-2015 disbursements for particular countries from the system will
maintain the average relation from the period of 2004-2006 to the disbursements under structural funds means that the relation of the additional export to Poland to net disbursements to
the budget of the European Union will increase up to 4 % (Ireland).
Therefore, additional export to Poland from the EU-15 countries caused by the implementation
of cohesion policy represents the payments to the budget of the European Community. It should
be pointed out that the EU-15 countries are also the beneficiaries of the Community policies,
which additionally reduces the estimated costs of financing of Community activities (for more,
see Chart 4.24).
­C HART 4.24. T OTAL ­C OSTS OF THE EU-15 ­C OUNTRIES ­R ESULTING FROM THE
­I MPLEMENTATION OF THE EU ­C OHESION ­P OLICY IN ­P OLAND ­R EFERRED
TO THE ­PAYMENTS MADE BY THE EU-15 ­C OUNTRIES TO THE ­C OMMUNITY
­B UDGET (­G ROSS ­C ATEGORY) AND ­PAYMENTS ­S UBJECT TO ­D EDUCTION OF
­D ISBURSEMENTS FROM ­S TRUCTURAL ­F UNDS AND THE ­C OHESION FUND (NET
­C ATEGORY) IN 2004-201522
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Greece
Spain
Portugal
United Kingdom
France
Italy
Belgium
Denmark
Sweden
the Netherlands
Finland
Luxembourg
Austria
Germany
Ireland
0%
Source: Own elaboration based on the European Commission data, Eurostat data and forecasts and own forecasts.
The presented values were obtained in the following manner: in the case of net category, the value estimated under the research
of the additional export for each of the EU-15 countries to Poland was divided by the difference of payments of these countries
to the Community budget (with the use of own forecasts concerning payments in the future) and disbursements due to the share
of these countries in programmes and initiatives implemented under the Cohesion Policy. This difference was multiplied by the
22
60
The conducted analysis indicates that there is a noticeable influence of disbursement of structural funds in Poland in the form of reduction of net costs of participation of the economies of
the EU-15 countries in the financing of the European Union budget, in particular the countries
located closest to Poland (Germany, Austria) and the countries making relatively small payments
to the budget (Ireland, Luxembourg). It should be pointed out that the countries with relatively
smallest additional export to Poland are at the same time in general either net beneficiaries of
Community policies, or they were such beneficiaries in the recent past (Greece, Spain, Portugal).
What is more, Chart 4.24 also presents additional export to Poland in reference to the total
Community budget, which is used by Poland as not the only beneficiary. Particularly the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland constituted in 2004-2007 less than 3 % of the total
Community budget. In 2008-2013 this share will be on the increase, but it will still be at the level
below 10 % (cf. Chart 4.25).
­C HART 4.25. ­ALLOCATION OF ­F UNDS FROM ­S TRUCTURAL ­F UNDS AND THE ­C OHESION
­F UNDS FOR ­P OLAND (­E XCLUDING THE ­D IRECT ­PAYMENTS ­U NDER ­C OMMON
­A GRICULTURAL ­P OLICY, ­I NCLUDING ­PAYMENTS ­U NDER PRE‑ACCESSION
­P ROGRAMMES) ­R EFERRED TO THE ­B UDGET OF THE ­E UROPEAN ­U NION
12%
annually
on average
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Source: Own elaboration based on the European Commission data and own forecasts.
The statistics presented in Chart 4.24 and 4.25 indicate in total an insignificant real burden for
the EU-15 countries by the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland: on average slightly
above 6 % of payments to the budget is earmarked for that purpose, and for eight out of fifteen
economies according to the estimations it translates into additional export to Poland amounting
to over 4 % of the encumbrance by the Community budget.
share of expenditure on the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland in the Community budget. In the gross category,
the value of additional export was divided by the value payments to the Community budget multiplied by the above­‑mentioned
share.
61
­F IGURE 4.1. A DDITIONAL ­E XPORT TO ­P OLAND IN ­R ELATION TO PAYMENTS OF THE EU-15
­S TATES TO THE ­C OMMUNITY ­B UDGET IN 2004-2015, IN THE PART TRANSFERRED
TO ­P OLAND UNDER THE ­C OHESION ­P OLICY
Source: Own elaboration based on the European Commission data and own forecasts.
­F IGURE 4.2. A DDITIONAL ­E XPORT TO ­P OLAND IN ­R ELATION TO PAYMENTS OF THE
EU-15 ­S TATES TO THE ­C OMMUNITY ­B UDGET, LESS ­PAYMENTS UNDER THE
­C OHESION ­P OLICY (NET ­C ATEGORY) IN THE ­P ERIOD OF 2004-2015, IN THE PART
TRANSFERRED TO ­P OLAND UNDER THE ­C OHESION ­P OLICY
Source: Own elaboration based on the European Commission data and own forecasts.
62
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 demonstrate low real burden for the economies of the EU-15 countries all the
more. In particular when analysing the bilateral relation between Germany and Poland, one can
lean towards the thesis that 85 % of the value of payments to the system of Community funds
(on net basis), in the part falling for Poland, will be compensated by means of additional import.
In other words, for each EUR 1 paid by Germany to the Community budget for the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland, it receives 72 eurocents in the form of additional export
contracts. However, when direct benefits for Germany due to the conduct of Community cohesion
policy are included, this reimbursement can be estimated at 85 eurocents.
In the case of all EU-15 countries perceived jointly, this reimbursement amounts to 36 and 46
eurocents respectively.
4.3. Total benefits – summary and conclusions
Most important results of macroeconomic research
• Direct impact of the implementation of EU cohesion policy in Poland on EU-15
companies being project contractors in 2000-2008 amounted to EUR 1.18 billion
i.e. PLN 4.6 billion.
• Aggregated value of total (direct and indirect) benefits obtained by the EU-15 countries as a result of implementing the EU Cohesion Policy in Poland in 2004-2015
amounts to over EUR 37.8billion, that is over PLN 151 billion.
• Inclusion of the indirect benefits for enterprises from the EU-15 countries makes
the obtained estimated total effect considerably higher than the estimations based
solely on direct benefits (quantified through microeconomic research). The total
indirect benefits are ten times higher than the direct ones.
• The effects observed so far represent only a small part of the additional export of
EU-15 to Poland, as forecast for 2010-2015.
• The German economy, i.e. the economy of the country that is involved in the most
intense international trade with Poland, has the largest share in the effects.
• The sectoral structure of the additional export indicates a positive influence for
production branches using modern technology.
• The influence of induced export on macroeconomic aggregates in the EU-15 countries is small, which results mainly from the small scale of the conduct of Cohesion
Policy in Poland in comparison with the volume of economies of these countries.
To sum up, direct and indirect effects of the implementation of the EU cohesion policy in Poland will
be connected with a significant increase in export from the EU-15 countries to Poland. It should be
anticipated that the largest part of expected benefits will be contributed Germany. 85 eurocents
from each euro invested in co‑financing of EU projects in Poland will be returned in the form of
63
additional profits from export when calculated per unit of funds paid to the Community budget.
Slightly smaller, yet still substantial effects will be in the remaining EU-15 countries.
It should be kept in mind that, largely due to the distribution of amounts of financial support in
time, in 2004-2009 it was possible to observe only a small part of the forecasted benefits. According
to this forecast, the largest congestion thereof should be expected in 2013-2015.
According to the obtained estimations, the total benefits of the EU-15 countries, gained owing to
the implementation of the EU cohesion policy in Poland, are substantial. In the case of selected
sectors (mainly high technology), the additional import of goods induced by that policy represents
a significant proportion of forecast changes in export from each EU-15 State to Poland.
The largest share in the additional import covers the traditional trade partner of Poland – Germany,
as well as Italy and France to a smaller extent. In the case of all these countries, the additional
export to Poland should also translate into an increase in aggregated profits of enterprises and
total payroll fund in the economy. As a consequence of that, there would also be an increase in
the receipts to the budget of public institutions.
At the same time, additional export to Poland features relatively advantageous sectoral structure –
over a half of the value is constituted by goods produced by means of high or medium technology.
This means a positive stimulus for the most productive and most modern branches of economies
of the EU-15 countries.
What is most important, the obtained results indicate significant reduction in the real cost of
conducting the cohesion policy in Poland incurred by the EU-15 countries.
To sum up, the costs of conducting the cohesion policy in Poland (insignificant on the scale of the
entire economy of the EU-15 countries) are to a large extent compensated by additional export
with advantageous – from the point of view of the development possibilities and social welfare –
sectoral structure and with high degree of independence from cyclical fluctuations.
64
5. Summary
The benefits of the EU-15 countries gained owing to the implementation of the EU cohesion policy
in Poland can be divided into direct and indirect ones. Direct benefits are perceptible immediately
and they are connected not so much with the effects and results involved in the project co‑financed
by the EU funds, but with the process of its implementation itself. These occur when a company
from an EU-15 country is a contractor of a project that is being implemented in Poland. According
to the estimations included in this study, direct benefits for the EU-15 countries represent 5 % of
all the resources disbursed in Poland under EU funds. The benefit gained in 2000-2008 due to that
reasons by the countries in question amounts to PLN 4.6 billion (EUR 1.18 billion) in fixed prices
of 2008, where, due to the nature of the assumptions adopted in the research, this estimation
should be regarded as conservative.
Indirect benefits, resulting from increased – due to the implementation of the EU cohesion
policy – demand of Poland for imported goods and services, including but not limited to products and services imported from the EU-15 countries, are much higher. In addition, the import
of Poland induced by EU funds is partially related to the fact that the implementation of projects
co‑financed by EU funds generates the need for subcontracting and provision of goods and services for the needs of project implementation. More often, however, it reflects more long­‑term
effects related to modernisation of Polish economy and improvements of its production potential
resulting afterwards in growth in demand for various goods and services, including the imported
ones. According to the estimations included in this study, the total (i.e. direct and indirect) benefits gained in 2004-2009 by the EU-15 countries due to the implementation of the EU cohesion
policy in Poland represent EUR 4.5 billion (PLN 17.8 billion) in prices of 2008, that is 27 % of the
aggregated value of funds transferred to Poland under this Policy.
Thirdly, these benefits – in particular the indirect ones – are distributed over time in an irregular
manner. According to the forecasts included in this study, it should be anticipated that during the
period of 2004-2015, the benefits for the EU-15 countries amount in total to EUR 37.8 billion in
fixed prices of 2008. Therefore, the effect observed so far would constitute merely 12 % of the
expected value for the 2004-2015 period. The role of indirect effects will be increasing over time:
according to the forecast, by 2015 they constitute as much as 91% of all observed effects altogether.
These results are based on the following premises: on the one hand, the amounts of co‑financing
vested for Poland during the 2004-2006 period (disbursed until 2008) were much lower than the
amounts in 2007-2013. On the other hand, indirect effects occur after some time – in particular
the ones that result from the growth in purchase potential of Poland.
65
Essential conclusions and recommendations
• For each EUR 1 paid for the implementation of the Cohesion Policy in Poland, the
EU-15 countries receive in return 36 eurocents in the form of additional export of
goods and services, and when their own income from assistance under the Cohesion
Policy are deducted from the cost, it amounts to 46 cents.
• In the first instance, it is the national entities that derive benefits from the implementation of the Cohesion Policy. However, increased demand (including the production one) results in significant increase in export by foreign entities. This way
all the parties benefit from it.
• Implementation of the Cohesion Policy intensifies the trade between Poland and
the EU-15 countries to a great extent.
• The sectoral structure of the implementation of the Cohesion Policy in Poland should
be clearly assessed as positive: it favours the modernisation of the Polish economy
(in particular of the machine park), it stimulates the development oriented towards
export of enterprises from the sectors of high and medium­‑high technology in the
EU-15 countries and it promotes the change of consumption patterns in Poland for
the benefit of consumption of goods produced by technologically advanced sectors
with higher productivity per unit.
• From the point of view of trade stimulation, the most beneficial projects are the
infrastructural ones and projects for the support for enterprises.
• The cohesion policy can be applied as an instrument that is to a small degree dependent on cyclical fluctuations. On the other hand, the level of use of awarded funds
is of essential importance, which is indirectly indicated by the difference between
the results presented in the reports for 2009 and 2010.
• Projects co‑financed from the European Social Fund, in comparison with the remaining funds, have the lowest potential for increase in import, both directly and
indirectly.
• In the methodological dimension, the use of input­‑output tables allows for complete
assessment of benefits for foreign enterprises. Therefore, this method is useful to
carry out further evaluation research with similar subject.
66
Spatial differentiation of the effects in question is also substantial. Due to very strong economic
links with Poland, large economy and substantial contribution in the financing of the cohesion
policy, it is Germany that gains the greatest benefits. Substantial benefits are gained also by Italy
and France.
List of conservative assumptions
• The definition of a foreign enterprise is based on the criterion of registered office
(for more, see 7.2.2).
• The benefits for enterprises from the EU-15 countries as the final beneficiaries have
been omitted.
• There is no quantification of positive external effects of implementations of the
discussed projects that should be subject to gradual intensification in 2009-2015.
• The influence of projects is examined only in the part financed by Community funds,
which means that contracts implemented in the part implemented by national funds
is omitted (this assumption minimises the risk of omitting dead weight loss when
selecting the total benefits).
• The study uses the results of the EUImpactMOD model, which is characterised
by very high conservatism in the assessment of influence of the Cohesion Policy
on the Polish GDP when compared to other tools (e.g. Hermin model).
Fourthly, the results of the study were obtained after a number of conservative assumptions. This
means that one should expect underestimation of results rather than overestimation thereof.
Besides, it should be kept in mind that the described study obviously concerns only the results of
the cohesion policy, instead of total effects of the accession of Poland to the European Community,
which are surely much bigger, also in the context of the study subject. The conservative nature of
the study is also proven by the comparison of the results presented in this report with the result of
Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation of cohesion policy
in Poland of 2009. After annulment of some of the conservative assumptions (which was possible
only due to the update of the used data), the estimation of the influence increased substantially.
67
6. Bibliography
Badinger H., Breuss F., Trade and Productivity: An Industry Perspective, EI Working Paper No. 66, 2005
Barro R., Sala‑i-Martin X., Economic Growth, The MIT Press, Boston, 2003
Benhabib J., Spiegel, M., Human Capital and Technology Diffusion, [in:] Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.),
Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, Elsevier, 2005, p. 935-966
Bils M., Klenow P., Does Schooling Cause Growth?, American Economic Review, American Economic Association,
vol. 90(5), 2000, p. 1160-1183
Cappelen A., Fagerberg J., Verspagen B., The Impact of Regional Support on Growth and Convergence in the
European Union, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS) working paper series 01.14, Eindhoven
Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS), 2001
Crespo­‑Cuaresma J., Wörz J. – On Export Composition and Growth, Review of World Economics, Vol. 141, No. 1,
2005
Frankel J., Romer D., Does Trade Cause Growth?, American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, 1999, p. 379-399
Fricker A. et al., An Experimental Comparison of Web and Telephone Surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly 69(3),
2005, p. 370-392
Fujita M., Thisse J., Does Geographical Agglomeration Foster Economic Growth? And Who Gains and Loses From
It?, CEPR Discussion Papers 3135, 2002
Giles J., Williams C., Export‑led Growth: A Survey of the Empirical Literature and Some Non‑causality Results.
Part 1, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2000
Greenaway D., Hine R., Wright P., An empirical assessment of the impact of trade on employment in the UK,
European Journal of Political Economy Vol. 15, 1999, p. 485-500
Greenaway D., Morgan W., Wright P. – Exports, export composition and growth, The Journal of International
Trade & Economic Development, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1999
Greenwood J., Hercowitz Z., Krusell P., Long‑Run Implications of Investment­‑Specific Technological Change,
American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), 1997, p. 342-62
Growiec J., Zawistowski J. (ed.) – Ocena korzyści uzyskiwanych przez Państwa UE-15 w wyniku realizacji polityki
spójności w Polsce, MRR, Warszawa, 2009
Hoekman B., Winters A., Trade and Employment: Stylized Facts and Research Findings, DESA Working Paper
No. 7, November 2005
Jones Ch., Growth and Ideas, [w:] Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, Elsevier, 2005, p. 1063-1111
Lewer J., Van den Berg H., Does Trade Composition Influence Economic Growth? Time Series Evidence for 28
OECD and Developing Countries, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 2003
Quah D., Empirics for Growth and Distribution: Stratification, Polarization, and Convergence Clubs, CEPR
Discussion Papers 1586, 1997
Reakcja gospodarki polskiej na fundusze strukturalne w latach 2007–2013 – wnioski dla Polski, Institute for
Structural Research, 2007.
68
Solow R., A Contribution to the Theory of Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, February, 1956, p. 65-94
Timmer M., Ypma G., van der Ark B., IT in the European Union: driving productivity divergence?, GGDC Research
Memorandum 200363, Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen, 2003
69
7. Methodological Appendix
7.1. Validity of the EU cohesion policy assumptions according to the
economic literature
The discussion concerning the meaning of economic implementation of the EU cohesion Policy
conducted in the first Chapter has been reduced to the most important dependencies and phenomena. However, in order to avoid difficulties in the reception of the entire report, several
important thread were omitted therein. These threads will be discussed in the paragraphs below.
Firstly, empirical evidence for the phenomenon of real convergence are ambiguous (cf. Quah,
1997; Barro and Sala‑i-Martin, 2003) but generally the differences in development level between
individual regions in one country, or alternatively between particular countries within a relatively
homogenous area, decrease over time.
Concepts from beyond the growth theory and the possible influence of Structural
Funds on the economy
New Economic Geography (NEG) emphasises the role of network effects and agglomeration benefits (Fujita and Thisse, 2002). If one enterprise chooses a given location for
its registered office, then it is more advantageous for another one to start a business
in the immediate neighbourhood rather than in an unindustrialised area. This dependency functions stronger and stronger for each new entity until the increasing salaries
and other factors cause the benefits resulting from clustering (agglomeration) to stop
outweighing the costs thereof.
Signalling in the educational system, according to Spence theory (1974), results from
informational asymmetry on the labour market. If the employers are not able to assess
the actual qualifications of their potential employees, such a situation exerts detrimental
impact on the market force of the latter. Therefore persons with high productivity are
interested in giving a reliable signal to the employers to confirm their skills and capabilities. One of such opportunities is represented by participation in the educational
system. In the context of economic development, this means that education does
not have to significantly increase the productivity of particular persons: above all, it
provides a confirmation of the skills they already had before. A direct conclusion of
the theory of Spence is the possibility of excessively high private investment in human
capital, which is caused by will to gain advantage on the labour market. In such a situation, subsidising the education by public funds would lead to an even greater level of
disbursements for that purpose, much greater than it is socially.
70
The theory of technological gap suggests that if the assistance is spent on promotion
of technological progress, the process of real convergence of relatively poorer regions
can be accelerated due to the use of technology invented in other places. Adaptation
or imitation of foreign technology is cheaper than the invention thereof. Cappelen et al.
(2001) indicate the failure to reach agreement in the literature as regards the factors
reducing the technological gap. Nonetheless, it is commonly accepted that expenditure on research and development, as well as focus on industry and services related to
high technology, should increase the productivity. It is because a correlation between
economic growth in the medium­‑term period and expenditure on R&D is noticeable.
Reference to the new economic geography (e.g. Fujita and Thisse, 2002; see Box 1) persuades, on
the other hand that the factor that reduces positive influence of stuctural support on the productivity of private capital might be constituted by network effects and increasing economies of scale.
Structural resources are allocated for areas that are relatively poorer and frequently deprived of
developing metropolises and featuring outdated sectoral structure of economy, as well as the areas
in which the general level of business activity is low. The inflow thereof might delay the natural
processes of capital concentration in the centres with the highest growth potential and hinder the
change of the existing sectoral structure of the economy into a more modern one at the same time,
in so far as such processes require substantial agglomeration of business activity.
Neoclassical growth models, such as for instance the Solow model (1956), can be extended by means
of human capital (formal education, professional qualifications and experience in the current work
position), whose accumulation is subject to similar principles as physical capital: investments in this
field can also accelerate the process of real convergence. However, the issue of human capital requires
separate considerations. On the one hand, improvement in qualifications is a process whose effects
on the scale of the entire economy should be demonstrated as late as in the medium- and long­‑term
period (which is affected by many years of education in the pre‑working age, which represents the
most important element of education). In the perspective of several years, expenditure on education exerts influence on the situation of individual entities on the labour market rather than the
behaviour of aggregate macroeconomic variables such as GDP or unemployment. However, most
theoretical models, as well as empirical findings, indicate a similar nature of the influence exerted
by accumulation of human capital and of the physical capital on convergence: the higher the level
of regional development, the more difficult and less efficient the further increase in investment (cf.
e.g. Bils and Klenow, 2000). The distribution of the level and areas of education in the population is
of major importance as well. It is because it is postulated, firstly, that return on education decreases
as the person advances to the subsequent level thereof, secondly, that the potential long­‑term
influence on the increase in the labour productivity level is related mainly to the specialisations in
technical and engineering field as well as exact science.
In the theoretical dimension, there are also hypotheses of informational nature of motivation
to participate in the education system (the theory of signalling by Spence, see Box 1). Empirical
research on the influence of education usually indicates the concurrence of both effects of education, i.e. (i) the effect of increase in productivity and (ii) the effect of signalling. In such a situation,
the ex‑ante assessment of the influence of increase in external financing oriented towards that
goal is additionally hindered. Appropriate allocation of funds, both in terms of geography and
71
the nature of education, gains even more importance. For there is always a risk of the effect of
dead weight loss in a situation when the opportunity of education in programmes with support
is used mainly by those that would take the effort anyway, even if the support would have not
been provided. It stresses the necessity of correct allocation of aid funds, i.e. the concentration
on the least developed regions.
Some of the growth models, which endogenise the accumulation of human capital (cf. Jones, 2005;
Benhabib and Spiegel, 2005), predict that the achievement of an appropriate development level of
the education system is a prerequisite for the commencement of the convergence process but it is
not able to sustain it over a long­‑term period. In the long­‑term period, the technological dimension
becomes essential: full convergence requires not only the equalisation of factors of production
between regions, but also the unification of the quality of applied technology. Similar influence,
as in the case of human capital, is attributed by some models to investments in public capital (e.g.
primary infrastructure), which is a complementary good in comparison with private capital.
It should be pointed out that in the light of prevailing concepts developed within the growth
theory, the ultimate source of economic growth in the long­‑term period on a global scale is represented by technological progress. In the context of inducing and accelerating the interregional
convergence, however, greater importance is attached to the process of adaptation of innovations
applied in the most developed countries. According to the theory of technological gap, financial
support for the process of adapting new technology means, apart from the reduction in costs
alone, an increase in the relative price of conducting innovative research as well. A similar effect
can be achieved also by pressuring to adjust of the labour to the most modern technology, which,
de facto, means investment in human capital. At the same time, in the case of private investments,
the level at which innovative activity affects the growth rate for the local economy depends on
whether or not the innovator can benefit from the success. These possibilities might depend on
the institutional and legal surrounding of the innovation process (e.g. by patents), and therefore
the effectiveness of intervention might differ significantly from country to country. Furthermore,
due to the fact that borders between the actual innovation and adaptation of its results in the
economy may be blurred, the prediction of the actual influence of particular activities is difficult.
7.2. Microeconomic research
The general purpose of the microeconomic research was to assess direct benefits gained by companies from the EU-15 countries as a result of the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland.
The paragraphs below specify what amount of funds disbursed under projects co‑financed by EU
structural funds has been directly contracted to companies from the EU-15 countries that have
become contractors of these investments. It was also concluded what was the number of companies from the EU-15 countries that have undertaken to perform these contracts (fully or partially).
The scale of direct benefits for companies from the EU-15 countries, expressed in Polish zloty and in
euro (fixed prices for 2008), is presented in a breakdown by individual EU-15 countries, by particular
years of the 2004-2008 period and by particular sectors of the economy according to the NACE
classification.23 On the basis of the acquired results, it was also possible to compare the sectoral
NACE classification (French: Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne – Statistical
Classifications of Economic Activities in the European Union) divides economies of the EU Member States – according to the Rev.
1.1 version – into 59 sectors. The latest version of NACE classification, effective from 1 January 2008, is the new Rev. 2 version.
23
72
structure of investments under particular structural funds and to compare the sectoral structure
of funds disbursed in general and the funds transferred to companies from the EU-15 countries.
Owing to the research, answers were provided to the following research questions:24
1. What value of resources from the structural funds has been absorbed by foreign
companies from the EU-15 countries that are contractors of projects co‑financed
by the EU structural funds?
2. What is the number of companies from the EU-15 countries that were contractors
of projects co‑financed by the EU structural funds and the Cohesion Fund implemented in Poland?
It should be also mentioned that the choice of web‑based forms as the primary tool for the
acquisition of data was connected with the specific nature of the examined population – above all
with its high number and substantial dispersion of information that is essential for the research,
which hinders the collection thereof on the basis of analysis of documentation. Hence, the most
important information in the context of direct benefits of the companies from the EU-15 countries
gained owing to the implementation of the EU cohesion policy in Poland have been acquired on
the basis of the survey research.
7.2.1. M ethodology of CAWI survey research
The survey questions concerning direct and indirect benefits gained by the companies from the
EU-15 countries due to the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland require a detailed
answer based on the possibly broadest, and if possible complete, sample of projects. It is because
the possibility of statistical conclusions about the entire population is most essential; otherwise
it would be impossible to carry out a reliable quantification of particular effects.
It was decided to base the methodology of collecting data allowing for the answer to these questions on a web‑based CAWI survey (CAWI – Computer Assisted Web Interview). Such a selection
was dictated by the possibility of easily reaching a broad group of entities that have submitted
positively examined applications for co‑financing of projects and the fact that it guarantees a high
level of survey completion.25 The remaining arguments in favour of the application of the CAWI
method are included in the Box below.
However, the data on input­‑output flow and sectoral structure of foreign trade available in Eurostat databases are based on the
older methodology of Rev. 1.1. Therefore, it was decided to conduct the entire research on the basis of the older version. Owing
to that, the necessity of using two classifications at the same time is avoided. What is more, such an approach is all the more
justified as the national sectoral accounts, as defined in the information published on the Eurostat webpage, will be made available according to the new NACE Rev. 2 methodology as late as in September 2011.
In the case of Poland, certain sectoral categories have been additionally aggregated, due to which the research will be based on
the breakdown into 55 instead of 59 sectors in the end. The description of the methodology and legal basis are available on the
European Commission webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/documents/nace_en.htm.
24 The research questionnaire also includes the possibility that companies or other entities from the EU-15 countries were direct
beneficiaries of the implementation of the EU cohesion policy in Poland. However, all surveyed project applicants declared that
they are Polish entities.
25 Detailed information on the response rate – in fact satisfactory – is included in Attachment 6.2.3.
73
The choice of web‑based forms as the primary tool for the acquisition of data is also connected
with the specific nature of the examined population – above all with its high number and dispersion of information that is essential for the research, which hinders the collection thereof on the
basis of analysis of documentation.
The interview used in the CAWI survey research, presenting an exemplary path of completion
thereof is included in Appendix 7.5. Its ultimate form was determined by the pilot research on
a small subsample of companies.
Advantages of the web‑based interview over other techniques
Survey research such as the CAWI one is a very efficient tool for the acquisition of information about large populations of respondents (Fricker, A. et al. (2005), An Experimental
Comparison of Web and Telephone Surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly 69(3), 370-392).
Such a population is examined in this analysis. High quality of the obtained database
has been guaranteed owing to strictly defined dictionaries of answers and because the
main CAWI interview was preceded by a pilot survey.
The use of other methods to obtain data that is essential from the point of view of the
survey purpose about particular projects would require incomparably more expenditure
and would extend the time for the collection of information. Choosing the analysis of
project documentation as the main part of the survey would mean significant narrowing of the examined sample due to time­‑absorption of an analysis of a single project.
Furthermore, large differences in the reporting forms between operational programmes
could indeed cause problems in the comparability of obtained results. Very large
population renders other methods useless as they require direct participation of the
interviewer in the acquisition of information about a single project, such as telephone
surveys or indirect interviews.
To sum up, a web‑based survey is well adjusted to the specific nature of the project and
it allows for the conduct of a survey using a very large population, which is of major
importance for the quality of estimations.
Identification of tasks performed by contractors in terms of sectors of the
economy
The starting point for the determination of sectoral division of the economy is the NACE classification of economic activities. However, the large number of categories included therein substantially
hinders its use in a survey in a direct manner – the inclusion of all sections in one question could
lead to accidental answers of respondents. This problem was solved in the research by means of
a series of detailing questions in the questionnaire, so that survey respondents would not have to
choose between too many possibilities of answer at particular stages of the survey. The names and
numbers of NACE sections, constituting the basis for the conclusions in this research, emerge on the
list of potential response options only when one of three most general categories of implemented
tasks – supplies, construction works and services – has been attributed to the contractor. These
are the terms from the public procurement law, with which the coordinators of projects should
74
be acquainted as far as basics are concerned. Sequential nature of detailing questions structured
this way served the purpose of minimising the percentage of incorrectly completed surveys. The
validity of the proposed questionnaire structure was verified positively in the pilot survey.
The list of NACE categories in the version available in surveys – meaning slightly aggregated in
comparison to the original breakdown into 59 categories – is presented in Table 7.1. Relevant
numbers according to the official NACE terminology have been assigned to each sectoral category
that can be indicated by survey respondents.
In Table 7.1, NACE sectors providing innovative products and technology, as well as banking and
counselling services, are marked in particular, for which a more detailed analysis was conducted
at the stage of project documentation examination. Technology- and knowledge­‑intensive sectors were identified primarily on the basis of indications resulting from the Eurostat analyses (it
concerns mainly the document titled: Technology and knowledge­‑intensive sectors).
NACE sectors included in the CAWI survey
­TABLE 7.1. S ectoral NACE Classification and sectors in the CAWI survey research
NACE
Sectoral category/subcategory name
Innovation
(*)
1 Supplies
1.1 Supply of products of the industrial sector
15,16 Food products, beverages and tobacco
17-19 Textiles, wearing apparel
20 Wood products (excluding furniture)
21,22 Paper, publishing and printing products
24 Chemicals and chemical products
23,25
Products of the petrochemical industry, rubber and plastics (breakdown into categories
according to NACE)
26-28
Products of the metal and non‑metallic mineral industry (breakdown into categories according
to NACE)
yes
29-35 Products of the machinery industry (breakdown into categories):
30-33 Electrical and optical equipment (breakdown into categories according to NACE)
yes
34,35 Transport equipment (breakdown into categories according to NACE)
yes
29 Machinery and equipment n.e.c.
yes
36,37 Manufacturing n.e.c.
1.2 Energy and water supply
1.3 Other supplies
1,2,5 Supply of agricultural, forestry and fishing products
10-14 Supply of products of the extraction sector
75
2 Construction
Construction works
3 Provision of services
50-52 Wholesale and retail trade, repairs
55 Hotels and restaurants
60-63 Transport services and activities of travel agencies (breakdown into categories)
64 Post and telecommunication services
65-67
Financial intermediation and activities auxiliary to financial intermediation (breakdown into
categories)
yes
yes
70 Real estate activities
71 Renting of machinery and equipment without operator and of personal and household goods
72 Computer and related activities
yes
73 Scientific research and development
yes
74 Other business activities
yes
80 Educational and training services
85 Health and social services
90 Community services
0 Other services
(*) – „Yes” was used to mark sectoral categories providing innovative products and technology, as well as banking
and counselling services.
According to the above table, the following sectors were classified as innovative sectors:
• chemical industrial,
• machinery industry (broken down into 3 categories: electronic and optical industry, transport industry and industry producing other machinery devices),
• post and telecommunication services,
• IT services,
• scientific research and development
• financial intermediation, insurance and supporting services,
• services for enterprises.
The basis for such a division of sectoral NACE categories was the document titled Technology
and knowledge­‑intensive sectors published by Eurostat in a cycle of methodological publications
Eurostat Metadata of February 2008. Individual sectors of the economy were assigned therein
to collective groups by the level of technological advancement (in the case of industrial sectors)
and the level of knowledge­‑intensity (in the case of service sectors). It proposed a number of
competitive methodologies of such division, hence allowing for the selection depending on the
research needs.
76
The division of the sections of the economy producing industrial goods in this study is based on
the OECD classification (Manufacturing industries classified according to their global technological
intensity). NACE sectors classified under this methodology to industry groups as high­‑technology
and medium­‑high‑technology were selected as innovative. In one case, it was necessary to apply
a simplification since the OECD division classifies the components of particular sections instead
of entire sections: the entire section No 35 (transport industry) was recognised as innovative,
although one of its five components, shipbuilding industry, is not included in the list of high technology sectors. However, this simplification was necessary so that data could be used as input
for input­‑output tables.
A problem of this type has not emerged in the case of division of service sectors. The formula
for the selection of innovative section was constituted by knowledge­‑intensive high technology
services, extended by financial services and services for enterprises. Both these added sections
feature high level of knowledge­‑intensity, and additionally they constitute a significant element
of this study since they contain the sectors of banking and counselling services distinguished
herein in particular.
CAWI survey – technical aspects
CAWI survey has been conducted with the use of tested information tools, already applied previously by the Institute for Structural Research in other projects. The interactive form has been
placed on an external server assuring complete confidentiality of stored data. The questionnaire
was not generally available, so as to prevent its completion by accidental persons. It was possible
due to the generation of access codes, owing to which each respondent received a unique URL
address for the survey intended for them. The same mechanism has excluded the possibility of
repeated filling in of a completed questionnaire.
Following the ultimate identification of the research sample, invitation for the participation in the
survey have been sent via electronic mail to all project coordinators included in that sample. They
contained a brief project description and web address for the form. A letter of recommendation
from the Minister of Regional Development was attached to these invitations, which served as
additional motivation for the applicants to participate in the survey.
Due to the specific nature of the survey, it was not an anonymous interview, which is typically
used in evaluation surveys. Identification of answers of particular respondents in the resulting
database allowed for the selection of the projects that were most interesting from the point of
view of survey purposes. The cases isolated this way have become an important starting point in
the consecutive analysis stages at the microeconomic level: research on the documentation and
in‑depth interviews.
The publication of the final form version in the internet and circulation of invitations for the participation in the survey was preceded by a pilot survey. Since the entities participating in it were
not previously informed that they participate in a pilot survey instead of the main research, it also
made it possible to define the expected return rate of surveys.
77
The data obtained under the CAWI survey constituted the basis for the following analysis stages
at the microeconomic and macroeconomic level:
• Estimation of the number of foreign contractors and the amounts transferred to them due
to implementation of projects in Poland that are co‑financed by structural funds and the
EU Cohesion Fund.
• Elaboration of a precise sectoral breakdown of additional investment and consumption
demand generated due to the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland (research
questions No 1 and 2 in the macroeconomic part).
• Identification of projects that will be subject to in‑depth analysis under the examination
of documentation and in‑depth interviews.
• Estimation of the influence exerted by projects implemented in Poland and co‑financed by EU
structural funds for the development of enterprises from the EU-15 countries providing (indirect) goods and services to Poland necessary for the implementation of the above­‑mentioned
projects, broken down by the sectors of the economy (additional research questions).
The quality of data obtained by the CAWI research is of major importance for the implementation
of other research elements. Therefore, it was decided to conduct it for the entire population of
applicants, that is a group of 86,371 projects. Due to limited availability of electronic mail addresses
of project coordinators in some cases, however, it was necessary to reduce this number. However,
it should be pointed out that among the projects not covered by the survey due to absence of
contact data, small projects implemented under SOP Agriculture whose beneficiaries were individual farmers predominated and additionally small projects under SOP Fish oriented at fishermen. However, a insignificant number of such projects in the sample did not limit the research
credibility since (i) most projects did not generate direct benefits for companies from the EU-15
countries because no contractor was contracted in it or the only contractor was a Polish company,
(ii) these projects were very homogenous and thus it was justified to extrapolate from a small
number of observations to the remaining part of the population, (iii) these projects were very
small in terms of value and thus, despite great number thereof, they covered a small percentage
of the total value of financing under the EU cohesion policy.
The population of structural projects implemented in Poland features a strongly left­‑sided diagonal
distribution of the amount of co‑financing: for instance, already the first percentile of projects
accumulates over 50 % of the total amount of co‑financing. Therefore, in order to obtain reliable
results in terms of value, it is important to have a strong representation of the largest projects
in a sample, which have a very high information value. It is particularly important from the point
of view of the acquisition of reliable data on the structure of contractors and features used in
projects covering indirect goods.
On the other hand, it was necessary to include in the sample a great sectoral variety of projects
implemented in Poland. Because the representativeness of all programmes was assured, it was
possible to quantify in a reliable manner the differences (significant, as it turns out) between the
programmes, concerning the role of foreign enterprises and the sectoral structure of purchase
made.
Because the survey response rate differed between particular operational programmes and priorities, the obtained observations underwent balancing. The method of selecting analytical balances
is presented in a separate subchapter.
78
Response rate
This chapter contains characteristics of a sample from a CAWI survey research.
In the CAWI survey conducted at the turn of 2008 and 2009, answers were obtained that concerned
6,187 projects for the total amounts of PLN 23.4 billion (in fixed prices for 2008). The applicants in
all cases were Polish entities.26 There were no contractors indicated with which contracts have been
concluded in the case of 1,463 projects with the total value of PLN 1.68 billion. In the remaining
4,726 projects, 92 % of funds were spent by means of contracts with contractors. In total 13,126
contracts with contractors were concluded under these projects and they amounted to PLN 19.9
billion. This means that almost 80 % of all funds were allocated to project contractors (for more,
see Table 7.2). Because it is impossible to obtain information on the remaining 20 %, the analysis
of direct benefits gained by the countries from the EU-15 countries is limited to the funds spent
by means of contracts with contractors. We assume that these amounts spent on remuneration,
to cover administrative costs etc., translate into growth in consumption demand in Poland.
The projects included in the sample were co‑financed by a total amount of PLN 16 billion, which
means that the sample covers 33 % of the value of all funds financed by the Cohesion Fund. This
constitutes a good basis for the conclusion about the entirety of Community funds. The structure
of analytical balances that allows for such conclusion is presented in the next subchapter.
­TABLE 7.2. C haracteristics of the value of projects covered by co‑financing
from the eu funds in the sample and in general (in PLN billion)
Total
In the sample
Sample cover rate
• of projects in total
78.34
24.97
32 %
• projects with contracts
71.44
23.29
33 %
• projects without contracts
6.91
1.68
24 %
• resulting from contracts
58.72
19.88
34 %
• total
50.65
17.25
34 %
• in projects with contracts
46.18
16.10
35 %
• in projects without contracts
4.46
1.15
26 %
• included in contracts
37.55
13.67
36 %
Value:
Value of co‑financing from the EU:
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Note: All prices are quoted in fixed prices (PLN billion for 2008). Projects with contracts are perceived as projects in which
a contract has been concluded with at least one contractor. The total values were obtained by appropriate re‑balancing of
results from the sample (see the methodological Appendix). The population of projects does not contain priority axes of the
SOP Agriculture and SOP Fish oriented at individual recipients. The quoted values do not include them.
The analysis of the volume of direct benefits gained by the companies from the EU-15 countries
should be supplemented by means of data on the number of contracts and contractor companies. Precisely 458 out of 13,126 contracts that were in the sample were concluded with entities
from the EU-15 countries. Since particular companies were found in more than one project, it
26
Entities with registered offices in Poland were regarded as Polish entities.
79
is possible to identify in the sample 375 foreign companies constituting contractors of projects
co‑financed by the European funds.
By means of generalisation of results for the entirety of structural funds together with the Cohesion
Fund, it can be concluded that 81,637 contracts were concluded in 2000-2008. This number also
includes 1,909 contracts concluded by 1563 companies from the EU-15 countries.
Selection of analytical balances
The total value of co‑financing of all projects identified under the CAWI survey amounts to 33 %
of the total value of Community funds. In order to be able to draw conclusions about the volume
of particular absolute effects in reference to the entire population of projects, this fact has to be
taken into consideration. However, the identified projects must not be simply multiplied by three
since the response rate differed significantly between the operational programmes. For particular
programmes it oscillated from 4.3 % (SOP Fish) to 51% (Interreg); substantial differences emerged
also between individual priorities under operational programmes. Table 7.3 illustrates such a state
of affairs. Therefore, it has become necessary to select analytical balances for particular observations so that the differentiation in the response rate for various programmes and priorities is taken
into account. Where it was possible due to the sufficient response rate, the survey differentiated
analytical balances according to particular priorities, and in the remaining cases (Cohesion Fund,
Interreg, Equal), a common balance for the entire programme was selected.
Furthermore, in order to isolate the effects of the inflow of EU funds to Poland, the procedure of
selection of analytical balances included also (at the level priorities) the fact that projects were
partially financed by the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund. Therefore, instead of the total
value of projects, it was the part thereof that was financed by EU funds that was taken into consideration. Hence, the final balances used for the purpose of calculating the value of contracts
include the share of Community funds in the total project financing. Obviously, in the case of
calculation of the number of projects and their aggregated value for the needs of describing the
population surveyed by means of CAWI, this factor was not taken into account.
Taking into consideration the number of entities in the sample in particular measures and priorities,
as well as all above­‑mentioned factors, a balance structure was adopted at the level of priorities
of particular programmes according to the formula below:
ϕpi
γpi1 = −
θpi , where:
ϑpi
– response rate,
φpi
– the level of co‑financing from Community funds,
pi
– programme and priority.
Analytical balances gpi were calculated, therefore, as a quotient of the value of total co‑financing
under the given priority, obtained from the programme documentation containing financial tables
and aggregated value of projects from that priority, identified in the CAWI survey.
In the case of the number of projects and their total value, the following formula is applied:
1
γpi2 = −
θpi .
The balances adopted for particular priorities are presented in table 7.3.
80
­TABLE 7.3. S hare of EU funds, response rate and analytical balances used in the
analysis of results of the CAWI survey
Share of EU
funds in the
Share of
Balance
1
Programme Priority financing of pro- Response
Programme
Priority
Community
γ
 pi
jects in the given
funds
priority axis
SOP HRD
SOP ICE
SOP
Agriculture
SOP Fish
Axis 1
75.0 %
36 %
2.08
Axis 2
75.0 %
8 %
9.77
Axis 3
75.0 %
0 %
none
Axis 1
67.5 %
35 %
Axis 2
33.9 %
Axis 3
Response
Balance
γ1
 pi
Axis 1
71.6 %
38 %
1.89
Axis 2
73.2 %
37 %
2.00
Axis 3
75.0 %
52 %
1.45
1.93
Axis 4
75.0 %
0 %
179.12
29 %
1.16
Axis 1
75.0 %
29 %
2.54
74.9 %
19 %
3.92
Axis 2
75.0 %
20 %
3.84
Axis 1
63.7 %
8 %
8.17
Axis 3
75.0 %
2 %
45.04
Axis 2
75.6 %
3 %
25.40
Axis 1
67.6 %
80 %
0.85
Axis 3
75.0 %
2 %
45.59
Axis 2
75.0 %
21%
3.52
Axis 1
75.0 %
0.005 %
14562.02
Axis 3
75.0 %
2 %
46.17
Axis 2
87.5 %
0 %
none
Cohesion Fund
76.8 %
46 %
1.66
Axis 3
71.5 %
12 %
5.83
Interreg
75 %
51%
1.48
Axis 4
60.1%
4 %
16.38
Axis 5
75.0 %
0 %
none
Equal
75 %
19 %
3.96
IROP
OP TA
SOTA
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI results and programme documents of Operational Programme and Community
Initiatives implemented in Poland in 2004-2006.
7.2.2. Survey results
Prior to the answer to two essential research questions, the survey results were briefly characterised in terms of the method of distributing funds transferred to Poland under the EU cohesion
policy, both under particular structural funds and the entire EU cohesion policy treated jointly.
It is particularly valuable because the analysis of expenditure from the Community funds has not
been conducted so far at the level that is aggregated to such an extent. What is more, the sectoral
structure of the aggregated demand induced by Community funds obtained in the CAWI survey
made it possible to assess in a more reliable manner their indirect influence on foreign companies
in the macroeconomic part discussed in the main part of the report.
It should be pointed out here that foreign contractors were identified in the CAWI survey according to the country in which the registered office of the contractor signing the contract is located.
Therefore, foreign companies are defined therein in a conservative manner: a part of foreign entities that have only a distribution network in Poland could be classified herein as Polish companies
whereas no Polish company could be classified as a foreign one. The current analysis completely
disregards the capital structure of entities. On the other hand, it was the only definition possible at
the operational level. On the other hand, as opposed to the flow of goods and services, the country
of origin of the enterprises’ capital does not exert influence on the primary category of national
accounts, which is represented by the gross domestic product. It should also not be concluded
on the basis of the capital structure of enterprises about the inclination towards re‑investment
81
of profits within the territory of the country in which they were gained. Adopting a definition of
a foreign enterprise based on the criterion of the registered office is justified both in terms of
methodology and in the content­‑related terms.
The prudence of the assessment of direct benefits in this chapter results from the fact that it was
impossible in the CAWI survey to take into account the benefits gained by foreign companies as
beneficiaries of the final projects, that is the benefits resulting e.g. from the fact that these companies participate in co‑financed training. Therefore, it can be concluded that the CAWI survey
has conservatively assessed the direct benefits gained by the companies from the EU-15 countries
and has actually underestimated the real effects rather than overestimated them.
The further part describes the influence exerted so far by EU funds on the companies from the
EU-15 countries. In addition, a forecast of the direct impact of the EU cohesion policy on enterprises from the EU-15 countries in 2009-2015 has been presented.
Total allocation of funds under cohesion policy
The implementation of projects co‑financed by funds from European programmes usually requires
the involvement of external companies as contractors. In total 81,600 contracts with 66,400 contractors in almost 40,000 projects have been concluded under all funds in 2000-2008.27
The average project value (including co‑financing) amounted to PLN 1.6 million. The co‑financing
of projects by Community funds amounted on average to 64 %.28
PLN 35 billion, i.e. EUR 9 billion, in prices for 2008 were transferred to project contractors under
structural funds and the Cohesion Fund in 2000-2008. This amount equals ca. 80 % of the total
value of co‑financing that amounted in total to PLN 47.8 billion (EUR 12.3 billion).29 The remaining
20 % was provided for expenditure under smaller contracts with contractors30 and for other purposes, i.e. remuneration, rental of rooms etc. Due to the nature of this expenditure, it can be very
likely assumed that they were sent to national entities. This means that the analysis conducted in
this survey, concentrating on contractors of projects contracted by applicants covered most funds
spent in Poland under the implementation of the cohesion policy.
Excluding the projects implemented under SOP Agriculture (SOP Restructuring and modernisation of the food sector and
rural development), which were constituted mainly by individual projects whose examination by means of CAWI survey was
not possible, the response rate with analytical balances included amounted to 39,864 projects. The entire base encompassing
all projects implemented within this period amounted to 36,724, excluding SOP Agriculture projects. Taking into consideration
that the assumed balances were based on the values of projects, this difference is acceptable. It should be also emphasised that
inclusion of only institutional projects in the survey and balancing of them by value usually has to lead to the underestimation of
the number of projects in these programmes. It is because individual projects are as a rule much smaller than the institutional
ones.
28 In the case of a database describing the actual implementation progress of particular projects, the average value of projects
amounted to PLN 1.1 million. The observed difference results mainly from the fact that it is impossible to take individual agricultural projects featuring low average value into consideration in the CAWI survey. If projects implemented under SOP Agriculture
are excluded, average project values are obtained that amount to PLN 1.6 million (CAWI survey) and PLN 2.2 million (project
implementation progress). This difference results from the above­‑mentioned smaller number of projects and higher aggregated
value in the case of the available database, which in turn results from the absence of projects from Priority Axis 3 of SOP HRD
(Technical Assistance) and Priority Axis 2 and 5 of SOP Fish in the CAWI research sample.
29 These values are expressed in fixed prices for 2008. Due to the absence of projects from Priority Axis 3 of SOP HRD and Priority
Axis 2 and 5 of SOP Fish in the research sample, the survey did not include projects with the total value amounting to EUR 123 million (in prices for 2008) whose co‑financing by Community funds amounted to EUR 64.6 million.
30 The CAWI form contained a question only about the 5 largest contractors.
27
82
­C HART 7.1. S tructure of contract value according to community programmes/
initiatives (chart on the left) and contractor sectors (chart on the
right)
Producon of
electrical devices
1%
Producon of
motor vehicles
1%
30%
20%
Other
7%
Construcon
73%
Other business
acvies
4%
10%
Other individual
service acvies
4%
OPTA
EQUAL
SOP FISH
INTERREG
SOP HRD
SOP ICE
SOP AGRI
SOPT
IROP
CF
0%
Producon of
instruments and
precision devices
3%
Producon of machinery
and other devices
7%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Note: The charts concern the structure of Community funds distributed by means of contracts. The „Other” contains all the
sectors that had a share below 1%.
Under most operational programmes, the major part of funds was earmarked for construction
works (as much as 73 % of the total value) and for the purchase of machinery and devices (15 %).
A considerable share is constituted also by services for business and training (4 % each). The
remaining branches participated in the direct absorption of European funds to a similar extent.
It should be pointed out that construction works constituted 90 % of the total value of funds
in three funds largest in terms of value, namely Cohesion Fund, IROP and SOTA. It is related to
mainstreaming of these programmes towards development of physical infrastructure. In most
of the remaining funds, a noticeable part of resources was used for the purchase of machinery
and devices, in particular precision instruments, namely in the branches strongly connected with
import. Services were more important in the case of programmes with lower value, such as SOP
HRD or SOP ICE. It should be pointed out that the structure of expenditure of particular funds
complies with their assumptions (cf. Chart 7.2).
83
­C HART 7.2. D istribution of resources under particular funds according to the
branch structure of contractors
IROP
Cohesion Fund
Construcon
93%
Business acvity n.e.c.
6%
Other
10%
Individual service
acvies n.e.c.
1%
Business acvity n.e.c.
1%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices
and medical equipment
2%
Producon of machinery
and devices n.e.c.
1%
Other
21%
SOTA
Other
2%
Business acvity n.e.c.
3%
Producon of transport
equipment n.e.c.
3%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices
and medical equipment
1%
Construcon
91%
Construcon
27%
Individual service
acvies n.e.c.
10%
SOP ICE
Construcon
33%
Business acvity n.e.c.
4%
Producon of
machinery and
equipment n.e.c.
35%
SOP HRD
Educaon
68%
Other
12%
Business acvity n.e.c.
7%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices
and medical equipment
11%
Producon of
machinery and
equipment n.e.c.
28%
Interreg
Other
15%
Construcon
78%
Acvies related to
culture, entertainment
and recreaon
2%
Business acvity n.e.c.
4%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices
and medical equipment
1%
Acvies related
to hotels and
restaurants
14%
Scienfic research
and development
2%
Business acvity n.e.c.
5%
SOP FISH
Other
31%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices
and medical equipment
11%
Producon of
machinery and
equipment n.e.c.
11%
EQUAL
Acvies related to
culture, entertainment
and recreaon
24%
Business acvity n.e.c.
11%
Scienfic research
and development
23%
Construcon
42%
PO TA
Other
15%
Acvies related
to hotels and
restaurants
13%
Educaon
22%
SOP AGRI
Producon of instruments
and precision devices
and medical equipment
7%
Other
21%
Individual service
acvies n.e.c.
31%
Construcon
86%
Educaon
53%
Scienfic research
and development
8%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Note: Four sectoral NACE categories that were most important in terms of value are presented for each programme.
84
Direct benefits of companies from the EU-15 countries
As indicated by the structure of contractors within particular funds, a vast majority of funds disbursed from the structural funds and the EU Cohesion Fund were transferred to Polish companies.31 These companies have absorbed as much as 93 % of all resources in total. Among foreign
contractors, there were mainly entities from the EU-15 countries: merely 0.5 % of all the European
resources allocated in Poland were received by companies from other countries.
Table 7.4 presents various indicators featuring the share of foreign companies in the absorption
of Community funds. As one can see, the contractors from the EU-15 countries constituted 2.3 %
of all the contractors and they have participated in 3.6 % of implemented projects. Furthermore,
they were implementing contracts that were larger than the average ones in terms of value,
which is demonstrated by their 7.8 % share in the value of all concluded contracts. It means that
4.8 % of Community funds – already at the level of project contractors – were transferred to the
companies from the EU-15 countries.
­TABLE 7.4. N umber of contractors from the EU-15 countries with which
contracts were concluded under the projects co‑financed
by Community funds and the value of contracts awarded to them in
2004-2008 (Cohesion Fund: 2000-2008)
Total
Contractors from EU-15
Share of companies
from EU-15
of projects
45,940
1,460
3.2 %
of projects with contracts
40,075
1,460
3.6 %
of contracts
81,636
1,909
2.3 %
of companies
66,407
1,552
2.3 %
Number
EUR billion
(2008)
PLN billion
(2008)
EUR billion
(2008)
PLN billion
(2008)
of all projects
20.21
78.34
1.18
4.61
5.8 %
of contracts
15.13
58.72
1.18
4.61
7.8 %
of total co‑financing from
Community funds
13.05
50.65
0.62
2.44
4.8 %
of co‑financing for contracts
from Community funds
9.66
37.55
0.62
2.44
6.4 %
Value
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Note: The table presents the share of participation of the EU-15 counties in terms of the number and value in the implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland.
When converted into zloty and euro in fixed prices, this means that the value of additional contracts concluded by the EU-15 countries, obtained owing to the implementation of the cohesion
policy in Poland in 2004-2008 reaches the amount of PLN 4.6 billion, i.e. EUR 1.18 billion.
31 In order to determine where a given contractor comes from, project coordinators were asked about the registered office of
the contractor’s company. This means that all companies with a registered office within the territory of the Republic of Poland
were regarded as Polish entities.
85
After the deduction of resources constituting the Polish contribution and after the inclusion solely
of the value of financing by European funds, this amount decreases to PLN 2.44 billion, i.e. EUR
624 million. This amount should be recognised as the most precise approximation of direct benefits
of the EU-15 countries, gained owing to the implementation of the EU Cohesion Policy in Poland.
Most funds were transferred to the EU-15 countries from projects implemented under the Cohesion
Fund: nearly EUR 0.3 billion, that is over PLN 1 billion (in prices for 2008). It resulted both from the
fact that this fund featured high value of disbursed resources and from the relatively high share
of contractors from the EU-15 countries in the implementation of projects co‑financed by the CF.
High total value of contracts was featured also by the projects financed by the European Regional
Development Fund. Great majority of them were implemented under SOP Improvement of the
Competitiveness of Enterprises. Nearly 1/8 of resources under this programme were transferred
to the EU-15 countries (cf. Chart 7.3). In connection with the fact that nearly 40 % of this fund
was disbursed for the purchase of machinery and devices, it should be concluded that these
funds to a great extent were earmarked precisely for the import thereof from the EU-15 countries. Therefore, support for the competitiveness of Polish enterprises partially consisted in the
transfer of technologically advanced products from the more developed EU-15 countries. On the
other hand, the entities from the EU-15 countries had the smallest share in the implementation
of SOP HRD and IROP projects. In so far as in the case of SOP HRD it is caused by a large share of
educational services (in Polish), it is difficult in the case of the latter to find a justification in the
sectoral structure since it is similar to the Cohesion Fund. It appears to result from the fact that
IROP was a regional programme and it contained predominantly smaller projects under which
contracts with foreign entities were used less frequently. The value of a contract with a contractor
in IROP was on average 20 times smaller than in CF.
In the assessment of the share of contracts for contractors in the value of co‑financing at the
level of Community funds, it should be pointed out that there were virtually no such cases in the
European Social Fund.
­C HART 7.3. T he value of Community funds transferred to contractors from the
EU-15 countries in EUR million for 2008 (on the left) and the share of
contracts with contractors from the EU-15 countries in the value
of community funds in a given community programme/initiative (on
the right)
300
14%
12%
250
10%
200
8%
150
6%
100
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Note: There were no foreign contractors identified in the ­EQUAL programme.
86
EQUAL
SOP HRD
IROP
INTERREG
SOPT
OPTA
SOP FISH
SOP AGRI
CF
SOP HRD
OPTA
INTERREG
SOP FISH
SOPT
IROP
SOP AGRI
0%
SOP ICE
0
CF
2%
SOP ICE
4%
50
­C HART 7.4. T HE ­VALUE OF ­C OMMUNITY ­F UNDS ­T RANSFERRED TO ­C ONTRACTORS FROM THE
EU-15 ­C OUNTRIES IN EUR ­M ILLION FOR 2008 (ON THE LEFT) AND THE ­S HARE OF
­C ONTRACTS WITH ­C ONTRACTORS FROM THE EU-15 ­C OUNTRIES IN THE total
resources disbursed from a ­GIVEN fund (ON THE ­R IGHT)
300
8%
7%
250
6%
200
5%
150
4%
3%
100
2%
50
1%
0%
0
CF
ERDF
EAGGF
FIFG
ESF
CF
EAGGF
ERDF
FIFG
ESF
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Considering the distribution over time for the financing of projects under the funds of European
programmes, it should be pointed out that incremental growth in the absorption of European
funds was observed in 2005. The total volume of absorption for these funds has reached PLN 9.7
billion this year. In the following years, 2006-2008, these values were slightly smaller, yet insignificantly. The share of contractors from the EU-15 countries was maintained at a constant level
of 5–7 % throughout the entire year in question (cf. Chart 7.5).
­C HART 7.5. A mount of contracted resources from the European funds
according to the country of origin of the applicant in particular
years (in EUR billion for 2008)
3
EU-15
2.5
Other countries
Poland
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Note: The share of foreign contractors amounted to 7.8 % of the total value of co‑financing from the EU funds.
The sectoral structure of contractors originating in the EU-15 countries differs largely from the one
for the contractors in general. A much smaller, yet still dominant role is played here by construction works. On the other hand, the production of machinery, precision mechanics and production
of electrical devices is of greater importance. This indicates a substantial complementarity of the
involvement of foreign entities in relation to the national ones – they implement the parts of
87
projects that the national entities are not able to implement, e.g. in the form of supply of specialist machinery or devices (cf. Chart 7.6).32
­C HART 7.6. S tructure of the value of financial orders from Community
funds according to the branch of the contractors from the EU-15
countries (Chart on the left) and the share of contractors from the
EU-15 countries in particular branches (Chart on the right)
Producon of food
products, beverages
and tobacco
2%
Other
2%
Construcon
48%
Producon of instruments and precision
devices and medical equipment
Producon of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
Individual service acvies n.e.c.
Producon of electrical devices
Producon of
electrical devices
3%
Producon of instruments and precision devices
Business acvies n.e.c.
Business
acvies n.e.c.
6%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices
7%
Producon of motor vehicles
Construcon
All branches excluding construcon
Producon of
machinery and
equipment n.e.c.
32%
All branches
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Although construction represents most of the value of contracts also among foreign contractors
originating in the EU-15 countries, this result reflects solely the fact of strong predominance
of this branch in the total allocated funds. As indicated by Chart 7.6, foreign companies in this
branch constituted 4 % of the value of contract, and the share of entities from the EU-15 countries, exclusive of the construction, increases from 6.5 to 13 %. On the other hand, in the case
of e.g. sector of production of machinery and devices, the share of contractors from the EU-15
countries has exceeded 20 %. This means that a small share of entities from the EU-15 countries
in the direct use of funds results to a great extent from the predominance of construction works
that are implemented mainly by national entities.
The distribution of direct benefits resulting from the implementation of the EU cohesion policy
in Poland between particular EU-15 countries is not even, which is connected with the varying
volume of existing structure of links in foreign trade. Over a half of resources contracted to foreign
entities fell for Germany, 12 % for Denmark and 11% for Austria. The companies from the remaining countries played a less significant role (cf. Chart 7.7).
The analysis of the number of companies from particular EU-15 countries that have become
contractors gives similar effects, making it possible at the same time to notice additional phenomena. Namely, the share of German companies in terms of value of projects has surpassed
their share measured by means of the number of companies, which leads to a conclusion that
companies from Germany were implementing relatively large contracts. This effect is even larger
in the case of Denmark and Austria. A reverse phenomenon can be seen among companies from
the Netherlands and United Kingdom, which have implemented many small projects.
32
Detailed tables concerning the value of contracts in particular branches are available in the Attachment.
88
­C HART 7.7. S tructure of the value and number of contracts according to the
foreign contractor’s country of origin
50%
Number of
companies
40%
Value of contracts
30%
20%
10%
Other countries
Spain
Finland
Sweden
Belgium
Portugal
United Kingdom
Ireland
the Netherlands
Italy
France
Austria
Denmark
Germany
0%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
Note: The share of foreign contractors amounted to 7.8 % of the total value of co‑financing from the EU funds. The chart
does not include Greece and Luxembourg since these countries did not participate in the CAWI survey.
Germany, from where the companies dominant among foreign contractors come from, is also the
largest net payer to the EU budget. Already at this stage of analysis, it can be seen that companies
from countries with the largest contribution in the financing of the EU cohesion policy in Poland
have the largest share in the implementation of these projects.
7.2.3. Detailed results of the CAWI survey
­TABLE 7.5. Value of contracts with contractors from the EU-15 countries
(a) from Community funds and (b) with national contribution
Community funds
With national contribution
PLN 2008
EUR 2008
PLN 2008
EUR 2008
432,812
118,636
1,276,901
350,004
1,168,980,344
297,430,676
1,549,102,088
394,418,417
Education/training
4,830,052
1,293,239
6,471,962
1,732,809
Wholesale and retail trade
1,383,388
355,876
2,804,118
717,271
89,305
24,479
119,073
32,638
142,904,880
36,211,768
186,938,225
47,385,169
Services related to computers
393,255
103,775
1,123,628
296,787
Equipment of machinery and devices
35,019
9,603
46,693
12,804
Production of office equipment and
computers
640,726
169,791
1,631 781
433,584
Production of wood and wooden
products
6,218,714
1,596,679
17,860,967
4,584,055
Production of rubber and plastics
8,225,514
2,141,772
24,267,268
6,318,750
779,013,168
200,124,170
2,065,570,588
531,032,095
Research and development
Construction
Hotels and restaurants
Other services for business
Production of machinery and devices
89
Production of furniture and other
products, as well as recycling
11,112,095
2,944,578
27,116,928
7,134,020
Production of non‑metallic mineral
products n.e.c.
10,440,897
2,705,695
29,974,710
7,769,762,
645,870
169,845
1,905,475
501,083
Production of metal products
4,786,536
1,311,372
14,045,630
3,849,118
Production of motor vehicles
1,627,678
416,505
2,170,921
555,518
175,386,278
45,610,276
377,194,845
98,064,549
Production of video/audio devices
and communication devices
8,244,005
2,259,648
14,558,766
3,990,526
Production of foodstuffs and tobacco
products
38,107,623
9,755,263
96,075,104
24,594,495
Production of electrical devices and
machinery
75,740,851
19,713,032
187,315,572
48,391,043
2,439,239,011
624,466,677,
4,607,571,242
1,182,164,497
Production of transport devices
n.e.c.
Production of precision devices
­TOTAL
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
­TABLE 7.6. Value of contracts with contractors from particular countries
Community funds
With national contribution
PLN 2008
EUR 2008
PLN 2008
EUR 2008
Austria
280,871,540
70,753,193
420,559,319
106,543, 087
Belgium
9,649,230
2,486,501
19,866,338
5,171,531
Denmark
322,705,450
82,296,682
864,983,168
220,804,072
Finland
3,446,772
876,974
7,100,340
1,811,775
France
130,643,401
33,471,384
191 969 767
49,391,547
Spain
886,204
241,288
2,614,518
711,857
the Netherlands
87,121,888
22,215,725
197,857,484
50,578,181
Ireland
54,656,984
13,864,592
71,193,687
18,059,385
Germany
1,349,147,141
346,614,582
2,348,852,282
604,502,554
Portugal
20,614,800
5,224,459
26,877,908
6,812,119
Sweden
6,668,048
1,754,946
11,873,124
3,116,885
United Kingdom
44,444,443
11,603,205
106,366,084
27,751,436
Italy
128,383,109
33,063,147
337,457,224
86,910,067
EU-15 total
2,439,239,011
624,466,677
4,607,571,242
1,182,164,497
Poland
34,932,315,914
8,991,142,579
53,672,634,426
13,834,092,816
177,680,097
46,232,099
437,914,621
113,776,189
37,549,235,023
9,661,841,355
58,718,120,288
15,130,033,501
Other countries
­TOTAL
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey The table does not include Greece and Luxembourg since no project coordinator in the CAWI survey has indicated a contractor from these countries.
90
7.2.4. Methodology of extrapolation for 2009-2015
The preparation of a forecast for the growth rate of direct benefits gained by the companies from
the EU-15 countries as a result of implementation of the EU cohesion policy in Poland in 20092015 required the inclusion of information on the amounts that will be provided by the EU for
Poland in particular years of the 2007-2013 programming period and the adoption of a number
of assumptions.
In order to assess the volume of direct impact of the implementation of the EU cohesion policy
in Poland on the entities from the EU-15 countries in 2009-2015, results concerning the influence
of funds in 2000-2008, the data about which were obtained by means of the CAWI survey, were
extrapolated to that period. A structure of the share of countries and sectors from relevant programmes for 2000-2006 has been adopted for new programmes according to Table 7.7.
­TABLE 7.7. R epresentation of programmes for 2007-2013 in relation to
programmes for 2004-2006
Programmes for 2007-2013
Name
Programmes for 2004-2006
Share in Community
funds
Name
Share in Community
funds
Programmes under the European
Territorial Cooperation in Poland
has participated
2 %
Interreg
2 %
OP Innovative Economy
12 %
SOP Improvement of the
Competitiveness of Enterprises.
10 %
OP Infrastructure and Environment
42 %
Cohesion Fund and SOP Transport
46 %
OP Human Capital
15 %
SOP Human Resources
Development
4 %
OP Development of Eastern Poland
3 %
Regional Operational Programmes
25 %
Integrated Regional Operational
Programme
27 %
OP Technical Assistance
0.8 %
OP Technical Assistance
0.1%
­TOTAL
100 %
­TOTAL
88 %
Source: Own elaboration based on analysis of programme documents.
Note: Cohesion policy for 207-2013 did not include agriculture and fishery, and therefore counterpart for SOP AGRI and
SOP FISH were not taken into consideration. ­EQUAL programme was also not taken into account as there is no follow‑up
programme in the new programming perspective.
Particular programmes were assigned to each other on the basis of relevant scope of objectives.
Due to the absolute exclusion of agriculture and fishery from the framework of EU cohesion policy
in the new programming period, their counterparts from the previous period were not taken into
consideration.
Payment forecasts drawn up by the Ministry of Regional Development were adopted as a starting
point in the construction of this extrapolation. However, it should be pointed out that distribution
over time is a forecast dimension of insignificant importance, and the adopted assumption does
not exert influence on the remaining aspects of the survey. What is more, the payments do not
have to occur within the same time as the trade in goods and services, which is the essence of
the problem. They are merely the best available approximation.
91
­TABLE 7.8. E stimated expenditure under NCS 2007-2015
Year
Value (PLN billion, current prices)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0
1.2
16.6
24.2
36.2
44.2
54.2
50.2
42.2
Source: Own elaboration based on Ministry of Regional Development
A forecast of the co‑financing amount that will be transferred to the EU-15 countries has been
made on the basis of these data.
7.2.5. Microeconomic forecast
Detailed breakdown of estimated expenditure (in fixed prices for 2008) by particular years is
included in columns on the left side of Table 7.9. Assuming the adequacy of programmes from the
2004-2006 and 2007-2013 programming periods, the distribution of the total amount between
particular operational programmes is different, due to which the forecast sectoral structure of
direct benefits gained by the EU-15 countries changes slightly, as well as the distribution of benefits between particular countries.
The key assumptions on which this forecast is based are (i) constant sectoral structure of funds
disbursement under projects co‑financed by particular European funds and (ii) constant percentage
of the value of funds contracted under particular sectors to foreign contractors from the EU-15
countries. All these proportions have been adopted at the levels for 2004-2008, determined owing
to the CAWI survey research. However, this forecast takes into account the change of allocation
structure between particular programmes.
Therefore, it should be expected that approximately EUR 2.7 billion (PLN 10.9 billion), that is 4.6 %,
of the total amount of EUR 58.7 billion (in fixed prices for 2008), that is PLN 236 billion, will be
transferred directly to contractors from the EU-15 countries.
­TABLE 7.9. E xpected amount of allocated community funds in particular years
Total
Including: to EU-15 countries
Year
PLN billion
EUR billion
PLN billion
EUR billion
2008
1
0.4
0.1
0.02
2009
16
3.7
0.7
0.17
2010
23
5.6
1.0
0.26
2011
33
8.2
1.5
0.38
2012
39
9.8
1.8
0.46
2013
47
11.7
2.2
0.54
2014
42
10.6
2.0
0.49
2015
35
8.7
1.6
0.40
Total
236
58.7
10.95
2.72
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey and MRD data
The breakdown of influence exerted by Community funds allocated in Poland by contractors from
particular EU-15 countries is presented in Chart 7.8. Due to the assumptions adopted for the
92
forecast construction, it should be anticipated that this breakdown will be similar to the breakdown already observed in 2004-2008. Germany – with a share of over 50 % – will predominate;
substantial benefits can be also expected by companies from Austria, Denmark, France and Italy.
­C HART 7.8. F orecast value of project co‑financing according to the
contractor’s origin
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Spain
Finland
Sweden
Belgium
Portugal
the Netherlands
United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Italy
Denmark
Austria
Germany
0%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey
Note: The chart does not include Greece and Luxembourg since no project coordinator in the CAWI survey has indicated
a contractor from these countries.
Therefore, according to this forecast, as much as EUR 1.6 billion (PLN 6.5 billion) in prices for 2008
should be transferred to Germany. Much less resources, namely EUR 366 million (PLN 1,471 million), will be transferred to Austrian enterprises, and EUR 185 million (PLN 7741 million) to Danish
enterprises. The value of Community funds that – according to this forecast – will be sent during the
entire 2009-2015 period to companies from particular EU-15 countries is presented in Table 7.10.
As far as the breakdown of future direct benefits gained by the EU-15 countries as a result of
implementation of the EU cohesion in Poland by particular sectors of the economy is concerned,
this forecast assumes that it will be repeated in the following years. Therefore, it is confirmed
that the sector on which Community funds will exert strongest influence, both in reference to
the entirety of allocated funds and the contracts with companies from the EU-15 countries, will
be the sector of construction. Detailed sectoral distribution of the absorption of resources from
European funds in the period covered by the forecast is included in Chart 7.9. Just like it was in the
case of 2000-2008 period, it is conspicuous that construction works predominate here, however,
they are performed by Polish enterprises to a great extent. Once again, the EU-15 countries will
be significant suppliers of modern industrial products – primarily machinery and devices, but also
instruments and precision devices. Enterprises from the EU-15 countries play a relatively important role also in the sector of “business activity n.e.c.”. This section encompasses mainly business
services of high productivity, such as legal, accounting, managing, architectural, engineering and
marketing services.
93
­TABLE 7.10. F orecast structure of EU funds allocation between contractors
from particular EU-15 countries
EUR million
PLN million
share
Austria
366
1,471
0.84 %
Belgium
13
52
0.03 %
Denmark
185
744
0.43 %
Finland
2
8
0.00 %
France
164
660
0.38 %
Spain
1
5
0.00 %
the Netherlands
50
202
0.12 %
Ireland
69
275
0.16 %
Germany
1,607
6,455
3.69 %
Portugal
26
104
0.06 %
Sweden
10
40
0.02 %
United Kingdom
54
216
0.12 %
Italy
177
712
0.41%
EU-15 total
2,725
10,946
6.26 %
Poland
40,613
163,161
93.26 %
209
839
0.48 %
43,547
174,946
100.00 %
Other countries
Total
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey and European Commission Data.
Note: European funds apportioned by means of contracts with contractors. The table does not include Greece and Luxembourg
since no project coordinator in the CAWI survey has indicated a contractor from these countries.
­C HART 7.9. F orecast branch structure of Community funds contracted to all
contractors (Chart on the left) and contractors from the EU-15
countries (Chart on the right)
Producon ocomputers and
peripheral devices, as well as office
machinery and equipment
1%
Producon of
electrical devices
1%
Producon of
electrical devices
2%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices and
medical equipment
9%
Other
6%
Producon of instruments
and precision devices and
medical equipment
2%
Individual service
acvies n.e.c.
4%
Producon of machinery
and devices n.e.c.
Business
4%
acvity n.e.c.
4%
Other
2%
Individual service
acvies n.e.c.
1%
Producon of machinery
and devices n.e.c.
25%
Construcon
78%
Business
acvity n.e.c.
7%
Construcon
54%
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey.
The sectoral structure of Community funds that are sent to companies from the EU-15 countries
is presented in Table 7.11.
94
­TABLE 7.11. P lanned value of contracts with contractors from the EU-15
­C OUNTRIES in 2009-2015 (prices for 2008)
EUR million PLN million
Construction
share
1,475.0
5,925.7
54.1%
Production of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
679.9
2,731.4
25.0 %
Production of instruments and precision devices, as well as medical
equipment
253.3
1,017.6
9.3 %
Business activity n.e.c.
178.8
718.1
6.6 %
Production of electrical devices
55.8
224.1
2.0 %
Production of furniture and production of products n.e.c.
17.1
68.8
0.6 %
Individual service activities n.e.c.
13.7
54.9
0.5 %
Production of metals
13.1
52.7
0.5 %
Production of rubber and plastic products
12.7
50.9
0.5 %
Production of wood and cork products, excluding furniture
9.5
38.3
0.3 %
Production of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment
7.3
29.5
0.3 %
Production of motor vehicles, trailers and semi­‑trailers
2.3
9.2
0.1%
Wholesale and retail trade in motor vehicles and motorcycles and repairs
thereof
2.0
8.0
0.1%
Production of transport equipment n.e.c.
1.0
4.0
0.0 %
Production of computers and peripheral devices, as well as office machinery
and equipment
1.0
4.0
0.0 %
Production of telecommunication equipment
0.7
2.8
0.0 %
Scientific research and development
0.7
2.7
0.0 %
Activities related to software, IT consultancy and related activities
0.6
2.4
0.0 %
Rental and lease of machinery and equipment
0.1
0.5
0.0 %
Activities related to hotels and restaurants
0.1
0.3
0.0 %
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey results and European Commission data.
95
7.3. S tatistical tables presenting the results of the macroeconomic
research
­TABLE 7.12. E stimated additional export of the EU-15 countries to Poland in
2004-2009 broken down by sectors of the exporting economies
PLN million
(prices for 2008)
EUR million
(prices for 2008)
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
189.26
46.90
Mining and quarrying
55.42
13.91
Production of food products, beverages and tobacco
577.89
142.82
Production of textile products, wearing apparel, leather and leather
products
552.25
136.50
Production of wood and cork products, excluding furniture
100.46
25.52
Production of wood and wood products, as well as publishing and printing,
and reproduction of recorded media
371.84
93.23
Production and processing of coke and refined petroleum products
592.13
147.02
Production of chemicals, chemical products and pharmaceutical products
2,980.30
743.14
Production of rubber and plastic products
1,019.65
260.54
Production of other non‑metallic mineral products
323.06
82.40
Production of metals
849.96
217.14
Production of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment
433.34
110.36
Production of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
3,000.73
770.03
Production of computers and peripheral devices, as well as office machinery
and equipment
1475.61
376.90
Production of electrical devices
567.24
145.01
Production of telecommunication equipment
640.75
160.06
Production of instruments and precision devices, as well as medical
equipment
710.81
180.63
Production of motor vehicles, trailers and semi­‑trailers
964.87
242.63
Production of transport equipment n.e.c.
11.67
2.99
Production of furniture and production of products n.e.c.
93.81
23.57
Production and supply of electricity, gas, steam and air for air‑conditioning
systems
5.18
1.29
1447.97
361.10
Trade
1.94
0.48
Activities related to hotels and restaurants
0.12
0.03
Land transport; transport via pipelines
110.70
28.13
Transport via railways
63.50
16.02
Storage and auxiliary transport activities
12.28
3.06
Post and courier activities
25.90
6.43
Construction
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey results and data described in the Attachment.
96
­TABLE 7.12. E stimated additional export of the EU-15 countries to Poland
in 2004-2009 broken down by sectors of the exporting economies
(continued)
PLN million
(prices for 2008)
EUR million
(prices for 2008)
Financial activities, except insurance and pension funding
47.37
11.84
Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding (except compulsory social
security)
29.09
7.24
Rental and lease
30.84
7.88
Activities related to software, IT consultancy and related activities
86.78
21.99
Scientific research and development
11.07
2.82
Business activity n.e.c.
395.66
99.76
Education and training activities
8.51
2.14
Cultural, entertainment and recreational activities
13.24
3.33
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey results and data described in the Attachment.
­TABLE 7.13. E stimated ­additional ­export of the EU-15 ­countries to ­P oland in 20102015 ­broken down by ­sectors of the ­exporting ­economies
PLN million
(prices for 2008)
EUR million
(prices for 2008)
1,953.6
488.4
505.3
126.3
Production of food products, beverages and tobacco
5,840.3
1,460.1
Production of textile products, wearing apparel, leather and leather
products
5,842.8
1,460.7
750.0
187.5
Production of wood and wood products, as well as publishing and
printing, and reproduction of recorded media
3,421.2
855.3
Production and processing of coke and refined petroleum products
6,009.1
1,502.3
Production of chemicals, chemical products and pharmaceutical products
29,028.5
7,257.1
Production of rubber and plastic products
7,477.8
1,869.5
Production of other non‑metallic mineral products
2,438.1
609.5
Production of metals
6,054.1
1,513.5
Production of fabricated metal products, except machinery and
equipment
3,298.1
824.5
Production of machinery and equipment n.e.c.
13,671.4
3,417.9
Production of computers and peripheral devices, as well as office
machinery and equipment
10,627.1
2,656.8
Production of electrical devices
3,641.5
910.4
Production of telecommunication equipment
6,118.3
1,529.6
Production of instruments and precision devices, as well as medical
equipment
3,886.2
971.6
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Mining and quarrying
Production of wood and cork products, excluding furniture
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey results and data described in the Attachment.
97
­TABLE 7.13. E stimated ­additional ­export of the EU-15 ­countries to ­P oland in 20102015 ­broken down by ­sectors of the ­exporting ­economies (continued)
PLN million
(prices for 2008)
EUR million
(prices for 2008)
8,560.7
2,140.2
Production of transport equipment n.e.c.
71.6
17.9
Production of furniture and production of products n.e.c.
790.6
197.7
Production and supply of electricity, gas, steam and air for air‑conditioning
systems
50.4
12.6
7043.5
1,760.9
Trade
7.6
1.9
Activities related to hotels and restaurants
0.3
0.1
Land transport; transport via pipelines
876.3
219.1
Transport via railways
550.5
137.6
Storage and auxiliary transport activities
121.0
30.2
Post and courier activities
265.2
66.3
Financial activities, except insurance and pension funding
450.1
112.5
Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding (except compulsory social
security)
287.8
71.9
Rental and lease
227.2
56.8
Activities related to software, IT consultancy and related activities
690.5
172.6
Scientific research and development
80.7
20.2
2577.1
644.3
Education and training activities
50.9
12.7
Cultural, entertainment and recreational activities
116.4
29.1
Production of motor vehicles, trailers and semi­‑trailers
Construction
Business activity n.e.c.
Source: Own elaboration based on CAWI survey results and data described in the Attachment.
­TABLE 7.14. E stimated additional increase in the profits of ­enterprises from the
EU-15 ­countries in 2004-2015 broken down by countries, as well as
goods and services
PLN million (prices for 2008)
Country
EUR million (prices for 2008)
Production of
goods
Services
Total
Production of
goods
Services
Total
Austria
439.56
389.01
828.57
110.07
97.24
207.31
Belgium
435.63
63.04
498.67
109.34
15.82
125.15
Denmark
198.64
18.70
217.34
49.70
4.68
54.39
Finland
396.06
21.20
417.25
99.07
5.31
104.38
France
1,037.61
291.72
1,329.33
259.48
72.92
332.40
Greece
113.11
6.79
119.90
28.25
1.70
29.95
Spain
469.05
34.31
503.36
117.40
8.61
126.01
Source: Own elaboration based on results of macroeconomic survey and Eurostat data.
98
­TABLE 7.14. E stimated additional increase in the profits of ­enterprises from the
EU-15 ­countries in 2004-2015 broken down by countries, as well as
goods and services (continued)
PLN million (prices for 2008)
Country
EUR million (prices for 2008)
Production of
goods
Services
Total
Production of
goods
Services
Total
the Netherlands
407.66
152.15
559.81
101.47
38.09
139.56
Ireland
639.34
127.79
767.13
160.18
31.91
192.09
Luxembourg
20.13
22.14
42.28
5.05
5.55
10.60
Germany
3,707.76
1,199.97
4,907.73
928.38
300.20
1,228.6
Portugal
48.58
23.39
71.97
12.15
5.84
18.00
Sweden
416.14
38.52
454.65
104.09
9.65
113.74
United Kingdom
762.10
262.09
1,024.19
190.96
65.60
256.55
Italy
481.67
75.68
557.35
120.56
18.95
139.51
Source: Own elaboration based on results of macroeconomic survey and Eurostat data.
­TABLE 7.15. E stimated ­additional ­increase in the payroll fund of ­enterprises
from the EU-15 ­countries in 2004-2015 ­broken down by the EU-15
­countries, as well as ­goods and ­services
PLN million (prices for 2008)
Country
EUR million (prices for 2008)
Production
of goods
Services
Total
Including
taxes
Production
of goods
Services
Total
Including
taxes
Austria
756.2
536.5
1,292.6
565.60
189.4
134.1
323.5
141.55
Belgium
1,667.8
75.7
1,743.5
859.63
419.1
19.0
438.2
216.03
Denmark
945.0
45.8
990.8
389.12
236.6
11.5
248.1
97.44
Finland
445.8
25.5
471.3
183.85
111.6
6.4
118.0
46.02
France
2,266.5
352.3
2,618.8
1,129.56
567.2
88.0
655.2
282.62
Greece
64.6
3.5
68.0
24.23
16.1
0.9
17.0
6.06
Spain
730.9
31.9
762.7
271.18
183.0
8.0
191.0
67.89
1,604.7
304.0
1,908.7
777.09
402.4
76.1
478.4
194.79
Ireland
348.9
66.8
415.7
70.39
87.5
16.7
104.1
17.63
Luxembourg
49.5
19.6
69.1
21.07
12.4
4.9
17.3
5.28
Germany
12,159.0
1,891.2
14,050.2
6,736.38
3,044.2
472.6
3,516.8
1686.10
Portugal
118.1
44.1
162.2
52.71
29.6
11.0
40.6
13.18
Sweden
809.1
80.1
889.2
406.42
202.5
20.1
222.6
101.72
United
Kingdom
2,117.3
340.9
2,458.2
750.55
529.8
85.3
615.1
187.82
Italy
2,418.5
49.5
2,468.0
1,030.57
605.7
12.4
618.1
258.11
the
Netherlands
Source: Own elaboration based on results of macroeconomic survey and Eurostat data.
99
­TABLE 7.16. estimated ­increase in net taxes paid by ­enterprises from the EU-15
­countries in 2004-2015 in their countries of origin ­broken down
by the EU‑­countries, as well as ­goods and ­services
PLN million (prices for 2008)
Country
EUR million (prices for 2008)
Production of
goods
Services
Total
Production of
goods
Services
Total
Austria
14.09
23.78
37.87
3.53
5.94
9.48
Belgium
–2.83
3.54
0.70
–0.72
0.88
0.17
Denmark
–9.19
1.12
–8.06
–2.30
0.28
–2.01
Finland
–7.84
–0.05
–7.90
–1.96
–0.01
–1.97
France
205.97
24.52
230.49
51.53
6.13
57.66
Greece
–9.51
0.06
–9.45
–2.37
0.01
–2.36
Spain
–35.12
1.63
–33.49
–8.77
0.41
–8.37
the Netherlands
4.98
6.28
11.26
1.25
1.57
2.82
Ireland
4.81
0.17
4.98
1.20
0.04
1.25
Luxembourg
–1.56
–0.09
–1.65
–0.39
–0.02
–0.41
Germany
251.18
46.99
298.16
62.92
11.75
74.68
Portugal
–1.93
–0.36
–2.30
–0.48
–0.09
–0.57
Sweden
30.07
6.64
36.71
7.53
1.66
9.19
United Kingdom
357.24
16.77
374.01
89.71
4.19
93.90
Italy
145.78
5.13
150.90
36.51
1.28
37.79
Source: Own elaboration based on results of macroeconomic survey and Eurostat data.
­TABLE 7.17. E stimation of the benefits gained by enterprises from the EU-15
countries due to additional export to Poland in 2004-2015 broken
down by sectors (NACE classification)
PLN million (fixed prices for 2008)
EUR million (fixed prices for 2008)
Profit
Net payments
to the
budget
Payroll
fund
Including
taxes
Profit
Net payments
to the
budget
122.2
486.5
0.83
74.1
30.5
121.49
0.19
116.26
51.8
121.2
26.76
29.1
13.0
30.33
6.69
961.03
415.0
445.6
434.21
240.1
103.7
111.28
108.46
Production of textile products,
wearing apparel, leather and
1,345.59
leather products
578.0
298.2
624.48
336.2
144.4
74.47
156.01
Production of wood and cork
products, excluding furniture
161.08
72.7
65.7
77.21
40.4
18.2
16.45
19.34
Production of wood and wood
products, as well as publishing
and printing, and reproduction
of recorded media
782.11
342.4
338.6
359.82
195.6
85.6
84.67
89.99
Sector
Payroll
fund
Including
taxes
Agriculture, forestry and
fishing
296.65
Mining and quarrying
Production of food products,
beverages and tobacco
Source: Own elaboration based on results of macroeconomic survey and Eurostat data.
100
­TABLE 7.17. E stimation of the benefits gained by enterprises from the EU-15
countries due to additional export to Poland in 2004-2015 broken
down by sectors (NACE classification) (continued)
PLN million (fixed prices for 2008)
EUR million (fixed prices for 2008)
Profit
Net payments
to the
budget
Payroll
fund
Including
taxes
Profit
Net payments
to the
budget
97.2
252.6
129.54
57.6
24.3
63.12
32.37
5,464.31
2,404.0
3,002
2,651.21
1,366.4
601.2
750.38
662.94
1,980.58
877.6
523.2
943.68
496.6
220.0
131.14
236.60
647.42
289.5
191.0
314.11
162.3
72.6
47.86
78.74
2,218.11
995.2
770.6
1,068.85
556.1
249.5
193.25
267.96
Production of machinery and
4,130.55
equipment n.e.c.
1,820.2
1,338
2,228.97
1,037.5
457.2
336.39
559.92
Production of electrical
devices, precision devices,
computers, medical and
optical equipment
6,243.63
2658.5
1 508
2 774.02
1 563.8
665.9
377.33
694.77
Production of transport
equipment
1,711.12
766.2
165.8
799.95
428.2
191.7
41.45
200.19
Production of furniture and
production of products n.e.c.
212.86
89.9
66.2
92.83
53.2
22.5
16.57
23.22
Production and supply of
electricity, gas, steam and air
for air‑conditioning systems
8.50
4.0
9.8
5.38
2.1
1.0
2.45
1.34
2,170.67
1,004.2
1,254
1,053.76
542.2
250.9
313.52
263.23
Wholesale and retail trade
in motor vehicles and
motorcycles and repairs
thereof
3.42
1.4
1.3
1.54
0.9
0.3
0.32
0.39
Activities related to hotels
and restaurants
0.16
0.1
0.1
0.07
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.02
Transport equipment
488.23
205.9
206.1
223.32
122.2
51.5
51.57
55.89
Financial activities, including
insurance and reinsurance
210.56
87.6
128.4
104.51
52.6
21.9
32.10
26.13
Rental, lease and other
services
904.19
351.2
1 101
402.86
226.4
88.0
275.61
100.89
Education
43.76
18.5
5.6
17.60
11.0
4.6
1.40
4.41
Other cultural,
entertainment and
recreational activities
37.75
15.0
20.3
15.07
9.4
3.7
5.09
3.77
Sector
Payroll
fund
Including
taxes
230.56
Production of chemicals,
chemical products and
pharmaceutical products
Production of rubber and
plastic products
Production and processing of
coke and refined petroleum
products
Production of other
non‑metallic mineral
products
Production of metals and
fabricated metal products
Construction
Source: Own elaboration based on results of macroeconomic survey and Eurostat data.
101
7.4. Tabular summary of the evaluation methodology
No.
Research question
Adopted methodology
What volume of additional demand (in terms of
production, consumption and investment) generated
by the implementation of the cohesion policy in
Poland is oriented at goods and services imported
from the respective sectors of the economy of) EU-15
countries
Breakdown of forecasts of aggregated impact of the
cohesion policy on the economy of Poland (in step
one: with the use of results of the EUImpactMOD
results, input­‑output tables – TPM in Poland and
results of the CAWI survey). Estimation of additional
import of goods and services from particular EU-15
countries, broken down by NACE sectors, on the basis
of TPM in Poland and sectoral accounts of foreign
trade between Poland and the EU-15 countries.
How has the value and structure of goods and services
exported by the EU-15 countries to Poland changed
as a result of emergence of an additional production,
consumption and investment demand?
Estimation of the additional export of goods and
services from particular EU-15 countries to Poland,
broken down by NACE sectors, taken from Point 1. The
influence on the structure of export assessed on the
basis of OECD and Eurostat data.
What is the influence of increasing trade with Poland
(as a result of increased demand gained owing to the
implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland) on
the GDP in the EU-15 countries?
Meta­‑analysis of results included in the published
economic works. Calculation of the impact of the
additional export on the GDP in the EU-15 countries
on the basis of calculations in the above points
estimations derived from literature.
Web‑based CAWI survey.
4
What value of resources from structural funds has
been absorbed by foreign companies from the EU-15
countries that are contractors of projects co‑financed
by these funds? How many companies from the
EU-15 countries have directly benefited from the
implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland as
contractors of the projects under implementation in
it?
5
What is the influence of projects co‑financed
by the EU structural funds in Poland on the
development of companies from the EU-15 countries
providing (a) goods, (b) services necessary for the
implementation of these projects? What is the
influence of these projects on the growth in profits of
the companies in question and the taxes paid by them
in the countries of origin?
Web‑based CAWI survey. Detailed sectoral breakdown
of additional investment and consumption demand
between NACE sectors and the EU-15 countries.
Change of profits and taxes paid by the companies
handling additional export to Poland will be calculated
owing to the use of Eurostat data for the EU-15
countries.
6
Forecast of the influence exerted by the
implementation of the cohesion policy in Poland
in 2010-2015, drawn up at the microeconomic and
macroeconomic level.
Forecast elaborated on the basis of the method used
for the first research question and extrapolation of
CAWI survey results.
1
2
3
102
7.5. Q uestionnaire used in CAWI survey – exemplary path
Dear Sirs,
We invite you to participate in a web‑based survey of entities implementing projects co‑financed by structural funds.
The processing of data collected through the medium of this survey is the key element of the research
project under the title „Evaluation of benefits gained by EU-15 States as a result of the implementation
of cohesion policy in Poland” implemented by the Institute for Structural Research on commission by the
Ministry of Regional Development.
This survey concerns the project whose title is found in the invitation for participation in the survey
sent to you. Since we want to acquire detailed information related to project implementation, we ask the
coordinator thereof to complete it.
The survey is anonymous. Depending on the size of the project under implementation, the completion
of the questionnaire takes from 10 to 20 minutes. After proceeding to the next page, your answers are
saved. Therefore, it is possible to stop and return to the survey completion at a later time.
Obligatory questions are marked with an asterisk (*).
We thank you in advance for participation in the survey.
The Institute for Structural Research team.
[email protected]
In order to begin the survey, please click the „Next” button in the bottom.
103
Survey of beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
2. Project duration*
Project start (signing of a co‑financing agreement)
Project completion (project accounts)
3. Under which operational programme was the project implemented?*
• SOP Human Resources Development
• OP Technical Assistance
• SOP Improvement of the Competitiveness of Enterprises
• SOP Restructuring and modernisation of the food sector and rural development
• SOP Fishery and fish processing
• Integrated Regional Operational Programme
• Community Initiative E­ QUAL
• Community Initiative I­NTERREG
104
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
8. What was the total project expenditure?*
Please, indicate the correct range.
• up to PLN 300,000
• from PLN 300,001 to PLN 1,000,000
• from PLN 1,000,001 to PLN 4,000,000
• from PLN 4,000,001 to PLN 10,000,000
• from PLN 10,000,001 to PLN 20,000,000
• over PLN 20,000,001
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
9. What was the total project expenditure?*
Please, detail the value.
• from PLN 300,001 to PLN 400,000
• from PLN 400,001 to PLN 500,000
• from PLN 500,001 to PLN 600,000
• from PLN 600,001 to PLN 700,000
• from PLN 700,001 to PLN 800,000
• from PLN 800,001 to PLN 900,000
• from PLN 900,001 to PLN 1,000,000
105
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
10. What was the total project expenditure?*
In order to confirm the previously indicated amount, the total expenditure should be entered in the
field below using the Polish zloty currency in full numbers, without spaces, full stops or commas.
Total expenditure: . . . . . . . . PLN
11. What was the share of total co‑financing by public funds in the total expenditure?*
Please, indicate the percentage of total co‑financing by public funds (the sum of national public
contribution and co‑financing by EU funds) in the total expenditure.
Please, round the entered value to full percentage value, e.g. 54.33 % should be entered as 54 %,
35.79 % as 36 %.
Co‑financing by public funds: . . . . . . . . % of total expenditure
12. What was the share of total co‑financing by EU funds in the total expenditure?*
Please, indicate the percentage of the co‑financing by EU funds in the total expenditure.
Please, round the entered value to full percentage value, e.g. 54.33 % should be entered as 54 %,
35.79 % as 36 %.
Co‑financing by the European Union funds: . . . . . . . . % of total expenditure
• No data available
(please, tick this option if you do not have information on the amount of co‑financing by the
European Union funds.)
13. What was the share of the total personnel costs in the total expenditure?*
Please, indicate the percentage of the personnel costs in the total expenditure.
Please, round the entered value to full percentage value, e.g. 54.33 % should be entered as 54 %,
35.79 % as 36 %.
Total personnel costs: . . . . . . . . % of total expenditure
106
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
14. How many task contractors related to project implementation were there in the project?*
A contractor shall be understood as an entity that has implemented objectives related to project
implementation (e.g. supplies, services, construction works), including but not limited to entities that
were awarded public contracts.
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5 or more
• 0 (which means that there were no external contractors participating in the project implementation)
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
In the previous part of the survey, you have indicated that there were 3 contractors participating in the
implementation of project objectives.
15. Please, indicate the percentage of remuneration of each of contractors in the total expenditure.*
The share of particular contractors should be indicated as a percentage.
The sum of entered values must not exceed 100 %.
107
The contractors should be entered according to the volume of remuneration paid to them, beginning
with the one with the highest amount.
Please, round the entered value to full percentage value, e.g. 54.33 % should be entered as 54 %,
35.79 % as 36 %.
Contractor 1 56 % of total expenditure
Contractor 2 12 % of total expenditure
Contractor 3  2 % of total expenditure
Total
70 % of total expenditure
Contractor 1
16. Name of the contractor*
..........................
17. Legal form of the contractor*
• A single entity
• A consortium
If the objectives were implemented by a consortium of companies, please, provide details about the
consortium leader in the following questions.
18. Where is the registered office of the contractor?*
• Poland
• Another country
108
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
20. What was the type of the task the contractor was implementing?*
If the contract concerned more than one of the following fields, please, indicate the one that
constituted the largest part of the contract.
• Supplies
• Construction works
• Provision of services
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
21. Please, detail the field of supplies:*
• Supply of industrial products (highly processed ones)
e.g. supply of machinery, electronics, chemical products, wood products, textiles, food products
• Supply of energy and water
• Supply of low‑processed products
e.g. supply of products of the agricultural, forestry, fishing and extraction sector
109
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
22. Which industrial commodities did the supplies concern?*
• Machinery and electronics
e.g. office equipment, electrical devices, video/audio equipment and telecommunication devices,
precision mechanical devices, transport equipment
• Textiles, wearing apparel
e.g. any textile products, wearing apparel, leather products
• Products of the metallurgy, glassworking industry and mineral processing
e.g. non‑metallic mineral products, primary and processed metal products
• Other industrial products
e.g. furniture, jewellery (including coins), music instruments, sports products and recycling
• Products of the petrochemical or chemical industry, rubber, plastics
e.g. fuel, fertilisers, rubber, plastics
• Foodstuffs, beverages and tobacco
e.g. any food and tobacco products
• Wood products (excluding furniture)
e.g. products of wood processing, pallets, wooden chests
• Paper, publishing and printing products
e.g. paper, paper products, publishing and printing products (books, magazines), sound processing
110
Survey of the beneficiaries of the European Union structural funds
23. Please, provide further details of the subject of supplies*
• Office equipment and computers
e.g. computers, office equipment
• Electrical equipment
e.g. electric engines, generators, lighting, accumulators
• Audio/video devices and telecommunication equipment
e.g. broadcasting equipment (radio, television, telephone), receiver equipment (radio, television,
telephone)
• Precision mechanical devices, medical equipment
e.g. equipment controlling industrial processes, medical equipment, optical and camera equipment,
watches
• Motor vehicles (lorries and cars) and parts thereof
e.g. lorries, cars and parts thereof
• Other transport equipment and parts thereof
e.g. ships, rail vehicles, air vehicles and other
• Other machinery equipment
e.g. electricity generating devices, general­‑purpose machinery (e.g. refrigerating devices, cranes,
furnaces, manual mechanical tools), equipment used in forestry and agriculture, manual mechanical
tools
111