University of Management and Administration in Zamość, Poland. Regional Barometer. Analyses & Prognoses

Transcription

1 Barometr Regionalny

2 University of Management and Administration in Zamość, Poland Regional Barometer Analyses & Prognoses Vol. 13 No. 3

3 Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania i Administracji w Zamościu Barometr Regionalny Analizy i Prognozy Tom 13 Nr 3 Zamość 2015

4 Rada Naukowa [Editorial Advisory Board] prof. Elżbieta Adamowicz (Poland) Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie prof. Neil Adams (England) London South Bank University prof. Zora Arsovski (Serbia) University of Kragujevac prof. Zinoviy Blikharskyy (Ukraine) Lviv Polytechnic National University prof. Ulrich Brecht (Germany) Hochschule Heilbronn prof. Peter Dorčák (Slovakia) University of Prešov prof. Maria Drozdowicz-Bieć (Poland) Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie prof. Józef Dziechciarz (Poland) Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu prof. Józef Garczarczyk (Poland) Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu prof. Grzegorz Gorzelak (Poland) Uniwersytet Warszawski prof. Heiko Hansjosten (Germany) Hochschule Heilbronn prof. Robert Ištok (Slovakia) University of Prešov prof. Nuno Carlos Leitão (Portugal) Polytechnic Institute of Santarém; University of Évora prof. Semen Matkowski (Ukraine) Ivan Franko National University of L viv prof. Tomasz Mickiewicz (England) Aston University prof. Nadiya Mikula (Ukraine) National Academy of Science of Ukraine prof. Anatolij Mokij (Ukraine) Zaporizhzhya Institute of Economics and IT prof. Edward Nowak (Poland) Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu prof. Mieczysław Owoc (Poland) Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu prof. Tadeusz Pomianek (Poland) Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Zarządzania w Rzeszowie prof. Jan Sulmicki (Poland) Akademia Finansów i Biznesu Vistula prof. Jacek Szlachta (Poland) Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie prof. Ali Turkyilmaz (Turkey) Fatih University prof. Tuomo Uotila (Finland) Lappeenranta University of Technology prof. Stanisław Wydymus (Poland) Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie Kolegium Redakcyjne [Editorial Board] Redaktor Naczelny [Editor-in-chief]: dr hab. Mieczysław Kowerski (WSIiZ w Rzeszowie) Redaktorzy tematyczni [Co-editors]: dr inż. Jan Andreasik (WSIiZ w Rzeszowie), dr inż. Andrzej Burda (WSZiA w Zamościu), dr hab. Waldemar Gorzym-Wilkowski (Uniwersytet Marii-Curie Skło dowskiej w Lublinie), prof. dr hab. Andrzej Miszczuk (Uniwersytet Warszawski), prof. dr hab. Ryszard Orłowski (WSZiA w Zamościu), dr Robert Pater (WSIiZ w Rzeszowie), dr Henryk Ponikowski (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), dr Janusz Skwarek (WSZiA w Zamościu), dr hab. Elżbieta Wojnicka-Sycz (Uniwersytet Gdański) Redaktor statystyczny [Statistics editor]: dr Marek Cierpiał-Wolan (Urząd Statystyczny w Rzeszowie) Redaktor językowy [Language editor]: Piotr Linek (j. polski), Catherine Lockhead-Strzępka (j. angielski) Sekretarz Redakcji [Secretary of the Editorial Board]: Jarosław Bielak Copyright by Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania i Administracji w Zamościu, Zamość 2015 Streszczenia opublikowanych prac są dostępne on-line w międzynarodowej bazie danych The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities ( Niniejsze wydanie papierowe jest główną wersją kwartalnika. Zgodnie z Komunikatem Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 17 grudnia 2013 roku, za umieszczoną w kwartalniku Barometr Regionalny. Analizy i Prognozy publikację naukową, jest przyznawanych 8 punktów. ISSN Wydawca: Wyższa Szkoła Zarządzania i Administracji w Zamościu, ul. Akademicka 4, Zamość, Polska tel. (84) , fax (84) , Wydawnictwo współfinansowane przez Komisję Europejską Skład i łamanie oraz opracowanie graficzne: Jarosław Bielak Druk i oprawa: Drukarnia Attyla SJ., ul. Partyzantów 61, Zamość Nakład 200 egz.

5 Barometr Regionalny Tom 13 nr 3 Spis treści / Table of Contents Joanna Rakowska Exploratory Study on Absorption and Investment of European Union Structural Funds by NUTS 2 Level Self-Governments in Poland Anna Lewandowska, Elżbieta Inglot-Brzęk European Integration of Ukraine: the Perspective of Ukrainians and Poles Piotr Zawrotniak The Cross-Border Transfer of Cultural Assets in the European Union Izabela Dąbrowska Migration Flows form New Member States and the Prospect of Britain s Withdrawal from European Union Włodzimierz Karaszewski, Małgorzata Jaworek, Maria Kola-Bezka, Marcin Kuzel European Union Funds in the Financial Framework in the Process of Building Competitive Capacity among the Communes of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship Andrzej Miszczuk Directions of Development of Tourism in the Polish-Ukrainian Cross-Border Area in the New European Union Programming Period ( ) in the Context of Regional Planning Documents Stanislaw W. Ceran Information Technologies for Development of Specific Regions of Poland in Assessment of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Method Tomasz Szul Comparison of Methods in the Definition of Home Energy Characteristics in the Context of the European Union Directives Adam Senetra, Monika Wasilewicz-Pszczółkowska, Elżbieta Grzelak-Kostulska The European Landscape Convention as a Tool for the Protection, Management and Planning of Landscapes Marcin Połom European Union Funds as a Growth Stimulant of Electromobility on the Example of Electric Public Transport in Poland Adam Zydroń, Anna Zbierska, Piotr Szczepański The Effect of Nature Conservation Legal Instruments on Spatial Management in a Commune Mieczysław Kowerski, Małgorzata Wolańczyk, Mariusz Poninkiewicz A Proposition for a Methodology to Assess the Influence of European Union Funds on Living Conditions among Citizens of a Commune Jarosław Bielak Inflation, CPI, and Real Price Changes in Poland (specifically in Lubelskie Voivodship) in the Years

6 Dominik Dąbrowski, Marek Kuźmicki The Influence of Occupational Activity on Leisure Time of the Disabled People Who Live in the Rural Areas of the Lubelskie Voivodship Justyna Gabryszuk, Żanna Król, Paweł Postek, Heronim Olenderek Analysis of Differences in the Area of Forest Land Disclosed in the Local Data Bank and the Register of Land and Buildings Barbara Gradziuk, Piotr Gradziuk Foreign Trade of Biomass for Energy Purposes in Poland in the Years Alina Kowalczyk-Juśko, Bogdan Kościk Assessment of the Ecological and Energy Awareness of the Citizens in Rural Communes Joanna Świerk, Magdalena Mulawa The Balanced Scorecard for Higher Education the Case of Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Jan Andreasik Koncepcja ontologii systemu bezpieczeństwa i higieny pracy Streszczenia artykułów Table of Contents / Spis treści

7 Barometr Regionalny Tom 13 nr 3 Exploratory Study on Absorption and Investment of European Union Structural Funds by NUTS 2 Level Self-Governments in Poland Joanna Rakowska Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Poland Abstract The article provides information on geographical distribution of European Union structural funds among Polish regions (voivodships) analyzing it from various points of view: various kinds of funds, their purposes, amount per inhabitant, as well as the value, structure and types of investments co-financed from EU structural funds obtained by regional authorities i.e., Voivodship Self-governments under Operational Programmes , as of 31 December Keywords: operational programmes in Poland, NUTS 2 self-governments Introduction Structural disparities between European Union regions were the reason for establishing regional and cohesion policies aimed at evening the levels of socio-economic development at NUTS 2 level. This objective of economic and social cohesion introduced in 1986 with the adoption of the Single European Act, was significantly strengthened by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and recently by Lisbon Treaty, declaring that the European Union shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States 1 EU structural funds are the main measures of implementing these policies. They are allocated in eligible regions 2 of Member States (Rakowska 2014) in subsequent programming periods under agreed operational programmes (OP). Through co-financing activities aimed at harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, the development of employment and human resources, the protection and improvement of the environment, and the elimination of inequalities, and the promotion of equality between men and women 3 structural funds are to reduce economic, social and territorial imbalances between EU regions. EU structural funds are of vital importance for Poland, which in the programming period obtained nearly EUR 67,9 billion 4 from this source (Przedsiębiorczość w Polsce 2013). It has been highlighted in reports that EU structural funds are a considerable assistance for the Polish 1. See: Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/01, 17 December By the general rule governing Objective 1 of EU cohesion policy they are allocated in NUTS 2 regions where GDP per capita is lower than 75% of EU average GDP per capita. Polish NUTS 2 met this criterion both in and See: Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds; Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. OJ L 210, , p ; Regions and Cities for Growth and Jobs: An overview of Regulations on Cohesion and Regional Policy. Inforegio Factsheet 2006; Cohesion Policy Investing in Growth and Jobs. Luxembourg [In the journal European practice of number notation is followed for example, ,33 (European style) = (Canadian style) = 36, (US and British style). Ed.]

8 8 Joanna Rakowska economy in the times of regional and global crises, and enterprises and territorial self-governments make up the group of beneficiaries who carry out projects of the biggest total and EU funding values. Since Poland s accession in 2004 till the end of 2013 all its regions had GDP per capita below 75% of average EU GDP per capita, which made them eligible for implementation of OP co-financed by EU structural funds. OPs implemented in Poland can be divided into three types. The first includes OPs which covered the whole country. The second comprises one multiregional OP and the third 16 Regional OPs (ROPs). The multiregional programme Development of Eastern Poland covers five voivodships (NUTS 2 regions) which are warminsko-mazurskie, podlaskie, lubelskie, świętokrzyskie and podkarpackie. They are situated in the north-eastern and eastern parts of Poland. Based on GDP 5 per capita value, all these voivodships were classified as the poorest regions of EU-25, 6 constituting the most economically lagging EU macro region (Rakowska 2014) until the next EU enlargement in The economic condition of Eastern Poland resulted in developing an OP especially for this macro region. Regional Operational Programmes were another new solution implemented in Each of these programmes was adjusted to the particular development needs and bottlenecks of one individual voivodship and addressed only to potential beneficiaries from one particular NUTS 2. Consequently, EU structural funds were allocated in Poland under four nationwide OPs 7 i.e., Infrastructure and Environment Operational Programme (IEaOP), Human Capital Operational Programme (HCOP), Innovative Economy Operational Programme (IEOP), Technical Assistance Operational Programme (TAOP), under one multiregional Development of Eastern Poland OP (DEPOP), 8 Programmes of European Territorial Cooperation and 16 Regional Operational Programmes, 9 (i.e., Dolnośląskie ROP, Kujawsko-Pomorskie ROP, Lubelskie ROP, Lubuskie ROP, Łódzkie ROP, Małopolskie ROP, Mazowieckie ROP, Opolskie ROP, Podkarpackie ROP, Podlaskie ROP, Pomorskie ROP, Śląskie ROP, Świętokrzyskie ROP, Warmińsko-mazurskie ROP, Wielkopolskie ROP and Zachodniopomorskie ROP). Different EU funding opportunities offered by each of the above mentioned OPs were addressed to a wide range of potential beneficiaries. Spatial and thematic differentiation of absorption of EU funds by different groups of beneficiaries, including local and regional self-governments, is one of the main subjects of economic research on supporting local and regional development by EU structural funds (Drejerska and Kołyska 2009; Milewska 2007; Pomianek 2006; Powęska 2008; Rakowska 2010, 2011, 2013b; Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska 2012, 2013; Zając, Wojewódzka, and Stawicki 2009). Regions in Poland play an active administrative and economic role in regional development policy. 10 They are responsible for making an effective use of both endogenous development potential and exogenous factors supporting economic development (Heller and Bogdański 2013). As EU structural funds have been one of the most important exogenous sources of financing local and regional development, there is a question on regional self-governments participation in their allocation. Thus the aim of this elaboration is to define the participation regional 11 self-governments in the absorption of EU structural funds allocated in Poland under Operational Programmes , considering both the value and number of projects carried out by them as well as the kinds of investments carried out by regional self-governments and co-financed from EU structural funds. 5. The role of GDP as an indicator of development has been recently discussed in Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, GDP and beyond. Measuring progress in a changing world, COM/2009/0433 final, Commission of the European Communities 6. See: Eurostat data at 7. Programming documents are available from the website of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development at 8. Programming documents are available from the website of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development at 9. Programming documents for All ROPs are available from the website of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development at See: Ustawa z dnia 5 czerwca 1998 r. o samorządzie województwa. DzU z 1998 r. nr 91 poz In this paper the term region and regional is used as a synonym of voivodship and NUTS 2, in accordance with the EU classification of territorial units for statistical purposes (Rakowska 2013a, 49).

9 Exploratory Study on Absorption and Investment of EU Structural Funds 9 1 Methodology The analysis is based on the quantitative secondary data from the Central Statistical Office of Poland and qualitative and quantitative secondary data from the National Information System SIMIK, run by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, which is the Polish implementing agency for operational programmes As of 31 December 2014, the SIMIK system registered contracts for co-financing projects from EU structural funds allocated in Poland under all OPs The SIMIK entry for each contract (project) includes both qualitative and quantitative data. The first type of data includes the number and title of the contract (project), name of the OP and of the priority axis, the address and profile of the beneficiary, including (e.g., the type of legal entity). The latter data includes the total value and EU funding for each project. The database enabled extraction of all projects carried out by beneficiaries defined as voivodship selfgovernments and marshal offices 12, upon which basis the following could be determined: the share that regional authorities have had in the total number and value of contracts, value of EU funding total and by individual OP the total EU funding obtained by each regional self-government and under each individual OP the main types of investments co-financed from structural funds carried out by regional self-governments 2 Results Based on KSI SIMIK data (as of 31 December 2014) 13 beneficiaries in Poland signed contracts for projects co-financed by EU structural funds under Operational Programmes Total value of these projects equalled PLN 507,75 billion, of which 56,2% (i.e., PLN 285,5 billion) came from EU structural funds. Regional self-governments were granted EU funds under nationwide, multiregional and regional operational programmes, except for TAOP and European Territorial Cooperation. Consequently, they signed contracts of total value 20,5 billion PLN, of which 74,3% (PLN 15,1 billion) from EU structural funds. Contracts signed by regional selfgovernments made up 1,5% of all contracts, while the total value of self-governments contracts amount to 4% of the total value of all projects and for 5,3% of total EU co-financing obtained by all beneficiaries in Poland in (tab. 1). Regional self-governments absorbed very different amounts of EU funding from nationwide OPs (tab. 2). Most contracts were signed by these beneficiaries under HCOP (432) and much fewer under IaEOP (9) and IEOP (4). And under HCOP regional authorities invested mostly in training, courses and postgraduate studies increasing participants chances in the labour market and improving competences of regional self-government clerks. Many projects aimed at implementation of IT and management systems, as well as at establishing and supporting Regional Territorial Observatories, Observatories of Labour Market, Observatories of Social Policy and Regional Policy, etc. Structural funds obtained under IaEOP co-financed purchase of railway trains, modernisation of hospitals and a musical theatre as well as landfill reclamation, while under IEOP projects efforts were funded preventing digital exclusion and actions supporting development of tourism. Voivodship self-governments share in total value of EU funding obtained by all kinds of beneficiaries is rather insignificant in the case of IaEOP (0,4%) and IEOP (0,3%), however they make a considerable amount of transfers, correspondingly PLN thousand and PLN thousand. The share of 5% in total EU funding under HCOP equals PLN thousand, and nearly 24% participation in EU funding under DEPOP equals PLN thousand. 12. Marshal s Office, although listed in KSI SIMIK separately, is a budget unit of regional self-government and as such is treated herein as self-government. 13. According to the n + 2 or n + 3 rule, the co-financing from the EU Structural Funds under Operational Programmes can be paid to beneficiaries up to two or in certain circumstances even up to three years after the end of the programming period, i.e. till the end of 2015 or Thus the analysed data for the OPs is as of December 31, 2014.

10 10 Joanna Rakowska Tab. 1. The number, total value and EU funding of projects carried out by regional self-governments under Operational Programmes Self-government of Number of projects Total value (PLN thousand) EU co-financing (PLN thousand) EU co-financing in total value (%) Dolnośląskie ,0 Kujawsko-pomorskie ,9 Lubelskie ,7 Lubuskie ,1 Łódzkie ,5 Małopolskie ,6 Mazowieckie ,3 Opolskie ,8 Podkarpackie ,1 podlaskie ,5 Pomorskie ,7 Śląskie ,4 Świętokrzyskie ,9 Warmińsko-mazurskie ,3 Wielkopolskie ,5 Zachodniopomorskie ,3 Total ,3 Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR data Tab. 2. Regional authorities share in the number of contracts, in the total value of projects and in EU funding under nationwide OPs and Development of Eastern Poland OP Operational Programme Number of all contracts Total value (PLN thousand) = 100% a EU funding (PLN thousand) Voivodship Self-governments share (%) in: b Number of all contracts Total value of projects Total EU funding Infrastructure and Environment ,3 0,4 0,4 Innovative Economy ,0 0,2 0,3 Human Capital ,9 4,9 5,0 Development of Eastern Poland (multiregional) ,3 23,8 25,7 Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR data a based on the number of contracts signed by all beneficiaries b based on the number of contracts signed by all beneficiaries defined in SIMIK as voivodship self-governments and Marshal Offices The Development of Eastern Poland OP covered five voivodships and was a source of cofinancing only for beneficiaries from these NUTS 2. They carried out 29 projects of total value PLN thousand, of which 71% amounting to PLN thousand came from EU structural funds. Within these investments regional self-governments carried out 7 projects aiming at modernisation and construction of roads, 5 projects titled broadband network of Eastern Poland, 6 projects called bike routes in Eastern Poland, 3 projects of liquidation of development barriers a bridge on the Vistula river connected with a voivodship road, one regional bridge, construction of four scientific and technological as well as conference and congress centres. Regional Operation Programmes are another source of EU co-financing. Comparison of the regional self-governments participation in the total number of contracts and in EU funding obtained under regional operational programs indicates no relationship between these values (tab. 3).

11 Exploratory Study on Absorption and Investment of EU Structural Funds 11 Tab. 3. Regional self-governments share in the total number of contracts and in EU funding obtained from Regional Operational Programs Regional Operational Programme of Number of contracts Total a (= 100%) EU funding (PLN thousand) Voivodship self-governments share (%) in: b Number of contracts EU funding Dolnośląskie Kujawsko-Pomorskie Lubelskie Lubuskie Łódzkie Małopolskie Mazowieckie Opolskie Podkarpackie Podlaskie Pomorskie Śląskie Świętokrzyskie Warmińsko-mazurskie Wielkopolskie Zachodniopomorskie Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR data a based on the number of contracts signed by all beneficiaries b based on the number of contracts signed by all beneficiaries defined in SIMIK as voivodship self-government and Marshal Office The value of EU co-financing absorbed by regional self-governments per inhabitant and its structure according to the operational programs varies considerably in different NUTS 2 (fig. 1, 2 and 3). The smallest share of the total EU funding came from IEOP, which was used by only 5 self-governments, who obtained from this source from 1,2% to 4,9% of their total EU funding. Also OPIaE was a source of EU funding for only six regions, however in quite varying degrees. Half of them acquired from this source only from 0,1% to 2,4%, while the remaining three from 17% to 24% of their total co-funding from Structural Funds (tab. 4). It is observed in most analysed voivodships that regardless of the total value of absorbed EU funding regional operational programs are its main source: 4 regions obtained from this source between 80% and 90% of their total UE structural funding, other 5 regions from 72% to 75%, and 4 from 51% to 67%. Only in three voivodships the self-governments obtained from this source less than 50% (i.e., 43%, 36% and 19%). The share of EU funds obtained by regional self-governments from other POs is very diverse in all voivodships and shows no identifiable trends. HCOP was a source of between 3,3% and 5,7% total EU structural co-financing, while ROPs from 18,6% to 87,5%. DEPOP was the source of more than 50% of the EU co-financing absorbed by świętokrzyskie and lubelskie and from 22% to 44% by the other three regions. At the same time all regions supported by DEPOP have acquired the highest value of EU funding per inhabitant (fig. 2) and which are above the median among units for which obtained EU funding accounted for more than 100% of their total budget revenues in 2013 (fig. 3). Four out of five regions of Eastern Poland (fig. 5) took the biggest share in total EU funding absorbed by self-governments under OPs , which can be connected with the fact that they could benefit from the multiregional programmes implemented only for these regions and giving them an extra source of funding. Analysis of EU co-financed investments carried out by regional authorities indicates that most projects were related to transport infrastructure (51% of total EU funding obtained by self-

12 12 Joanna Rakowska Tab. 4. Structure of EU funding obtained by regional authorities from each Operational Programme Share of funding from Operational Programme (in %) Self-government of HC IaE IE ROP DEP Dolnośląskie 33,2 2,5 64,3 n/a Kujawsko-pomorskie 8,8 2,4 2,8 86,0 n/a Lubelskie 8,1 1,2 1,2 35,7 53,8 Lubuskie 14,1 85,9 n/a Łódzkie 10,8 1,6 87,5 n/a Małopolskie 57,1 42,9 n/a Mazowieckie 26,4 0,1 73,5 n/a Opolskie 28,4 71,6 n/a Podkarpackie 4,7 51,4 43,8 Podlaskie 7,1 67,0 25,9 Pomorskie 17,7 17,0 4,9 60,3 n/a Śląskie 25,2 74,8 n/a Świętokrzyskie 5,8 20,2 18,6 55,4 Warmińsko-mazurskie 5,9 72,2 21,9 Wielkopolskie 15,2 84,8 n/a Zachodniopomorskie 3,3 24,0 72,6 n/a Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR data pomorskie warmińsko-mazurskie Kartodiagram zachodniopomorskie lubuskie wielkopolskie kujawsko-pomorskie mazowieckie podlaskie poreg porpw poig poiś pokl łódzkie dolnośląskie opolskie śląskie lubelskie świętokrzyskie podkarpackie małopolskie Map legend (4) (2) (0) (5) (5) Fig. 1. The average value of EU funding obtained by regional self-governments per inhabitant (in PLN) and the structure of EU funding by OPs Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR and Central Statistical Office data governments), then projects aimed at the development of information technology (18%), and projects connected directly with implementation of OPs (15%). Other categories of projects, connected with e.g., labour market (5%), tourism and cultural services (4%), supporting enterprises and entrepreneurship (3%), social infrastructure and environmental protection (2.5 each), had a smaller share in obtained EU funding.

13 relations of EU funding to budget revenues (left axis) EU funding per capita (right axis) 200% % % 1000 PLN 50% 500 0% 0 dolnośląskie kujawsko-pomorskie lubelskie lubuskie łódzkie małopolskie mazowieckie opolskie podkarpackie podlaskie pomorskie śląskie świętokrzyskie warmińsko-mazurskie wielkopolskie zachodniopomorskie Fig. 2. EU funding obtained by regional authorities from OPs , per inhabitant and in relation to regional total budget revenues in 2013 Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR and Central Statistical Office data 200% 100% 0% małopolskie dolnośląskie mazowieckie śląskie lubuskie zachodnio-pomorskie wielkopolskie łódzkie pomorskie świętokrzyskie kujawsko-pomorskie podkarpackie opolskie warmińsko-mazurskie lubelskie podlaskie Fig. 3. Ranking of voivodships by EU funding obtained by regional authorities from OPs , as a share of regional total budget revenues in 2013 Source: author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR and Central Statistical Office data 2000 PLN małopolskie śląskie mazowieckie dolnośląskie łódzkie pomorskie wielkopolskie zachodnio-pomorskie lubuskie kujawsko-pomorskie opolskie świętokrzyskie podlaskie warmińsko-mazurskie lubelskie podkarpackie Fig. 4. Ranking of voivodships by EU funding obtained by regional authorities from OPs , per inhabitant Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR and Central Statistical Office data

14 14 Joanna Rakowska 10% 5% 0% małopolskie lubuskie opolskie zachodnio-pomorskie łódzkie dolnośląskie świętokrzyskie pomorskie śląskie kujawsko-pomorskie podlaskie wielkopolskie mazowieckie warmińsko-mazurskie podkarpackie lubelskie Fig. 5. Fig. 5. Ranking of voivodships by their share in total EU funding obtained by all regional authorities from OPs Source: Author s elaboration based on SIMIK MIiR and Central Statistical Office data Conclusions Under all Operational Programmes Polish regional self-governments signed 1576 contracts of total value PLN 20,5 billion, of which 74,3% (PLN 15,1 billion) came from EU structural funds. It made up respectively 1,5% of contracts signed by all kinds of beneficiaries, 4% of total value of all projects and for 5,3% of total EU co-financing absorbed in Poland in , as of December 31, In the case of individual Operational Programmes both the share and the value of EU funding obtained by regional self-governments varies significantly. Human Capital OP is the only programme, beside ROPs, which was used by self-governments of all regions, however, the funding obtained from this source made a differentiated share in their structural funding total ranging from the the lowest (3,3%) in zachodniopomorskie to the highest (57,1%) in małopolskie. Innovative Economy OP and Infrastruture and Environment OP were less popular with regional self-governments, as correspondingly only 6 and 5 of them used it as source of EU funding. However, just like in other cases, here also the value of obtained funding and its share in absorbed funding total differed considerably. The only strong tendency relates to Regional Operational Programmes, which have been a source of more than 50% of EU funding for 13 voivodships. Two regions stand out in the group of analysed beneficiaries. These are Małopolskie and Lubelskie voivodships. The first is always ranked the last in all three rankings of regions (fig. 3, 4 and 5) due to its relatively lowest absorption of EU funding. The latter one differs as the first (fig. 5) or the second (fig. 3 and 4) in rankings, due to comparatively highest absorption of EU funding by its self-government. Investments carried out by regional self-governments and co-financed from EU structural funds fully reflect regional self-governments duties defined by the Law on Voivodship Self-Government. References Drejerska, N., and J. Kołyska Doświadczenia samorządów w pozyskiwaniu środków z funduszy unijnych na rozwój obsza-rów wiejskich. Roczniki Naukowe Stowarzyszenia Ekonomistów Rolnictwa i Agrobiznesu no. 11 (4): Heller, J., and M. Bogdański Skuteczność polityki spójności ekonomicznej Unii Europejskiej. Studia Europejskie (4): Milewska, A Fundusze strukturalne jako instrument wsparcia inwestycji gminnych i ich znaczenie dla rozwoju lokalnego. Roczniki Naukowe Stowarzyszenia Ekonomistów Rolnictwa i Agrobiznesu no. 9 (2): Use of the EU Funds in Financing of Public Services Performed by Local Self-Government Units. In Development Prospects of Rural Areas Lagging behind in the CEE Region. Conference Proceeding, edited by L. Villâanyi, J. Kâaposzta and H. Nagy, Gèodèollîo: SZIU.

15 Exploratory Study on Absorption and Investment of EU Structural Funds 15 Pomianek, I.M Szanse rozwoju sektora MŚP w świetle realizacji sektorowego programu operacyjnego Wzrost Konkurencyjności Przedsiębiorstw na lata In Szanse rozwoju polskiego sektora MŚP na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim. T. 2. Wspieranie rozwoju MŚP na Jednolitym Rynku Europejskim, edited by J. Otto and R.P. Stanisławski, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Łódzkiej. Powęska, H Sposoby wykorzystania dóbr kultury dla potrzeb rozwoju funkcji turystycznej na Mazowszu przy wsparciu z funduszy strukturalnych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SGGW. Przedsiębiorczość w Polsce edited by Departament Strategii i Analiz. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Gospodarki. Rakowska, J Udział sektora MSP w realizacji projektów w ramach wybranych działań SPO Wzrost Konkurencyjności Przedsiębiorstw w latach na obszarach wiejskich. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia no. 9 (2): Support for Innovations in Higher Education in Poland under Selected Operational Programmes since In Proceedings of TIIM2011 Conference June, 2011 Oulu Finland, edited by M. Savolainen, H. Kropsu-Vehkaperä, A. Aapaoja, T. Kinnunen and P. Kess, Oulu, Finland a. Klasyfikacje obszarów. Kryteria, definicje, metody delimitacji. Studium metodyczno-statystyczne. Warszawa: Wieś Jutra b. Przestrzenne zróżnicowanie absorpcji środków unijnych z programów operacyjnych (2015) w województwie lubelskim. Analiza na poziomie gminnym. Studia Ekonomiczne i Regionalne no. 6 (4): Pozyskanie funduszy unijnych z programów operacyjnych przez małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa w Polsce w ujęciu regionalnym Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej w Poznaniu no. 52 (1): Szlachta, J Strategiczne programowanie rozwoju regionalnego, w kierunku krajowego systemu myśli strategicznej w sferze polityki regionalnej. In Nowy paradygmat rozwoju najnowsze trendy i perspektywy rozwoju polityki regionalnej, edited by M. Kolczyński and P. Żuber, Warszawa: Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego. Wojewódzka-Wiewiórska, A Obtaining Funds from the EU Budget by Rural Communes of the Masovian Voivodship. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development no. 2 (24): Typologia gmin województwa mazowieckiego ze względu na absorpcję środków z budżetu Unii Europejskiej i poziom rozwoju społeczno-ekonomicznego. Roczniki Ekonomii Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich no. 100 (2): Zając, J., A. Wojewódzka, and M. Stawicki Uwarunkowania absorpcji funduszy strukturalnych na poziomie powiatów. Analiza i rekomendacje. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego.

16 Analizy i Prognozy Rok 2015

17 Barometr Regionalny Tom 13 nr 3 European Integration of Ukraine: the Perspective of Ukrainians and Poles Anna Lewandowska, Elżbieta Inglot-Brzęk University of Information Technology and Management, Poland Abstract Despite the fact that discussions have focused on the Association Agreement and resolving the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine as a turning point in EU-Ukraine relations, we look at the European integration of Ukraine from the perspective of public opinion. This is important because public opinion is one of the most important EU factors that may affect European integration and Europeanization processes in the EU countries. This article provides among other aspects the answer to the question: What are the positive and negative effects of the integration of Ukraine into the EU, in the opinion of Polish entrepreneurs? Keywords: Ukraine, European Union, European integration, entrepreneurship Introduction European integration has become one of the most important topics in the public debate not only in Ukraine, but also in Europe. The importance of foreign policy priorities and the issue of European integration, especially in terms of the Association Agreement and military action in eastern Ukraine, is becoming increasingly important not only in Europe but also worldwide. The future of European integration increasingly depends on the views and opinions of its citizens (Ilonszki 2009). Despite the fact that all discussions have focused on the Association Agreement and resolving the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine as a turning point in EU-Ukraine relations, we look at the European integration of Ukraine from the perspective of public opinion. Particularly important are the main findings as to the opinion of Polish entrepreneurs on the European integration of Ukraine with the EU, and the specific features and trends in the beliefs and attitudes of Polish entrepreneurs in this field. Among the EU countries, Poland is the closest neighbor of Ukraine. Therefore, it is important to survey Polish entrepreneurs who cooperate with Ukrainian partners or are active on the Ukrainian market. This is extremely important at present, because public opinion is one of the most important EU factors that may affect European integration and Europeanization processes in the EU countries (Muller 2011). Today it is more important than ever that European integration is carried out not only at the level of the political elite, but to an equal degree at the level of direct relations between communities and within them. Underestimating the role of social attitudes to the course of that process both in the period before accession and after achieving membership can cause (and in fact causes) fluctuating ratings on integration, with a tendency to increase Eurosceptic attitudes. The issue of awareness is particularly important in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, where the European integration processes are related to closing the civilization gap that arises both from the differences in the history of the individual communities and different experiences of living in political systems that promote fundamentally different attitudes and behavior. The destiny of EU-Ukraine relations and Ukraine s European integration will largely depend on social attitudes and the perceptions of what is happening in the field of Europeanization processes in Ukraine.

18 18 Anna Lewandowska, Elżbieta Inglot-Brzęk So far, mainly due to the dynamic nature of the changes taking place in Ukraine, there are no comprehensive studies examining the issue of European integration of Ukraine. The published studies cover only a narrow view of selected socio-economic or political issues. Hence it seems the more reasonable to focus on analyzing the process of Ukraine s European integration from the perspective of public opinion and the opinion of entrepreneurs, especially in Poland, representing in a way the point of view of entrepreneurs from other EU countries. Thus having defined the main research objective, this article provides answers to the following questions: What do Ukrainians and Poles think about the European integration of Ukraine? What stands in the way of progress towards European integration of Ukraine? What do Polish entrepreneurs think about the possibility of European integration, and do they support that direction of integration? What are the positive and negative effects of Ukraine s integration into the EU, in the opinion of Polish entrepreneurs? In search of answers to those questions, the authors present the results of public opinion surveys conducted in Ukraine 1 and Poland 2 and the results of research conducted among Polish entrepreneurs who cooperate with Ukrainian partners (authors own research at the University of Information Technology and Management). 1 Methodology A survey was conducted among Polish companies cooperating with Ukrainian partners or operating on the Ukrainian market. This group is particularly interested in regulation of relations with Ukraine. Sampling was purposive and random. 246 interviews (CATI) were conducted, including 196 with exporters to the Ukrainian market in the period from 12 November to 20 December In statistical terms, the sample is not representative for companies in Poland (or for all companies cooperating with Ukraine), but equal geographical distribution and diversification by branch and size of the enterprise have been ensured. 2 European integration of Ukraine: what is the public opinion? The prospect of extending EU borders is always a stimulus to conduct public opinion surveys both in countries that aspire to the association and in countries already associated. Such activities were common before Polish accession to the EU, when studies concerned either the sentiments among Poles or their closest EU neighbors, the Germans (Dolińska and Fałkowski 2001). At present analogous projects can be observed presenting opinions on the relations of Ukraine and the EU (including Poland) and Poland and Ukraine. 2.1 The opinion of the residents of Ukraine Ukraine is extremely diversified in regionals terms. This applies in particular: relations with Russia, feelings about the state of the country, orientation toward political and economic reform, support for more local autonomy or centralization, and finally integration with the EU. The source of regional differences (especially between East and West) is historical experience, economic structure, ethnic composition, ties to bordering states and language (Kubicek 2000). The attitude of Ukrainians to Ukraine s integration with the European Union is shown, among others, in the report European Integration of Ukraine: Experience of Yesterday for Development of Tomorrow (Zolkina 2013). More on this topic can be found in the study Public Opinion Survey Residents of Ukraine, of March The studies in Ukraine show that: What Ukrainians think about the association with the European Union depends on the region in which the respondents live. The diversity of opinion stems from ethnic differences (Barrington 2001), which translate into the territorial system, and with the age of the respondents. 1. See: Public Opinion Survey Residents of Ukraine. March 14 26, [@:] /2014%20April%205%20IRI%20Public%20Opinion%20Survey%20of%20Ukraine,%20March% ,% pdf. 2. See: Public Opinion Research Center. Available from:

19 European integration of Ukraine: the perspective of Ukrainians and Poles 19 In March 2014, 52% of respondents were for Ukraine s accession to the EU (in March 2012, the number reached 36%). An alternative for association with the EU is a Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. In March 2014, 27% of respondents were for Ukraine s accession to the Customs Union (in March 2012, the number was 43%). According to Ukrainians, the main benefits of the association are: free movement of people abroad (34,7%), raising living standards of people (28%), easier access for youth to study at European universities (24,3%), improving the provision of goods (16,1%), facilitating movement of the country towards modern European civilization (16,1%). 27,7% of respondents thought that the association was of no benefit to Ukraine. 3 Negative effects of association with the EU according to Ukrainians are: emigration of Ukrainians (31,1%), deterioration of relations with member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States (22,5%), inflow of foreigners, selling out the country (22%), unemployment (17,5%). The main barriers for EU-Ukraine association are: insufficient level of Ukraine s economic development (34,5%), low level of living standards in Ukraine (32,4%), problems with democracy (Cameron 2007) and human rights in Ukraine (22,6%). Zolkina (2013) said that public opinion is one of the most crucial domestic factors which can influence European integration and Europeanization processes from inside the country. She sees the development of future relations between Ukraine and the EU as depending heavily on public attitudes and perceptions of what has been going on in the field of Europeanization processes in Ukraine. 2.2 The opinion of the residents of Poland Research on the perspective of Ukraine s accession to EU structures is an important subject of theoretical and empirical study in Poland. The Eastern Partnership (EaP) determines the eastern dimension of EU policies and provides a basis for strengthening the relations between the EU and former Soviet Union countries. The program was supported by Poles from the beginning. In Poland, opinions on that are presented mainly by the Public Opinion Research Center (PORC). According to a study before the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, which took place on November 2013, the expansion of cooperation was accepted by about two-thirds of Poles (64%), and nearly one quarter (24%) were against. In comparison with the results of 2008 and 2009, a decline can be seen in support for strengthening cooperation with the countries of the former Soviet Union. In 2009, acceptance for developing cooperation was expressed by 77%, while 9% of respondents were against it. The decline was explained by lower support for the development of European integration in Poland and higher skepticism about further improvement of Polish- Ukrainian relations (due to previous historical events). 4 According to the presented opinions of Poles, Ukraine should become a member of the EU in the future. But it is a distant perspective. Only every fifth respondent (20%) stated that the accession process should take place as soon as possible. More than half (54%) said that there was no hurry. 9% of respondents were opposed, while 17% were unable to give an opinion. The fact that the Association Agreement with the EU was not signed by Ukraine at the summit in Vilnius has not changed the opinion of Poles much. In a study conducted in January 2014, a greater part of respondents still declared that Ukraine should in the future become a member of the EU, but in the opinion of 47% of the respondents there is no hurry. The percentage of those who said Ukraine should associate with the EU immediately slightly rose (from 20% to 26%) and those who opposed the association (from 9% to 11%). That was likely impacted by news of social protests in Ukraine. It can therefore be concluded that the opinions of Poles expressed in relation to the EU-Ukraine association are constant. According to a PORC survey, the majority of Poles say that close cooperation of Ukraine with the EU is in the interest of Poland. In January 2014, that opinion was supported by 65% of 3. [In the journal European practice of number notation is followed for example, ,33 (European style) = (Canadian style) = 36, (US and British style). Ed.] 4. Before the summit of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) in Vilnius, CBOS, BS/158/2013, Warsaw, November 2013.

20 20 Anna Lewandowska, Elżbieta Inglot-Brzęk respondents (in 2004 by 67%). In contrast, 14% of respondents believed that cooperation between Ukraine and Russia would be more beneficial for Poland. More than half (52%) said that close cooperation with the EU was in the interests of Ukraine, while for 22% of the respondents cooperation with Russia would be more advantageous for Ukraine. According to almost every fifth Pole (19%), Ukraine should look for another way to resolve the situation, because a choice between the EU and Russia is not beneficial for the country. Although Ukraine s association with the EU would be beneficial for Poland, according to the respondents it should be postponed. But Poles agree to other measures that would liberalize trade with Ukraine and facilitate border crossing. 68% of respondents expressed support for the gradual reduction of tariffs on trade between Ukraine and Poland and the EU (10% opposed), and 57% agreed to the abolition of visas for Ukrainians (29% were opposed to that). The lowest support was given to the postulate to make it easier for Ukrainians to work in Poland. 49% of respondents agreed with it, while 41% opposed. At the time when PORC conducted surveys on EU-Ukraine association among Poles, the research team at the University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow conducted studies on trade relations between Poland and Ukraine (Lewandowska, Inglot-Brzęk, and Harasym 2014). The main objective of the research conducted among entrepreneurs was to determine the barriers to trade relations with Ukraine. The survey on entrepreneurs opinions on the association of Ukraine with EU countries was complementary to the main part of the study devoted to economic cooperation between Poland and Ukraine. 2.3 The opinion of Polish entrepreneurs The study assumed that Polish entrepreneurs who cooperate with partners from Ukraine would naturally be interested in issues concerning the association of Ukraine with the EU. Based on the obtained results it can be said that every fourth respondent (25,1%) was not interested in those issues. Only a third of entrepreneurs (33,9%) declared they followed closely what was happening regarding the association with the EU. Interest in the association of Ukraine is closely associated with better knowledge about integration (statistically significant correlation, V Cramera 0,521, approximate significance < 0,001). An entrepreneur was more interested in the issues of association, the better informed he felt he was. The relationship between interest and knowledge allowed us to construct an index of attitudes (Cronbach s alpha = 0,803) 5. Polish entrepreneurs can be divided into: uninterested and uninformed 23%; moderately interested and informed 44,6%; interested and well-informed 32,4%. The impact of interest and knowledge on opinions on the benefits of Ukraine s association with the EU for Polish entrepreneurs was diagnosed (statistically significant correlation, V Cramera 0,219; approximate significance < 0,001). 5,7% of respondents said that the association would be bad for Polish entrepreneurs. Such statements were characteristic for uninterested and uninformed entrepreneurs. An opposite opinion was expressed by 76,5% of the respondents. Businesses were asked to identify their perceptions of the benefits and barriers resulting from Ukraine s association with the EU. 40 entrepreneurs from a group of 246 respondents (16,2%) were unable to give any answer. 17 respondents (6,9%) expressed negative opinions. Other respondents pointed to various benefits. Polish entrepreneurs see mainly the benefits of easier cooperation and expanding the market. Significant is also the elimination of customs duties, customs clearance, abolition of visas, easier procedures and abolition of bureaucracy. 5. Cronbach s alpha is a measure specifying the consistency of the items making up the scale which is a number from 0 to 1. At the level of 0,803 it means that the respondents gave similar answers to individual questions, which in this case means that the persons concerned feel well informed. By assigning responses from 1 to 5 the results for the two questions were added up. On this basis a new scale was created, which adopted the values from 2 to 10. The scale was recoded to new values: (2 4) uninterested and uninformed; (5 7) moderately interested and informed, (8 10) interested and well-informed.