Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 12

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  EU membership
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This paper examines the determinants of the intra-EU direct investment (IDI) into the New Member States (NMS) using a panel dataset of bilateral capital flows for the period 1993-2013. It is found out by using a simple gravity model that EU membership is the most important determinant. Unlike previous studies including non-EU countries, the distance is insignificant, which is caused by proximity of these countries to one another. A separate analysis focused on subgroups of accession countries gives some evidence that even when size of their economy, distance, institutional quality and EU accession are taken into account, Central European countries receive more IDI than the Baltic and the Balkan states. On the contrary to that, the analysis restricted to the Balkan countries which have joined the EU shows the inexistence of a negative Balkans effect in attracting foreign investment. This finding is relevant because previous studies demonstrate a persistent negative Balkans effect for non-EU Balkan countries and suggests a crucial impact of the EU accession in determining the intra-EU capital flows.
EN
The purpose of this article is an attempt to show the effects of the Polish accession to the European Union in a wider context of international relations and in the context of the changes that have taken place in the Union in the past decade. So we are dealing here with a specific balance of successes and failures, which Poland suffered during the years 2004–2014. This article shows that after twenty-five years since the beginning of political transformation in Poland, and ten years after the accession to the European Union, there is no doubt that our membership in this specific, integrated voluntary association of sovereign states in Europe was necessary and inevitable. It is also the main thesis of this article. It was the only right solution for Poland, which was due to its geopolitical position and historical experience. Despite earlier fears, it did not hurt our sovereignty and national identity. The author states that membership in the European Union strengthened Polish sovereignty and thrive Polish raison d’etat. It has a positive impact on its development.
PL
Celem tego artykułu jest próba pokazania skutków akcesji Polski do Unii Europejskiej na szerszym tle stosunków międzynarodowych i w kontekście zmian, które miały miejsce w Unii w minionym dziesięcioleciu. Mamy więc tutaj do czynienia ze swoistym bilansem sukcesów i porażek, których doznała Polska w latach 2004–2014. Niniejszy artykuł pokazuje, że po dwudziestu pięciu latach od rozpoczęcia transformacji ustrojowej w Polsce i dziesięciu latach od akcesji do Unii Europejskiej nie ulega wątpliwości, że nasze członkostwo w tym specyficznym, dobrowolnie zintegrowanym związku suwerennych państw Europy było konieczne i nieuniknione. Jest to zarazem główna teza niniejszego artykułu. Było to jedyne, właściwe rozwiązanie dla Polski, które wynikało z jej geopolitycznego położenia i historycznych doświadczeń. Wbrew wcześniejszym obawom, nie zaszkodziło naszej suwerenności i tożsamości narodowej. Autor podkreśla, że członkostwo w Unii Europejskiej wzmocniło suwerenność Polski oraz dobrze służy polskiej racji stanu. Wpływa pozytywnie na rozwój gospodarczy Polski oraz umacnia jej prestiż na arenie międzynarodowej.
EN
The goal behind the Eastern Partnership programme was the development of political, economic, and social links between the European Union and the European states developed in the wake of the breakdown of the USSR (with the exception of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia). The author believes that the goal was achieved in the case of three Transcaucasian countries. On the one hand, EU standards began to be implemented in these countries by the implementation of EU’s acquis communautaire in the law of these states, which allows trade exchange and more extensive economic cooperation along the principles of the EU. On the other hand, in the case of these countries, the EU avoided any declaration concerning their future membership in the EU, which poses a fundamental problem in the relations with the remaining members of the Eastern Partnership programme.
EN
There is no doubt that the European Union is to be considered a community based on values — especially since the significant reforms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in Art. 2 TEU, which not only includes their wide list, but first of all names them in this exact way. They are treated as developed from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, but are rather typical for modern western societies with the emphasis put on human dignity, equality, pluralism and tolerance. What is important, their meaning is not limited only to the EU’s territory or Member States themselves. According to the Treaties, in its relations with the wider world, the EU shall uphold and promote its values and in case of neighboring countries to develop a special relationship, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighborliness, founded on them. Such an idea seems to be essential for future candidates states to since the leading Treaty condition of the application to become an EU Member State is respect for values.
EN
The majority of analytical centres forecasts show that – as a result of the United Kingdom’s resignation from the membership in the European Union – the British economy will face a recession. From the perspective of the United Kingdom’s development prospects, the effects of withdrawal from the EU should not be, however, very severe: in the worst scenario the GDP will decrease by 7.9 percent by 2030. Yet, the decrease is rather expected to be lower – between 1.1 and 3.5 percent – and with no risk of a deep and long-lasting economic crisis. The Polish economy will also experience negative effects of Brexit, these will not, however, be very serious either, and they will be equalised within three or four years thanks to the development of alternative markets. Still, some Polish companies closely connected with the British market may have difficulties finding new business niches.
PL
The purpose of this article is to try to outline the essence of membership of the European Union. This international organization, by virtue of the decision of its creators, i.e. the Member States, has been equipped with attributes, which have determined its unique – supranational – character. As a new legal order, the European Union has been granted some scope of autonomy, but ontologically it is dependent on the Member States. It is the Member States that have taken decision on setting up a new integration structure with a center of decision-making located not only outside but also above them, the scope of its competences and instruments of their exercising, and as “masters of the Treaties”, may decide to dissolve it. The decision to join the European Union seems to be determined pragmatically and praxiologically – upon benefits of cooperation within the framework of the EU. In this perspective solidarity, understood as the unity and equality of the Member States, based on common values, becomes a factor legitimizing the EU, and at the same time – a guarantor of its existence, especially in times of crisis. Celem artykułu jest próba odpowiedzi na pytanie o istotę członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej (UE). Ta organizacja międzynarodowa, na mocy decyzji jej twórców, tj. państw członkowskich, wyposażona została w atrybuty, przesądzające o jej unikalnym – ponadnarodowym – charakterze. Stanowiąca nowy porządek prawny, Unia Europejska posiada określony zakres autonomii, ale w sensie ontologicznym jest zależna od państw członkowskich. To one zdecydowały o powołaniu struktury integracyjnej z ośrodkiem rządzenia ulokowanym nie tylko poza, ale także ponad nimi, o zakresie jej kompetencji oraz instrumentach ich realizacji, a pozostając „panami traktatów”, mogą zdecydować o jej rozwiązaniu. Decyzja o członkostwie w Unii Europejskiej wydaje się być warunkowana pragmatycznie i prakseologicznie – korzyściami, jakie daje współpraca w zakresie rozwiązywania wspólnie doświadczanych problemów. Solidarność, rozumiana jako jedność i równość państw członkowskich, wyrosła na jednoczącym aksjologicznym gruncie i warunkująca realizację integracyjnych celów, staje się w tej perspektywie czynnikiem legitymizującym UE, a jednocześnie – gwarantem jej bytu, zwłaszcza w niełatwym czasie kryzysów.
EN
The paper focuses both on results of own research (national poll conducted in Poland) and results of other polls concerning perception of the impact of the crisis in Poland. The results were analyzed in terms of correlation between political preferences (both partisan and ideological) and perceived severity of the crisis in Poland, as well as relationship between political preferences and seeing the EU as cause of the crisis in Poland, or at least reason behind growing seriousness of its signs in Poland. A vast array of other polls – both national and European (mainly eurobarometer, but not only), as well as global – were analyzed, to verify whethere opinions of the Poles changed over time, and how they place in comparison with views of other nations. Overall, the Poles seem less pessimistic regarding the crisis than other nations, mainly due to comparatively better economic outlook, and their opinion on Polish membership in the EU remains very strongly positive. A significant percentage of respondents blamed – at least in part – EU for the crisis, but it did not translate into negative view on EU accession overall.
EN
The referendum on United Kingdom’s membership in the European Union took place on June 23, 2016. With a turnout of 72.2%, 51.9% of those participating supported Brexit, while 48.1% voted against. The 2016 referendum was the second one on the British membership in the European project. The first one held in 1975 ended negatively for those supporting Brexit. The main objective of this paper is to analyze the British referendums of 1975 and of 2016, with a special focus on answering the question about the results of British votes and prospects of using the referendum in the process of deciding on matters of integration. An important task in this paper is to answer the question about the possible consequences of 2016 vote - both: for the United Kingdom and for the European Union.
PL
W dniu 23 czerwca 2016 r. odbyło się referendum w sprawie dalszego członkostwa Wielkiej Brytanii z Unii Europejskiej. Przy frekwencji 72,2% uprawnionych do głosowania, Brexit poparło 51,9 % Brytyjczyków, natomiast przeciw zagłosowało 48,1%. Głosowanie z 2016 r. było już drugim referendum w sprawie dalszego członkostwa Wielkiej Brytanii w projekcie integracji europejskiej. W 1975 r. – dwa lata po oficjalnym przystąpieniu Brytyjczycy poddali kwestię swego członkostwa pod referendum, które zakończyło się negatywnie dla zwolenników Brexitu. Głównym celem niniejszego tekstu jest analiza brytyjskich głosowań referendalnych z 1975 r. i 2016 r., ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem odpowiedzi na pytanie o perspektywy wykorzystywania referendum w procesie decydowania w sprawach integracji. Istotnym zadaniem w kontekście prowadzonych rozważań jest odpowiedź na pytanie o możliwe konsekwencje podjętej w czerwcu 2016 r. decyzji – zarówno dla Wielkiej Brytanii, jak i dla całej Unii Europejskiej.
EN
The present article has a double purpose. Firstly, the author examines the evolution of public support levels for both the Polish EU membership, and euro introduction in Poland; correlations between them are briefly presented. The data is presented chronologically for both datasets, and in the case of EU membership support included the results of own research on relationship between partisanship and EU accession support. The author analyses the literature on the subject, indicating the factors thought to influence public consent in both cases, discussing in particular the impact of personal choice of supporting a given political party (and political stance) on the individual’s view on EU membership and euro introduction. Furthermore, a more detailed analysis of other factors influencing the acceptance of euro introduction in new countries is shown – once again based on recent literature, with particular attention paid to recent studies carried out in Poland, drawing attention to differences with the overall European studies – grouped by type, and supported by results of numerous polls conducted in Poland over the last several years. In the second part, the author presents a diagnosis of the drastically falling support for euro introduction in Poland – compared with steady acceptance for Polish EU membership – in correlation with the importance of correct information campaign as regards the euro. Here, the public›s own assessment of their level of knowledge about the euro currency is juxtaposed with the results of polls on euro support levels in Poland in historical approach, indicating the clear correlation between the two elements. Finally, a short analysis of the information campaign requirements and the current state of the same in Poland is presented.
PL
Celem artykułu jest próba odpowiedzi na pytanie o istotę członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej (UE). Ta organizacja międzynarodowa, na mocy decyzji jej twórców, tj. państw członkowskich, wyposażona została w atrybuty, przesądzające o jej unikalnym – ponadnarodowym – charakterze. Stanowiąca nowy porządek prawny, Unia Europejska posiada określony zakres autonomii, ale w sensie ontologicznym jest zależna od państw członkowskich. To one zdecydowały o powołaniu struktury integracyjnej z ośrodkiem rządzenia ulokowanym nie tylko poza, ale także ponad nimi, o zakresie jej kompetencji oraz instrumentach ich realizacji, a pozostając „panami traktatów”, mogą zdecydować o jej rozwiązaniu. Decyzja o członkostwie w Unii Europejskiej wydaje się być warunkowana pragmatycznie i prakseologicznie – korzyściami, jakie daje współpraca w zakresie rozwiązywania wspólnie doświadczanych problemów. Solidarność, rozumiana jako jedność i równość państw członkowskich, wyrosła na jednoczącym aksjologicznym gruncie i warunkująca realizację integracyjnych celów, staje się w tej perspektywie czynnikiem legitymizującym UE, a jednocześnie – gwarantem jej bytu, zwłaszcza w niełatwym czasie kryzysów.
EN
The purpose of this article is to try to outline the essence of membership of the European Union. This international organization, by virtue of the decision of its creators, i.e. the Member States, has been equipped with attributes, which have determined its unique – supranational – character. As a new legal order, the European Union has been granted some scope of autonomy, but ontologically it is dependent on the Member States. It is the Member States that have taken decision on setting up a new integration structure with a center of decision-making located not only outside but also above them, the scope of its competences and instruments of their exercising, and as “masters of the Treaties”, may decide to dissolve it. The decision to join the European Union seems to be determined pragmatically and praxiologically – upon benefits of cooperation within the framework of the EU. In this perspective solidarity, understood as the unity and equality of the Member States, based on common values, becomes a factor legitimizing the EU, and at the same time – a guarantor of its existence, especially in times of crisis.
EN
Turkey formally applied for membership in the European Union (EU) on April 14, 1987, but it took 12 years to get candidate status at the Helsinki summit of 1999. The year 2014 brought no breakthrough in the negotiations between the EU and Turkey. Public opinion polls show that many Turkish citizens have no hope of joining the EU. Waiting too long for membership in the EU is causing a lot of controversy in Turkey and is one of the most frequently raised issues in the political discourse. In the last three years, the Turkish political class and socjety became more and more sympathetic to perceived integration initiatives in the Eastern direction. Turkey has opened a new road in the form of accession to the Eurasian Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. What will happen if Turkey will support its way in this direction? How long can Turkey wait for admission to the EU? Where would it be better for Turkey? The Eastern Alliance or the Western?
RU
Турция формально подала заявление на вступление в Европейский Союз (ЕС) 14 апреля 1987, но понадобилось 12 лет, чтобы получить статус кандидата на саммите Хельсинки 1999-го года. 2014 год не принес никакого прорыва в переговорах, проводимых между ЕС и Турцией. Опросы обще ственного мнения показывают, что многие турецкие граждане уже не имеют надежды на вступление в ЕС. Слишком долгое ожидание на вступление в ЕС вызывает много споров в Турции и является одной из наиболее часто поднимаемых вопросов в политическом дискурсе. В течение последних трех лет часть турецкого политического класса и общества стала все более и более благосклонно воспринимать инициативы интеграции в восточном направлении. Для Турции открылась новая дорога в форме присоединения к Евразийскому Союзу и Шанхайской Организации Сотрудничества. Что будет если Турция будет поддерживать свой путь в этом направлении? Сколько еще Турция может ждать приема в ЕС? Где лучше было бы Турции в восточном альянса или западном?
|
2015
|
vol. 18
|
issue 4
63-79
EN
After more than two decades since the exit from Communism, no former communist country has been completely successful in catching up with the technological frontier countries. However, they divide into two groups: those which decreased the GDP gap with frontier countries since 1989-1990, and those which failed to do so. One may ask: What were the decisive causal conditions for their progress or failure in convergence? Were they the early implementation of Washington consensus style market reforms; their neighbourhood with advanced affluent countries; peaceful transition; accession to the EU; endowment with natural resources; state sovereignty before postcommunism; or interactions between these factors (or others)? Because of the small N, statistical analysis is not an appropriate tool for testing these hypotheses. Hence this paper uses qualitative comparative analysis to identify four explanatory puzzles of the catching-up growth performance of the postcommunist countries.
PL
Po ponad dwudziestu latach od upadku komunizmu, żaden z byłych krajów bloku komunistycznego nie był w stanie całkowicie dogonić krajów technologiczne przodujących. Jednak, kraje postkomunistyczne można podzielić na dwie grupy: te, którym udało się zmniejszyć lukę w produkcie krajowym brutto (PKB) w stosunku do krajów technologiczne przodujących, i te, którym nie udało się tego zrobić. Nasuwa się zatem pytanie, jakie uwarunkowania zadecydowały o powodzeniu lub niepowodzeniu konwergencji? Czy to było wczesne wdrożenie reform rynkowych w stylu Konsensusu waszyngtońskiego; Sąsiedztwo zaawansowanych gospodarczo krajów zamożnych; spokojny, pokojowy przebieg transformacji systemowej; przystąpienie do Unii Europejskiej, zasobność kraju w zasoby naturalne, skala suwerenności państwa przed transformacją lub interakcje między tymi czynnikami (lub inne czynniki)? Ze względu na małą liczebność próby (N), analiza statystyczna nie jest odpowiednim narzędziem do testowania tych hipotez. Dlatego w artykule zastosowano jakościową analizę porównawczą identyfikując cztery zagadki w wyjaśnianiu przyczyn powodzenia lub klęski wzrostu doganiającego w krajach postkomunistycznych.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.