Liberalizing and Harmful Interventions in International Trade: Case of Poland

• Autorzy: Agnieszka Piekutowska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Motivation: As there is a need to track and analysis - with its practical implications - the responsibility for actions affecting international trade, therefore exploration of trade interventions implemented by Poland has its justification. Aim: The aim of the paper is to reveal direction, scale and dynamics of both liberalizing and harmful interventions in international trade implemented by Poland. The goal to achieve is to answer crucial question: to what extent, EU protectionism is shaped by EU bodies only - and to what extent by Poland by itself. Results: An analysis reveals both country-specific direction of interventions as well as country-specific sectors affected by liberalizing and harmful interventions. Although part of all interventions is those of EU bodies, Poland uses for instance state aid to stimulate national businesses as not all kinds of state aid are forbidden by EU law (types listed on not so short list in Article 107 of TFEU). Thus, as member states differ in their economic interests, one can observe differentiation in state interventions in scope of international trade. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Protectionism; International trade; Interventionism

PL

Protekcjonizm; Handel międzynarodowy; Interwencjonizm

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Prawo
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: 21
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 205--223

Twórcy

autor

Agnieszka Piekutowska

• University of Bialystok, Poland

Bibliografia

• Abboushi, S. (2010). Trade protectionism: reasons and outcomes. Competitiveness Review, 20(5), 384-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595421011080760.
• Alter, K.J., & Meunier-Aitsahalia, S. (1994). Judicial politics in the European community: European integration and the pathbreaking cassis de Dijon decision. Comparative Political Studies, 26(4), 535-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414094026004007.
• Aussilloux, V., Emlinger, C., & Fontagné, L. (2011). What benefits from completing the single market. La Lettre du CEPII, 316.
• Balassa, B. (1961). Towards a theory of economic integration. Kyklos: International Review for Social Sciences, 14(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1961.tb02365.x.
• Barattieri, A., Cacciatore, M., & Ghiron, F. (2021). Protectionism and the business cycle. Journal of International Economics, 129(103417), 103417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2020.103417.
• Bolkestein, F., & Gerken, L. (2015). The EU single market, protectionism and excessive regulation. Retrieved 25.03.2021 from https://www.cep.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/sop-cep.de/SOP/SOP-Presse/Presse-Archiv/EU_Single_Market_by_Bolkestein_and_Gerken.pdf.
• Chen, N. (2004). Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders matter. Journal of international Economics, 63(1), 93-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1996(03)00042-4.
• Clubb, B.E. (1971). Conflicting assumptions about international trade: neo-protectionism or reasonable accommodation of national interests. American Journal of International Law, 65(4), 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000261824.
• Czaja, I., & Wach, K. (2009). Changes in Poland's foreign trade turnover before and after accession to the European Union. Cracow Review of Economics and Management, 799, 145-161.
• Enderwick, P. (2011). Understanding the rise of global protectionism. Thunderbird International Business Review, 53(3), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.20410.
• Erixon, F., & Sally, R. (2010). Trade, globalisation and emerging protectionism since the crisis. ECIPE Working Paper, 02/2010, 1-20.
• European Commission. (2010). State aid/Poland. Retrieved 17.03.2021 from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/234044/234044_1118402_56_1.pdf.
• European Commission. (2017). State aid/Poland. Retrieved 16.03.2021 from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/257535/257535_1893966_124_2.pdf.
• European Commission. (2021). Competition cases search tool. Retrieved 15.03.2021 from https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.
• Evenett, S.J. (2009). Global trade alert: motivation and launch. World Trade Review, 8(4), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745609990061.
• Fajgelbaum, P.D., Goldberg, P.K., Kennedy P.J., & Khandelwal A.K. (2020). The Return to Protectionism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz036.
• Francois, J., & Hoekman, B. (Eds.). (2019). Behind-the-border policies: assessing and addressing non-tariff measures. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108751698.
• Global Trade Alert. (2021). Database. Retrieved 01.03.2021 from https://www.globaltradealert.org.
• Grottel, M. (2016). Protekcjonizm we współczesnym handlu międzynarodowym. International Business and Global Economy, 35(1), 69-80.
• Habarta, A. (2016). Characteristics of foreign trade and investment policy of Poland. Contemporary Europe, 6, 97-106. https://doi.org/10.15211/soveurope6201697106.
• International Monetary Fund. (2016). World economic outlook: subdued demand: symptoms and remedies. Retrieved 01.03.2021 from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2016/12/31/Subdued-Demand-Symptoms-and-Remedies.
• Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 1974. Pierre Guillot v Commission of the European Communities. Case 53-72. European Court Reports 1974-00791 (ECLI:EU:C:1974:80).
• Korwatanasakul, U., & Baek, Y. (2021). The effect of non-tariff measures on global value chain participation. Global Economic Review, 50(3), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/1226508X.2020.1862694.
• Koszewska, M. (2007). Poland's trade policy and its changes in the context of European integration: consequences for the protective clothing market. Fibres and Textiles in Eastern Europe, 15(4), 9-12.
• Le, V.P.M., Minford, P., & Nowell, E. (2009). European economic policy: protectionism as an elite strategy. In A. Gamble, & D. Lane (Eds.), The European Union and world politics (pp. 217-234). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230246188_12.
• Lewis, M.K. (2009). The EU's protectionism problem. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 10(2), 23-29.
• Molendowski, E. (2014). Akcesja Polski do UE i jej wpływ na strumienie handlu z nowymi państwami członkowskimi (UE-10). Miscellanea Oeconomicae, 18(1), 103-116.
• Pelkmans, J., & de Brito, A. (2012). Enforcement in the EU single market. Centre for European Policy Studies.
• Piekutowska, A., & Marcinkiewicz, J. (2020). Protectionism in international trade: the case of the European Union member states. European Research Studies Journal, 23(2), 728-740. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/1618.
• Scharpf, F.W. (2010). The asymmetry of European integration, or why the EU cannot be a 'social market economy'. Socio-Economic Review, 8(2), 211-250. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwp031.
• Semeniuk, P. (2019). Protekcjonizm gospodarczy w Unii Europejskiej. Retrieved 01.03.2021 from https://pie.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Raport_Protekcjonizm_gospodarczy_w_Unii_Europejskiej.pdf.
• Stefanescu, F. (2009). The economic crisis and protectionism. Romanian Economic and Business Review, 4(3), 199-213.
• World Integrated Trade Solutions. (2021). Database. Retrieved 25.02.2021 from https://wits.worldbank.org.
• Wysokińska, Z. (2017). Effects of Poland's pro-export policy implementation in the context of the plan for responsible development: a preliminary comparative assessment. Comparative Economic Research: Central and Eastern Europe, 20(4), 101-123. https://doi.org/10.1515/cer-2017-0030.
• Yatsenko, O., Stašys, R., Tsygankova, T., Reznikova, N., & Uskova, D. (2020). Protectionism sources of trade disputes within international economic relations. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development: Scientific Journal, 42(4), 516-526. https://doi.org/10.15544/mts.2020.53.
• Yi, C.D. (2020). The computable general equilibrium analysis of the reduction in tariffs and non-tariff measures within the Korea-Japan-European Union free trade agreement. Japan and the World Economy, 56, 101037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2020.101037.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2022.011