AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
growth ratio per capita in PPS was presented in relation to the
average for EU-28 (determined at the level of 100) In the
analyzed period, GDP per capita in Poland is lower than the EU
average. GDP per capita, expressed according to purchasing
power standards, systematically increased in the analyzed period,
and in 2015 reached the level of 69% of the EU average.
Accelerating the pace of economic growth may cause a reduction
in the unemployment rate, but it may also trigger inflationary
pressure and a tendency to increase foreign debt. The drop in
unemployment contributes to the growth of real disposable
income and is certainly a positive phenomenon in the economy.
The unemployment rate in Poland in 2016 is the lowest in the
discussed period 2000 - 2016 (Table 5).
Maintaining the stability of the financial sector is crucial for the
economy. The indicators presented in Table 5 define the state of
the general government sector (General Government - GG) in
Poland.
Table 5. Government debt in relation to GDP and unemployment
in the period between 2000-2016
Year
Deficit/surplus
of government
debt in % of
GDP
Government
debt
in % of GDP
Unemploy-
ment rate
in %
Unemployment
rate in thous.
2000
-3,00
36,50
15,1
2 702,6
2001
-4,80
37,30
17,5
3 115,1
2002
-4,80
41,80
20
3 217,0
2003
-6,10
46,60
20
3 175,7
2004
-5,10
45,00
19
2 999,6
2005
-4,00
46,40
17,6
2 773,0
2006
-3,60
46,90
14,8
2 309,4
2007
-1,90
44,20
11,2
1 746,6
2008
-3,60
46,30
9,5
1 473,8
2009
-7,30
49,40
12,1
1 892,7
2010
-7,50
53,10
12,4
1 954,7
2011
-4,90
54,10
12,5
1 982,7
2012
-3,70
53,70
13,4
2 136,8
2013
-4,00
55,70
13,4
2 157,9
2014
-3,30
50,20
11,5
1 825,2
2015
-2,6
51,1
9,7
1 563,3
2016
-2,4
54,4
8,3
1 335,2
Source: Own study based on statistical data of GUS available at
http://stat.gov.pl/wskazniki-makroekonomiczne/ (access 18
November 2017).
The presented data shows that the indicators of the public
finance deficit and public debt clearly deteriorated in 2001-2005
(which probably resulted from economic deterioration). The
process of economic deterioration obviously accelerated in 2008-
2011, which probably resulted from the financial crisis. Due to
the fact that in 2009-2010 the border of 3% the relation between
public deficit and GDP (Maastricht criteria) was explicitly
exceeded, excessive deficit procedure was initiated. It was
abolished by the Council in June 2015
31
, which was certainly
helped by the pension reform. Higher budget revenues were
provided mainly from taxes and fees. From January 2011 VAT
rates were increased by 1 percentage point - from 22% to 23%,
and excise duty increased several times. From this moment, the
state of public finances has not deteriorated.
The above analyses of statistical data of variables related to
monetary and fiscal policy were supplemented with an analysis
of the correlation ratio between selected variables in the policy
mix in Poland in the years 2000 - 2016. Table 6 shows the
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between variables related to
monetary policy like: nominal reference interest rates of NBP
(%) - [IR_NOM], inflation rate (CPI) in the Poland – month
ending the period (December of the previous year = 100) –
[INF], Money Supply as Broad Money M3– in million PLN –
[M3_REAL], and the selected economic variables related to
fiscal policy like: nominal GDP in current prices in PLN,
adjusted by the CPI- [GDP_REAL]; GG deficit as % of GDP –
[DEF%]; GG debt as % of GDP [DEB%]; GG Debt in million
PLN adjusted by CPI [DEB_REAL] and the level of
unemployment – as at the end of the year [in thous.] –
31
In Poland, the excessive deficit procedure has been initiated since 2009.
[UNEMP]. Time series [GDP_REAL] and [M3_REAL],
[DEB_REAL] are in real terms using CPI index (I
1
= 2000=100).
For each correlation, the p-value was estimated (assuming that a
p-
value greater than α = 0.05 or α =0.1 was indicative of a
statistically insignificant correlation). Prior to correlation
analysis, variables were tested for stationarity with the ADF test
(Dickey-Fuller test). Variables were transformed into first
differences (if it was necessary), yielding stationary. To perform
the analysis, data spanning the years 2000-2016 were sourced
from the website of the Central Statistical Office of Poland.
Table 6 Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the selected
variables for Poland, 2000-2016
Variables
Pearson’s correlation for Polish
economy
IR_NOM v. d_ GDP_REAL
-0. 5708 (p-value= 0.0209)
d_M3_REAL v. d_ GDP _REAL
0.678 (p-value= 0.0039)
IR_NOM v. DEB%
- 0.8511 (p-value = 0.000)
d_M3_REAL v. DEB_REAL
0.599 (p-value= 0.0143)
d_M3_REAL v. DEF%
0.539 (p-value= 0.0314)
INF v. DEB%
- 0.486 (p-value= 0.048)
UNEMP v. IR_NOM
-0.608 (p-value = 0.009)
UNEMP v. d_M3_REAL
-0.797 (p-value= 0.0002)
Source: Own study prepared in GRETL program.
Analyzing directions and strengths of correlation between macro
and micro-economic variables concerning the course of
monetary and fiscal policy in Poland in the years 2000-2016 it
must be noted that there are dependencies between these
variables and significance of these interdependencies for the
policy mix of the government and central bank. In the period
between 2000-2016 a moderate negative correlation between a
nominal NBP reference rate and first differences for the real
GDP [-0,570] was observed. What was particularly important
was a correlation between first differences for the real money
supply M3 and first differences for the real GDP [0,678]. Then, a
nominal NBP reference rate to a great extent is negatively
correlated with public debt [-0,851]. Moderate correlations were
observed between first differences for the real money supply M3
and appropriately real GG government deficit [0,599] and GG
government deficit in % of GDP [0,539].
Moderate negative correlation is observed between inflation ratio
and government debt as % of GDP in Poland [-0,486].
Conducted correlations also indicate that the level of
unemployment is significantly correlated with a NBP nominal
reference rate [-0,608], which suggests crucial
interdependencies between one of fiscal authorities objectives
(as the lowest unemployment rate) and interest rate as an
instrument of monetary power. Unemployment was also
correlated to a great extent with the first differences for the real
money supply M3 [-0,797]. These dependencies indicate a
significant connection of tools and variables from monetary
policy with key macroeconomic variables for government fiscal
policy. It can suggest that in the analyzed period there were
crucial correlations between variables from policy mix area in
Poland.
5. Conclusions
The issue of competitiveness of the economy is the result of
decisions taken by the economy policy agents (central bank and
the government) of a given country. Polish economy still
expands steadily which was confirmed in this article by
conducting the analysis of indicators and the research by the
European Commission.
32
General economic perspectives are still
positive, although the internal risk appears, related e.g. to
unfavourable demographic perspectives.
In the analysed period the deterioration of the macroeconomic
indicators resulted from the economic slowdown in 2001-2002
and the last financial crisis, which very quickly moved to the
economies of the individual countries. This deterioration resulted
in the setback of the standing of public finance, higher
32
Commission Staff Working Document. National Report – Poland 2016.
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2016/cr2016_poland_pl.pdf (access 18 June
2017).
- 214 -