Poland: Role of social dialogue in industrial policies

  • Observatory: EurWORK
  • Topic:
  • Published on: 14 september 2014



About
Country:
Poland
Author:
Institution:

Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.

Since the 1990s, the concept of ‘industrial policy’ was treated as a sort of an ugly duckling in the public debate. That attitude has only begun to change recently. However, social partner involvement in policy-making in that area has remained limited. In the institutional dimension, sectoral tripartite social dialogue bodies are the main platform where the voice of the social partners is taken into account, although its impact is not significant. The issue about which the social partners seem to be very concern is the EU Climate and Energy Package. Furthermore, the national-level anti-crisis policy and the support to the shipyard industry affected by the European Commission’s decision to repay public aid deemed illegal in 2008 are also notable examples of social partner involvement in shaping the industrial policy.

Part 1: Overall role and involvement of social partners in industrial policy in the national context

Industrial policy is in this context used in its broader sense as…

those policies that have an impact on the cost, price and innovative competitiveness of industry and individual sectors, such as standardisation or innovation policies, or sectoral policies targeting e.g. the innovation performance of individual sectors’.

COM(2010) 614 An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage. EC 2010

The policy instruments are then defined as the method or mechanism used by government, political parties, business or individuals to achieve a desired effect, through legal or economic means.

Industrial policy initiatives are often undertaken unilaterally by the government but other forms may include social partners in different constellations, including:

  • bipartite initiative (a common approach by the social partners);
  • tripartite initiative (the social partners in tandem with the public authorities);
  • tripartite+ initiative (the three stakeholders in combination sometimes with other civil society players such as NGOs, research centres or qualified figures);
  • public-private partnership initiatives (one social partner and the public authorities); and
  • unilateral initiatives by a single social partner

1. Is there in your country currently a policy framework to stimulate investments that both create economic growth and employment? Tick Yes/No

Table 1

Policy framework

Yes

No

Economic growth

Yes

 

Employment

Yes

 

Both economic growth and employment

Yes

 

Competitiveness

Yes

 

2. Is there evidence in your country of involvement of social partners in the process of formulating industrial policy interventions? If yes, please indicate which types of involvement:

Table 2

Type of social partner involvement:

… in the formulation of horizontal (cross-sector) interventions

… in the formulation of vertical (sector-, industry- or company-specific) interventions

Sector-specific involvement

No

Yes

Cross-sector involvement

No

No

Bipartite, tripartite, tripartite+, unilateral, public/private partnership?

Please indicate which, if any, of these types apply:

Please indicate which, if any, of these types apply:

Tripartite

3. How have social partners been involved in the industrial policy formulation process?

Table 3
 

Please indicate (X) the extent to which the different types of involvement are used, including whether this involvement is statutory:

Level of government?

Sector focus?

Specific form of social partner involvement:

Statutory/mandatory

Very common/ used in most policy processes but not statutory

Fairly common but not consistently used

Rarely used

Not used at all

National or regional?

Sectoral or cross-sectoral?

Tripartite standing committee

 

X

         

Tripartite ad hoc committees

   

X

       

High-level groups or other multi-stakeholder committees involving other stakeholders in addition to social partners

     

X

     

If multi-stakeholder committees:

Please indicate which types of other stakeholders are (typically) involved:

Hearings

             

Consultations

X

 

X

X

     

Conferences

             

Other – please specify below:

             

.

             

4. Is there evidence in your country of initiatives that follows recommendations and development at EU-level? If yes, please indicate in which sectors:5. Which types of industrial policy instruments/interventions at different government levels have social partners been involved in? Please indicate degree of involvement

3 = high degree of involvement,

2 = involvement to some extent,

1 = low degree of involvement,

0 = no involvement.

Table 4

Policy instruments:

National level

Regional level

Local level

Public investment programmes:

     

infrastructure

2

0

0

construction

2

0

0

building renovation

0

0

0

other

0

0

0

Innovation programmes

0

0

0

Support for R&D

0

0

0

Cluster promotion

0

0

0

Export promotion

0

0

0

Internationalisation of SMEs

0

0

0

Improvement of access to finance:

     

loan

0

0

0

loan guarantee programmes

0

0

0

venture capital funding

0

0

0

other

0

0

0

Public procurement policies

2

0

0

Tax and duty policies

1

0

0

Adapting the skills base

1

0

0

Subsidies for restructuring/ bail-out of companies in crisis

3

0

0

Social plans in case of restructuring. Training/re-training

2

0

0

Investment incentives

0

0

0

Energy efficiency/ energy shift

2

0

0

Energy supply security

2

0

0

Access to raw materials

1

0

0

Prices of energy and raw materials

0

0

0

Others, please specify below:

     
       

6. Which, if any, positive effect(s) can be related to the involvement of social partners in the industrial policy process in your country?

Table 5

Positive effects

Tick (X) where applicable

Please comment briefly: How did effect manifest itself?

Speed of policy process

   

Robustness of policy initiatives

x

Involvement of social partners provides additional stimulus to the process of policy-design and their subsequent implementation, sometimes even, as the Example 1 (see below) indicates, social partners become the driving force of policy formulation and leave a deep mark on the policy content.

Relevance of policy initiatives

   

Dynamism in the policy process

   

European coordination

   

Ownership of policy initiatives

   

Coherence and coordination of labour market, education, and economic policies

   

Stimulating public-private partnerships

   

Others, please specify below:

   

.

   

7. Which, if any, problems or challenges related to involvement of social partners in the industrial policy process have been encountered in your country?

Table 6

Problems/challenges:

Tick (X) where applicable

Please comment briefly: How did the problem manifest itself?

Increased bureaucracy

   

Lengthy policy processes

X

Even though, involvement of social partners, may help in the process of policy formulation, it does not guarantee speeding up of the process, and does not secure the partners’ proposals to be eventually reflected in the policy content

Lengthy bargaining processes

   

Dilution (circumvention) of parliamentary democracy

   

Problems of establishing accountability

   

Lack of dynamism in the policy process

X

The policy process pace is basically under unilateral control of the government, and social partners have no means of exercising impact.

Lack of culture to involve social partners

X

Volunatrism of the state, especially in the tripartite social dialogue, is well known and durable phenomenon in Poland, recently government has sough support of the social partners only with a strong political motivation (diffusion of responsibility for unpopular or risky decisions) present

Others, please specify below:

   

.

   

Part 2: Description of relevant sector examples of social partner involvement

This section aims to identify examples of policies targeting specific sectors and involving social dialogue. Among the industrial policies treated in the previous section in question 5, please select 2-3 examples which represent significant industrial policies in your country and describe the policy instruments used and the contribution of social partners to the shaping of the policy and the outcome of their involvement.

The selection of examples should be guided by the following criteria:

  • importance of the sector to the national economy;
  • level of government support to the industry; and
  • best practice of social dialogue in the country.

Please provide references to key sources.

Example 1

Name of the instrument:

In national language and English

Sector:

cross-sectoral

Type of instrument applied:

(use categories from question 5. Some sector policies may apply more than one instrument

• Subsidies for restructuring/ bail-out of companies in crisis

• Social plans in case of restructuring. Training/re-training

Timing:

(Period of implementation of instrument)

2009-2011

Operational level

National

Regional

Local

Please tick the government level and/or provide details of geographical implementation area if relevant:

x

   

Funding:

(Please describe the size of the instrument and detail the source(s) of funding, e.g. EU, state budget, levies, stakeholder contributions, etc.).

State budget (budżet państwa)

Target group(s):

(please describe target group in terms of sector/industry, type of company, geographical criteria and/or other relevant characteristics)

Entrepreneurs/employers (przedsiębiorcy/pracodawcy) suffering from “temporary economic difficulties”, whom the following supportive instruments were offered:

• extending working time calculation period to 12 months (from standard four months);

• flexibilisation of daily working time;

• working time reduction;

• unlimited number of fixed-time employment contracts allowed for up to 24 months (standard solution allows for only two consecutives fixed-time contracts);

• support to employees/employers in form of subsidizing the expanses on remuneration from the public funds and mandatory dues to be paid to the social security system;

• supporting vocational training and human capital development, in particular through: co-financing the costs of vocational training for employees; co-financing the costs of post-graduate courses at university level for employees; Labour Fund participating in the costs of scholarships and social security dues paid from such scholarships

Rationale/motivation for the instrument:

(please describe the problem that the instrument should address – for instance: market failure, need to increase sector competitiveness, crisis intervention, etc.)

Crisis (or more accurately, anticipated crisis) intervention was the main motivation for devising and implementation of the “Anti-crisis legislation”, based on the set of measures prepared by the central-level social partners. All the parties involved (and deliberately, uninvolved, as was the case of government ) had divergent, yet strong motivation: trade unions feared the prospects of mass redundancies, employers predicted a high wave of bankruptcies, and the government sought a way to diffuse responsibility for introduction of anti-crisis policy measures, which could have produced social discontent.

Policy stage

Please describe stage of involvement of the social actors i.e.

policy preparation (consultation),

policy decision (co-determination? and

policy implementation (fx. by involvement in agencies)

As the government did not rush in addressing the challenges of economic stagnation, both employers and trade unions launched autonomous talks aiming at devising a consensually agreed framework for the feasible policy response. The government promised to respect the outcomes of those negotiations, which materialised in a form of 13 specific policy proposals and were handed over to the government. The ‘autonomous anti-crisis package’ became the basis for the draft anti-crisis legislation. The legislation eventually adopted departed in some respects from what had been agreed by the social partners. Once the law was in force, social partners effectively promoted some (albeit minor) amendments in order to increase efficiency of the measures.

Objectives of the instrument:

(please describe the objectives and any quantitative targets set for the instrument– e.g.

increased employment by X% in sector Y by 20xx

increase in sector exports by X%

increase in FDI by X%

No quantitative targets were set.

Activities and implementation:

(Please give details on the implementation of the intervention)

 

Social partner involvement

The autonomous (bipartite) ‘Anti-crisis package’ (set of anti-crisis measures) agreed upon by the central-level social partners was the basis for drawing of the official policy and legislation addressing the effects of the economic stagnation, although only some of the social partners’ proposal were transformed into law. The new regulations were passed only for a definite time (until the end of 2011).

Type of social partner involvement:

(Bipartite, tripartite, tripartite+, unilateral, public/private partnership? – cf. qu. 1)

Technically, the negotiations were bipartite, yet they were conducted within the confinement of the Tripartite Commission, only with government representatives absent, and involved only the seven central-level social partners organisations deemed representative.

Level of involvement of social partners involvement:

European, National, regional, local

Sectoral

National

Specific form of social partner involvement:

(tripartite standing or ad hoc committee, high-level group, hearing, consultation, conferences, etc.? – cf. qu. 2)

Bipartite negotiations among the central-level social partner organisations, whose final outcome was handed over to government in a form a 13 proposed policy measures.

Timing and nature of social partner involvement:

(Please provide more details on the processes that social partners were involved in, their input, the timing, etc.)

The negotiations took place between February and March 2009. The amendments mentioned above were proposed by trade unions and employers separately in mid-2010, and passed into legislation in October 2010.

Impact of social partner involvement on design and implementation of instrument:

(Please describe how/if the design and/or implementation was affected through the involvement of social partners)

The formulated proposals of anti-crisis policy action were handed over to government, which used it as a basis for drafting two legislative acts. The main set of provisions was included in the Act of 1 July 2009 on alleviation of economic crisis effects on employees and employers (Ustawa z dnia 1 lipca 2009 r. o łagodzeniu skutków kryzysu ekonomicznego dla pracowników i przedsiębiorców).

Other stakeholders involved, if any:

(please name stakeholders and briefly describe their roles)

 

Results and outcomes

 

Outputs/results:

(Please give details of the outputs/results of the intervention; e.g number of jobs created/retained, number of workers upskilled; wage increases, investment increases, increased co-operation between social partners, etc.)

The results of the anti-crisis legislation were very limited, mainly because the target group (i.e. employers) mostly ignored the measures. Before the law went out of force, the number of requests for financial aid aimed to provide for the “subsidized employment” did not surpass 12,000. Furthermore, total of 1,075 cases of extension of the working time settlement periods were notified to the authorities.

Assessment of effectiveness:

(Please provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention - were the objectives reached? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

The effectiveness of the measures applied is low. Even though, there were no pre-defined targets to reach, the response of the business community was very limited. The legal possibility of extending working time calculation period up to 12 months was the most favourably assessed instrument, which resulted in the government upholding the measure and transforming it from temporary into permanent one through amending the Labour Code in mid-2013.

Possible explanations for the effectiveness of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of effectiveness achieved, including the contribution of the social partner involvement; e.g. improved bargaining process? Increased dynamism in the policy process? Other explanations?)

The overall poor performance of the measures applied is attributed to two main factors: first, the low responsiveness of the business, which chose not to rely on government’s aid, and, second, to a relatively good shape of the national economy, which during the two years of the law being in force never slipped into recession.

Assessment of efficiency:

Did the outputs/results measure up to the effort/resources invested? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

It is difficult to measure the efficiency of the measures, because there is no frame of reference in terms of similar policy actions taken in recent years. So, on the one hand, the anti-crisis policy was largely a failure due to a low response of the target group. On the other hand, it should be considered a success in terms of getting social partners involved in policy-making.

Possible explanations for the efficiency of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of efficiency, including the contribution of the social partner involvement)

As the economic situation turned out to be better than expected, the government largely regained its voluntaristic stance.

Example 2

Name of the instrument:

In national language and English

Sector:

Ship-building

Compensation process for two Stocznia Gdynia Inc. and Stocznia Szczecińska Nowa Ltd. preventing their bankruptcy and securing repayment or compensation of all of the shipyards’ financial obligations, including the state aid deemed illegal by the European Commission in November 2008, thus to be returned.

Type of instrument applied:

(use categories from question 5. Some sector policies may apply more than one instrument

• Subsidies for restructuring/ bail-out of companies in crisis

• Social plans in case of restructuring. Training/re-training

Timing:

(Period of implementation of instrument)

2008-2012

Operational level

National

Regional

Local

Please tick the government level and/or provide details of geographical implementation area if relevant:

x

 

x

Funding:

(Please describe the size of the instrument and detail the source(s) of funding, e.g. EU, state budget, levies, stakeholder contributions, etc.).

State budget (budżet państwa), and the liquidated assets of the two shipyards

Target group(s):

(please describe target group in terms of sector/industry, type of company, geographical criteria and/or other relevant characteristics)

Two companies from the shipbuilding sector: Stocznia Gdynia Inc. and Stocznia Szczeciñska Nowa Ltd., and their employees covered by the Voluntary Redundancies Programme and the Monitored Redundancies Programme.

Rationale/motivation for the instrument:

(please describe the problem that the instrument should address – for instance: market failure, need to increase sector competitiveness, crisis intervention, etc.)

The two shipyards were heavily impacted by the European Commission’s (EC) decision finding the state aid transferred to the shipyards illegal and requesting the beneficiaries to repay it (PL0807029I).

Policy stage

Please describe stage of involvement of the social actors i.e.

policy preparation (consultation),

policy decision (co-determination? and

policy implementation (fx. by involvement in agencies)

Enterprise level trade unions in the two companies were consulted on the measures concerning the employees in course of the legislative process.

Objectives of the instrument:

(please describe the objectives and any quantitative targets set for the instrument– e.g.

increased employment by X% in sector Y by 20xx

increase in sector exports by X%

increase in FDI by X%

• Voluntary Redundancies Programme (Program Dobrowolnych Odejść) covered the shipyards’ workers who would agree to leave their jobs voluntarily in return for financial compensation, ranging in net terms from PLN 20,000 to PLN 60,000, depending on the time spent with their respective employers.

• Monitored Redundancies Programme (Program Zwolnień Monitorowanych) targeted workers willing to undertake active job-search and used such instruments as vocational counselling and training, job search assistance, business consulting and financial aid for business start-ups. Those taking advantage of the Voluntary Redundancies Programme still remained eligible for the Monitored Redundancies Programme.

Activities and implementation:

(Please give details on the implementation of the intervention)

The assets of the two shipyards were put on sale, and proceeds accumulated from sales were used to fulfil financial obligations of the companies, first and foremost, to repay the public aid to the government. The compensation programme was closed in October 2011in Stocznia Szczecińska Nowa, and in August 2012 in Stocznia Gdynia, respectively.

• Voluntary Redundancies Programme was completed in the two cases, and over nine thousand employees of the two companies collected compensations provided under the Programme in total.

• Monitored Redundancies Programme was completed in the two cases as well, and over eight thousand employees of the two companies took advantage of it in total.

Social partner involvement

 

Type of social partner involvement:

(Bipartite, tripartite, tripartite+, unilateral, public/private partnership? – cf. qu. 1)

Tripartite

Level of involvement of social partners involvement:

European, National, regional, local

Sectoral

Local (enterprise-level)

Specific form of social partner involvement:

(tripartite standing or ad hoc committee, high-level group, hearing, consultation, conferences, etc.? – cf. qu. 2)

Consultation

Timing and nature of social partner involvement:

(Please provide more details on the processes that social partners were involved in, their input, the timing, etc.)

Social partners (trade unions) were involved at the preparatory stage, that is, they were consulted as the relevant legislation was debated in late 2008.

Impact of social partner involvement on design and implementation of instrument:

(Please describe how/if the design and/or implementation was affected through the involvement of social partners)

Social partners accepted the proposed measures intended to provide coverage for the employees of the two shipyards, in particular, in parts regarding financial compensation and retraining activities.

Other stakeholders involved, if any:

(please name stakeholders and briefly describe their roles)

 

Results and outcomes

 

Outputs/results:

(Please give details of the outputs/results of the intervention; e.g number of jobs created/retained, number of workers upskilled; wage increases, investment increases, increased co-operation between social partners, etc.)

The shipyards assets were sold and the debts were subsequently paid off. As mentioned above, over nine thousand employees collected financial compensations (the amount received by a single employee was PLN 41.5 thousand on average) and over eight thousand employees took advantage of the measures under the Monitored Redundancies Programme. Specifically speaking, 7,900 employees concerned participated in re-training activities. On the other hand, only slightly more than a third (36%) of over nine thousand employees who lost their jobs in the process became re-employed. Last but not least, no foreign investor from the sector showed any serious interest in taking over the shipyards, which would give hope for maintaining the original production profile. Instead, the domestic investors, who actually acquired assets of the shipyards represent branches other than ship-building, and their attempts to run operations involving the assets obtained are unrelated to the former activities of the two enterprises.

Assessment of effectiveness:

(Please provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention - were the objectives reached? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

In formal terms, the whole Compensation Programme was a success, as all the objectives envisaged were met. On the other hand, its effectiveness is debatable. According to the 2011 report by the Superior Chamber of Control (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, NIK), the national auditor, the low level of former employees’ re-employment suggests that the Monitored Redundancies Programme was not particularly well-designed.

Possible explanations for the effectiveness of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of effectiveness achieved, including the contribution of the social partner involvement; e.g. improved bargaining process? Increased dynamism in the policy process? Other explanations?)

It is difficult to say whether the social partners involvement contributed significantly to the success of the instruments applied, as their role in the process should be described as reactive to the decisions taken single-handedly by the government under pressure of the EC.

Assessment of efficiency:

Did the outputs/results measure up to the effort/resources invested? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

It is difficult to measure the results in numerical terms. Only the low employability level of former employees may serve as an indicator.

Possible explanations for the efficiency of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of efficiency, including the contribution of the social partner involvement)

The instruments applied should be considered effective, as the aims set out by the legislation were met. Social partners (trade unions) succeeded in terms of providing the coverage for employee to be made redundant. Yet, the instruments were hardly successful when it came to maintaining employability of the former staff of the two shipyards and preserving the existence of the companies as ship-builders.

Example 3

Name of the instrument:

In national language and English

Sector:

Energy industry and all industrial sectors responsible for high CO2 emission

in particular, production and distribution of electricity, steam and hot water, and manufacture of building materials (other non-metallic mineral products)

Type of instrument applied:

(use categories from question 5. Some sector policies may apply more than one instrument

• Energy efficiency/ energy shift

• Energy supply security

Timing:

(Period of implementation of instrument)

2011-present

Operational level

National

Regional

Local

Please tick the government level and/or provide details of geographical implementation area if relevant:

x

   

Funding:

(Please describe the size of the instrument and detail the source(s) of funding, e.g. EU, state budget, levies, stakeholder contributions, etc.).

State budget (budżet państwa)

Target group(s):

(please describe target group in terms of sector/industry, type of company, geographical criteria and/or other relevant characteristics)

Energy industry and all industrial sectors depending on traditional (that is, high CO2 emitting) sources of energy to be affected by the EU Climate & Energy Package.

Rationale/motivation for the instrument:

(please describe the problem that the instrument should address – for instance: market failure, need to increase sector competitiveness, crisis intervention, etc.)

Poland’s economy heavily depends on coal as the primary source of energy, so the EU Climate & Energy Package is likely to have considerable impact on performance of the most industrial sectors, if they are to switch to alternative sources of energy. It is an issue that seriously worries not only government but also the social partners, who in this particular case express the same, very critical, opinions of the Package.

Policy stage

Please describe stage of involvement of the social actors i.e.

policy preparation (consultation),

policy decision (co-determination? and

policy implementation (fx. by involvement in agencies)

 

Objectives of the instrument:

(please describe the objectives and any quantitative targets set for the instrument– e.g.

increased employment by X% in sector Y by 20xx

increase in sector exports by X%

increase in FDI by X%

No specific instruments has been devised and presented yet.

Activities and implementation:

(Please give details on the implementation of the intervention)

No intervention has taken place yet. The issue is only a subject to tripartite debates.

Social partner involvement

 

Type of social partner involvement:

(Bipartite, tripartite, tripartite+, unilateral, public/private partnership? – cf. qu. 1)

Tripartite, mostly within the sectoral social dialogue bodies. In particular, the Tripartite Sectoral Team in the Coal-mining (Trójstronny Zespół Branżowy ds. Bezpieczeństwa Socjalnego Górników) and the Tripartite Sectoral Team in the Steel Industry (Trójstronny Zespół Branżowy ds. Społecznych Warunków Restrukturyzacji Hutnictwa) have been involved.

Level of involvement of social partners involvement:

European, National, regional, local

Sectoral

National

Specific form of social partner involvement:

(tripartite standing or ad hoc committee, high-level group, hearing, consultation, conferences, etc.? – cf. qu. 2)

 

Timing and nature of social partner involvement:

(Please provide more details on the processes that social partners were involved in, their input, the timing, etc.)

2011-present.

Negotiations within the two sectoral teams.

Impact of social partner involvement on design and implementation of instrument:

(Please describe how/if the design and/or implementation was affected through the involvement of social partners)

No specific instruments have been devised yet. Nevertheless, the social partners of the both sides of the industrial relations scene are very critical of the objectives of the EU Climate & Energy Package, and they clearly attempt to exercise impact on the government’s position on the issue to be presented at the EU-level.

Other stakeholders involved, if any:

(please name stakeholders and briefly describe their roles)

 

Results and outcomes

 

Outputs/results:

(Please give details of the outputs/results of the intervention; e.g number of jobs created/retained, number of workers upskilled; wage increases, investment increases, increased co-operation between social partners, etc.)

The only material results of the social partners involvement thus far have been the official protocols of the sectoral social dialogue bodies, where their attitudes and positions towards the EU Climate & Energy Package are reflected. Yet, their negative stance has been an important source of support and reinforcement to the governments’ scepticism to the foreseen EU policies in that area, which it may use in the near future as a viable argument in the EU-level debate as it advances.

Assessment of effectiveness:

(Please provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention - were the objectives reached? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

 

Possible explanations for the effectiveness of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of effectiveness achieved, including the contribution of the social partner involvement; e.g. improved bargaining process? Increased dynamism in the policy process? Other explanations?)

No instrument is yet in place.

Assessment of efficiency:

Did the outputs/results measure up to the effort/resources invested? If possible, base the assessment on evaluation reports or similar)

No specific instrument is yet in place.

Possible explanations for the efficiency of the instrument:

(Please provide possible explanations for the degree of efficiency, including the contribution of the social partner involvement)

No specific instrument is yet in place.

Jan Czarzasty, Warsaw School of Economics (SGH) and Institute of Public Affairs (ISP)

Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think. Hide comments

Lägg till ny kommentar