Regional development in Poland
Poland has 16 regions that correspond to the EU NUTS II level. In terms of territory thelargest are Mazowieckie, Wielkopolskie and Zachodniopomorskie. First in terms of population are
Mazowieckie (the capital region, 5.1 million inhabitants) and Slaskie (Poland’s biggest concentrationof old industries, 4.9 million inhabitants). The smallest in terms of population is the western region,Lubuskie (1 mln. inhabitants). Decentralization reform in 1999 gave regional self-governments full
responsibility for economic development of the regions.

Figure 1. Administrative map of Poland

Table 1.

GDP per capita by region in 2000 as percentage of the average.

REGION

GDP per capita, %POLAND100

DOLNOŚLĄSKIE103.4

KUJAWSKO-POMORSKIE

89.7

LUBELSKIE

68.5

LUBUSKIE

89.7ŁÓDZKIE

88.7MAŁOPOLSKIE

89.3

MAZOWIECKIE

151.6

OPOLSKIE

85.5

PODKARPACKIE

71.1

PODLASKIE

74.3

POMORSKIE

100.6ŚLĄSKIE

110.1ŚWIĘTOKRZYSKIE

78.2

WARMIŃSKO-MAZURSKIE

74.5

WIELKOPOLSKIE

106.6

ZACHODNIOPOMORSKIE

98.7

Source: Modified from Statistical Yearbook (1)Along with economic transformation and growth during the 1990s, regional and social
disparities in Poland became increasingly evident (Table 1). As can be seen from the table, in
economic-statistical terms regional differentiation in Poland is relatively weak: the ratio of GDP per
inhabitant of the poorest (Lubielskie) and the richest (Mazowieckie) region is approximately 1:2.2,
which is much less than in countries such as Italy or Spain. The poorest regions in Poland aresituated in the eastern part of the country: Lubielskie, Podkarpackie, Podlaskie, Warmino-Mazurskie
and Swietokrzyskie. Gorzelak (1994, 1999b) identified certain groups of relatively advantaged ordisadvantaged regions in Poland:(a) leaders: regions that display positive continuity: big urban centers, regions with tourist

potential;(b) winners: regions that were able to achieve positive discontinuity and left the position oflaggers to move into fast growth: the western regions that took advantage of the new markets inGermany and Austria;(c) losers: regions of negative discontinuity which were not able to sustain their traditional
leading position: the concentrations of old, obsolete industries;(d) laggers: regions of negative continuity, which could not overcome their backwardness
and peripheral location, mostly located in the eastern parts of the country.
The ability of individual regions to adapt to fundamental changes in economic environment
rests on a range of issues including their socio-economic structure, level of initial development andproximity to capital and innovation as well as the way in which they are affected by national policy
decisions (Gorzelak, 1994, 1999b).

Leaders
In Poland, as in each of the six candidate countries with more than one NUTS II region, thecapital region (Mazowieckie) is the wealthiest in the country. This is a general pattern for Centraland Eastern Europe when significant concentration of economic activity occurs in the political centreof the country. Slaskie and Wielkopolskie are the only regions, apart from Mazowieckie, which areclearly above their respective national average.

Winners
After 1989, western regions such as Welkopolskie, Zachodnio-Pomorzskie, Dolnoslaskie
and Lubuskie started to benefit from their position within a new European political and economicgeography. Proximity to the EU, relatively developed infrastructure and low labour costs combined

with labor force skills all contributed to stimulate markets and encourage investment in westernborder regions (Gorzelak, 1999a, 2000). Historically, these regions were always relatively moredeveloped and during the transformation they displayed better adaptability to the open competitiveeconomy. Their wealthier and more modern economic structure, better qualifications of the labor
force, and better equipment with high-quality institutional and material infrastructure made themmore attractive to domestic and foreign investors. As a result, structural changes have been deeper inthese regions and the dynamics of transformation greater.
LosersOld-industrial regions in Central and Eastern Europe are probably the regions that havebeen most adversely affected by the process of economic transition. In Poland there is one region
that is most often referred to as an old industrial ‘loser’ - Slaskie. During the socialist period, thisregion specialized in coal and steel production and was thus the focus of planned development and,to a large extent, the driver of economic activity (Gorzelak, 2000). During the transformation period,the region was severely affected by the reorientation of trade from formerly secure markets and by
the reduction of subsidies. The decline in socialist-style heavy industry in particular has played asignificant part in widening regional disparities in Poland (Gorzelak, 2000).
Apart from restructuring problems, the region faces severe degeneration of theenvironment in terms of air, water and soil pollution often associated with the scale and poor
technology of former industrial production. Major environmental problems still persist, which will
add to the cost of further restructuring and may well act as a disincentive to progress and investment(Gorzelak, 2000). Economic reform has not led to quality investment and the development of new
products and production methods. Since 1992 this region has been supported by subsidies, which
would not be easy to do within the EU. Restructuring of Slaskie has been very expensive andpolitically difficult; the region has not yet shown any significant ability for independent sustainabledevelopment (Tarkowski, 2003). The region is often defined as a stumbling block in the accession
process; scholars in the European Commission as well as in Poland point out that restructuring
Slaskie is one of the primary concerns of the Polish government on the way towards accession to theEuropean Union.

Laggers
The most economically disadvantaged regions in Poland are located at the eastern periphery of thecountry (Podlaskie, Lubelskie, Podkarpackie). The comparatively unfavourable geographicallocation of those regions (proximity to economically less developed Belarus, Ukraine and Russia)
limits the opportunities for fruitful trans-border co-operation and joint economic initiatives(Sadowska-Snarska, 2002). The second factor affecting the economic position of the peripheral areasis the predominance of agriculture in the regional economy. Overall, as the European Commission
points out, agriculture in Poland is still in need of urgent structural reform to meet the current andfuture competitive environment (European Commission, 2001).