Importance of State Support to Development of Sustainable

Transkrypt

Chapter II
IMPORTANCE OF STATE SUPPORT TO DEVELOPMENT
OF SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIAL POLICIES
Beata ŚLUSARCZYK
The essence and principles of state support for enterprises
In economies of many countries, free competition is protected by antitrust
law and regulations in terms of unfair competition, whose recipients are
entrepreneurs. The phenomenon of state support, although it has a considerable
impact on competition, does not concern behaviors of entrepreneurs. Public
authorities, with their public resources, are always a subject which disturbs or
threatens with disturbance to the competition through state support that they
grant to the entities. Therefore, regulations which define state support are of
essential importance. In fact, they constitute a self-limitation to the state in terms
of allocation of public resources to public law entities. Existence of these
regulations for state support is a proof of the maturity of legislature since it
formulates legal barriers to free intervention of the state to limit free market.1
A fundamental principle in market economies is freedom of market forces and
free competition. These two aspects of functioning of the free market are thought
to be conducive to optimal allocation of material and human resources, which
leads to maximization of growth in companies and the whole economy.
Therefore, one of the most fundamental provisions contained in the Treaties of
Rome, which underlay the European Communities, is disapproval of allocation of
support to the enterprises by the member states. However, in some exceptional
situations, state support is permitted.2
One of the definitions of state support says that it is an element of economic
interventionism of the state, whose goal is to stimulate positive economic
processes or to prevent negative events.3

Beata Ślusarczyk, PhD., Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of Management,
e-mail: [email protected]
1
Jankowski B., Pomoc publiczna w prawie Unii Europejskiej – implikacje dla Polski, wyd. Urząd
Komitetu Integracji Europejskiej, Warszawa 2001, p. 5.
2
Płowiec U. (ed.), Analiza doświadczeń krajów Unii Europejskiej w zakresie pomocy publicznej;
wnioski dla Polski, Wyd. Instytut Koniunktur i Cen Handlu Zagranicznego, Warszawa 1999, p. 49.
3
Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie; przepisy
i komentarz, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis, Warszawa 2001, p. 33.
1
A fundamental and economic substantiation of allocation of state support are
market failures i.e. situation when market mechanisms are not able to optimally
impact on behaviors patterns of market participants.4
The Treaties of Rome regulate the problems of state support in three Articles,
No. 92, 93 and 94 (Articles 87-89 of TEC, respectively). Fundamental resolutions
concerning state support were stipulated in the Article 92.1 of the Treaties of
Rome (87(1) of TEC, respectively) as follows: any aid granted by a member state
or granted from the resources owned by the state in any form which disturbs or
threatens with disturbance to competition through favoritism towards some
enterprise or some productions will be deemed inconsistent with the Common
Market within the scope where it adversely impacts on trade between member
states.5
Based on this statement, U. Płowiec formulates the following conclusions:6
Firstly, the scope of support is wide and it encompasses both aid allocated by the
state and from state resources, thus aid allocated by central, regional and local
authorities, and, as results from different decisions by the European Commission,
by agencies and other public organizations. Public administration authorities in
Poland which can allocate state support include:7
- chief and central administration authorities;
- government administration authorities in the voivodeships, i.e. voivodes or
some non-combined administration authorities (tax chambers, tax offices,
directors in customs houses, president of the Agricultural Market Agency);
- self-government administration authorities i.e. governing board of the
voivodeship, regional parliaments, council and governing board in powiats
and gminas (powiats and gminas are principal units of territorial division in
Poland).
The definition does not negate allocation of any extent of support but the aid
which distorts, or threatens with distortion of competition through favoritism of
some companies, productions or regions. Selective support is deemed to be
undesirable, similarly to the aid which adversely impacts on trading between EU
countries. State support is allocated to specific companies and it is of a selective
nature.8
4
Jasiński P., Kaliszuk E., Modzelewska – Wąchal E., Lubbe A., Priorytety pomocy publicznej,
Niebieskie Księgi 2003, No. 3, Polskie Forum Strategii Lizbońskiej, Gdańsk 2003, p. 13.
5
Source of Polish translation of the Treaties of Rome:
http://www.cie.gov.pl/tem/akt/traktaty/traktat_wsp.htm
6
Płowiec U. (ed.), Analiza doświadczeń krajów..., op. cit., p. 49.
7
Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie..., op. cit.,
p. 45; Ślusarczyk B., Public Aid in Management of Restructuring Process in Steel Industry, [in:]
Rubachov A.I. (ed.), Povysenie effektivnosti integrirovannogo upravlenija na predprijatijach
Central'noj i Vostocnoj Evropy, Brest, 2006.
8
Jankowski B., Pomoc publiczna..., op. cit., p. 22.
2
Criterion of violation of exchange between member states is a natural
consequence of supranational system of protecting competition which functions
in the European Union. Therefore, state support becomes the focus of the
Commission only if its repercussions are reflected in infringement of international
trading.9
Following the interpretation of EU definition of state support, it should be
emphasized that, since it says ‘any aid’, the forms of the allocated support can
vary (subsidies, tax allowances, deferred payment etc.), whereas objects of state
support include enterprises established on general terms, independently of the
form of ownership.
For categorization of the given resource as ‘support’, neither reasons for
which it was used nor goals to be achieved (or a form it was used) are important;
it is the effects it produces for competitors in the market that are essential.10
However, the fact remains that there is no precise definition of ‘state support’
in European Community law. This results from the fact that the European Union is
a supranational structure and its regulations must take into consideration
different legal principles in the member states. Therefore, it is impossible to
create a uniform definition of state support which would apply to all the member
states. Therefore, an important role is played by the Commission and the State
Tribunal, which are the authorities to interpret resolutions of the European
normative acts through their decisions and jurisdiction.
As results from the abovementioned considerations, state support is not
forbidden, but it is deemed inconsistent with the concept of common market.
B. Jankowski 11, who analyzed these basic conditionings of state support,
emphasized the main problem of examination if the resources recognized as state
support are of state origins. The author points to the practice of ‘hiding’ of state
support by allocation of this support by the agency of public law entities. This type
of practice was commonly used in EU member states. It consisted in transfer of
funds to the public law entities controlled by the state to be allocated to actual
beneficiaries of the aid. Its goal was to avoid regulations of unauthorized aid.
In-depth interpretation of the concept of ‘state support’ was provided by
S. Dudzik, who used explanations by many economists and experts and a number
of decisions and opinions by the Commission.12 He divided the multitude of the
existing definitions into four groups.
First group of definitions say that support causes both benefits for the entities
and a burden to the state. In this case, support is understood as e.g. the resource
9
Ibid., p. 23.
Dudzik P., Pomoc państwa dla przedsiębiorstw publicznych w prawie Wspólnoty Europejskiej,
Wydawnictwo Kantor Wydawniczy Zakamycze, Zakamycze 2002, p. 34.
11
12
Dudzik P., Pomoc państwa..., op. cit., pp. 64 – 68.
10
3
which is a cost or loss of revenues for state authorities and benefits to the entity
that is allocated the support.
The second group of definitions emphasizes the element of benefits which are
derived by the aid recipients. Therefore, aid means each subsidy or benefit which
is granted by state authorities or particular benefits which do not originate from
the market which can be attributed to the state, which are responsible for
improvement in financial standing of the enterprises that make use of this aid, as
compared to other companies. Another approach defines aid as covering of a part
of costs of manufacturing by somebody else than the purchaser; a benefit, which
was not given ‘within normal activities’ or intervention initiatives which reduce
load that typically exists in state budget. To sum up this group of explanations, the
definition says that a state support is any (in business terms) enlargement, with
non-equivalent nature, in the process of exchange, thus having the nature of
a privilege, independently of legal form in which it was granted’. 13
Next group of definitions focused on burden taken by the state in these
situations. In the light of this interpretation, support is defined as overtaking, by
the state, of the costs typically incurred by the entities or overtaking, by the state,
of
a part of the risk typically taken by the entities and the state is not responsible for.
However, regardless of the employed definition of support, the result seems
to be the same whether the results of the particular actions for support recipient
are taken as a starting point or the results of support for the state itself are mainly
considered.
Fourth group of definitions finds it particularly essential to define the goals of
state support. According to this assumption, state support means allocation of
funds or benefits to support achievement of business or social goals desired by the
state or any type of support granted by a member state or from state resources
for the purposes other than commercial. Another adequate definition is approach
to aid as funds made available by the state, which would not be transferred by
private investors who use common commercial criteria and who typically neglect
the reasons of social, political or philanthropic nature.
An optimal summary of the abovementioned considerations is a definition of
aid stipulated in the Art. 87 and the following articles of TEC, which say that state
support is any service in favor of an enterprise or from state funds (increasing
expenditures or reducing state revenues), which generates the profits to this
company which would not be able to be obtained within normal business
activities.
13
Kulesza M., Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorstw w RP. Rola gmin – uwagi wstępne na tle
postanowień Traktatu Rzymskiego i Układu o Stowarzyszaniu, PPE 1996, No. 1, p. 37.
4
State support can be of offensive or defensive nature.14 Offensive state
support is aimed at supporting and acceleration of the processes of restructuring
in economy as well as support for the domains whose development is conducive
to improvement in competitiveness of economy and improvement in life quality.
On the other hand, defensive state support consists in support for the whole
sectors or only products of aging domains (decadent, sensitive) or necessary
adaptation changes. It is a reaction to the decline in profitability of production,
leading to the demise of the entities and, in consequence, to structural
unemployment.
State support was stipulated in Polish regulations as late as in the act as of 30
June 2000 on conditions of admissibility and supervision of state support for
entrepreneurs.15 It was replaced in 2002 by another document which regulated
the issues of state support16, and, since the accession of Poland to the European
Union, community principles of admissibility of state support based on the Treaty
establishing the European Communities have been in force in the country. Polish
Act as of 200417 stipulates the question of initial control of state support and
cooperation of Polish statutory authority for state support, i.e. President of the
Office of Competition and Consumer Protection with the authorities of the
Community.
The goal of state support, being an element of economic interventionism of
the state is to stimulate positive economic processes or to prevent negative
processes. The state, with its intervention in market economy, uses its authority
to form monetary and currency policies and decides on the form of tax system. It
influences formation of economic system and affects the employment rate or
social services.
State support granted by member states must remain in accordance with four
general principles: transparency, proportionality, cohesion and subsidiarity.18
The principle of transparency consists in implementation of notification and
control procedures which require notification of the intention to grant state
support and collecting information concerning implementation of these programs.
This facilitates controlling and evaluation of the financing.
However, the principle can be applied much wider rather than limited to the
domain of state support since it constitutes one of the chief principles of
14
Małaszewicz D., Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców w Polsce, Ekonomika i Organizacja
Przedsiębiorstwa, 2004, No. 5, p. 26.
15
Journal of Laws No. 60, pop. 704; with amendment in Journal of Laws as of 2001, No. 125, pop.
1363.
16
The Act as of 27 July 2002 on conditions of admissibility and supervision of state aid for
entrepreneurs (Journal of Laws No. 141, pop. 1177).
17
The Act as of 30 April 2004 on procedure during granting state aid (Journal of Laws No. 123, pop.
1291).
18
cf.: Fornalczyk A. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorstw w Unii Europejskiej i w Polsce, Wyd.
Urząd Komitetu Integracji Europejskiej, Warszawa 1998, p. 16.
5
functioning of the Community, which, as an organization of democratic states
must follow this principles in order to meet the requirements of democratic
control over public authorities by the society. Furthermore, the principle of
transparency is also one of the ‘constitutional’ principles in the European Union.
This principle is even more applicable in the cases of higher risk of hiding or
falsifying the decision process, with particular focus on the area of public
finance.19
The aid is deemed to be transparent if all the data and information about this
aid are available and allow to calculate their intensiveness and net grant
equivalent. Transparency of aid also depends on its form. The most transparent
form is grant, thus it is the most desirable form the point of view of possibility to
control the conformity of allocation of this aid. The least transparent form of aid
include tax subsidies.20
The principle of proportionality is one of the most fundamental principles
respected by democratic states in the area of limitations to economic freedom. It
requires that any limitations are legitimized by realization of a concrete public
objective and that their scope and intensity do not go beyond necessary and
indispensable resources. The principle of proportionality should be understood
dually. Firstly, the level of support must be proportional to the scale of problem
for which it is used. Secondly, value of support can not exceed the limits defined
within framework principles of granting support, concerning different types,
forms of support and domains of economy. If the amount of allocated funds is
disproportionate to the goal which is expected to be achieved through this
support, the risk of violation of fundamental rights and freedom can arise.21
Principle of proportionality forces public authorities to assess the scale of
problem and to apply suitable resources in order to solve the problem.
Another principle which governs allocation of state support concerns
subsidiarity (indispensability), i.e. solving problems by community authorities only
in the case of ineffectiveness of operation of the authorities in member states.
Therefore, it is necessary to meet the requirement that the support is
indispensable and restrictively allocated. Furthermore, it is essential that the
support is limited in time and is characterized by regression, i.e. gradual reduction
on the scale of the whole Community. According to this principle, the support can
be deemed admissible only if beneficiaries can independently (using the
instruments offered by free market) solve the given problem.22 Exceeding of
necessary amount of state funds causes illegitimate benefits for the
19
cf.: Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców..., op. cit., pp. 90-91.
21
Fornalczyk A. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorstw w Unii Europejskiej i w Polsce..., op. cit.,
p. 16; B. Jankowski, Pomoc publiczna..., op. cit., p. 39.
22
20
6
entrepreneurs. In order to implement a particular project, entrepreneurs should
firstly utilize their own resources. State funds should be used as a last resort.
Granting state support is also regulated by the principle of supplementarity,
also known as the principle of additionality. It is typically employed in the area of
support granted for investment projects, scientific research, environmental
protection, training etc. The essence of this principle is complementing the funds
from other sources with funds from state support. The European Commission
defined, in a numerous documents concerning individual categories of support,
percentage shares of funds from support in the value of the whole enterprise.
State funds are supposed to constitute a mere complementation of the
entrepreneur’s funds involved in implementation of the project. It is unacceptable
to replace entrepreneurs in financing of tasks which they should naturally
implement from their own resources. The principle of supplementarity can be
employed only for new investments and creation of new job vacancies connected
with the particular investments. This solution seems to be legitimate since it
stimulates development of entrepreneurship and reduction in unemployment
rate, forcing private entities to develop plans for concrete investments and
acquisition of financial resources for their implementation.23
Despite four main principles for state support, other principles should also be
considered during allocation of state support funds.
The basis for assessment if a particular support was granted according to the
principle of effectiveness are social benefits, in consideration of the costs
connected with granting this support, higher than the benefits which are possible
to be generated without this support in consideration of the relevant costs.24 This
regulation does not implement the requirement to consider costs and economic
benefits, but because these phenomena are inseparably connected with each
other, one should assume that assessment of effectiveness is made not only in
terms of social effects but also economic consequences. Following this principle is
of particular importance to restructuring-related support. Subsidizing of
permanently unprofitable enterprises, although rational in short period of time
from the social point of view, is at variance with the general principle of
effectiveness. In the longer period of time, social and economic costs of granting
this support can turn out to be incommensurately higher in relation to the
obtained benefits.25
The principle of cohesions, also termed the principle of European solidarity,
consists in striving for leveling the level of life between EU countries and
23
cf.: Jankowski B., Pomoc publiczna..., op. cit., pp. 40 – 41; Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc
publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie..., op. cit., pp. 85 – 86.
24
entrepreneurs (Journal of Laws No. 141, pop. 1177).
25
Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie..., op. cit.,
p. 88.
7
European regions. This principle underlies regional policies of the Communities
and criteria for assessment of regional aid in the member states used by the
European Commission.26
Another principle utilized by the authorities of the Community is the principle
of community goals. The principle consists in conviction that the aid must be
evaluated in the community-related context rather than national one. The
particular focus should be on ensuring that implementation of strictly national
goals is not to the detriment of the whole Community or individual member
states.27
The principles of state support also include de minimis principle. This principle
was enforced by the Commission in 1992 and its keynote was to reduce
administration burden in the member states and the Commission itself, which
should enable focus on issues of essential importance to the Community.28
De minimis (projects with values of 100,000 EUR, 50,000 for investments and
50,000 for other purposes, obtained by beneficiaries within three consecutive
years) are defined for different types and forms of support which determine the
programs of lower importance, which are not subject to notification. This
exemption is not applied for the programs which provide for support of export
through exchange within the Community and programs of operating support.29
The application of the principle of de minimis within the system of principles
of state support can be legitimized by the fact that lack of this principle would
result in the necessity (dangerous for effectiveness of activities of supervising
authority) to investigate each, even trivial cases instead of focus exclusively on the
cases of state support which is actually serious for the state of competition.
In consequence, this means recognition that the support allocated up to
a particular level is not a threat to freedom of competition and it is excluded from
control of supervision authorities as a principle rather than exception.30
Granting state support is connected with the necessity to follow the
abovementioned principles. Failure to meet any of these requirements causes
that the support is unacceptable. These principles concern granting any support
permitted within legal regulations contained in the act, thus they must be met
both during granting regional, sector or horizontal support and support granted
e.g. in order to repair the damages caused by natural disasters or reimbursment
for entrepreneurs due to their participation in performance of public tasks.
26
28
Ibid., p. 37.
29
p. 16.
30
cf.: Jankowski B., Pomoc publiczna..., op. cit., p. 37 - 39; Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc
publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie..., op. cit. pp. 14 – 20.
27
8
The resolutions contained in the Treaties of Rome concerning state support
were formulated in a relatively flexible manner. One of the fundamental goals of
EEC was creation of common market to increase mutual turnovers. Therefore, the
Article 92.2 of the Treaty says that, in view of social and economic growth, the
following types of support are consistent with the Common Market:31
- support of social nature, granted to individual consumers with assumption
that it is granted without discrimination according to the origins of a
particular product or its supplier;
- support allocated for repairs of damage caused by natural disasters or other
types of force majeure;32
- support granted to some regions of the Federal Republic of Germany, afflicted
by division of Germany, in the scope at which it is expedient for compensation
of disadvantages caused by this division.33
The listed support is deemed acceptable by virtue of the resolutions by the
Treaty, i.e. the support that can be granted by the state ex lege.
Undoubtedly, fundamental importance is from exemptions from the
prohibition of support, defined in general in the Art. 87 p. 3 of the TEC. They
include in particular:34
- support which is aimed at promoting economic growth in the regions where
life standard is abnormally low or of insufficient employment rate;
- support granted to implementation of the projects essential to European
common interest or to preventing serious disturbance to economy of member
states;
- support which is aimed at facilitation of development of some activities or
some economic regions with assumption that this support will not change the
conditions of trading against the common interest;
- support allocated for support of culture and protection of cultural heritage if
it does not impact on conditions of trading and competition within the
Community in a manner which is at variance with common interest;
- other types of support which can be specified within the decision by the
Council made on the basis of proposal by the Commission, taken by the
majority of votes;
Analysis of the abovementioned conditionings, the conclusions that
harmfulness of state support is not an exact and invariable concept. It is also
a conventional notion. Harmfulness of support depends on whether the support
31
Płowiec U., Pomoc publiczna dla przemysłu w krajach Unii Europejskiej – wnioski dla Polski [in:]
Polski przemysł w obliczu członkostwa w Unii Europejskiej, Wyd. SGH, Warszawa 1999, p. 38.
32
The essence of this regulation can be found in recovery of economic conditions in the given area
before the state of natural disaster.
33
The aid currently granted to the regions of former German Democratic Republic can be on general
principles.
34
cf.: Jankowski B., Pomoc publiczna..., op. cit., p. 29; Płowiec U., Pomoc publiczna dla przemysłu...,
op. cit., p. 38.
9
allocated by member states to the entrepreneurs or regions does not impinge on
the principle of the Common Market. Therefore, the intention to grant a support
by the member states must be notified to the Commission, which evaluates the
support. The support can be allocated only when the Commission gives its
approval.
A fundamental premise for application of state support by the state is to
stimulate positive economic events or to prevent negative ones. Although state
support is not strictly forbidden, its allocation is limited by a number of conditions
of permissibility. Granting support by the state must be consistent with a number
of principles which regulate allocation of support. However, all these limitations
do not discourage entities to apply for financial support by the state, since state
support is a significant factor for support of functioning and development of
companies.
State Support in Industrial Policies of the European Union Countries
State support constitutes an important aspect of industrial policies in the
countries. Support from the state in the form of different types of state support
can be of significant importance to the growth or demise of enterprises.
In consideration of the definition of state support contained in the act on
conditions of admissibility and supervision of state support for entrepreneurs, it
mentioned enlargement of financial benefits. The fact that it can be achieved
directly or indirectly has been already discussed in the first part of this chapter.
Analyzing of ‘enlargement of benefits’ in terms of the forms of state support, one
should distinguish between three interpretations of this notion:35
1) enlargement can be in the form of the expenses incurred by the state from
public funds in favor of the entrepreneur, which translates into the
subvention;
2) enlargement can adopt a form of expenditures incurred on behalf of
entrepreneurs, i.e. pouring public resources in order to exempt entrepreneurs
from obligations of payments connected with the business activity, with
exception of payments for the sector of public finance;
3) enlargement can appear in the form of exemption of the entrepreneur from
payments for the sector of public finance and is executed through
renouncement of obligatory payments resulting from legal regulations.
Polish Act, in Art. 2 p. 2, presents ‘a catalogue’ of the forms of possible
support. It lists fundamental and obvious forms of support as well as
opportunities to benefit from other types of support. They are subject to
continuous modifications, depending on the type of financial instruments the
state authorities have.
35
Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie..., op. cit.,
p. 34.
10
However, not only these forms stipulated in the Act underlie state support.
The list is supposed to present the manner the support can be granted. This will
make the definition more transparent and cause that assignment of particular
state activities becomes easier.
Forms of state support are divided into two categories: active and passive. First
category includes;36
- cash or material grants, which cover direct expenditures from state budget,
regional or local authorities or state resources transferred for disposal of
other entities. These subsidies are the most transparent form of state
support. They also constitute the most popular form of state support in the
member states. In the early nineties, 78% of state support in Great Britain and
Spain was allocated in this form, 75% in Luxembourg and 66% in the
Netherlands;
- recapitalization of entrepreneurs, which consists in increasing of share capital
in joint stock companies, i.e. limited companies, shareholding companies and
limited liability partnerships. Criterion for recognition of capitalization as
a state support is that it should be performed based on conditions which
depart from typical investment practices used by private investors in market
economy; capitalization can occur through e.g. purchase of stocks or shares in
company’s capital from public funds, with determination of dividend collected
by the state below its market level or through renouncement of collection of
this dividend; purchase of stocks or shares in the capital of the company with
the defined deadline for redemption at nominal price or enlarged by inflation
rate;
- preferential loans and credits, i.e. with interest rates lower than market rates,
granted by governmental agencies or banks, which are refunded this
difference by the state; this group also includes credits with the clause of
conditional redemption, credits with elongated repayment deadlines, credits
with variable interest rates, depending on net profits generated by the
enterprise (lack of profits results in lack of interest rate); this form is typically
referred to as ‘soft crediting’ and concerns debtors with lower credibility or
investment projects with high risk;
- surcharges for interests from credits granted by commercial banks;
- credit guarantee (for performance of obligations by the enterprise) from the
state budget or funds financed from the budget, this form enhances
credibility of debtors towards creditors: they constitute the support when the
cost of acquisition of funds without guarantees is higher than the costs of
acquisition of funds with guarantees; guarantees by the state or financial
36
cf.: Grzeszczyk T.A., Rola pomocy publicznej w restrukturyzacji przedsiębiorstw, Ekonomika
i Organizacja Przedsiębiorstwa, 2003, No. 6, p. 48; Fornalczyk A. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla
przedsiębiorstw w Unii Europejskiej i w Polsce..., op. cit., p. 19.
11
entities which act on behalf of the state can generate considerable benefits
for the enterprises.37
- disposal of public property to the benefit of an enterprise based on conditions
more favorable than market conditions or to allocate it to be utilized, for
consideration, on conditions more beneficial than market conditions (e.g.
rental or leasing contracts);
- accelerated cost recovery which consists in faster inclusion in costs of
company operation of gradual wear of fixed assets in an enterprise;
- active forms of state support also include public orders, i.e. orders executed
at the price higher than the market price, sales below market price as an
support for the recipient, inclusion (in a contract) of a supplier who would not
be selected by the company which performs the contract. This form of
support, with value-based approach, corresponds to budgetary subventions.
The category of passive state support includes: redemption of credits,
exemption from payments, special tariffs and, in particular, tax allowances. The
last form is much more extended and can consist in:38
– reduction in the value of tax or other services;
– reduction in the basis for taxation or payment calculation;
– regression of liabilities for social goals;39
– renouncement of collecting tax or other payments;
– discontinuation of performance of liabilities or renouncement of interest
charges;
– redemption of tax arrears or arrears on other payments, or redemption of
interest for default;
– deferment of tax or other public payment;
– division of tax into installments or division of other payment or division of tax
arrears with interest for default.
However, application of the listed instruments should be legitimate. Tax
Ordinance Act stipulates that they are legitimized by public interest or crucial
interest of tax payer.40 Use of these instruments in relation to entrepreneurs is
aimed at granting support when entrepreneurs can not overcome financial
difficulties using their own resources. The state, as a debtor, allows entrepreneurs
to overcome financial difficulties. This practices by the state produce measureable
profits to the beneficiaries, who, through this support, do not have to utilize
commercial sources to search for funds for tax arrears.
37
Muńko A., Wspólnotowe zasady udzielania pomocy państwowej – reguły horyzontalne, Wspólnoty
Europejskie, No. 3, 1995, p. 24.
38
Grzeszczyk T.A., Rola pomocy publicznej..., op. cit., p. 49.
39
p. 19.
40
Wołowiec T., Ulgi uznaniowe formą pomocy publicznej dla przedsiębiorstw, Przegląd Organizacji,
2004, No. 10, p. 36.
12
Despite the forms of support listed above, one should point to the following
forms of state support used in the European Union:41
– gratuitous acquisition, by an enterprise, of a land or facilities or on preferential
conditions;
– delivering of goods or services on preferential conditions;
– covering of operating loss;
– cost return in the case of a successful operations;
– guarantee of payment of dividends;
– cash injections;
– compensation of financial burden imposed by the authorities;
– debt conversion;
– renouncement of profits or other receivables;
– preferential tariffs;
– reduction of social burden.
The overview of a variety of forms of state support presented in this
subchapter allows for better understanding of the essence of this concept and
thus understanding of the importance of the prohibition to use this type of funds
for support of free competition in the market.
Application of a particular form of support depends on the goal the support is
allocated to and opportunities to utilize it by the beneficiary. However,
unequivocal definition of the best form of support is impossible.
The conditionally accepted support, i.e. based on the decision by the
Commission, was divided by the Commission into three fundamental categories:
regional, sector and horizontal aid.
Regional aid is granted to the entities who operate in underdeveloped areas
of the Community where level of economic growth is lower than the average for
the Community. The goal of this operation is a long-term stimulation of
development in the areas characterized by the level of GDP per capita lower than
75% of average level. This aid is aimed at ensuring sustainable development in all
the regions of the member states through leveling and correction of negative
consequences of spatial development of common market.42
Admissibility of granting regional aid results from the Art. 87(3a) and Art.
87(3c) of TEC. The former stipulated conditions for allocation of aid for the
underdeveloped regions within the whole Community, while the latter concerns
exclusively leveling of disproportion in development between regions within the
particular member state. The aid is granted on the basis of exclusions, however,
the exclusions do not have an automated nature. This means that the aid can be
41
Dudzik P. , Pomoc państwa..., op. cit., pp. 35-36.
Choroszczak J., Mikulec M., Pomoc publiczna a rozwój firmy; szanse i zagrożenia, POLTEXT,
Warszawa 2009, p. 15; Nowicka-Skowron M., Pachura P., Nitkiewicz T., Kozak M., Networking for
Sustainability, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies Vol.16 no 3, 2007, pp. 361-366.
42
13
deemed consistent with the common market only after acceptance by the
European Commission.
The commission issued, for the purposes of granting regional aid, the Regional
Aid Guidelines (RAG). Regional aid is supposed to be conducive to development of
less developed regions through support for investments and creation of new job
vacancies as well as through promotion of modernization, diversification and
stimulation of focus of enterprise activities in these regions. This aid is aimed at
the areas where the level of economic growth is lower than the average for the
whole European Union. RAG is applied to all the sectors excluding support for
production, processing and distribution of agricultural products. It also does not
cover fishing and coal industry and, in the case of some sectors (transport, steel
industry, ship-building, synthetic fibers, automotive industry), the special
regulations are in force.43
The basis for granting regional aid is also underlain by development of region
maps by member states, which determine the areas where a regional aid can be
granted. This map can be also subject to approval by the European Commission.
From the standpoint of restructuring of economy as a whole, an essential role
is played by sector aid. A precondition for granting this aid is association of an
enterprise to a particular group based on the criterion of core activities in the
given enterprise. Particular place among these sectors is played by sensitive
sectors. The sensitive sectors include those where negative events can be
observed, in particular excess production capacities of overemployment and the
accompanied decline in the demand as well as those where the negative events
do not occur but the support for entrepreneurs is necessary in order to accelerate
the development of their core activities. The latter group of sensitive sectors
include the sectors where, as a result of complicated production processes,
development of activities is expensive and involves high risk of failure.
Types of sector-related aid can be divided into two categories: aid for the
sectors undergoing crisis or for developing sectors. In the first case, the
companies should be encouraged to adapt to new conditions of competition so
that economic crisis can be avoided in EU markets. While accepting aid for the
companies threatened with crisis, the Commission employs the principles
developed on their own, e.g. increase in production is not allowed (unless the aid
is periodical or combined with restructuring schemes). Investment support is also
possible under condition that increase in production is not its only goal. Aid
connected with employment is acceptable when it becomes an element of
implementation of the plan of restructuring44.
43
Postuła I., Werner A., Pomoc publiczna, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis, Warszawa 2006, pp.
155-156.
44
Turek I., Uwarunkowania i rozwój bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych w Polsce w latach 19912002. [in:] Henzel H., Diagnoza i perspektywy procesów inwestycyjnych w krajach Europy Środkowej.
Wyd.Akad.Ekon, Katowice 2003, p. 143-163.
14
The goal of aid in sectors which experience problems that prevent them from
independent operation is to recover a long-term operation in the sectors. The
conditions for the allocated aid is to perform activities aimed at permanent
removal of sector collapse.45
Horizontal aid is an aid which considers the public welfare in the biggest
degree, while the benefits for the entrepreneurs are overridden. This occurs
because horizontal aid is not connected with the given sector and localization of
the beneficiary. This type of aid is oriented towards solving a particular problem
which frequently arises for all the country. The European Commission separated
e.g. the following groups of issues: research and development, small and medium
enterprises, environment protection, saving and restructuring enterprises which
are in difficult situation, employment and training.46
According to the Art. 130f of the Treaty of the European Community, the
Community creates conditions necessary for improvement in competitiveness of
the industry through strengthening of its scientific or technological base and
encourages enterprises, research centers and universities to cooperate in terms of
R&D.
Limits of the aid are defined in relation to the type of research:47
– for basic research (which means activities aimed at acquisition of scientific
and technical knowledge not used for industrial and commercial purposes) it
amounts to 100% of eligible costs with the assumption that the result of the
research will be widely available at equal terms for everybody, at market
prices;
– for industrial research (being a planned research activity towards acquisition
of new knowledge which can be used for development of new or
improvement of current products, manufacturing processes or services) it
amounts to 50% of eligible costs;
– for experimental development research (which concerns a purchase,
combination and utilization of currently available knowledge and skills in the
area of science, technology and business for the purposes of planning,
production and creation of new, changed or improved products, processes or
services) intensity of aid can not exceed 25% of the costs related to the
project.
State support for research and development works is justified with its
positive impact on social and economic development of the country which is
manifested in increase of work effectiveness, production efficiency, economical
consumption of raw materials, materials and fuels, development of new
45
cf.: Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie..., op.
cit., p. 110.
46
47
Postuła I., Werner A., Pomoc publiczna, op. cit., 166; Choroszczak J., Mikulec M., Pomoc publiczna
a rozwój..., op. cit., p. 32.
15
materials, improvement in functionality, durability and reliability of products,
enhanced work safety, reduction in unemployment rate and improvement in
competitiveness of economy.
According to the Art. 6 of TEC, goals of environmental protection must be
integrated with the goals of EU policies for state support which is conducive to
sustainable development. Aid for support of activities connected with
environmental protection can be in the form of investment support or aid for
small and medium enterprises for consulting services in the area of environmental
protection and operating aid. The size of this aid depend on its designation.
Support for small and medium enterprises (SME) is legitimized by their
positive role for the economy (e.g. creation of job vacancies) and the fact that
they encounter large difficulties of development.48 This category of entrepreneurs
should be treated with particular care from the state, since it is exceptionally
sensitive to anti-competition activities and to any crisis in the market. Protecting
this segment is actually an EU standard, which consists not only in different
principles of state support granted by individual members states but also through
allocation of a part of resources from structural funds and creation of
supranational programs for support of this group of entrepreneurs.
Support for small and medium enterprises can adopt a nature of participation
in material or non-material investments (transfer of technology). In general, in the
case of small businesses, share of aid can amount to 15% of gross expenditures, in
the case of medium companies, up to 7.5%. If the investment is located in the
areas which are eligible for regional aid, intensity of aid can not exceed the
threshold of regional investment aid defined within the plan confirmed by the
Commission for each member state by more than:49
- 10 percentage points in the areas stipulated in Art. 87 (3c) of TEC, if general
intensity of net aid does not exceed 30% or
- 15 percentage points in the areas stipulated in Art. 87 (3a) of TEC, if general
intensity of net aid dose not exceed 75%.
Support for small and medium enterprises can be also of operating nature;
expenditures for consulting services, training in the area of management, finance,
new technologies can be covered up to 50% of gross payment for the specialist
outside the enterprise.50
According to the European Commission, support for survival and restructuring
of an enterprise is particularly monitored because of potential harmful effects
48
Vokorokosova R. Gurgul E., Kielesińska A., Small and Medium Sized Enterprises of the Food
Industry as Determinants of Regional Development [in:] Nowicka-Skowron M., Lescroart R., Pachura
P. (ed.), Technology & Economy in Industrial Reconversion, ISI Pierrard, HEC du Luxemburg, Virton
2004, p. 412-420; Urbańska J., Jeziorska M., Bariery w funkcjonowaniu przedsiębiorstw sektora MSP
w Polsce [in:] Urbańska J. (ed.), Pragmatyzm strategii marketingowych w zarządzaniu małymi
i średnimi przedsiębiorstwami. Wyd. WZPCz, Częstochowa 2009.
49
Postuła I., Werner A., Pomoc publiczna, op. cit., 138.
50
16
which are manifested in delay in adaptation to market conditions. Support for
survival is granted for maintaining of company operation during the period of
preparation of the plan of improvement in its return. The Commission can allow
to allocate this aid if it is limited to the necessary minimum in terms of financial
resources and time.
A categorical legitimization for granting restructuring aid to the entrepreneurs
is lack of opportunity to be granted bank loans or guarantees, since this is
synonymous with actual capacities to be competitive in the markets as
entrepreneurs who are not able to be granted loans or guarantees are usually in
financial situation which does not allow them for development or maintaining
their market position.
Restructuring aid can be admissible if the plan of restructuring provides the
prospects of recovery of abilities to function effectively and the aid is not higher
than necessary. If the sector where the enterprise operates is characterized by the
excess of production abilities, the Commission imposes requirements of
irrevocable reduction of production potential in the restructured company.51
In general, aid for employment and training utilized by the EU countries is
consistent with industrial and social policies in the Community, oriented towards
enlargement of opportunities to employ particular categories of the unemployed
and improvement of overall qualifications among the workforce. Therefore, the
Commission adopts the attitudes which allow for this type of aid. However, this
aid would bring reservations by the Commission if the distribution of aid was
clearly oriented towards certain sectors or regions or if the Commission decides
that the amount of aid for this goal is excessive.52
The entrepreneurs who utilize state support must realize that this solution is
purposeful and temporary and its results are subject to verification. Support from
the state in the form of state support can not be treated as a source of funds for
maintaining permanently ineffective enterprises. Public interventionism must be
market-friendly, thus it can slightly correct market but can not replace market
activities.
Aid-oriented activities of the states in the countries of advanced market
economies focus on achievement of the goals important for development of the
whole economy, which can not be financed by private investors (e.g. development
of infrastructure or research and development activities). In the case of this
‘market weakness’ or in these domains, state intervention is permissible.53
Undoubtedly, state support is aimed at restructuring of the economy toward
the directions determined by a member state and deemed necessary by the
European Commission. A considerable impact on these changes is from two
51
Muńko A., Wspólnotowe zasady ..., op. cit., p. 26.
Ibid., p. 27.
53
p. 28.
52
17
categories of factors: external and internal. The former include striving for
improvement in competitiveness of enterprises in world markets due to the
processes of globalization of economy, whereas the latter cover striving for
creation of new job vacancies, limitation of unemployment rate and reduction in
differences between development in richest and poorest regions.
However, interaction of both groups of factors is impossible in many cases.
Improvement in competitiveness of production resulting from technological
advances often generates unemployment. Therefore, state support can
simultaneously fulfill the tasks of development restructuring policies which are
aimed at development of competitive manufacturing and repair policies, which
allows to maintain a particular type of manufacturing and workplaces. Both
functions of aid can be also defined as a manifestation of offensive and defensive
state interventionism. However, the proportions of application of the two types of
state support in individual countries depend on the stage of economic
development, structure of production, level of education, rate of growth of gross
domestic product, geographical deployment of the factors of production and a
number of other reasons. One can assume that each country has a separate
system of state support.54
However, despite a variety of both European and Polish regulations of
economic law in the domain of granting aid to the enterprises from state funds,
practice of enforcement of these regulations is far from perfect. There is a wide
range of measures defined as ‘white loans’, e.g. a form of state interventionism
such as the role of government in loan negotiations between the countries or socalled technology parks.
54
Cf.: Płowiec U. (ed.), Analiza doświadczeń krajów..., op. cit., pp. 66-67
18
Analysis of State support level in European Union countries
The objective of State support control, as laid down in the founding Treaties of
the European Communities, is to ensure that government interventions do not
distort competition and intra-community trade. In this respect, State support is
defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to
undertakings by national public authorities. Comparing to the previous years the
total State support of European Union countries (EU 25 and EU 15 as well) is on
the similar level (excluding higher level in 2001 and 2002), however it could be
notices a slight increase in 2008 as an effect of actions against global economy
crisis (Figure 1).
Figure 1. EU25 and EU15 total State support in euro million, from 2000 to 2008
80000
74933
75000
70524
69890
70000
67987
69289
66778
65433
69004
67420
66411
65000
64501
62101
59831
61487
60000
57112
56727
59243
55000
56377
50000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
EU 25
2005
2006
2007
2008
EU 15
* excluding financial crisis aid for the year 2008
Source: Author’s elaboration based on European Commission, DG Competition, State aid.
Total state support and total state support less agriculture, fisheries and
transport for all European Union countries in period of 2000-2008 are presented
in table 1. It could be noticed that in new European Union countries the state
support for agriculture, fisheries and transport are relatively high in comparison
with “old” European Union members.
19
Table 1 Total State aid by Member State in million €, all measures*, 2000-2008
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
2000
1413,7
950,1
2001
1532,9
941,5
1781,0
1779,6
2181,2
1728,4
18146,3
16014,7
9,4
9,4
1409,6
911,2
1115,3
790,6
7846,7
6720,3
10352,2
6238,5
7010,3
5517,4
337,4
270,6
96,4
96,4
57,0
56,9
1525,3
1525,3
2264,1
1892,6
21015,8
19091,9
12,0
12,0
1508,5
902,3
1021,6
588,4
7774,8
6689,2
10345,3
6227,4
7031,1
5416,2
405,2
324,0
106,6
51,3
30,1
30,1
2002
1312,3
1093,7
112,2
109,9
3529,9
3529,9
1817,3
1525,2
25177,9
23074,6
14,3
14,3
2090,4
638,6
630,2
413,1
5581,0
5242,3
9517,6
7340,8
7306,7
6152,0
447,1
361,3
69,5
20,9
85,1
85,1
2003
971,3
725,2
192,2
147,3
2565,1
2565,1
1544,3
1291,1
17930,8
16174,5
10,0
10,0
674,8
447,2
948,3
369,0
5211,8
4588,5
9160,8
6122,6
6873,6
6003,0
319,3
288,5
84,2
21,6
73,1
73,1
20
2004
985,7
745,2
67,9
67,7
541,9
343,5
1773,6
1539,5
17542,3
15791,8
46,7
11,7
529,4
381,6
965,2
451,1
4457,0
3799,1
11334,8
7821,0
6812,5
5090,5
236,9
150,4
108,2
28,9
141,5
36,7
2005
1167,5
754,5
33,7
33,7
651,7
485,7
1755,5
1508,3
17431,3
15817,2
45,6
18,0
658,9
494,1
822,4
411,8
4585,4
3810,1
10840,7
8054,7
6783,5
5579,3
214,7
150,3
214,8
36,7
138,6
38,2
2006
1203,2
982,3
37,7
37,7
869,3
669,1
1753,7
1476,0
18558,9
17056,5
40,4
12,7
763,6
586,2
854,2
436,7
4951,8
3828,2
10844,4
7840,0
6835,1
5723,8
91,6
76,1
289,1
35,1
151,3
59,5
2007
1361,4
1088,8
445,0
30,1
985,1
811,6
1851,0
1603,4
15307,1
14109,4
39,6
11,2
1088,0
593,8
932,1
585,1
4896,5
3889,9
9843,0
7253,1
5583,5
4119,0
117,7
66,7
234,7
48,9
192,7
49,6
2008
19365,9
19008,6
444,5
39,3
1438,0
1158,2
4710,0
4507,5
66833,2
65315,4
46,5
14,5
37518,9
36273,8
1028,0
810,8
6170,7
5305,4
26802,4
24079,6
5479,8
4487,8
110,9
79,7
1167,0
1010,6
263,6
170,9
Luxemburg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
Total aid
Total* aid
95,6
51,5
853,7
853,7
167,5
167,5
2568,5
852,3
1649,0
597,8
2177,8
2177,8
1308,3
891,1
89,1
45,0
832,9
832,9
208,2
208,2
2049,2
782,5
1631,6
644,2
1591,4
1591,4
1736,5
1348,0
240,7
240,2
164,9
164,3
2031,1
528,4
1202,4
609,3
3770,7
2229,0
227,4
227,3
152,4
152,4
2231,4
415,0
1043,8
494,2
4157,3
2640,0
116,8
70,4
960,0
960,0
221,4
221,4
2371,1
1135,0
831,3
592,5
1088,7
1079,0
1361,3
1274,6
1722,3
1622,5
135,9
133,0
136,2
136,2
1866,1
446,8
703,8
468,5
5727,1
4059,9
118,3
68,3
1225,1
1044,2
106,8
106,8
2212,2
1125,9
1211,4
977,3
6654,1
6630,4
1443,2
1362,7
1545,6
1467,1
186,4
173,0
201,7
183,6
2042,8
569,8
1463,4
1180,4
4919,7
3368,2
96,7
47,9
2252,3
738,2
186,3
168,4
2152,9
1155,2
1130,7
892,0
3252,7
2375,1
1390,4
1247,6
2078,5
2022,6
272,0
156,6
272,9
238,1
2116,7
596,0
2782,3
2491,4
5761,0
4070,7
83,1
47,1
2863,3
1086,4
186,0
164,1
2226,5
1308,5
1223,2
1020,9
2023,2
1009,0
1492,2
1435,3
619,4
567,0
229,3
142,9
314,6
262,3
2274,3
610,7
3125,4
2832,2
4772,9
3772,4
81,3
46,6
2081,2
908,2
150,2
128,0
2132,4
1529,1
1983,1
1760,0
2469,0
1351,1
1500,7
1463,1
811,8
761,7
244,2
159,1
281,7
213,6
2248,6
644,7
3378,1
2973,7
4397,7
3314,5
* including financial crisis aid for the year 2008
Total aid excludes railways
Total*aid: total State support for industry and services (total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport)
Source: European Commission, DG Competition, State aid.
21
73,5
47,2
1898,1
912,8
132,7
112,1
2240,7
1381,8
1101,3
892,5
1927,6
1365,9
2189,6
2159,9
1666,5
310,2
201,8
125,3
282,3
231,0
2127,8
634,6
3075,6
2902,0
6685,6
5766,4
2871,9
2853,8
2514,7
1915,1
115,1
100,0
16248,8
15590,8
1289,7
1069,7
3685,9
2908,0
1983,4
1959,8
883,2
252,4
246,3
173,0
357,7
279,7
2107,2
814,9
3369,9
3072,3
72514,2
71796,5
Total State support granted by the Member States was estimated at €834
billion from 2000 to 2008 when €758 billion were granted by EU-15 countries. In
absolute terms, Germany granted the most aid (€217.9 billion) followed by the
United Kingdom (€112.7 billion), France (€109 billion) and Italy (€59.7 billion).
Considering new Member States (EU – 12) Poland granted the most support
(€24.9 billion) followed by Hungary (€15.5 billion) and Czech Republic (€13.9
billion), compare data at figure 2.
Figure 2. Total State support by country in euro billion, from 2000 to 2008
EE
LT
BG
MT
SI
SK
CY
LV
LU
EL
RO
AT
CZ
PT
HU
FI
DK
SE
PL
BE
NL
IE
ES
IT
FR
UK
DE
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
* including financial crisis aid for the year 2008
Source: Author’s elaboration based on European Commission, DG Competition, State aid,
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.html
22
EU-25 State support amounted to 0.54% of GDP in 2008, while the EU-15
countries aid amounted to 0.50% of GDP. EU State support as a percentage of
GDP followed the trend observed for the absolute numbers the lowest ratio
0.51% of GDP in nine years, was reported in 2007, in 2008 the slight rise to 0.54%
of GDP was observed as an effect of actions against world crisis.
In total, EU State support amounted to 0.54% of GDP at the end of the reference
period, which was a considerable reduction compared with its peak value of
0.66% in 2002. Similar trend can be observed in State support in EU-15, however
the ratio is lower then in whole EU (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Figure Total European Union State support in % of GDP, 2000 to 2008
0,70
0,66
0,65
0,62
0,60
0,63
0,62
0,62
0,62
0,60
0,59
0,55
0,56
0,56
0,53
0,54
0,55
0,53
0,54
0,51
0,50
0,50
0,48
0,45
0,40
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
EU 25
2005
2006
2007
2008
EU 15
* excluding financial crisis aid for the year 2008
Source: Author’s elaboration based on European Commission, DG Competition, State aid,
Comparing the relative of state support, in years of 2000 and 2008, annual
average state support amounted to 0.59% of EU-25 GDP, while in EU-15, it
amounted to 0.55% of GDP. This average masks significant disparities between
Member States: the ratio of total aid to GDP ranged from 0.3% or less in Estonia,
the United Kingdom and, Luxembourg, to 1.0% or more in Poland, Romania,
Finland, Czech Republic Hungary, and Cyprus. The highest level of state support in
relation to GDP can be observed in Malta (Figure 4). The high proportion in some
of the 12 new Member States is due largely to accession measures that are either
23
being phased out under transitional arrangements or are limited in time. In
Finland the explanation can be found in the relatively large amount of aid to
agriculture. Indeed, due to the particularities associated with aid to agriculture
and fisheries, it is worth looking at total aid excluding these sectors.
Figure 4. Average of total State support in % of GDP for the European Union and its
Members between 2000 and 2008
0,21
EE
0,24
UK
0,29
LU
BE
0,4
NL
0,41
IT
0,44
EL
0,45
SK
0,46
LT
0,47
0,52
AT
EU 15
0,55
FR
0,56
SE
0,57
ES
0,59
EU 25
0,59
0,63
BG
0,71
SI
0,76
IE
0,79
DE
0,84
DK
0,86
LV
0,97
PT
1,07
PL
1,19
RO
1,28
FI
1,64
CZ
1,77
HU
1,81
CY
3,19
MT
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
24
Cross-industry or “horizontal” rules set out the Commission’s position on
particular categories of aid which are aimed at tackling problems which may arise
in any industry and region. In 2008, EU state support directed to horizontal
objectives at euro 52,9 billion or 88% (this share is rising for example in 2005 it
amounted to 84%) of total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport. The three
main horizontal objectives were regional economic development (25,8%),
environment and energy saving (24,1% of total aid), and R&D (16,3%). The
remaining aid was mainly directed at SMEs (9,1%), employment (6,1%) and other
horizontal objectives (4,5%) and training (1,7%).
Figure 5. Total State support for the European Union by horizontal objectives
in 2008 [% of total aid]
Regional
development; 25,8
Environment; 24,1
Other horizontal
objectives (e.g.
culture, natural
disaster, social aid
etc.); 4,5
SME; 9,1
Research,
development and
innovation; 16,3
Employment aid;
6,1
Training; 1,7
In ten Member States (Slovenia, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Slovakia, Hungary,
Spain, Romania, Portugal and Malta less than 90% of all the aid awarded in 2008
was earmarked for horizontal objectives. The low share of horizontal aid (and thus
relatively high share of sectoral aid) in Malta can be explained by a tax relief
measure under the Business Promotion Act55, while in Portugal it is due to a large
55
State aid case number - MT/6/2002
25
regional aid tax scheme in Madeira which in practice benefits a limited number of
sectors. In another group of five Member States (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia,
Luxemburg and Sweden) the share of horizontal aid was 100% (cf. Figure 6).
Figure 6. Share of total State support allocated to horizontal objectives by country
in 2008 [%]
2
MT
16
PT
53
RO
79
ES
81
HU
84
SK
84
IE
85
IT
87
DE
89
SI
UK
91
BG
91
PL
93
DK
94
CZ
94
95
CY
96
FR
EL
98
NL
98
FI
98
AT
99
BE
99
SE
100
LV
100
LU
100
LT
100
EE
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
26
In the mid-1990s, when State support levels were much higher, the share of
total aid granted for horizontal objectives was around 50%. In line with the
commitments undertaken at the various European Councils, Member States have
however continued to redirect aid towards such horizontal objectives; all 12 new
Member States have progressively redirected aid towards horizontal objectives
(cf. Figure 7). The share of horizontal objectives in total aid less agriculture,
fisheries and transport increased by 22 percentage points between 2000-2008.
Figure 7. EU share of total State support allocated to horizontal objectives, 2000 to 2008
[%]
100
88
90
81
80
84
74
67
70
60
82
52
55
66
67
64
62
58
55
49
46
50
39
40
30
20
10
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Source: European Commission, DG Competition, State aid
Summary
To sum up the considerations, one should emphasize an essential role of state
support as an element of macroeconomic policies of the state in market economy.
It is aimed at solving important economic and social problems which accompany
the processes of transformations in the economy, such as: limitation of
unemployment, stabilization of economy, stimulation of economic growth and
increase in competitiveness of economy in the international market.
27
References:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Choroszczak J., Mikulec M., Pomoc publiczna a rozwój firmy; szanse i zagrożenia, POLTEXT,
Warszawa 2009.
Dudzik S., Pomoc państwa dla przedsiębiorstw publicznych w prawie Wspólnoty Europejskiej,
Wydawnictwo Kantor Wydawniczy Zakamycze, Zakamycze 2002.
Fornalczyk A. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorstw w Unii Europejskiej i w Polsce, Wyd.
Urząd Komitetu Integracji Europejskiej, Warszawa 1998.
Grzeszczyk T.A., Rola pomocy publicznej w restrukturyzacji przedsiębiorstw, Ekonomika
i Organizacja Przedsiębiorstwa, 2003, No. 6.
Jankowski B., Pomoc publiczna w prawie Unii Europejskiej – implikacje dla Polski, Wyd. Urząd
Komitetu Integracji Europejskiej, Warszawa 2001.
Jasiński P., Kaliszuk E., Modzelewska – Wąchal E., Lubbe A., Priorytety pomocy publicznej,
Niebieskie Księgi 2003, No. 3, Polskie Forum Strategii Lizbońskiej, Gdańsk 2003.
Journal of Laws No. 60, pos. 704; with amendment in Journal of Laws as of 2001, No. 125, pos.
1363.
Kulesza M., Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorstw w RP. Rola gmin – uwagi wstępne na tle
postanowień Traktatu Rzymskiego i Układu o Stowarzyszaniu, PPE 1996, No. 1.
Małaszewicz D., Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców w Polsce, Ekonomika i Organizacja
Przedsiębiorstwa, 2004, No. 5.
Modzelewska-Wąchal E. (ed.), Pomoc publiczna dla przedsiębiorców i jej nadzorowanie;
przepisy i komentarz, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis, Warszawa 2001.
Muńko A., Wspólnotowe zasady udzielania pomocy państwowej – reguły horyzontalne,
Wspólnoty Europejskie, No. 3, 1995.
Nowicka-Skowron M., Pachura P., Nitkiewicz T., Kozak M., Networking for Sustainability, Polish
Journal of Environmental Studies Vol.16 no 3, 2007.
Płowiec U. (ed.), Analiza doświadczeń krajów Unii Europejskiej w zakresie pomocy publicznej;
wnioski dla Polski, wyd. Instytut Koniunktur i Cen Handlu Zagranicznego, Warszawa 1999.
Postuła I., Werner A., Pomoc publiczna, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze LexisNexis, Warszawa 2006.
Ślusarczyk B., Public Aid in Management of Restructuring Process in Steel Industry, [in:]
Rubachova A.I. (ed.), Povysenie effektivnosti integrirovannogo upravlenija na predprijatijach
Central'noj i Vostocnoj Evropy, Brest, 2006.
Turek I., Uwarunkowania i rozwój bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych w Polsce w latach
1991-2002. [in:] Henzel H., Diagnoza i perspektywy procesów inwestycyjnych w krajach Europy
Środkowej. Wyd. Akademii Ekonomicznej, Katowice 2003.
entrepreneurs (Journal of Laws No. 141, pos. 1177).
The Act as of 30 April 2004 on procedure during granting state aid (Journal of Laws No. 123,
pos. 1291).
Urbańska J., Jeziorska M., Bariery w funkcjonowaniu przedsiębiorstw sektora MSP w Polsce. [in:]
Urbańska J. (ed.), Pragmatyzm strategii marketingowych w zarządzaniu małymi i średnimi
przedsiębiorstwami. Wyd. WZPCz, Częstochowa 2009.
Wołowiec T., Ulgi uznaniowe formą pomocy publicznej dla przedsiębiorstw, Przegląd
Organizacji, 2004, No. 10.
Vokorokosova R. Gurgul E., Kielesińska A., Small and Medium Sized Enterprises of the Food
Industry as Determinants of Regional Development. [in:] Nowicka-Skowron M., Lescroart R.,
Pachura P., Technology & Economy in Industrial Reconversion, ISI Pierrard, HEC du Luxemburg,
Virton 2004.
Note: The responsible translator for English language is Dr Joanna Jabłońska, Polan
28

Importance of State Support to Development of Sustainable

Transkrypt

Podobne dokumenty

Sterowniki dzwieku

Sterowniki dzwieku