Fiscal Policy in Poland Under Transition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
From the History of Polish-Austrian Diplomacy in the 1970S
PRZEGLĄD ZACHODNI I, 2017 AGNIESZKA KISZTELIŃSKA-WĘGRZYŃSKA Łódź FROM THE HISTORY OF POLISH-AUSTRIAN DIPLOMACY IN THE 1970S. AUSTRIAN CHANCELLOR BRUNO KREISKY’S VISITS TO POLAND Polish-Austrian relations after World War II developed in an atmosphere of mutu- al interest and restrained political support. During the Cold War, the Polish People’s Republic and the Republic of Austria were on the opposite sides of the Iron Curtain; however, after 1945 both countries sought mutual recognition and trade cooperation. For more than 10 years following the establishment of diplomatic relations between Austria and Poland, there had been no meetings at the highest level.1 The first con- tact took place when the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Kreisky, came on a visit to Warsaw on 1-3 March 1960.2 Later on, Kreisky visited Poland four times as Chancellor of Austria: in June 1973, in late January/early February 1975, in Sep- tember 1976, and in November 1979. While discussing the significance of those five visits, it is worth reflecting on the role of Austria in the diplomatic activity of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The views on the motives of the Austrian politician’s actions and on Austria’s foreign policy towards Poland come from the MFA archives from 1972-1980. The time period covered in this study matches the schedule of the Chancellor’s visits. The activity of the Polish diplomacy in the Communist period (1945-1989) has been addressed as a research topic in several publications on Polish history. How- ever, as Andrzej Paczkowski says in the sixth volume of Historia dyplomacji polskiej (A history of Polish diplomacy), research on this topic is still in its infancy.3 A wide range of source materials that need to be thoroughly reviewed offer a number of 1 Stosunki dyplomatyczne Polski, Informator, vol. -
June 1-15, 1972
RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS DATE RESTRICTION NUMBER TYPE 1 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/2/1972 A Appendix “B” 2 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/5/1972 A Appendix “A” 3 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/6/1972 A Appendix “A” 4 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/9/1972 A Appendix “A” 5 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 6/12/1972 A Appendix “B” COLLECTION TITLE BOX NUMBER WHCF: SMOF: Office of Presidential Papers and Archives RC-10 FOLDER TITLE President Richard Nixon’s Daily Diary June 1, 1972 – June 15, 1972 PRMPA RESTRICTION CODES: A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy. E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or B. National security classified information. financial information. C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual’s F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law rights. enforcement purposes. D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material. or a libel of a living person. H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material. DEED OF GIFT RESTRICTION CODES: D-DOG Personal privacy under deed of gift -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION *U.S. GPO; 1989-235-084/00024 NA 14021 (4-85) THF WHITE ,'OUSE PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON'S DAILY DIARY (Sec Travel Record for Travel AnivilY) f PLACE DAY BEGAN DATE (Mo., Day. Yr.) _u.p.-1:N_E I, 1972 WILANOW PALACE TIME DAY WARSAW, POLi\ND 7;28 a.m. THURSDAY PHONE TIME P=Pl.ccd R=Received ACTIVITY 1----.,------ ----,----j In Out 1.0 to 7:28 P The President requested that his Personal Physician, Dr. -
Soviet Union
Eastern Europe Soviet Union A HE SOVIET authorities continued to maintain strict control, censorship, and rigid application of the party line to all areas of Soviet life. The system was obviously oppressive; repression without a legal framework was still the law; camps continued to exist, as did mental clinics for dissidents, but swift and secret execution of the opposition as practiced under Stalin, now was a thing of the past. According to available sources, there existed in the Soviet Union some 900 camps and special institutions, including prisons, in which about one million persons were being held. Among them were an estimated 10,000 political prisoners (according to PeterReddaway, New York Times. January 13, 1974). After more than half a century, the revolutionary regime had in fact reverted to the system of czarist Russia.Aside from internal repression, the Kremlin has introduced exile abroad as an effective measure against dissidence. Vladimir Maksimov, Andrei Siniavskii, Andrei Volkonskii, and Michael Kalik joined many others who had been exiled earlier (see AJYB, 1972 and 1973) [Vol. 73 and 74], Dissidence While the forced departure of many of the leading personalities of the dissident movement weakened its activities, the Soviet authorities have not been able to liquidate the opposition, particularly among the intelligentsia, the youth, and certain religious circles. Visibly increased pressure by the police, however, has created some confusion among the opposition and forced recantations of "unjust attitudes toward our 491 492 / AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK. 1974-75 social and state systems" by the well-known dissidents Piotr Iakir and Viktor Krasin. These two men, who were jailed for their activities, received relatively mild sentences. -
Pamięć I Sprawiedliwość Pismo Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej
PAMIĘĆ I SPRAWIEDLIWOŚĆ PISMO INSTYTUTU PAMIĘCI NARODOWEJ ISSN 1427-7476 2 (24) 2014 PAMIĘĆ I SPRAWIEDLIWOŚĆ PISMO NAUKOWE POŚWIĘCONE HISTORII NAJNOWSZEJ PAMIĘĆ I SPRAWIEDLIWOŚĆ PISMO NAUKOWE POŚWIĘCONE HISTORII NAJNOWSZEJ 2 (24) 2014 Warszawa RADA PROGRAMOWA: dr Petr Blažek, dr Jochen Böhler, dr José M. Faraldo, prof. Idesbald Goddeeris, prof. dr hab. Ryszard Kaczmarek, dr Łukasz Kamiński, prof. Padraic Kenney, dr hab. Marek Kornat, prof. dr hab. Paweł Machcewicz, dr Andrij Portnow, prof. dr hab. Rafał Stobiecki, prof. dr hab. Dariusz Stola REDAKCJA: dr Władysław Bułhak, dr Natalia Jarska (II sekretarz redakcji), dr Małgorzata Choma-Jusińska (sekretarz redakcji), dr Patryk Pleskot, dr Sławomir Poleszak (redaktor naczelny), dr Grzegorz Waligóra, dr hab. Marek Wierzbicki, dr hab. Rafał Wnuk Spis recenzentów współpracujących z czasopismem „Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość” przy tomach wydanych w 2014 r.: dr hab. Tomasz Balbus, dr hab. Grzegorz Berendt, dr Karolina Bittner, dr hab. Daniel Boćkowski, dr hab. Robert Borkowski, dr Błażej Brzostek, dr Jan Bury, dr hab. Adam Dziurok, prof. Tadeusz Dubicki, prof. Jerzy Eisler, dr hab. Ry- szard Gryz, prof. Andrzej Friszke, dr Łukasz Garbal, dr Piotr Gontarczyk, dr Andrzej Grajewski, dr hab. Igor Hałagida, dr hab. Grzegorz Hryciuk, dr hab. Wanda Jarząbek, dr Sławomir Kalbarczyk, dr Bartosz Kaliski, dr Daniel Koreś, Paweł Knap, dr Marcin Kruszyński, dr hab. Dariusz Libionka, dr Sebastian Ligarski, dr Piotr M. Majewski, dr hab. Mariusz Mazur, dr Anna Mazurkiewicz, dr hab. Grzegorz Motyka, dr hab. Filip Musiał, dr hab. Piotr Niwiński, dr hab. Sławomir M. Nowinowski, prof. Andrzej Paczkowski, dr Mariusz Patelski, prof. Maria Pasztor, dr hab. Joanna Sadowska, dr Paweł Sasanka, dr Paweł Skubisz, dr hab. -
Uni International 300 N ZEEB ROAD
INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The follomng explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. -
FINAŁ Imię I Nazwisko Ucznia
KONKURS WIEDZY HISTORYCZNEJ VIII EDYCJA FINAŁ Imię i nazwisko ucznia Adres e-mail Nazwa i adres szkoły Punktowane są tylko poprawne odpowiedzi. Odpowiedzi wielokrotnie poprawiane nie będą brane pod uwagę. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 D B C D A C C C A C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A B C A A B A A B B 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 D A B C B B A B C A 1. Instytucja prawna w średniowieczu, polegająca na zwolnieniu dóbr ze świadczeń na rzecz władcy państwa (seniora) i przyznaniu lennikom prawa sądzenia na określonym terytorium to: a. Seniorat b. Komendacja c. Inwestytura d. Immunitet 2. Św. Tomasz z Akwinu, filozof, jeden z najwybitniejszych myślicieli w dziejach chrześcijaństwa, był: a. Franciszkaninem, profesorem w Paryżu b. Dominikaninem, profesorem w Paryżu c. Benedyktynem w Rzymie d. Profesorem w Bolonii 3. Dynastia Arpadów panowała: a. w Czechach b. w Polsce c. na Węgrzech d. na Krymie 4. Poradlne to: a. Dziesięcina na rzecz władcy b. Nowy sposób uprawiania ziemi polegający na stosowaniu radła z odkładnicą c. Karczunek łanów ziemi pod uprawę d. Podatek bezpośredni płacony od łana 5. W wyniku drugiego pokoju toruńskiego w 1466 r. do Polski zostały przyłączone: a. Prusy Królewskie b. Prusy Książęce c. Prusy Górne d. Pomorze Zachodnie 6. Ziemie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego włączone do Korony Polskiej w 1569 r. w wyniku unii lubelskiej to: a. Wołyń, Podole, Inflanty, Mołdawia b. Podole, Kijowszczyzna, Ziemia Smoleńska c. Podlasie, Wołyń, Podole, Kijowszczyzna d. -
Economic History – Introduction and Lectures. Part 1
Łukasz Dwilewicz Economic History – Introduction and Lectures. Part 1. Introduction to Economic History!..................................................3 1. Economic history – boundaries and development of the field!.....................3 2. Economic history in Poland!......................................................................38 3. Selected general problems of economic history!.........................................42 References:!....................................................................................................61 Part 2. Lectures and their Structure!.........................................................66 Lecture 1!.......................................................................................................66 Lecture 2!.......................................................................................................72 Lecture 3!......................................................................................................79 Lecture 4!......................................................................................................86 Lecture 5!.......................................................................................................93 Lecture 6!....................................................................................................106 Lecture 7!....................................................................................................112 Lecture 8!....................................................................................................115 -
Wotum Nieufności W PRL? Odpowiedzialność Parlamentarna Rady Ministrów W Okresie Obowiązywania Konstytucji Z 22 Lipca 1952 R
STUDIA Z D ZIEJÓ W PAŃSTWA I PRAWA POLSKIEGO XX — 2017 STUDIES II HISTORY OF POLISH STATE AND LAW e-ISSN 2450-6095; ISSN 1733-0335 M a c i e j R a k o w s k i (Ł ó d ź ) Wotum nieufności w PRL? Odpowiedzialność parlamentarna Rady Ministrów w okresie obowiązywania konstytucji z 22 lipca 1952 r. Przez wiele lat władza przedstawiała się jako monolit, co najwyżej ujawniano, i to dopiero po jakimś czasie, konflikty personalne. Był to obraz nieprawdziwy1. 1. Wprowadzenie; 2. Konstytucyjna regulacja zmian w składzie Rady Ministrów PRL; 3. Zmiana na stanowisku prezesa Rady Ministrów PRL; 4. Odwołanie rządu po wyborach do Sejmu; 5. Forma prawna decyzji o zmianie rządu PRL; 6. Uwagi końcowe. 1 Wotum nieufności to instytucja kluczowa dla systemu parlamentarno-gabi netowego. Ten model ustrojowy występuje wówczas, gdy rząd ponosi odpowie dzialność polityczną przed parlamentem, a nie ponosi jej (co do zasady) przed głową państwa. Wotum nieufności przybiera różne formy - może dotyczyć całego ministerium lub tylko poszczególnych członków; może być równoznaczne z od wołaniem rządu albo wyrażać tylko żądanie jego dymisji (jak w Wielkiej Brytanii); może przybierać postać wyraźnej uchwały izby albo stanowić tzw. wotum dorozu miane; może też funkcjonować tzw. konstruktywne wotum nieufności. Zdarzało się, że interesująca nas instytucja ustrojowa opierała się na zwyczajach konstytu cyjnych, a nie na treści przepisów ustawy zasadniczej2. Czy w systemie ustrojowym PRL odnajdziemy przejawy takiego parlamentar nego wotum nieufności? W konstytucji z 1952 r. izba ustawodawcza została opi 1 Z. Messner, 19 września 1988 r. (fragment przemówienia, w którym podał swój rząd do dymisji), Sejm Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej Kadencja IX - Sesja VII, Sprawozdanie Ste nograficzne z 37posiedzenia Sejmu Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej w dniu 19 września 1988 r., W arszawa 1988, s. -
May 16-31, 1972
RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS DATE RESTRICTION NUMBER TYPE 1 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 5/20/1972 A Appendix “A” 2 List U.S. Guests – p. 4 – Appendix “B” 5/26/1972 A 3 Manifest Soviet ILYUSHING – 62 – Appendix “A” 5/27/1972 A 4 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 5/16/1972 A Appendix “E” 5 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 5/19/1972 A Appendix “A” 6 List Guest List State Dinner – Mariyinsky 5/29/1972 A Palace, Kiev, U.S.S.R. – Appendix E (pgs. 1-2) COLLECTION TITLE BOX NUMBER WHCF: SMOF: Office of Presidential Papers and Archives RC-10 FOLDER TITLE President Richard Nixon’s Daily Diary May 16, 1972 – May 31, 1972 PRMPA RESTRICTION CODES: A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy. E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or B. National security classified information. financial information. C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual’s F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law rights. enforcement purposes. D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material. or a libel of a living person. H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material. DEED OF GIFT RESTRICTION CODES: D-DOG Personal privacy under deed of gift -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION *U.S. GPO; 1989-235-084/00024 NA 14021 (4-85) THE WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON'S DAilY DIARY (See T,.vel Reco,d (0' Travel Activity) p PLACE DA'{ DEGAN DATE (Mo., D.y, Yr.) MAY 16 , 1972 THE WHITE HOUSE TIME DAY WASHINGTON~ D.C. -
Raport Z Badania Zrealizowanego Na Potrzeby Wieloletniego Programu Rządowego „Niepodległa”
Raport z badania zrealizowanego na potrzeby wieloletniego programu rządowego „Niepodległa” TNS POLSKA dla Narodowego Centrum Kultury Zespół badawczy TNS Polska pod kierownictwem dr. hab. Piotra Kwiatkowskiego: Filip Jasiński Krzysztof Jodłowski Dorota Kachaniak Urszula Krassowska Grzegorz Liśkiewicz Dr Seweryn Rudnicki Joanna Skrzyńska Anna Trząsalska Założenia badawcze opracował zespół Narodowego Centrum Kultury: Dr Mateusz Werner Dr Tomasz Kukołowicz Marlena Modzelewska Raport jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Polska. Pewne prawa zastrzeżone na rzecz Narodowego Centrum Kultury. Zezwala się na dowolne wykorzystanie treści - pod warunkiem zachowania niniejszej informacji licencyjnej i wskazania Narodowego Centrum Kultury jako właściciela praw do tekstu. Treść licencji jest dostępna na stronie http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl/. Warszawa, wrzesień 2016 Spis treści 1. Wprowadzenie .................................................................................. 3 2. Najważniejsze wnioski ........................................................................ 3 3. Omówienie wyników badania .............................................................. 5 3.1. Postawy Polaków wobec przeszłości ................................................ 5 3.1.1. Przeszłość jako przedmiot zainteresowania .......................... 5 3.1.2. Postrzeganie społecznych funkcji przeszłości ........................ 6 3.1.3. Pamięć rodzinna Polaków................................................... 8 3.1.4. Przeszłość -
Colonel Ryszard Kuklinski and His Unique Mission: a Juxtaposition Of
1 COLONEL RYSZARD KUKLINSKI AND HIS UNIQUE MISSION: A JUXTAPOSITION OF THE POST-COLD WAR OUTLOOKS A dissertation presented by Dariusz G. Jonczyk to The Department of History In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of History Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts September 2010 2 COLONEL RYSZARD KUKLINSKI AND HIS UNIQUE MISSION: A JUXTAPOSITION OF THE POST-COLD WAR OUTLOOKS by Dariusz G. Jonczyk ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Northeastern University, September, 2010 3 Abstract The spy case of Colonel Ryszard Kuklinski, a Polish Army officer who collaborated with the CIA between 1972 and 1981, has generated passionate debate in the post Cold War geopolitical transition in the world after the fall of Communism. Perceived as a traitor of his nation by his opponents and a hero of the Cold War era by his enthusiasts, Kuklinski accomplished his lonely mission by channeling some 35 thousand top secret documents in both Polish and Russian to the agency. Unlikely fully explored by the American strategists, the files nonetheless disclosed some important technical, operational, and strategic plans of the former Warsaw Pact and the plans for the imposition of the martial law in Poland in 1981. Though sentenced to death in absentia in 1984 in Warsaw, Kuklinski was formally vindicated by Poland‘s judicial system in 1997. Upon his triumphant return to Poland in 1998, Kuklinski witnessed Poland‘s joining NATO and other new democratic developments after the fall of Communism in 1990. -
1 India-Poland Relations Political Relations with Diplomatic Relations
India-Poland Relations Political Relations With diplomatic relations established in 1954, India opened its Embassy in 1957. During the Communist era, bilateral relations were close and cordial, with regular high level visits, planned trade and economic interaction through state trading organisations underpinned by the rupee clearing arrangements, inter-governmental cooperation in defence and science and technology and cultural exchanges. After emerging from the Eastern Block, Poland’s priorities are NATO and EU. However, Polish officials reiterate that they regard India as a mature democracy and wish to deepen relations with it. Poland supports India’s claim to Permanent membership of a reformed and expanded UNSC. Important bilateral treaties and agreements i) Agreement on Promotion and Protection of Investments (7 October 1996, Warsaw) ii) Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation (21 June 1981, Warsaw) iii) Protocol on Foreign Office Consultation (1996, Warsaw) iv) Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology (12 January 1993) v) Agreement on Cultural Cooperation and subsequent Cultural Exchange Programmes (CEP): (March 1957, New Delhi). vi) Agreement on Cooperation in Combating Organised Crime and International Terrorism: (February 2003) vii) Agreement on Defence Cooperation (February 2003) viii) Extradition Treaty (February 2003) ix) Agreement on Economic Cooperation between India and Poland (19 May 2006, Warsaw) x) Bilateral Agreement on Shipping (1960) xi) Agreement on Cooperation in the field of Health Care and Medical Science