Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Poland is a model for economic growth

Published

on

Poland is a model for economic growth

POZNAN, Poland (AP) — A generation ago, Poland rationed sugar and flour while its citizens were paid one-tenth what West Germans earned. Today, the economy of the country has edged past Switzerland to become the world’s 20th largest with more than $1 trillion in annual output.

It’s a historic leap from the post-Communist ruins of 1989-90 to European growth champion, which economists say has lessons on how to bring prosperity to ordinary people — and that the Trump administration says should be recognized by Poland’s presence at a summit of the Group of 20 leading economies later this year.

The transformation is reflected in people like Joanna Kowalska, an engineer from Poznan, a city of around 500,000 people midway between Berlin and Warsaw. She returned home after five years in the U.S.

“I get asked often if I’m missing something by coming back to Poland, and, to be honest, I feel it’s the other way around,” Kowalska said. “We are ahead of the United States in so many areas.”

Kowalska works at the Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center, which is developing the first artificial intelligence factory in Poland and integrating it with a quantum computer, one of 10 on the continent financed by a European Union program.

Kowalska worked for Microsoft in the U.S. after graduating from the Poznan University of Technology, in a job she saw as a “dream come true.”

Newer skyscrapers flank the communist-era Palace of Culture and Science, foreground, in n, Poland, May 25, 2018. (AP Photo/Alik Keplicz, File)

Newer skyscrapers flank the communist-era Palace of Culture and Science, foreground, in n, Poland, May 25, 2018. (AP Photo/Alik Keplicz, File)

But she missed having a “sense of mission,” she said.

“Especially when it comes to artificial intelligence, the technology started developing so rapidly in Poland,” Kowalska said. “So it was very tempting to come back.”

Breaking out of poverty

The guest invitation to the G20 summit is mostly symbolic. No guest country has been promoted to full member since the original G20 met at the finance minister level in 1999, and that would take a consensus decision of all the members. Moreover, the original countries were chosen not just by gross domestic product rank, but by their “systemic significance” in the global economy.

But the gesture reflects a statistical truth: In 35 years — a little less than one person’s working lifetime — Poland’s per capita GDP rose to $55,340 in 2025, or 85% of the EU average. That’s up from $6,730 in 1990, or 38% of the EU average and now roughly equal to Japan’s $52,039, according to International Monetary Fund figures measured in today’s dollars and adjusted for Poland’s lower cost of living.

Poland’s economy has grown an average 3.8% a year since joining the EU in 2004, easily beating the European average of 1.8%.

It wasn’t simply one factor that helped Poland break out of the poverty trap, says Marcin Piątkowski of Warsaw’s Kozminski University and author of a book on the country’s economic rise.

One of the most important factors was rapidly building a strong institutional framework for business, he said. That included independent courtsan anti-monopoly agency to ensure fair competition, and strong regulation to keep troubled banks from choking off credit.

As a result, the economy wasn’t hijacked by corrupt practices and oligarchs, as happened elsewhere in the post-Communist world.

Poland also benefited from billions of euros in EU aidboth before and after it joined the bloc in 2004 and gained access to its huge single market.

Above all, there was the broad consensus, from across the political spectrum, that Poland’s long-term goal was joining the EU.

“Poles knew where they were going,” Piątkowski said. “Poland downloaded the institutions and the rules of the game, and even some cultural norms that the West spent 500 years developing.”

As oppressive as it was, communism contributed by breaking down old social barriers and opening higher education to factory and farmworkers who had no chance before. A post-Communist boom in higher education means half of young people now have degrees.

“Young Poles are, for instance, better educated than young Germans,” Piatkowski said, but earn half what Germans do. That’s “an unbeatable combination” for attracting investors, he said.

Success of an electric bus company

Solaris, a company founded in 1996 in Poznan by Krzysztof Olszewski, is one of the leading manufacturers of electric buses in Europe with a market share of around 15%. Its story shows one hallmark of Poland’s success: entrepreneurship, or the willingness to take risks and build something new.

Workers build electric buses at the Solaris bus factory in Poznan, Poland, Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026. (AP Photo/Pietro De Cristofaro)

Workers build electric buses at the Solaris bus factory in Poznan, Poland, Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026. (AP Photo/Pietro De Cristofaro)

Educated as an engineer under the Communist government, Olszewski opened a car repair shop where he used spare parts from West Germany to fix Polish cars. While most enterprises were nationalized, authorities gave permission to small-scale private workshops like his to operate, according to Katarzyna Szarzec, an economist at the Poznan University of Economics and Business.

“These were enclaves of private entrepreneurship,” she said.

In 1996, Olszewski opened a subsidiary of the German bus company Neoplan and started producing for the Polish market.

“Poland’s entry to the EU in 2004 gave us credibility and access to a vast, open European market with the free movement of goods, services and people,” said Mateusz Figaszewski, responsible for institutional relations.

Then came a risky decision to start producing electric buses in 2011, a time when few in Europe were experimenting with the technology. Figaszewski said larger companies in the West had more to lose if switching to electric vehicles didn’t work out.

“It became an opportunity to achieve technological leadership ahead of the market,” he said.

An aging population

Challenges still remain for Poland. Due to a low birth rate and an aging society, fewer workers will be able to support retirees. Average wages are lower than the EU average. While small and medium enterprises flourish, few have become global brands.

Workers stand together at a shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, Aug. 23, 2007. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski, File)

Workers stand together at a shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, Aug. 23, 2007. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski, File)

Customers queue outside a bakery in Warsaw, Poland, Aug. 23, 1989. (AP Photo/David Caulkin, File)

Customers queue outside a bakery in Warsaw, Poland, Aug. 23, 1989. (AP Photo/David Caulkin, File)

Poznan Mayor Jacek Jaśkowiak sees domestic innovation as a third wave in Poland’s postsocialist economic development. In the first wave, foreign countries opened factories in Poland in the early 1990s, taking advantage of a skilled local population.

Around the turn of the millennium, he said, Western companies brought more advanced branches, including finance, information technology and engineering.

“Now it’s the time to start such sophisticated activities here,” Jaśkowiak says, adding that one of his main priorities is investing in universities.

“There is still much to do when it comes to innovation and technological progress,” added Szarzec, the Poznan economist. “But we keep climbing up on that ladder of added value. We’re no longer just a supplier of spare parts.”

Szarzec’s students say more needs to be done to reduce urban-rural inequalities, make housing affordable and support young people starting families. They say Poles need to acknowledge that immigrants, such as the millions of Ukrainians who fled Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, contribute to economic development in an aging population.

“Poland has such a dynamic economy, with so many opportunities for development, that of course I am staying,” said Kazimierz Falak, 27, one of Szarzec’s graduate students. “Poland is promising.”

Computer equipment at the Poznan Supercomputing and Networking center is seen in Poznan, Poland, Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Pietro De Cristofaro)

Computer equipment at the Poznan Supercomputing and Networking center is seen in Poznan, Poland, Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Pietro De Cristofaro)

___

David McHugh reported from Frankfurt, Germany.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Judge orders restoration of Voice of America

Published

on

Judge orders restoration of Voice of America

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to restore the government-run Voice of America’s operations after it had effectively been shut down a year ago, putting hundreds of employees who have been on administrative leave back to work.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave the U.S. Agency for Global Media a week to put together a plan for putting Voice of America on the air. It has been operating with a skeleton staff since President Donald Trump issued an executive order to shut it down.

A week ago, Lamberth said Kari Lake, who had been Trump’s choice to lead the agency, did not have the legal authority to do what she had done at Voice of America. In Tuesday’s decision, Lamberth ruled on the actions she had taken to respond to Trump’s order, essentially shelving 1,042 of VOA’s 1,147 employees.

“Defendants have provided nothing approaching a principled basis for their decision,” Lamberth wrote.

There was no immediate comment on the decision by the agency overseeing Voice of America. Lake had denounced Lamberth’s March 7 ruling, saying it would be appealed. Since then, Trump nominated Sarah Rogers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, to run USAGM. That requires Senate approval, a step that was not taken with Lake.

Patsy Widakuswara, Voice of America’s White House bureau chief and a plaintiff in the lawsuit to restore it, said she is deeply grateful for the decision.

“We are eager to begin repairing the damage Kari Lake has inflicted on our agency and our colleagues, to return to our congressional mandate, and to rebuild the trust of the global audience we have been unable to serve for the past year,” she said.

“We know the road to restoring VOA’s operations and reputation will be long and difficult,” she said. “We hope the American people will continue to support our mission to produce journalism, not propaganda.”

Voice of America has transmitted news coverage to countries around the world since its formation in World War II, often in countries with no tradition of a free press. Before Trump’s executive order, VOA had operated in 49 different languages, broadcasting to 362 million people.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump delays China trip to focus on war in Iran

Published

on

Trump delays China trip to focus on war in Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is delaying a diplomatic trip to China that had been planned for months but began to unravel as he pressured Beijing and other world powers to use their military might to protect the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said Tuesday while meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin in the Oval Office that he would be going to China in five or six weeks’ time instead of at the end of the month. He said he would be “resetting” his visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

“We’re working with China — they were fine with it,” Trump said. “I look forward to seeing President Xi. He looks forward to seeing me, I think.”

Trump’s visit to China is seen as an opportunity to build on a fragile trade truce between the two superpowers, but it has become tangled in his effort to find an endgame to the war in Iran. Soon after pressing China and other nations to send warships to secure access to Middle Eastern oil over the weekend, Trump indicated his travel plans depended on Beijing’s response, though he added Tuesday that the U.S. didn’t need help from the allies who rebuffed his request.

AP AUDIO: Trump postpones his China trip to focus on the war in Iran

Speaking with reporters, President Trump says he’s postponing this month’s planned trip to China.

In a Sunday interview with the Financial Times, Trump said he wanted to know whether Beijing would help secure the strait before he departed for the late-March summit. On Monday, he told reporters that he had requested a delay of about a month because of the demands of the war.

“I think it’s important that I be here,” Trump said. “And so it could be that we delay a little bit. Not much.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Paris this week for a new round of talks meant to pave the way for Trump’s trip, said any changes to the schedule would be because of logistics, not because Trump was trying to pressure Beijing.

Trump is urging other nations that rely on Middle Eastern oil to help police the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s traded oil usually flows. He has singled out China, noting that it gets much of its oil from the strait while the U.S. gets a minimal amount. He also made appeals to Japan, South Korea, Britain and France. There have been no takers so far, and China has been noncommittal.

“We strongly encourage other nations whose economies depend on the strait far more than ours,” Trump said at the White House on Monday. “We want them to come and help us with the strait.”

Trump is framing the war as a favor to the world being carried out by the U.S. and Israel, saying it’s now time for others to do their share to protect the strait. Some world leaders have directly rebuffed the notion and objected to the U.S.’ military approach.

Trump’s trip to China carries major geopolitical consequences as the two nations seek stability in the wake of a trade war that led to soaring tariffs before both sides eased off. Trump and Xi agreed to a one-year trade truce last fall, and Trump later agreed to a state visit to Beijing. He also went to China in 2017, during his first term.

China’s foreign minister said last week that the country looks forward to a “landmark year” in its relationship with the U.S. He added that China’s attitude “has always been positive and open, and the key is for the U.S. side to meet us halfway.”

Trump’s priorities have shifted as the war sends oil prices skyrocketing during a tough midterm year in which affordability was already a chief concern for American voters. In addition to postponing his China trip, he has given Russia a boost by lifting sanctions on its oiland he tapped into the nation’s oil reservessomething he previously objected to doing.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Why Judge Boasberg’s ruling on DOJ’s Jerome Powell investigation is bigger than one case

Published

on

The most important part of Chief Judge James Boasberg’s ruling quashing Justice Department subpoenas served on the Federal Reserve was not simply that he blocked them.

It was that he refused to suspend common sense. He read the subpoenas against the public record that produced them. He took President Donald Trump at his word. That is what made the opinion so important.

Judge Boasberg did not begin with dry procedural throat-clearing. He began with Trump’s own attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the broader campaign of presidential and White House pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates.

For too long, courts have often maintained an artificial separation between presidential rhetoric and executive action.

He quoted Trump calling Powell “TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair.” He cited another post calling Powell “one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government.” He noted Trump’s statement that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” and his threat that if the Fed did not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”

That was not decoration; it was the architecture of the opinion. From page one, Judge Boasberg made clear that motive was not some side issue here. Motive was the case. The subpoenas arose from a Justice Department investigation into supposed cost overruns in the Federal Reserve’s multiyear headquarters renovation project and into Powell’s congressional testimony touching on those renovations. On paper, that was the inquiry. In reality, Judge Boasberg concluded, something else was going on.

Judge Boasberg wrote that there was “abundant evidence” that the dominant, if not sole, purpose of the subpoenas was to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president or resign and make way for someone who would. On the other side of the scale, he said the government had offered “no evidence whatsoever” that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the president. By the end of the opinion, that judgment hardened even further: The government had produced “essentially zero evidence” of criminality, and its stated justifications looked like “a convenient pretext” for another unstated purpose.

That is an extraordinary thing for a federal judge to say about the Department of Justice.

This was not a close call. It was not a case in which prosecutors pushed the envelope and got reined back in. It was a finding that criminal process had been used as pressure rather than law enforcement.

And the way Judge Boasberg got there was the real story. He did not invent improper purpose. Rather, he looked at what was already in plain view. Trump spent months attacking Powell, demanding lower rates and making his desired outcome unmistakable. He said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!” He said, “I want to get him out.” He said he would “love to fire his ass.” He said Powell “should resign.”

A political appointee then floated the Fed renovation issue as a path toward investigation and possible removal. After that, the U.S. Attorney’s Office opened a criminal investigation on that very theory and served subpoenas on the Federal Reserve.

Judge Boasberg looked at that sequence and refused to act naive.

He was right to.

For too long, courts have often maintained an artificial separation between presidential rhetoric and executive action. The president says what he says. Prosecutors do what they do. Judges examine the narrower legal record and resist attributing too much significance to the political atmosphere outside the courthouse. But there comes a point where that posture stops looking disciplined and starts looking unserious.

From page one, Judge Boasberg made clear that motive was not some side issue here. Motive was the case.

When a president has repeatedly identified the official he wants pressured or removed, made his desired outcome unmistakable and then his Justice Department shows up with a paper-thin theory aimed at that same target, a court does not have to pretend those events are unrelated. Judge Boasberg’s opinion suggested that at least some courts may be losing patience with that formalism.

What made the opinion important was not just that Judge Boasberg drew that inference here. It was that he did so openly, in a way that may signal a broader judicial willingness to read executive motive more realistically in politically saturated cases.

That is not judicial activism. It is common sense.

And Trump’s response since the ruling only reinforced the point. In a post after the decision, Trump attacked Judge Boasberg personally, called him a “Wacky, Nasty, Crooked, and totally Out of Control Judge,” said he has been “‘after’ my people, and me, for years,” claimed the ruling had “little to do with the Law, and everything to do with Politics,” and said Judge Boasberg should be removed from cases involving Trump and his administration.

That mattered because it underscored the precise interpretive move Judge Boasberg made in the opinion. The judge treated Trump’s public words not as background noise, but as evidence reasonably bearing on motive and pretext. Trump’s reaction did not undercut that reasoning. It strengthened it.

It also said something larger and more troubling about the DOJ.

The government was given the chance to substantiate its claims and chose not to. Judge Boasberg was left, as he put it, with “no credible reason” to think prosecutors were investigating suspicious facts as opposed to targeting a disfavored official.

That is not just a loss.  It is a collapse of confidence.

And it matters all the more because of what a subpoena is. A subpoena is the point where political pressure becomes legal compulsion. It is the government bringing the authority of criminal process into the room.

That is why misuse of subpoena power is so dangerous. It can impose burden, stigma, cost and fear long before any indictment, and it can intimidate even when no charges are ever filed. Judge Boasberg understood that. He did not treat these subpoenas as some technical skirmish over records. He treated them as part of an effort to pressure the chair of an independent central bank and, in his words, to “bulldoz[e] the Fed’s statutory independence.”

That is why this ruling matters beyond Powell and beyond the Federal Reserve.

Judge Boasberg did not just quash subpoenas.

He modeled a more realistic way for courts to evaluate politically freighted exercises of state power.

And if more judges start doing the same, this opinion will be remembered as more than a rebuke in one ugly case. It will be remembered as an early sign that courts were no longer willing to separate presidential coercion from the legal machinery deployed to carry it out.

Duncan Levin is a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor who serves as a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and is a frequent contributor to MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending