Jankowska - 2010 - Dimensions of Competitiveness

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/265600130
Dimensions of Competitiveness
Book · January 2010
CITATIONS READS
0 2,834
4 authors, including:
Barbara Jankowska Tadeusz Kowalski

Poznan University of Economics and Business Poznan University of Economics and Business
127 PUBLICATIONS 558 CITATIONS 87 PUBLICATIONS 325 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Maciej Pietrzykowski
Poznan University of Economics and Business
26 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Innovation performance of a foreign subsidiary and its position in the network of a multinational enterprise - the perspective of foreign subsidiaries established in
Poland View project
Organization's Behavior in CEEC Markets View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tadeusz Kowalski on 04 June 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DIMENSIONS OF
COMPETITIVENESS
edited by
Barbara Jankowska
Tadeusz Kowalski
POZNAŃ UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS PRESS

POZNAŃ 2010
Editorial Board
Elżbieta Gołembska, Danuta Krzemińska, Emil Panek, Marek Ratajczak,
Jerzy Schroeder (secretary), Ryszard Zieliński, Maciej Żukowski (chairman)
Reviewer
Steve Letza
Cover design
Marta Zuzanna Kowalska
Typeset
Anna Matysek-Jędrych
Copyright by Poznań University of Economics

Poznań 2010
ISB 978-83-7417-557-9
POZNAŃ UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS PRESS

ul. Powstańców Wielkopolskich 16, 61-895 Poznań, Poland
phone +48 61 854 31 54, +48 61 854 31 55, fax +48 61 854 31 59
www.wydawnictwo-ue.pl, e-mail: [email protected]
Postal adress: al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland
Print: ZPW POZKAL

COTETS
List of Authors 5
Introduction 7
1. The economic and monetary union vs. shifts

in competitiveness of member states 11
2. Competitiveness vs. stability of the financial

sector: the case of the Polish financial sector 36
3. Information asymmetry and investment

in the manufacture of food products and beverages
and in the manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and
semi-trailers 56
4. Institutional support of innovation

at the regional level 71
5. Clusters as a mode of coopetition: the case

of firms from one region in Poland 91
6. Hypercompetition in the perspective

of Schumpeter’s theory 110
Bibliography 127
Index 145
LIST OF AUTHORS
Introduction Barbara Jankowska, Tadeusz Kowalski,

Chapter 1 Tadeusz Kowalski, Maciej Pietrzykowski
Chapter 2 Anna Matysek-Jędrych
Chapter 3 Dominika Zenka-Podlaszewska
Chapter 4 Dorota Czyżewska
Chapter 5 Barbara Jankowska
Chapter 6 Jan Polowczyk

ITRODUCTIO
Individual businesses, sectors, entire national economies, and regional

integration groupings have experienced deep technological and economic
changes. This has led to the emergence of a new economic order, driven
by globalization, the capacity to create and absorb technological progress,
and fast transfer of knowledge. Transformations in the economic land-
scape necessitate a search for new ways of creating value, and conse-
quently economic prosperity. Creating value and – in a broader sense –
the developmental capacity of the company, sector, region, economy or
regional integration grouping are intrinsically related to increasing their
competitiveness.
The notion from which competitiveness derives is competition.
Competition has been defined, perceived, and interpreted in many ways
by various schools of economic thought. For classical economists compe-
tition was identical to rivalry, while for the neo-classicists it is more of a
market situation. In evolutionary economics competition is seen as a se-
lection mechanism. This diverse nature and interpretation of competition
is reflected in the multidimensional concept of competitiveness.
The notion of competitiveness is difficult to define, primarily due to
its multi-faceted nature and multidimensionality. The competitiveness of
an economy is different from the competitiveness of a region, or that of a
company. In order to operationalize this concept, one must refer to the
specific properties of the units to which it pertains. Even then, defining the
dimensions of competitiveness can cause interpretative problems, due to
the diversity and changeability of the potential and actual aims of the units
under study and the analytical approaches adopted.
Competitiveness, then, has many dimensions. For example, it may
be considered in static terms, when we determine the position of a given
object in relation to its peers. The measurement of advantage or gap thus
obtained is a kind of snapshot of competitiveness. In the dynamic ap-
proach we trace changes in competitiveness over time. In the spatial ap-
proach, in addition to the static and dynamic perspective, we analyze its
7
spatial aspects, which are very important in the context of the balanced
paradigm and sustainable development. What should also be considered,
especially in the normative approach, is the analysis of competitiveness in
terms of institutional solutions and instruments of public authorities on
many levels.
In the simplest terms, competitiveness is the ability to survive and
grow under pressure from rivals. This property may characterize individu-
al agents, companies, non-corporate organizations, sectors, economies,
and regional integration groupings. The effect of rivalry in this sense is
the obtaining of a better result than the competitors’. Competitiveness thus
defined is a concept without designata, which makes it a difficult object of
study. Its multidimensionality, which has already been emphasized, re-
quires an interdisciplinary research approach, which provides a basis for
considering a numerous set of factors and sources of competitiveness, as
well as for the interweaving of various perspectives and attitudes in the
analysis.
The question of the cause of the “wealth of nations”, posed by Mi-
chael Porter in 1990, remains current and basically concerns the search for
the sources of competitiveness. These sources have variable temporal and
spatial dimensions. It is also significant that modern economic processes
are characterized by changes in the types and order of countries’ sources
of competitiveness. Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction leading
to innovation seems to be omnipresent. In the current phase of globaliza-
tion the foreground is occupied by knowledge, its development, diffusion,
and the ability to translate it into process and product innovations, with
the supply of resources as the background. In the 21st century it is innova-
tions, broadly-defined, which drive competition, and which in some areas
of activity transform it into hypercompetition. However, this situation
may change when the political climate changes and the rivalry for politi-
cal and economic control over key supplies of strategic resources intensi-
fies, and also when emerging economic powers decide to complement
their measurable economic success by increasing their political and mili-
tary leverage.
The principal aim in organizing this volume has been to report se-
lected results from current work on various aspects of competitiveness at
the Department of Strategy and Policy of International Competitiveness at
Poznan University of Economics. The book is divided into six chapters.
The first two chapters concern the macroeconomic dimension of competi-
tiveness. The aim of the first chapter, by Tadeusz Kowalski and Maciej
Pietrzykowski, is to present and assess changes in the relative competi-
8
tiveness of 12 countries forming the Economic and Monetary Union
(EMU). The chapter by Anna Matysek-Jędrych analyzes and assesses the
relationship between two important features of the financial sector: com-
petitiveness and stability. The author argues that it is crucial to strengthen
both the competitiveness and stability of the financial sector in the new
globalised and integrated economy. In doing so it is also important to take
into account the interrelationship between these two categories.
The mezzo-dimension of competitiveness is addressed in chapters
three and four. The third chapter, by Dominika Zenka-Podlaszewska, ex-
amines and verifies the issue of the competitiveness of large and smaller
firms in the Polish manufacturing sector due to the presence of informa-
tion asymmetry and hence, financial constraints. In order to measure this
phenomenon the author describes the asymmetric information mechanism,
and then uses a co-integration and impulse-response approach. The fourth
chapter, by Dorota Czyżewska, examines the importance of institutional
support for regional innovativeness in the context of the knowledge-based
economy. The author develops a concept of regional innovativeness, and
then describes innovation-supporting structures and underlines the role
played by these institutions. The case of the Rhône-Alpes region is used to
present selected institutions supporting innovation in regional develop-
ment.
The micro-level dimension of competitiveness is analyzed in chap-
ters five and six. Barbara Jankowska in the fifth chapter deals with the
current stage of research in Poland in the field of clusters, and highlights
the need to investigate coopetition as an attribute of clusters. The reason is
that the concept of clusters seems to be misused both by practitioners and
in the academic literature. The sixth chapter, by Jan Polowczyk, describes
academic debate regarding the phenomenon of hypercompetition observed
in the U.S. and in the world economy. The chapter emphasizes the pio-
neering role of J.A. Schumpeter in the debate. At the center of Schumpe-
ter’s theory was the assertion that ‘creative destruction’ would become
increasingly more intense in a wide range of industries. More recently,
this assertion has resurfaced with the concept of hypercompetition.
Barbara Jankowska, Tadeusz Kowalski, Maciej Pietrzykowski
9
1 THE ECOOMIC AD MOETARY
UIO VS. SHIFTS
I COMPETITIVEESS
OF MEMBER STATES
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to assess changes in the relative competitive-

ness of 12 countries forming the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)
between 1999–2009. Greece was the only EU country which had not yet
been accepted in the EMU in 1999 and later joined the Eurozone in 2001.
Despite the time difference, it was assumed that by including this econ-
omy in the analyzed EMU 12 group it would provide a more complete
picture of the influence of monetary solutions and economic policies
within this grouping as it relates to the competitiveness of its particular
members.
Section 1 is devoted to a brief presentation of assumptions and ex-
pectations regarding the EMU. Section 2 examines real effective ex-
change rates (REERs). Along with the standard literature, it is assumed
that REERs are important summary measures of shifts in competitive-
ness. Section 3 is devoted to trade developments that are linked to the
REERs. We present and analyze gross measures such as exports to the
gross domestic product (GDP) ratio, external exports, export/import ratio,
the share of EMU country exports in world exports and the role of high-
tech trade. Section 4 deals with the shifts in labor force performance and
Section 5 is devoted to the most comprehensive measures which are GDP
and gross national income (GNI) developments. The chapter closes with
conclusions.
1. General background
The 1980s, which preceded the formation of the EMU, were characte-
rized by accelerated globalization previously hindered by post-war politi-
11
cal and economic world divisions. Acceleration of globalization was
founded both on technological progress and political revaluations occur-
ring in the USA (Ronald Reagan's election) and Great Britain (the That-
cherite era), supported as well by the revival of neoclassical economics
(Kowalski 2001; Wojtyna 2008; Gorynia, Kowalski 2009). It is empha-
sized that the area of theory and practice of international economic rela-
tions was greatly influenced by the publications of the National Bureau
of Economic Research (NBER) and of the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) which, on the one hand ques-
tioned ideas on the currency and trade policy of that time, and on the
other postulated the liberalization of the circulation of goods and capital,
as well as the shift from fixed to floating exchange rates (Rodrik 1996;
Findley, O’Rourke 2007; Wojtyna 2008). The process was enhanced by
the IMF policy supporting countries emerging from economic crisis, as
far as they were willing to accept the liberal course of domestic and for-
eign economic policy (Kowalik 2002, p. 277).
In general, these processes served as a background for European
economic integration. Following a period of stagnation, economic inte-
gration was strengthened thanks to the French incentive of the mid-1980s
(expressed through the Internal Market), and also the strengthening of
institutional and decision-making foundations of the EU (finalized in the
Single European Act), (Dyson, Featherstone 1999; Pelkmans 2006). It
was moreover, France that suggested the return to the concept of a mone-
tary union and the establishment of the European Central Bank (ECB).
The work of the Delors Committee, begun in 1988, was greatly intensi-
fied following Eastern-European events and the unique opportunity of
German unification1. This policy was topped by the Maastricht Treaty,
foreseeing the formation of the EMU (Ungerer 1997; De Grauwe 2000;
Issing et al. 2001; Skrobisz 2005). Simultaneously, integration processes
in Europe were both a challenge and an inspiration for other regions and
groupings in the world (Gilpin 2000; Findley, O’Rourke 2007; di Mauro
et al. 2008).
Adjustments preceding the introduction of the euro and the first
years of zone functioning may be described both in terms of growth
theory, (Campos, Coricelli 2002), and competitiveness (Schwab 2010).
EU countries, due to over fifty years of integration2 and implementation
of acquis communautaire, show a deep similarity in terms of systemic
solutions. At the same time, however, due to varying traditions, expe-
riences, corporate cultures, degree of respect for law, and law enforce-
ment, they display diversified environments of business, entrepreneur-
12
ship, or the ability to create and absorb innovation. Therefore, the envi-
ronment of growth and variation of the competitiveness of national econ-
omies may be perceived as influenced by factors such as human capital,
production capital, natural resources, institutional solutions and business
sector adaptability.
Efficiency potential and adaptive capabilities of companies have
universal importance in the current phase of globalization. However, in
the presence of a common currency this aspect becomes crucial. From
the micro-economic point of view, the EMU reduces transaction costs of
businesses and within that currency area removes currency risk from the
economic calculation. Greater monetary stability and predictability, as
well as the growth of macroeconomic credibility resulted in lower market
interest rates, especially in countries such as Italy, Greece, Portugal and
Spain3. On the other hand, however, the lack of national instruments of
monetary policy, the regime of irrevocable exchange rates, and the limi-
tations imposed on national fiscal policies demonstrate the diminishing
impact of the EMU states on the course of economic events. Thus the
importance of the aforementioned adaptive capability on the level of
businesses and sectors, product and process innovation capacity of busi-
nesses, including cost control and even cost reduction. The latter was
certainly a differentiating influence on the current functioning and
growth of the EMU countries. Such a view may be noted in the works of
M. Porter, who many years before the emergence of the EMU transferred
the approach developed for the study of corporate competitiveness onto
the macroeconomic plane (Porter 1990). Consequently, in this current
approach, the competitive advantage of a given economy stems from the
advantages achieved on the level of businesses and sectors (Schwab
2010).
Porter's approach points to four potential groups of economy com-
petitiveness indicators: supply of resources, factors characterizing the
demand side of a given economy, network of co-dependent sectors, and
factors and conditions present in the business environment. The trans-
formation of potential factors into an actual set of competitive advantages
of a given country requires advantageous conditions, of which key im-
portance is played by adequate micro- and macro-economic policy. In
this context one should note the already emphasized relative uniformiza-
tion of systemic solutions, uniform monetary policy, and limitations im-
posed on national fiscal policies. In these conditions, taking into account
Common Trade Policy, the Single European Market, as well as Competi-
tiveness Policy, what becomes particularly important are economy-
13
specific qualitative aspects and much-emphasized adaptive ability of
businesses.
In general, the analysis and assessment of competitiveness of a
given economy may be based on two approaches. The first consists in an
assessment using econometric models of the scale and variations of devi-
ation of the real effective exchange rate from the equilibrium exchange
rate (Egert 2004; Van Marrewijk 2004; Rubaszek, Serwa 2009). The
other approach, applied both parallelly and separately to model-based
methods, is based on the comparative analysis of composite and uniform
performance measures. The former are composed on the basis of primary
statistical data characterizing given economies and subjective measures
of perception of the business environment quality of selected economies
and integration groupings (e.g. World Economic Forum 2010).
In this chapter, taking into account (and conforming to reality) a
far-reached unification of the EMU macroeconomic policy framework,
we assume that differentiations mainly concern mezo and micro, often
subjective elements of the business environment. In the empirical sec-
tions that follow we assume that their impact reflects and accumulates in
major, performance measures, such as real effective exchange rates, ex-
ports development, labor productivity and finally gross output rates and
volumes. It must be noted that these general performance measures sig-
nal, on the one hand, economy competitiveness level and shifts, and on
the other – for particular companies – they are exogenous constraints,
threats and also opportunities.
2. Real effective exchange rate as

a simple indicator of relative competitiveness
As emphasized in Section 1, real effective exchange rate (REER) is a

commonly recognized basic price-based measure of the position and
variations of international competitiveness (Egert 2004; Van Marrewijk
2004). The importance of this measure is clearly visible within the EMU
which made price convergence one of the basic conditions and indicators
of the relevance and capability of a given economy to participate in this
integration grouping.
The issue of inflation rate convergence is important to the EMU as
well because member states do not have autonomic, national monetary
policies which constitute standard sets of instruments and tools aimed at
inflation control4. The problem of potential and real divergence of infla-
14
tion rates, and lack of national tools of monetary policy has been particu-
larly complex. This is because the EMU included certain countries – the
so-called convergence four (Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain) – which
differed in the level of development and prices from the core European
countries and other countries which had developed negative mechanisms
in the area of costs and prices (e.g. Italy). Within the convergence four
the probability of the occurrence of the Balassa-Samuelson (B-S) effect
(Egert 2002; de Grauwe, Schnable 2005; Egert 2007; de Grauwe 2007;
Kowalski et al. 2007) was high. As a result, in single currency condi-
tions, this could lead to the relative deterioration of price and cost compe-
titiveness of products and services traded in the internal European mar-
ket, as well as in exports to third parties.
In the present chapter, for the purpose of measuring and analysis of
the evolution of this dimension of competitiveness between 1999-2009
we use a REER time series for particular countries deflated by the con-
sumer price index (CPI) and published by the ECB (Figure 1), Bank of
International Settlements (BIS) (Figure 2), as well as deflated by unit
labor costs (ULC) and published by Eurostat (Figure 3).
140
130 Ireland
120 Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Portugal
Finland
110
Greece
France
100
Austria
Germany
90
80
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 1. Real effective exchange rate deflated by CPI in the EMU

countries in 1999–2009 (1999 = 100)
Source: Own calculation based on ECB database 2010
15
As seen in the data given in Figure 1, in 2000 in all EMU countries5 and
Greece, the REER was reduced, meaning that the relative price competi-
tiveness of the countries in this grouping was improving. Starting from
2001 in the Netherlands and Portugal, and subsequently in most of the
remaining countries, the REER began to grow, reflecting the downward
shifts of competitiveness both in relation to third parties, and within the
EMU (Figure 1). Throughout the period under study only Germany and
Austria reported systematic improvement in competitiveness expressed in
REERCPI, and in 2009 this indicator was 94.15% compared to 98.45% in
1999. Relatively good results in this area (see Figure 1) were also ob-
tained by France (106.9% in 2009) and, curiously, Greece (107.32%). In
2009, in comparison to 1999, in such countries as Finland, Portugal,
Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy, the REERCPI was between 113.47%-
117.65%. The worst downfall of competitiveness was reported in Ireland,
with its 2009 REERCPI being 31.01% higher than in 1999 (Figure 1).
140
130 Ireland
120
Spain
Greece
Netherlands
110 Portugal
Belgium
Italy
France
100 Finland
Austria
Germany
90
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 2. BIS real effective exchange rate in EMU countries in 1999–

2009 (1999 = 100)
Source: Own calculation based on BIS data
The presented trends in the evolution of the REERCPI differ from the
standard predictions of the B-S model. Data shown in Figure 1 indicate
16
that the situation of the convergence four was unequal; Greece achieved
the best result in this field of competitiveness, whereas Ireland trailed.
The decade of EMU confirmed the earlier predictions that German and
Austrian economies would show the best adaptive abilities, which al-
lowed Germany in particular to achieve and maintain for many years the
position of the greatest exporter in the world6Similar trends regarding the
REERCPI may be observed in data compiled by the BIS (Figure 2). The
BIS also reveals the evolution of this measure of international competi-
tiveness with respect to Belgium. BIS data also confirm the convergence,
especially in the initial period, and high relative competitiveness of Ger-
many and Austria. In general, on the basis of BIS data for the period
under study, two clusters of countries and the separate case of Ireland
may be distinguished (Figure 2). The first cluster includes Germany,
Austria, Finland and France, and the other Italy, Belgium, Portugal, the
Netherlands, Greece and Spain (Figure 2). The BIS REERCPI indicator
confirms the expected pattern within the convergence four (apart from
Greece) and points to a narrower scope of the indicator with respect to
data and method applied by the EMU and ECB.
Interesting observations of price variation and cost competitive-
ness are provided by the analysis of the real effective exchange rate def-
lated by nominal unit labor costs (ULC) and calculated against a panel of
36 countries7. As in the case of the REERCPI, a rise in the REERULC index
means a loss of competitiveness. Also, this measure of competitiveness
confirms the highest relative adaptability of German and Austrian com-
panies and ultimately their economies. This feature is expressed by the
ability of both countries to maintain throughout 2000–2009 lower unit
costs of labor than in 1999 (Figure 3).
Another fact worth noting is that until 2002 all the countries under
study (apart from Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands) were able to re-
duce their ULC, i.e. to improve this important measure of competitive-
ness. In the following years one could notice highly convergent and
moderate growing trends with regard to ULC in France and Greece, as
well as development of a cluster composed of Finland, Portugal, Spain,
the Netherlands, and Italy. As in the case of both REERsCPI, the Irish
REERULC also grew the most, exceeding the 1999 level in 2008 by 35.9%
(Figure 3).The given data (Figures 1, 2 and 3) referring to price competi-
tiveness (REERCPI) and price-cost competitiveness (REERULC) clearly
point to the relatively highest competitiveness of the German and Aus-
trian economies. Other economies displaying relatively high adaptability
included France, Finland, and – again surprisingly – Greece. Other econ-
17
omies significantly diverged from the German model, with the Irish
economy showing the highest appreciation of real exchange rates, i.e.
deterioration of competitiveness.
140
Ireland
130
120 Italy
Netherland
Sp ain
Portugal
Finland
110
Greece
France
100
Austria
Germany
90
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 3. Real effective exchange rate deflated by nominal unit labor

costs index (ULC) in EMU countries, 1999–2009 (1999 = 100)
Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat database 2010
The given data do not fully confirm the course of price-cost processes
postulated in the B-S model. The recent course of the phenomena was
seriously disturbed by the economic crisis which began in the USA in
August 2007. However, the evaluation of the effect of the crisis on price-
cost competitiveness of EMU countries requires separate attention and
research.
3. Open economy and export competitiveness
According to the standard trade model, the trends in the evolution of the
REER shown in Section 2 should have a differentiating effect on the
dynamics of sales and thus lead to relative shifts in trade positions8. In
order to verify such causality, the following competitiveness measures
18
were analyzed9: variations in the share of exports of goods and services
in gross domestic products of the EMU countries (Figure 4), external
trade dynamics (Figure 5), ratio of exports to imports (Figure 6), high
technology exports as per cent of manufactured exports (Figure 7) and
finally EMU country share in the world trade (Figure 8).
In 1999, the highest ratio of the value of goods and services ex-
ports – GDP was achieved by the small open economies of Luxembourg
(134,2%), Ireland (89,2%), Belgium (75,3%) and the Netherlands (63%).
The big open economies of Germany (29,4%), France (26,1%) and Italy
(24,5%) had much smaller trade exposure. Figure 4 presents the relative
variations in trade exposure in comparison to 1999.
Germany
160
140
Austria
Luxembourg
Belgium
Netherlands
120
Portugal
Italy
Finland
Greece
100 France
Sp ain
Ireland
80
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure 4. Exports of goods and services of EMU countries in 1999–

2008 as percent of GDP (1999 = 100)
Source: Own calculation based on World Development Indicators database
As the data in Figure 4 indicate, only Spain recorded stagnation, and

Ireland – a ratio decrease. The situation of Spain reflects the effect of
REER appreciation on the one hand, and indicates growth of internal
demand absorbing part of potential export sales on the other. The remain-
ing countries displayed the capacity for export growth, with the greatest
increases in comparison to 1999 being shown by Germany and Austria
19
(which agrees with their growth in price-cost competitiveness; see Sec-
tion 2), as well as Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Figure 4).
As shown in Figure 5, all EMU countries increased their exports to
EMU-external countries and all recorded a relative drop in this export
area after 2008. The best results were achieved by Luxembourg (in peak
year 2007 – 236%, compared to 1999), the Netherlands, Spain, Austria,
Belgium and Germany. The second cluster of countries consists of
Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, France and Finland (Figure 5), with the
latter two recording the highest drop in exports to third parties in 2009.
240
220
Luxembourg
200
Netherlands
180
Sp ain
Austria
160 Belgium
Germany
Greece
140
Portugal
Italy
120 Ireland
Finland
France
100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 5. External exports of goods and services of EMU countries in

1999–2009 (1999 = 100)
The ratio of exports to imports illustrates the competitive ability of a

given economy and its companies to compete at home and in internation-
al markets, and might also be interpreted as an indicator of REER
(dis)equilibrium. Assuming the level of the export-import ratio of 1999
for 100 it may be noted (Figure 6) in the case of external trade, Luxem-
bourg was exceptional due to its location and re-exporter role. Disregard-
ing the exceptional situation in 2009, it is clear that in accordance with
trends described in Section 2, high ratios in all years were displayed by
20
the highly competitive economies of Germany and Austria. Positive and
consistent results in this respect (Figure 6) have to be recorded in the
cases of the Netherlands, Ireland10 and also Portugal11. The remaining
countries, particularly Finland, as well as Greece (in 2004–2007), France,
Spain, and Italy, displayed a tendency for a falling exports/imports ratio.
160
Luxembourg
140
Ireland
Greece
Netherlands
120
Austria
Germany
Portugal
Spain
100 Belgium
Italy
France
Finland
80
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 6. Ratio of exports/imports of EMU countries, in 1999–2009

(1999 = 100)
An important indicator of competitive status is represented by the high

technology export12 share in total manufactured exports (Figure 7). In the
initial year, 1999, the highest share in this type of export in manufactured
export was recorded by Ireland (46.7%), the Netherlands (32.9%), Fin-
land (23.9%), France (22.5%), and Germany (15.8%). The least technol-
ogically advanced structure was displayed by the southern EMU coun-
tries, namely Portugal (4.9%), Spain (7.6%), Italy (8.1%) and Greece
(9.7%). It was these countries which had the greatest natural potential for
growth in the share of high-tech exports. As it is shown in Figure 7, the
highest growth of this share was recorded by Portugal. Other countries
originally representing a similar level (e.g. Greece), after initial moderate
21
growth, recorded a decreasing share in this type of export in manufac-
tured exports. In the remaining countries the initial level proved unsus-
tainable (particularly in Ireland and the Netherlands). One might note a
relatively stable share of high-tech exports in the cases of Germany,
France, and Belgium. Shifts of high-tech shares visible in Figure 7 reflect
the growing importance of Far Eastern countries, namely the PRCh in
this sector of manufacturing and trade.
180
Portugal
160
140
120
Greece
100 Belgium
Austria
France
80 Finland
Germany
Sp ain Italy
60 Netherlands
Ireland
Luxembourg
40
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure 7. High technology exports of EMU economies as per cent of

their manufactured exports (1999 = 100)
Source: Own calculation based on the WDI and United Nations Comtrade
database
The aggregate measure of variations in the global competitiveness of

EMU economies between 1999–2009 may also be expressed through the
evolution of the share of their export in global exports (Figure 8).
In 1999, the total share of the EMU in global exports was approx.
31.1%, decreasing to 30.5% in 2004 and to 27.2% in 2009. Such a trend
illustrates the gradual erosion of the importance of this grouping in world
trade, and the aforementioned growth of the PRCh and other exporters
from emerging market economies mainly from the Far East. Data con-
cerning particular EMU countries indicate the strong differentiation of
both the initial importance of particular countries in global trade, and the
trends present throughout the decade of EMU history.
22
120
Greece
100
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
Sp ain
Belgium
Luxembourg
80 Portugal
Italy
France
Ireland
Finland
60
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 8. Exports of EMU countries as per cent of world merchandise

exports (1999 = 100)
Source: Own calculation based on the National data and Comtrade

database
Between 1998–1999 the greatest EMU exporter was Germany, with a

share in global exports of approximately 9.7%. Next was France (5.5%),
followed by Italy (4.4%), and the Netherlands (3.5%). After ten years the
order of the leading exporters among EMU countries remained un-
changed with Germany (9.4%), France (3.9%), Italy (3.4%), and the
Netherlands (3.4%), with the share of France and Italy interestingly being
reduced by 1.6 and 1.0 percentage points, respectively.
As shown in the data provided in Figure 8, in comparison to 1999,
only Greece increased its share in world exports (from about 0.15% to
0.18%), whereas the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Spain recorded
a slight drop in their shares. The other cluster is composed of Belgium,
Luxemburg, Portugal and Italy – their share in the world exports de-
creased compared to the 1999 level by less than 20 percentage points. At
the end of the 2010 decade the third cluster (France, Ireland and Finland)
recorded drops exceeding 20 percentage points compared to the 1999
level.
The given data on major trends in foreign trade of the EMU create
a complex picture. On the one hand, the observed tendencies (especially
the case of German and Austrian economies) agree with the standard
23
predictions arising from the evolution of REERs (Section 2). On the oth-
er hand, they illustrate the gradual erosion of positions achieved pre-
viously (especially with regard to Ireland, France, and Italy), and a diffe-
rentiating dependence of national economies on trade. In the area of trade
1999–2009 was characterized by a gradual fall in the importance of EMU
countries in global exports, with a simultaneous growth of emerging
market economies.
4. Labor Productivity and Employment Rate
Descriptive statistics regarding labor market performance are given in

Figures 9 and 10. The EU and obviously EMU unemployment problems
along with employment rates have both been goals of national economic
policies as well as concerns at the supranational level. This should be
seen from both the short and medium term perspectives and also as the
major goal of long-term considerations, including the Lisbon Strategy
targetry. The most obvious time series to start an analysis of labor per-
formance is real labor productivity (Figure 9).
130
Greece
Ireland
120
Finland
110
Austria
Portugal
Netherlands
France
Belgium
Sp ain
Germany
100
Luxembourg
Italy
90
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 9. Real labor productivity in EMU countries, in 1999–2009

(1999 = 100)
24
Actual productivity immediately before the launch of the euro was highly
diversified with levels in the four convergence countries being far lower
than in the core EMU countries. Thus its dynamics (Figure 9) reflected a
number of factors including starting levels, capital investment from for-
eign and domestic sources and composition and quality changes regard-
ing production portfolio. The data in Figure 9 clearly indicates that, in
relation to the 1999 level, for a number of EMU countries (e.g. Austria,
Greece, the Netherlands), the highest levels of labor productivity were
attained in 2008, with the majority of economies recording the first signs
of decline as early as 2007. Clearly, up to 2007/2008, the best performers
were Greece, Ireland and Finland – these economies were able to in-
crease their labor productivity in relation to the 1999 level by 27,0%
(2008), 21.2% (2009) and 19.1% (2007), respectively (Figure 9). Sizable
variations in the labor productivity levels in the crisis years of 2008–2009
are a combination of decline in demand, and consequently output, and
also of the specific labor market institutions and reactions of employers
in particular countries to the crisis13. Data on the employment rate is giv-
en in Figure 10.
125
120
Spain
115
110 Greece
Italy
Germany
Netherlands
Luxembourg
105
France
Austria
Belgium
Finland
100
Portugal
Ireland
95
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 10. Employment rate in EMU countries in 1999–2009 (1999 = 100)
25
As already indicated, for economic, social and demographic reasons, the
employment rate became one of the main indicators of development, as
well as one of the general goals of national and supranational economic
policies (European Commission 2009).In 1999, amongst EMU countries
only the Netherlands (71.7%) had an employment rate above the ‘Lisbon
Agenda’ level of 70%, and only three countries Austria (68.7%), Portugal
(67.4%) and Finland (66.4%) were relatively close to the Dutch level14.
As seen in Figure 10 the most spectacular improvement in terms of em-
ployment rate was achieved (to 2007) in Spain where the rate increased
by 21.9% in comparison to 1999 (and thus the employment rate im-
proved from 53.8% in 1999 to 65.6% in 2007. After 2007, as a result of
structural difficulties and the crisis, the employment rate in Spain
dropped significantly, and in 2009 it was 59.8%, reaching its 2003 level.
Apart from Spain, the Greek and Italian employment rates also drew
attention: their levels improved in 2007–2008 versus 1999 by over 10%
and 11%, respectively (Figure 10)15.
The EMU country with the highest employment rate continued to
be the Netherlands (1999 – 71.7%, 2009 – 77.0%). In 2008–2009, apart
from the Netherlands, only Germany, Austria, and Finland16 exceeded the
70% level imposed by the Lisbon agenda. Relatively high employment
rates were also recorded in Luxembourg and France. Data given in Fig-
ure 10 indicate the convergence of this measure, and the fact that apart
from the crisis of 2008–2009, all EMU countries were capable of increas-
ing their employment rates.
5. GDP and Per Capita Income between 1999–2009
In terms of changes in competitiveness of the member states the first

years of EMU may be evaluated in an economic context, apart from the
uniform performance measures already applied, by analyzing GDP dy-
namics (Figure 11) and Gross National Income (GNI) per head (Figure
12). When analyzing the data in Figure 11, one can note that the clear
leader in GDP growth was Ireland, whose GDP in peak year 2007 was
almost 60% higher than the 1999 level.
26
160
150
Ireland
Luxembourg
140
Greece
130 Spain
Finland
120
Austria
Netherland
Belgium
France
110 Portugal
Germany
Italy
100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 11. GDP in EMU countries in 1999–2009 (1999 = 100)
Two quite different economies – Luxembourg and Greece – also record-

ed very high growth. Spain and Finland recorded high GDP growth com-
pared to 1999, with the latter country having the relatively worst correc-
tion due to the crisis; the Finnish GDP (Figure 11) dropped by approx. 10
percentage points (from 132.9% in 2008 to 122.3% in 2009). High con-
vergence of GDP dynamics may be noticed in the structurally homoge-
neous group composed of Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France
(Figure 11). The smallest growth in GDP volume occurred (for various
reasons) in Portugal (in 2009 it was only 9.5% higher than in 1999), in
Germany (8.7% higher than in 1999) and in Italy (+5.3%).
According to Eurostat data the global economic crisis affected all
EMU countries, with the greatest recession being recorded in Ireland; its
product (yoy) fell by 3% as early as 2008 and by 7.1% in 2009 (in rela-
tion to 2007). Also, in Italy the negative trend of GDP changes already
appeared in 2008 (–1.3%). The deepest GDP drops (yoy) occurred in
2009 in Finland (–8.0%), followed by Ireland (–7.1) and Italy (–5.0%).
In-depth analysis of the underlying causes of such a great recession re-
quires time and more data; however, the available figures and assess-
27
ments are sufficient to determine that in Finland’s case the situation
stemmed largely from recession in Russia and the eastern countries. The
GDP drop being mainly the result of reduced exports to these markets. A
similar mechanism, though with a different geographical structure of
trade and reduced home expenses operated in Italy. The Irish case is dif-
ferent – arising from the accumulation of internal imbalances (including
overheating), and the related high foreign exposure of the financial sector
of this economy.
Figure 12 shows comparative data on the evolution of Gross Na-
tional Income (GNI) per capita according to the purchasing power parity
(PPP). This measure is a combination of general economic efficiency,
differences in price levels in particular countries, and variations in the
number of citizens, as well as employment rates (Section 4).
Greece
Ireland
160
Spain
Finland
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
140 Portugal
France
Belgium
Italy
120
Luxembourg
100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 12. GNI per capita at the purchasing parity (1999 = 100)
Source: Own calculation based on WDI database
According to WDI data, the highest GNI per capita in PPP in 1999 was
recorded by Luxembourg (44 090 USD). The Netherlands ranked second
(27 230 USD), followed by Austria with a GNI (PPP) per capita of
26 500 USD. Consecutive positions were occupied by Belgium (25 780
28
USD), Germany (24 870 USD), Italy (24 090 USD), and France (24 000
USD). Thus, in 1999, seven countries recorded a GNI of or exceeding
24 000 USD per capita. Ranks 8 to 12, in terms of this aggregate perfor-
mance measure went to Finland (23 370 USD), Ireland (22 320 USD),
Spain (19 640 USD), Greece (17 160 USD), and Portugal (15 840 USD).
In 1999 the Netherlands (which came second) had a GNI 1.72 times
higher than Portugal (rank 12)17.
In order to compare the relative variations throughout the first 9
years of the EMU, similar to the performance measures selected earlier,
GNI in particular years is expressed as the percentage of the 1999 level
(Figure 12). According to data shown in Figure 12, growth of GNI over
50% between 1999–2007 were recorded by five economies: Finland
(51.2%), Luxembourg (51.8%), Spain (56.0%), Greece (58.6%), and
Ireland (69.9%). The lowest growths were recorded in 2007 (compared to
1999) by the following economies: Austria (36.2%), Belgium (35.1%),
and Italy (27.8%). In the first year of the global economic crisis the GNI
per capita in all countries, except Ireland and Luxembourg, continued to
grow, but growth was much lower than in the previous years (Figure 12).
Despite the clearly varied GNI growth rate between 1999–2008,
the shifts in wealth measured in GNI per capita were insignificant. This
fact stemmed from strong differences in the initial levels of GNI per ca-
pita. Therefore, the order of the first three countries (Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Austria), and the last two (Greece and Portugal) did not
change. The following countries improved their relative ranks: Germany
moved to 4, Finland to 5, Ireland to 6, and Spain to 9. The remaining
economies recorded drops in their relative positions in 2008 compared to
1999: Belgium moved from 4 to 7, France from 7 to 8, and Italy from 6
to 10. An important characteristic of the first years of the EMU was the
distinct convergence of GNI per capita in PPP. However, there were ex-
ceptions to this rule, marked by Portugal and – to a lesser extent –
Greece.
Conclusions
Ten years of EMU existence is a relatively short period to make a

straightforward assessment of the influence of the single currency and a
uniform monetary policy on the international competitiveness of the
whole grouping, as well as on shifts in the competitive positions of par-
ticular member countries. As said the assessment is not only difficult
29
because the period under study is too short for the full emergence of
structural changes caused by the introduction of a single currency and
monetary policy, and limitations imposed on national fiscal policies. It is
also problematic because the EMU was the cumulation of the process of
deepening the economic integration of Europe, initiated in the mid 1980s.
These European processes on the one hand might be treated as a reaction
to globalization trends, and on the other they were an inspiration and a
challenge for other areas in the world, providing an impulse for regiona-
lization.
Important events directly surrounding the EMU included the eco-
nomic and political reintegration of Central and Eastern Europe with the
core of Europe, which resulted in EU expansion in 2004 and 2007. Glo-
bally, the most important event was the acceptance of the PRCh to the
WTO in 2001 and the unprecedented economic expansion of this country
based on the undervalued renminbi. The Chinese expansion and the re-
sultant global economic and financial imbalance contributed to the finan-
cial crisis at the end of the first decade of this century. The recession also
affected EMU countries and cast light on the effects of the first years of
its existence. The EMU's capacity for quick and coordinated anti-crisis
actions has proved that this grouping is based on firm economic and in-
stitutional foundations.
In this chapter, uniform and straightforward measures of the com-
petitiveness of EMU member states were applied. The analysis con-
ducted on the basis of these measures confirmed the important differen-
tiation of price and cost conditions. The best results in this area were
recorded by Germany and Austria. Germany has paid a particular price
for both unification and maintaining and improving its international
competitiveness. It meant lower dynamics in consumption and thus a
lower pace of GNI per head than in other, also highly developed EMU
countries. This causative link also reflects the burden which stems from
the globalization forces that threaten the historical construction of the
welfare state. EMU countries from Southern Europe, because of their
hysteresis of cost and price behavior and also the impact of the B-S ef-
fect, have deteriorated in their relative competitive positions. In single
currency conditions, trends in costs and prices were reflected in results in
foreign trade, with the case of Ireland (high relative appreciation and
prominent growth of export) divergent from the standard relations in this
respect.
Interesting processes of convergence and divergence also occurred
in productivity and the labor market. The most synthetic measure of eco-
30
nomic results of the first years of EMU existence might be the GNI per
capita in PPP. According to theoretical predicates, countries characte-
rized by the greatest dynamics in comparison to the initial period were
those less wealthy, with the exception of Portugal. In general in EMU
countries there was convergence of income.
The crisis which began in the USA in 2007, had practically conta-
minated the whole global economy. In EMU countries it was not only
reflected in recessions in all member states. It also unveiled financial and
macroeconomic vulnerabilities in the so far fastest-growing economies,
such as Ireland or Spain, and also showed the scale and scope of
Greece’s structural, financial and political challenges. The course of the
recession itself and its effect on EMU stability and primarily on the
changes in member state competitiveness requires separate attention and
study.
otes
1
German consent to initiate the monetary union was a specific continua-
tion of the pro-European and pro-integration policy of Germany in view
of unification (assimilation of the GDR).
2
This period concerns the first six: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Other members of the EMU 12 had had
much shorter times for adjustment.
3
Recently this general positive picture was damaged by the case of
Greece’s systematic cheating regarding macroeconomic data recording
and reporting. One of the negative outcomes originally underestimated
was the phenomenon of overheating. Comp. Gwen 1998; von Hagen and
Traistaru-Siedschlag 2006.
4
Unified monetary policy within the EMU is defined for the entire zone by
the Governing Council of the ECB.
5
EBC does not specify this indicator for Belgium and Luxembourg.
6
In 2009 Germany lost their leader position to the People's Republic of
China (PRCh).
7
EU27 plus Australia, Canada, United States, Japan, Norway, New Zeal-
and, Mexico, Switzerland, and Turkey. Eurostat uses double export
weights in order to calculate the REERULC, reflecting not only competi-
tion at home and EU markets, but also competition in external export
markets. Source: Eurostat.
31
8
The assumed relationship – appreciation of the REER – deterioration of
export dynamics and the resultant fall in the competitive status could be
disturbed if one takes into account qualitative and technological factors
which might significantly compensate the functioning of simple price-
cost mechanisms expressed by real rates.
9
All data are compared with the 1999 levels (1999 = 100).
10
The case of Ireland requires additional explanation. Despite deterioration
of its REERs, enterprises, due to earlier investments in high-tech sectors
of production and services, were able to retain a sizable part of their
competitive advantages gained in the 1980s and 1990s.
11
In the case of Portugal it was mainly linked to the slowdown of its do-
mestic demand.
12
This category encompasses products with high R&D intensity, such as
aerospace, computers, pharmaceuticals, scientific instruments, and elec-
trical machinery and is recorded in the United Nations, Comtrade data-
base.
13
Figure 9 indicates a sizable relative deterioration in labor productivity in
Italy, Luxembourg and Germany. According to Eurostat data, despite the
crisis in these economies, unemployment rates remained low in 2009 – in
Italy it increased from 6.1% (2007) to 6.7% (2008) and 7.8% (2009), in
Luxembourg it was up from 4.2% (2007) to 5.2% (2009) and in Germany
it decreased from 8.4% (2007) to 7.3% (2008) and 7.5 (2009).
14
Source: Eurostat database.
15
While appreciating the relative achievements of both countries, one must
remember that they joined the EMU in 1999 with employment rates of
55.9% (Greece) and 52.7% (Italy). The relatively high dynamics allowed
these countries to achieve 2009 rates of 61.2% and 57.5%, respectively,
however, after ten years they were still among those with the lowest em-
ployment rates (together with Belgium, Ireland, and Spain).
16
In 2007 and 2008 Finland recorded employment rates of 70.3% and
71.1%, respectively, but in the 2009 crisis year, this performance measure
declined to 68.7%, reflecting the negative impact of the global financial
crisis.
17
Luxembourg’s GNI is exceptionally high and also changeable due to its
tax policy which attracts headquarters of international companies and the
fact that this country hosts a large number of international and European
institutions. Thus it is more informative to use for comparative purposes
such countries as the Netherlands which have a more balanced structure
of income generation.
32
References
Campos, N.F., Coricelli, F. (2002), ‘Growth in transition: what we know,

what we don’t, and what we should’, Journal of Economic Litera-
ture, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 793-836.
De Grauwe, P. (2000), Economics of Monetary Union, fourth edition,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Grauwe, P. (2007), ‘The challenge of enlargement of the Eurozone’,
SUERF Annual Lecture, the Austrian National Bank, 22 June.
De Grauwe, P., Schnable, G. (2005), ‘Nominal versus real convergence –
EMU entry scenarios for the new member states’, Kyklos, Vol. 58,
No. 4, pp. 537-555.
Di Mauro, F., Dees, S., McKibbin, W.J. (eds.) (2008), Globalization and
Economic Interdependence, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dyson, K., Featherstone, K. (1999), The Road to Maastricht. )egotiating
Economic and Monetary Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Egert, B. (2002), ‘Investigating the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis in the
transition: do we understand what we see’, BOFIT Working Paper,
No. 6.
Egert, B. (2004), ‘Assessing equilibrium exchange rates in CEE acceding
countries: can we have DEER with BEER without FEER?’, The
William Davidson Institute Working Paper, No. 664, February, The
William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan Business
School, p. 99.
Egert, B. (2007), ‘Real convergence, price level convergence and infla-
tion differentials in Europe’, Oe)B Working Paper, July, p. 54.
Eudey, G. (1998), ‘Why is Europe forming a monetary union?’, Business
Review, November/December, FED, Philadelphia, pp. 13-21.
European Commission (2009), EU policy challenges 2009–2019. A re-
port to the President. Brussels: Director-General for Internal Poli-
cies.
33
Findley, R., O’Rourke, K.H. (2007), Power and Plenty. Trade, War, and
the World Economy in the Second Millennium, Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
Gilpin, R. (2000), The Challenge of Global Capitalism. The World Econ-
omy in the 21st Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gorynia, M., Kowalski, T. (2009), ‘Nauki ekonomiczne a kryzys gospo-
darczy’, Studia Ekonomiczne, No. 3-4 (LXII-LXIII), pp. 213-238.
Hagen, J. von, Traistaru-Siedschlag, I. (2006), ‘Macroeconomic adjust-
ment in the new EU member states’, SUERF – The European
Money and Finance Forum Vienna.
Issing, O., Gaspar, V., Angeloni, I., Tristani, O. (2001), Monetary Policy
in the Euro Area. Strategy and Decision Making and the Central
Bank, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kowalik, T. (2002), Kapitał globalny a tendencje egalitarne i antyegali-
tarne, in B. Liberska (ed.), Globalizacja. Mechanizmy i wyzwania,
Warszawa: PWE.
Kowalski, T. (2001), Proces formułowania oczekiwań a teoria cyklu
wyborczego. Implikacje dla polityki gospodarczej, Poznań: Wy-
dawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Kowalski, P., Kowalski, T., Wihlborg, C. (2007), ‘Poland. The EMU
entry strategy vs. the monetary issues’, Poznań University of Eco-
nomics Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 59-88.
Pelkmans, J. (2006), European Integration. Methods and Economic
Analysis, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.-Prentice Hall.
Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of )ations, New York:
The Free Press.
Rodrik, D. (1996), ‘Understanding economic policy reform’, Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 9-41.
Rubaszek, M., Serwa, D. (2009), Analiza kursu walutowego, W. Marcin-
kowska-Lewandowska (ed.), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
Schwab, K. (2010), Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011, Geneva:
World Economic Forum.
34
Skrobisz, M. (2005), ‘European monetary integration – from the begin-
nings to the EMS crisis of 1992–93’, Poznań University of Eco-
nomics Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 37-60.
Ungerer, H. (1997), A Concise History of European Monetary Integra-
tion. From EPU to EMU, Westport: Quorum Books.
Van Marrewijk, Ch. (2004), ‘An introduction to international money and
foreign exchange markets’, The University of Adelaide School of
Economics Working Paper, No. 2, p. 114.
Wojtyna, A. (ed.) (2008), Instytucje a polityka ekonomiczna w krajach na
średnim poziomie rozwoju, Warszawa: PWE.
Wojtyna, A. (2008), ‘Współczesna ekonomia – kontynuacja czy poszu-
kiwanie nowego paradygmatu’, Ekonomista, No. 1, pp. 9-32.
World Economic Forum (2010), The Global Competitiveness Report
2010–2011, Geneva.
35
BIBLIOGRAPHY
___________________________________________________________
Akerlof, G. (1970), ‘The market for lemons: quality uncertainty and the
market mechanisms’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84, No.
3, pp. 488-500.
Allen, W.E., Wood, G. (2006), ‘Defining and achieving financial stabil-

ity’, Journal of Financial Stability, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 152-172.
Amendoa, G., Guerrieri, P., Padoan, P.C. (1992), ‘International patterns of

technological accumulation and trade’, Journal of International and
Comparative Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 173-197.
ARDI (2009), Innovations en Rhône-Alpes. Bilan – Perspectives

2008/2009.
Arestis, P., Demetriades, P.O. (1997), ‘Financial development and eco-

nomic growth: assessing the evidence’, The Economic Journal, Vol.
107, No. 442, pp. 783-799.
Arestis, P., Glickman, M. (2002), ‘Financial crises in Southeast Asia:

dispelling illusion the Minskyan way’, Cambridge Journal of Eco-
nomics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 236-260.
Arrow, K.J. (1963), ‘Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical

care’, American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 941-973.
Arrow, K.J. (1968), ‘The economics of moral hazard: further comment’,
American Economic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 537-539.
Bain, J.S. (1959), Industrial Organization, New York: Wiley.
Bårdsen, G., Linquist, K.-G., Tsomocos, D.P. (2006), ‘Evaluation of ma-

croeconomic models for financial stability analysis’, Financial
127
Economics Working Paper, No. 2006-FE-01, Oxford Financial Re-
search Centre.
Barney, J.B. (1991), ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advan-

tage’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Beinhocker, E.D. (2007), The Origin of Wealth. The Radical Remaking of

Economics and What It Means for Business and Society, Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Benchmarking klastrów w Polsce – 2010 (2010), Polska Agencja Rozwoju

Przedsiębiorczości: Warszawa.
BIS, IMF (1997), Financial stability in emerging market economies.

A strategy for the formulation, adoption and implementation of
sound principles and practices to strengthen financial systems, Re-
port of the Working Party on Financial Stability in Emerging Mar-
ket Economies, April.
Bojar, E., Bis, J. (2006), ‘Rola bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych

(BIZ) w klastrach’, Przegląd Organizacji, No. 10, pp. 32-36.
Brodzicki, T., Szultka, S. (2002), ‘Koncepcja klastrów a konku-

rencyjność przedsiębiorstw’, Organizacja i Kierowanie, No. 4, pp.
45-60.
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M. (1998), Competing on the Edge: Strategy

as Structured Chaos, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Burdecka, W. (2004), Instytucje otoczenia biznesu, Warszawa: PARP.
Campos, N.F., Coricelli, F. (2002), ‘Growth in transition: what we know,

what we don’t, and what we should’, Journal of Economic Litera-
ture, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 793-836.
Chądzyński, J., Nowakowska, A., Przygodzki, Z. (2007), Region i jego

rozwój w warunkach globalizacji, Warszawa: CeDeWu.
Chant, J. (2003), ‘Financial stability as a policy goal’, in J. Chant, A. Lai,

M. Illing, F. Daniel, Essays on Financial Stability, Technical Re-
port, No. 95, Bank of Canada.
128
Christensen, C.M. (1997), The Innovator’s Dilemma: When <ew Technol-
ogies Cause Great Firm to Fail, Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Cichowski, L. (1996), ‘Rola inkubatorów – ośrodków przedsiębiorczości

w rozwoju innowacji w gospodarce w okresie transformacji syste-
mowej’ in K.B. Matusiak, K. Zasiadły, T. Broczkowski, M. Pietra-
szewski (eds.), Ośrodki innowacji i przedsiębiorczości w Polsce,
Poznań: SOOIPP.
Clarkson, M., Fink, M., Kraus, S. (2007), ‘Industrial clusters as a factor

for innovative drive – in regions of transformation and structural
change: A comparative analysis of East Germany and Poland’,
Journal for East European Management Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp. 340-364.
Comin, D., Philippon, T. (2005), ‘The rise in firm-level volatility: causes

and consequences’, <BER Working Paper, No. 11388.
Conner, K.R. (1991), ‘A historical comparison of resource-based theory

and five schools of thought within industrial organization econom-
ics: do we have a new theory of the firm?’, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 121-154.
Cooke, P. (2006), Regional Innovation Systems as Public Goods, Vienna:

UNIDO.
CEC (2001), Creating top-class business support services, CEC Commis-

sion of the European Communities: Commission staff working pa-
per SEC, 1937, Brussels.
Crockett, A. (1997a), ‘The theory and practice of financial stability’, GEI

<ewsletter, No. 6.
Crockett, A. (1997b), ‘Why is financial stability a goal of public policy?’,

in Maintaining Financial Stability in a Global Economy, A Sympo-
sium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jack-
son Hole, Wyoming.
D’Aveni, R.A. (1994), Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of

Strategic Maneuvering, New York: Free Press.
129
Dagnino, G.B., Padula, G. (2002), ‘Coopetition strategy. A new kind of
interfirm dynamics for value creation’, paper presented at EURAM
– the European Academy of Management, Second Annual Confer-
ence – Innovative Research in Management, Stockholm, 9-11 May
2002, mimeo.
Davis, E.P. (1999), ‘Financial data needs for macroprudential surveillance

– what are the key indicators of risks to domestic financial stabili-
ty?’, Handbooks in Central Banking Lecture, series No. 2, Bank of
England.
De Grauwe, P. (2000), Economics of Monetary Union, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
De Grauwe, P. (2007), ‘The challenge of enlargement of the Eurozone’,

SUERF Annual Lecture, the Austrian National Bank, 22 June.
De Grauwe, P., Schnable, G. (2005), ‘Nominal versus real convergence –

EMU entry scenarios for the new member states’, Kyklos, Vol. 58,
No. 4, pp. 537-555.
Debreu, G. (1959), The Theory of Value, New York: Wiley.
Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Detragiache, E. (1998), ‘Financial liberalization and

financial fragility’, IMF Working Paper, No. 83.
Di Mauro, F., Dees, S., McKibbin, W.J. (eds.) (2008), Globalization and
Economic Interdependence, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dominiak, J. (2009), ‘Rola otoczenia innowacyjnego w kształtowaniu

gospodarki opartej na wiedzy’, in A. Nowakowska (ed.), Innowa-
cyjność regionów w gospodarce opartej na wiedzy, Łódź: Wydaw-
nictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Duisenberg, W. (2001), ‘The contribution of the Euro to financial stabili-

ty’, in Globalization of Financial Markets and Financial Stability –
Challenges for Europe, Baden-Baden.
Dyson, K., Featherstone, K. (1999), The Road to Maastricht. <egotiating

Economic and Monetary Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
130
Dzierżanowski, M., Szultka, S., Włoch, A. (2008), Instrumenty wspiera-
nia innowacyjności w wybranych krajach OECD, Zeszyt VI,
Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.
Egert, B. (2002), ‘Investigating the Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis in the

transition: do we understand what we see’, BOFIT Working Paper,
No. 6.
Egert, B. (2004), ‘Assessing equilibrium exchange rates in CEE acceding

countries: can we have DEER with BEER without FEER?’, The
William Davidson Institute Working Paper, No. 664, February, The
William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan Business
School.
Egert, B. (2007), ‘Real convergence, price level convergence and inflation

differentials in Europe’, Oe<B Working Paper, July.
Ellison, G., Glaeser, E.L. (1997), ‘Geographic concentration in U.S.

manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach’, Journal of Politi-
cal Economy, Vol. 105, No. 51, pp. 889-927.
Eparvier, P., Zaparucha, E. (2008), Monitoring and analysis of policies

and public financing instruments conducive to higher levels of R&D
investments: The “Policy Mix” project. Case study Rhône-Alpes,
Technopolis France.
Eudey, G. (1998), ‘Why is Europe forming a monetary union?’, Business

Review, November/December, FED, Philadelphia, pp. 13-21.
Europe Innova – European Cluster Observatory 2009, www.cluster-

observatory.eu (access: 10.11.2009).
European Commission (2004), Technology transfer institutions in Europe.

An overview, DG Enterprise.
European Commission (2009), EU Policy Challenges 2009–2019. A re-

port to the President. Brussels: Director-General for Internal Poli-
cies.
131
Evans, O., Leone, A.M., Gill, M., Hilbers, P. (2000), ‘Macroprudential
indicators of financial systems soundness’, IMF Occasional Paper,
No. 192.
Fajnzylber, F. (1988), ‘International competitiveness: agreed goal, hard

task’, CEPAL Review, No. 36, pp. 7-23.
Fanelli, J.M., Medhora, R. (2002), ‘Finance and competitiveness: frame-

work and synthesis’, in J.M. Fanelli, R. Medhora (eds.), Finance
and Competitiveness in Developing Countries, Ottawa: Routledge.
Fazzari, S., Hubbard, R.G., Petersen, B. (1988), ‘Financing constraints

and corporate investment’, Brooking Papers on Economic Activity,
No. 1, pp. 141-195.
Ferguson, R.W. (2003), ‘Should financial stability be an explicit central

bank objective?’, in P.C. Ugolini, A. Schaechter, S.R. Stone (eds.),
Challenges to Central Banking from Globalized Financial Systems,
Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
Ferrier, W.J., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M. (1999), ‘The role of competitive
action in market share erosion and industry dethronement: a study
of industry leaders and challengers’, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 372-388.
Filardo, A. (2004), ‘Monetary policy and asset price bubbles: calibrating

the monetary policy trade-offs’, BIS Working Paper, No. 155.
Findley, R., O’Rourke, K.H. (2007), Power and Plenty. Trade, War, and
the World Economy in the Second Millennium, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Fine, C.H. (1998), Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of

Temporary Advantage, Reading, MA: Perseus.
Fisher, C., Gai, P. (2005), ‘Financial stability, monetary stability and pub-
lic policy’, Bank of England Quarterly Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.
440-451.
132
Foster, R.N., Kaplan, S. (2001), Creative Destruction: Why Companies
That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market – and How to Suc-
cessfully Transform Them, New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Gallié, E.-P. (2007), Attractivité R&D des territoires: politiques

nationales et régionales de recherche et d’innovation en France,
rapport final, Paris: FutuRIS.
Garelli, S. (2006), ‘Competitiveness of nations: the fundamentals’, in IMD

Competitiveness Yearbook.
Ghemawat, P. (1986), ‘Sustainable advantage’, Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 64, No. 5.
Gilpin, R. (2000), The Challenge of Global Capitalism. The World Econ-

omy in the 21st Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gorynia, M., Jankowska, B. (2008), Klastry a międzynarodowa kon-

kurencyjność i internacjonalizacja przedsiębiorstwa, Warszawa:
PWE.
Gorynia, M., Kowalski, T. (2009), ‘Nauki ekonomiczne a kryzys gospo-

darczy’, Studia Ekonomiczne, No. 3–4 (LXII–LXIII), pp. 213-238.
Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R., Rajgopal, S. (2004), ‘The economic implica-

tions of corporate financial reporting’, <BER Working Paper, No.
10550.
Hagen, J. von, Traistaru-Siedschlag, I. (2006), ‘Macroeconomic adjust-

ment in the new EU member states’, SUERF – The European Mon-
ey and Finance Forum Vienna.
Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Haque, I. (1995), Trade, Technology, and International Competitiveness,

Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Hilbers, P. Krueger, R., Moretti, M. (2000), ‘New tools for assessing fi-
nancial systems soundness’, Finance & Development, Vol. 37, No.
3, Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
133
Hillier, B., Ibrahimo, M.V. (1993), ‘Asymmetric information and models
of credit rationing’, Bulletin of Economic Research, Vol. 45, No. 4,
pp. 271-304.
Houben, A., Kakes, J., Schinasi, G.J. (2000), ‘Toward a framework for
safeguarding financial stability’, IMF Working Paper, No. 101.
Icard, A. (2003), ‘Comment on „Should financial stability be an explicit

central bank objective?” ’, in P.C. Ugolini, A. Schaechter, M.R.
Stone (eds.), Challenges to Central Banking from Globalized Fi-
nancial Systems, Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
Ilinitch, A.Y., Lewin, A.Y., D’Aveni, R.A. (1998), Managing in Times of

Disorder: Hypercompetitive Organizational Responses, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Indicateurs régionaux de la recherche et de l’innovation. Rhône-Alpes,

(2009), Paris: Direction de l’évaluation, de la perspective et de la
performance.
Ishii, A., Habermeier, K. (eds.) (2002), ‘Capital account liberalization and

financial sector stability’, IMF Occasional Paper, No. 211.
Issing, O., Gaspar, V., Angeloni, I., Tristani, O. (2001), Monetary Policy
in the Euro Area. Strategy and Decision Making and the Central
Bank, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ito, T., Iwaisako, T. (1995), ‘Explaining asset bubble in Japan’, <BER

Working Paper, No. 5358.
Jacobson, R. (1988), ‘The persistence of abnormal returns’, Strategic

Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 415-430.
Jacobson, R. (1992), ‘The “Austrian” school of strategy’, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 782-807.
Jankowska, B. (2009), ‘Konkurencja czy kooperacja’, Ekonomista, No. 1,

pp. 67-89.
Jordanov, J. (2009), ‘Présentation des rencontres régionales de la

recherche’, Lyon, 18–19 juin 2009.
134
Ketchen, D., Snow, C., Hoover, V. (2004), ‘Research on competitive dy-
namics: Recent accomplishments and future challenges’, Journal of
Management, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 779-804.
Ketels, Ch. (2004), ‘The development of the cluster concept – present

experiences and further developments’ (http://www.isc.hbs.edu/pdf/
Frontiers_of_Cluster_Research_2003.11.23.pdf).
Ketels, Ch., Memedovic, O. (2008), ‘From cluster to cluster – based eco-

nomic development’, International Journal Technological Learning
and Development, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 375-392.
Ketels, Ch., Sölvell, L. (2006), Clusters in the EU-10 <ew Member Coun-
tries, Brussels: EU DG Enterprise.
Kowalik, T. (2002), Kapitał globalny a tendencje egalitarne i antyegali-

tarne, in B. Liberska (ed.), Globalizacja. Mechanizmy i wyzwania,
Warszawa: PWE.
Kowalski, P., Kowalski, T., Wihlborg, C. (2007), ‘Poland. The EMU en-
try strategy vs. the monetary issues’, Poznań University of Econom-
ics Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 59-88.
Kowalski, T. (2001), Proces formułowania oczekiwań a teoria cyklu wy-

borczego. Implikacje dla polityki gospodarczej, Poznań: Wydawnic-
two Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu.
Krugman, P.(1991), Geography and Trade, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Levine, R. (1996), ‘Financial development and economic growth: views

and agenda’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No.
1678.
Maarten de Vet, J. (1993), ‘Striving for international competitiveness:

lessons from electronics for developing countries’, OECD Devel-
opment Centre Working Paper, No. 84.
Makadok, R. (1998), ‘Can first-mover and early-mover advantages be

sustained in an industry with low barriers to entry/ imitation?’, Stra-
tegic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 683-696.
135
Marciniec, B. (2007), Rola parków naukowo-technologicznych w rozwoju
małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw, Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznań-
skie.
Marshall, A. (1920), Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan.
Mason, E.S. (1939), ‘Price and production policies of large-scale enter-

prise’, American Economic Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Matusiak, K.B. (2007), Ośrodki innowacji i przedsiębiorczości w Polsce.

SOOIPP Raport 2007, Łódź/Kielce/Poznań: SOOIPP.
Matusiak, K.B. (2008), Innowacje i transfer technologii. Słownik pojęć,

Warszawa: PARP.
Matusiak, K.B. (2009), ‘Regionalne uwarunkowania tworzenia i rozwoju

parków technologicznych’, in A. Nowakowska (ed.), Innowacyj-
ność regionów w gospodarce opartej na wiedzy, Łódź: Wydawnic-
two Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Matysek-Jędrych, A. (2007), ‘System finansowy – definicja i funkcje’,

Bank i Kredyt, Vol. 38, No. 10, Warszawa: Narodowy Bank Polski,
pp. 38-50.
Mażewska, M., Koprowska-Skalska, E. (2009), ‘Ośrodki szkoleniowo-

doradcze’, in K.B. Matusiak (ed.), Ośrodki innowacji i przedsię-
biorczości w Polsce. Raport 2009, Łódź/Warszawa: PARP.
Mazzoli, M. (1998), Credit, Investment and the Macroeconomy. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKinnon, R.I., Pill, H. (1997), ‘Credible economic liberalization and

overborrowing’, American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp.
189-193.
McNamara, G., Vaaler, P.M., Devers, C. (2003), ‘Same as it ever was: the
search for evidence of increasing hypercompetition’, Strategic
Mertl, J. (2001), Instrumenty transferu i pobudzania innowacyjności kra-

jowych podmiotów gospodarczych z sektora małych i średnich
136
przedsiębiorstw w perspektywie wejścia Polski do Unii Europej-
skiej, Łódź: Fundacja Inkubator.
Micklethwait, J., Wooldridge, A. (2003), The Company: A Short History

of a Revolutionary Idea, New York: Modern Library.
Minsky, H.P. (1991), ‘The financial instability hypothesis: a clarification’,

in M. Feldstein (ed.), The Risk of Economic Crisis, Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Minsky, H.P. (1992), ‘The financial instability hypothesis’, Working Pa-

per, No. 74, New York: The Jerome Levy Economics Institute.
Mishkin, F.S. (1999), ‘Global financial instability: framework, events,

issues’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 3-20.
Mueller, D.C. (1986), Profits in the Long Run, Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
National Bank of Poland (2007), ‘Przegląd stabilności systemu finanso-

wego, I półrocze 2007’, Warszawa.
National Bank of Poland (2008), ‘Raport o stabilności systemu finanso-

wego, 2008’, Warszawa.

National Bank of Poland (2009a), ‘Information regarding the condition of

the company sector with particular reference to the state of the busi-
ness cycle in the first quarter of 2009’, Narodowy Bank Polski, In-
stytut Ekonomiczny.
National Bank of Poland (2009b), www.nbp.pl/home.aspx?f=/
statystyka/pieniezna_i_bankowa/oprocentowanie_n.html, (access:
07.09.2009).

137
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic
Change, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
OECD (2003), Turning Science Into Business: Patenting and Licensing at

Public Research Organizations, Paris: OECD.
Padoa-Schioppa, T. (2003), ‘Central banks and financial stability: explor-

ing a land in between’, in V. Gaspar, P. Hartman, O. Sleijpen (eds.),
The Transformation of the European Financial System, Second
ECB Central Banking Conference, Frankfurt am Main: European
Central Bank.
Palmen, L., Baron, M. (2008), Przewodnik dla animatorów inicjatyw klas-

trowych w Polsce, Warszawa: PARP.
Papademos, L. (2006), ‘Price stability, financial stability and efficiency,

and monetary policy’, speech at the Third conference of the Mone-
tary Stability Foundation on Challenges to the Financial System –
Aging and Low Growth, Frankfurt am Main, 7 July,
(www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2006/html/sp060707.en.html#ftn.fnid8).
Patel, P., Pavitt, K. (1991), ‘Large firms in production of the world’s

technology: an important case of non-globalisation’, Journal of In-
ternational Business Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-40.
Pelkmans, J. (2006), European Integration. Methods and Economic Anal-

ysis, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.-Prentice Hall.
Perrat, J. (2010), Montée en puissance des pôles de compétitivité: vers une

modification structurelle des activités économiques en Rhône-
Alpes?, Lyon: Adees Rhône-Alpes.
Piotrowska-Trybull, M. (2005), Instytucje otoczenia biznesu i ich wpływ

na konkurencyjność regionu, Włocławek: Oficyna Wydawnicza
LEGA.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining

Superior Performance, New York: The Free Press.
138
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of <ations, New York:
The Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1996), ‘What is strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, No-

vember-December, pp. 61-78.
Porter, M.E. (1998), The Competitive Advantage of <ations, London:

Macmillan.
Porter, M.E. (2000), ‘Location, competition and economic development:

local clusters in a global economy’, Economic Development Quar-
terly, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 15-34.
Porter, M.E. (2008), ‘The five competitive forces that shape strategy’,
Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 79-93.
Powell, T.C. (2002), ‘The philosophy of strategy’, Strategic Management

Journal, Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 873-880.
Programme Opérationnel FEDER 2007–2013 Rhône-Alpes.
Przygodzki, Z. (2007), ‘Konkurencyjność regionów’, in J. Chądzyński, A.

Nowakowska, Z. Przygodzki, Region i jego rozwój w warunkach
globalizacji, Warszawa: CeDeWu.
Rajan, R.G., Zingales, L. (1998), ‘Financial dependence and growth’,

American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 559-586.
Rasz, H. (2005), Przemysł spożywczy przed i po integracji Polski z Unią

Europejską, Biuro Studiów i Ekspertyz, Kancelaria Sejmu, Infor-
macja No. 1124.
Reich, R.B. (2007), Supercapitalism. The Transformation of Business,

Democracy, and Everyday Life, New York: Alfred A. Knoff.
Rodrik, D. (1996), ‘Understanding economic policy reform’, Journal of

Economic Literature, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 9-41.
Rubaszek, M., Serwa, D. (2009), Analiza kursu walutowego, W. Marcin-

kowska-Lewandowska (ed.), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo C.H. Beck.
139
Ruefli, T.W., Wiggins, R.R. (2003), ‘Industry, corporate and segment
effects and business performance: a nonparametric approach’, Stra-
tegic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 9, pp. 861-879.
Rybicki, J., Pawłowska, B. (2008), ‘Kwidzyński Park Przemysłowo-

Technologiczny jako narzędzie podnoszenia konkurencyjności i in-
nowacyjności przedsiębiorstw w regionie’, in S. Pangsy-Kania, K.
Piech (eds.), Innowacyjność w Polsce w ujęciu regionalnym: nowe
teorie, rola funduszy unijnych i klastrów, Warszawa: Instytut Wie-
dzy i Innowacji.
Rzońca, W., (2005), ‘Koopetycja – przejaw przeobrażeń we współczesnej

praktyce zarządzania’, in J. Skalik (ed.), Zmiana warunkiem sukce-
su. Przeobrażenia metod i praktyk zarządzania, Prace Naukowe
Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu, Wrocław: Wydawnictwo
Akademii Ekonomicznej we Wrocławiu.
Schinasi, G.J. (2005), Safeguarding Financial Stability. Theory and Prac-

tice, Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and

Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New

York: Harper.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1947), ‘The creative response in economic history’,

Journal of Economic History, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 149-159.
Schwab, K. (2010), Global Competitiveness Report 2010–2011, Geneva:

World Economic Forum.
Skawińska, E., Zalewski, R. (2009), Klastry biznesowe w rozwoju konku-

rencyjności i innowacyjności regionów, Warszawa: PWE.
Skrobisz, M. (2005), ‘European monetary integration – from the begin-

nings to the EMS crisis of 1992–93’, Poznań University of Econom-
ics Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 37-60.
140
Smith, M. (2008), Exploring cluster dynamics using systems thinking
methodology – an international study, Scottish Enterprise, mimeo.
Sölvell, L., Ketels, Ch. (2003), The Cluster Initiative Greenbook,

www.cluster-research.org.
Stachowiak, K. (2008), ‘Czynniki instytucjonalne w budowaniu i funk-

cjonowaniu gospodarki opartej na wiedzy – przykład Finlandii’, in
J. Parysek, T. Stryjakiewicz (eds.), Region społeczno-ekonomiczny i
rozwój regionalny, Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Statistical Bulletins, Central Statistical Office, 1996–2009.

Stiglitz, J., Weiss, A. (1981), ‘Credit rationing in markets with imperfect
information’, American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 393-
410.
Stratégie nationale de recherche et d’innovation (2009), Ministère de

l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche.
Territorial Reviews. France (2006), OECD Publishing.
Thomas, L.G. (1996), ‘Dynamic resourcefulness and the hypercompetitive

shift’, Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 221-242.
Tödtling, F., Trippl, M. (2005), ‘One size fits all? Towards a differen-
tiated regional innovation policy approach’, Research Policy, Vol.
34, No. 8, pp. 1203-1219.
Ungerer, H. (1997), A Concise History of European Monetary Integration.

From EPU to EMU, Westport: Quorum Books.
Van Marrewijk, Ch. (2004), ‘An introduction to international money and

foreign exchange markets’, The University of Adelaide School of
Economics Working Paper, No. 2.
Wahheduzzaman, A.N.M., Ryans, J.K. (1996), ‘Definition, perspectives,

and understanding of international competitiveness: a quest for a
common ground’, Competitiveness Review: An International Busi-
ness Journal incorporating Journal of Global Competitiveness, Vol.
6, No. 2, pp. 7-26.
141
Weller, C.E. (1999), ‘Financial crises after liberalization: exceptional
circumstances or structural weakness’, Working Paper, No. 15,
Centre for European Integration Studies.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic

Wiggins, R.R., Ruefli, T.W. (2002), ‘Sustained competitive advantage:

temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior
economic performance’, Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.
81-105.
Wiggins, R.R., Ruefli, T.W. (2005), ‘Schumpeter’s ghost: is hypercompe-

tition making the best of times shorter?’, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 26, No. 9, pp. 887-911.
Wojnicka, E., Brodzicki, T., Szultka, S. (2003), Clusters in Poland,

Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.
Wojtyna, A. (2008), ‘Współczesna ekonomia – kontynuacja czy poszuki-

wanie nowego paradygmatu’, Ekonomista, No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Wojtyna, A. (ed.) (2008), Instytucje a polityka ekonomiczna w krajach na

średnim poziomie rozwoju, Warszawa: PWE.
Woodward, R. (1999), Otoczenie instytucjonalne małych i średnich przed-

siębiorstw, Warszawa: CASE.
Woolford, I. (2001), ‘Macro-financial stability and macroprudential anal-

ysis’, Reserve Bank of <ew Zealand Bulletin, Vol. 64, No. 3, pp.
29-43.

2007–2008, Geneva.

2008–2009, Geneva.

2009–2010, Geneva.
142
2010–2011, Geneva.
www.clusterobservatory.eu, (access: 20.08.2010).
www.competitivite.gouv.fr, (access: 27.10.2010).
www.crealys.com, (access: 25.03.2010).
www.europe-innova.org.index.jsp, (access: 20.08.2010).
www.grain-incubation.com, (access: 25.03.2010).
Young, G., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M. (1996), ‘ “Austrian” and industrial
organization perspectives on firm-level competitive activity and
performance’, Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 243-254.
Zenka, D. (2010), ‘The average interest rate on PLN-denominated recei-

vables from non-financial businesses and a level of investment out-
lays in manufacturing’, Working Papers, Faculty of International
Business and Economics, WP 2010/01, Poznań: Poznań University
of Economics.
Zerbini, F., Castaldo, S. (2007), ‘Stay in or get out the Janus? The mainte-
nance of multiplex relationships between buyers and sellers’, Indus-
trial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 941-954.
143
View publication stats

Jankowska - 2010 - Dimensions of Competitiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jankowska - 2010 - Dimensions of Competitiveness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jankowska - 2010 - Dimensions of Competitiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Book · January 2010

Barbara Jankowska Tadeusz Kowalski

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Organization's Behavior in CEEC Markets View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

POZNAŃ UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS PRESS

Copyright by Poznań University of Economics

POZNAŃ UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS PRESS

Print: ZPW POZKAL

1. The economic and monetary union vs. shifts

2. Competitiveness vs. stability of the financial

3. Information asymmetry and investment

4. Institutional support of innovation

5. Clusters as a mode of coopetition: the case

6. Hypercompetition in the perspective

Introduction Barbara Jankowska, Tadeusz Kowalski,

Chapter 1 Tadeusz Kowalski, Maciej Pietrzykowski

Chapter 2 Anna Matysek-Jędrych

Chapter 3 Dominika Zenka-Podlaszewska

Chapter 4 Dorota Czyżewska

Chapter 5 Barbara Jankowska

Chapter 6 Jan Polowczyk

Individual businesses, sectors, entire national economies, and regional

Barbara Jankowska, Tadeusz Kowalski, Maciej Pietrzykowski

The aim of this chapter is to assess changes in the relative competitive-

2. Real effective exchange rate as

As emphasized in Section 1, real effective exchange rate (REER) is a

Figure 1. Real effective exchange rate deflated by CPI in the EMU

Source: Own calculation based on ECB database 2010

Figure 2. BIS real effective exchange rate in EMU countries in 1999–

Source: Own calculation based on BIS data

Figure 3. Real effective exchange rate deflated by nominal unit labor

Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat database 2010

3. Open economy and export competitiveness

Figure 4. Exports of goods and services of EMU countries in 1999–

Source: Own calculation based on World Development Indicators database

As the data in Figure 4 indicate, only Spain recorded stagnation, and

Figure 5. External exports of goods and services of EMU countries in

Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat database 2010

The ratio of exports to imports illustrates the competitive ability of a

Figure 6. Ratio of exports/imports of EMU countries, in 1999–2009

Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat database 2010

An important indicator of competitive status is represented by the high

Figure 7. High technology exports of EMU economies as per cent of

The aggregate measure of variations in the global competitiveness of

Figure 8. Exports of EMU countries as per cent of world merchandise

Source: Own calculation based on the National data and Comtrade

Between 1998–1999 the greatest EMU exporter was Germany, with a

4. Labor Productivity and Employment Rate

Descriptive statistics regarding labor market performance are given in

Figure 9. Real labor productivity in EMU countries, in 1999–2009

Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat database 2010

Figure 10. Employment rate in EMU countries in 1999–2009 (1999 = 100)

Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat database 2010

5. GDP and Per Capita Income between 1999–2009

In terms of changes in competitiveness of the member states the first

Figure 11. GDP in EMU countries in 1999–2009 (1999 = 100)

Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat database 2010

Two quite different economies – Luxembourg and Greece – also record-