New Incentives for Research Intensity and Innovation in Polish Industry

  • Roland Scharff
Conference paper


As can be seen from the declining value of the “science intensity index”,1 the austerity policy introduced into Poland has not only affected investment and consumption but, also more particularly, science and technology. In the area of expenditure, primarily at factory level, it has been the area of development to have suffered the most serious cuts in the long term. Between 1975 and 1983 there was a 20% reduction in the number of research and development projects. A relapse into grey mediocrity threatens Poland’s scientific development, intellectually resilient thanks not least to traditional “subversive” virtues. These areas are faced with financial ruin following the economic crisis at the beginning of the eighties. Creative intellectualism and innovation lacked the support of zlotys and foreign currency. The original increase in the import of technology was lost in a series of abortive development impulses. The expected long-term cumulative effects did not take place, not least as a result of the genetic contradiction between the conflicting rational types: the technical, economic administration with a pathological attachment to politicizing the economy and the intrinsically motivated scientific community. Within an area characterized by economic inequalities and social distortions, the possibilities of a “second scientific cycle” are simultaneously spreading, the undefined members of which, bound by the laws of cognitive processes, are again turning towards the vital fundamentals of the nation and their own professions.


Technical Progress Organizational Innovation Technical Advancement Hard Currency CMEA Country 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cf. P. Glikman, Poland, in: G. Darvas, ed., Science and Technology in Eastern Europe, London 1988, p. 209.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. H. Wienert, J. Slater, East—West-Technology Transfer, Paris 1986, p. 305.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Refer to N. M. Pazio, “Dyskusja na konferencji na temat luki technicznej w Polsce”, in: Zagadnienia naukoznawstwa 2, 1986, pp. 271–285.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Gieysztor, Z. Kaczmarek, “Nauka Polska — dzis i jutro”, in: Nauka Polska 2, 1984, p. 11.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    L. Bialon, T. Obrebski, T. Wojtowicz, Motywacyjne uwarunkowania pracy w placowkach badawczo-rozwojowych, in: Planowanie i organizacja badan naukowych z. 14, 1987, p. 61.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Cf. L. Bialon, “Research and development potential of Polish Industry”, in: Scientiometrics, vol. 12, nos. 3–4, 1987, p. 168.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    J. Baruk, “Bariery innowacji w przedsiebiorstwach”, in: Przeglad organizacji 1, 1987, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    J. Zymonik, “Fundusz efektow wdrozeniowych”, in: Przeglad organizacji 4, 1988, p. 21.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    H. Lukaszewski, “Reforma a innowacyjnogc gospodarki”, in: Dzialalnosc badawczo rozwojowa a reforma polskiej gospodarki, Warszawa — Lodz 1988, p. 26.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    H. Maier, Innovation oder Stagnation. Bedingungen der Wirtschaftsreform in sozialistischen Ländern, Köln 1987, p. 176.Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    Cf. J. W. Matusiak, “Rola i zadania urzedu w rozwoju nowoczegnej techniki”, in: Problemy postepu technicznego 6, 1987, p. 18.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
    R. Rapacki, “Wirtschaftssysteme und Technologieimporte sozialistischer Länder: Polen 1971–86”, in: P. Welfens, L. Balcerowicz (Hg.), Innovationsdynamik im Systemvergleich, Heidelberg 1988, p. 249.Google Scholar
  13. 25.
    J. Czarnek, P. Glikman, St. Kwiatkowski, “Zaloienia systemu kierowania dzatalnoscia B + R”, in: Dzialalnosc badawczo-rozwojowa a reforma polskiej gospodarki. Warszawa- Lodz 1988, p. 66.Google Scholar
  14. 26.
    Cf. K. Pawlowicz, “Samofinansowanie i samodzielnosc w nauce”, in: Zycie gospodarcze no. 15, 1988, p. 5.Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    J. Szymanska, “Jak funkcionuje nauka polska?” in: Problemy postepu technicznego 6 1987, p. 13.Google Scholar
  16. 29.
    Data from W. A. Werner, “Sterowanie postepem naukowotechnicznym”, in: Przeglad organizacji 5, 1988, p. 25.Google Scholar
  17. 37.
    K. Sobczak, “Prawne uwarunkowania postepu naukowotechnicznego w przedsiebiorstwie panstwowym”, in: Przeglad ustawodawstwa gospodarczego 6, 1986, p. 154.Google Scholar
  18. 38.
    A. Huchla, “Tworzenie i wykorzstywanie funduszu efektwo wdrozeniowych w przedsiebiorstwach panstwowych”, in: Przeglad ustawodawstwa gospodarczego 6, 1986, p. 154.Google Scholar
  19. 44.
    Cf. M. I. Goldman, Gorbachev’s Challenge. Economic Reform in the Age of High Technology, New York—London 1987, p. 87.Google Scholar
  20. 47.
    R. Tupin, “Nowe rodzaje jednostek organizacyjnych w sferze postpu naukowo-technicz- nego”, in: Przeglpd ustawodawstwa gospodarczego 8–9, 1987, p. 206.Google Scholar
  21. 50.
    K. Tott, “Aby osiegniecia przynosily efekty”, in: Reforma gospodarcza no. 110, Supplement to Rzeczpospolita, 13. 8. 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 51.
    G. Kolankiewicz, P. G. Lewis, Poland. Politics, Economics and Society, London-New York 1988, p. 110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roland Scharff
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations