The goal of presented paper is to show growing importance of active public policy for socio-economic development of Polish regions. There is a description of general context of programming socio-economic development in Poland. After accession to EU in 2004 Poland developed set of programming documents on central level. Last document Responsible Development Strategy until 2030 was approved in 2017. In following part of that study there are presented issues of voivodeship development strategies and regional innovation strategies. Intraregional policy managed by self-governments in context of innovativeness is also tackled. In fi nal part conclusions and recommendations concerning regional policy are proposed.
The purpose of the author was to indicate the deficiency of development management instruments currently used to the territorialization of policies in stimulating intra- and intersectoral partnership cooperation. Her reflections were based on the results of research commissioned by the Polish Ministry of Development and Investment by a team in which the author participated. These studies have revealed that the weakest impacts of the so-called territorial instruments include the ability to mobilize various stakeholder groups to take action and to create partnership cooperation. Against this background, the author has undertaken the analysis of the potential impact of territorial tools on the partnerships development and has attempted to present recommendations for practice and further research in this area.
The new evaluation rules proposed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education in July 2018 are set to cure some of the ailments of the existing system, notably the “punktoza” phenomenon (i.e. publishing for volume, not scientific quality). However, it should be pointed out that the method of fixing old “bugs” might in fact create some new ones. In this article I discuss three elements of the proposed regulations, namely: the principle of “inheritance of prestige”, treatment of chapters in edited volumes, and possible variants of ministerial registry of academic publishers. To address those issues empirically I use an existing dataset covering citation of books in 2009–2013 (Torres-Salinas et al. 2014). While the new evaluation rules apply relatively high value to chapters in edited volumes, they in fact have disproportionately low scientific impact. What is more, the correlation between citation of books and chapters in edited volumes is very low, casting doubt on the assumed “inheritance of publishers' prestige”. Finally, there seems to be a high risk that the registry of publishers will not reproduce the exponential distribution observed in the actual structure of scientific impact (and apparently sought by the new system), thereby jeopardizing validity of such evaluation.