Poland can become one of the best places to live in the world. But it will not get there through a state that constantly regulates more, owns more, and spends more. There are better recipes for development than those presented at the recent political gathering organized around former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
The former prime minister and dozens of parliamentarians associated with his Rozwój Plus (“Development Plus”) association have been expelled from Law and Justice (PiS). The initiative has increasingly sought to distinguish itself from the PiS leadership, including by criticizing some of the party’s policy and personnel decisions.
When registering for the “Rozwój Plus Wy” (“Development Plus You”) event and barbecue, participants were asked to explain why they wanted to attend. I wrote that, although I identify as a liberal, Poland also needs an economically sensible right: one that combines respect for tradition with fiscal responsibility, entrepreneurship, and good conditions for investment and economic growth.
I also wanted to hear the proposals coming from Morawiecki’s political circle and talk to people interested in making Poland’s current economic “golden age” last as long as possible. That story should include both the successful market transformation launched by Leszek Balcerowicz’s team after the fall of communism and the growth achieved in subsequent decades, including during Morawiecki’s years in government.
One of the strongest elements of the event was the participation of Garry Kasparov. For years, he has warned about Vladimir Putin’s regime and argued for consistent support for Ukraine. “In chess, we have predictable rules and unpredictable results. In Putin’s Russia, it is the opposite: the rules are unpredictable and the results are predetermined,” Kasparov said. He came to Poland with an important mission: to help build cross-party support for Ukraine.
So What Did Morawiecki’s Gathering Reveal?
The event was professionally organized and well attended. It also attracted people from outside the traditional Law and Justice political bubble, including liberals of various shades, representatives of free-market NGOs, and business leaders.
There were many worthwhile discussions. At the same time, the event confirmed that Rozwój Plus is closest to a vision of statist traditionalism. It seems more competent and more development-oriented than some other currents within PiS, but it still relies heavily on an expanding state, a prominent role for state-owned companies as engines of investment, and new public spending presented as the answer to most social and economic problems. All of this is embedded in patriotism, religion, and conservative identity politics.
At times, the substance of the event resembled Morawiecki’s earlier Strategy for Responsible Development, commonly known as the “Morawiecki Plan”: many accurate diagnoses accompanied by recommendations that could slow development or prove worse than the problems they are supposed to solve.
Many proposals also appeared detached from the condition of Poland’s public finances. Morawiecki’s government bears part of the responsibility for their deterioration, while Donald Tusk’s government, rather than beginning a serious repair, has continued the expansion of public spending and the rise in the deficit. Competition between political parties over populist and costly promises financed by taxpayers has been intensifying for years.
For that reason, any serious discussion about development should subject every new costly program to two basic questions: How much will it cost, and how will it be financed? I heard no convincing answers to either question, including during the panel on demography, where numerous expensive proposals were put forward.
There was some discussion of higher taxation during a panel presenting a left-wing perspective, including proposals to abolish preferential tax rates. Apparently, this was still not enough for Morawiecki. In his evening speech, despite expressing sympathy for the invited left-wing speakers, he criticized participants for being unrealistic about the state of public finances. He also warned about rapidly growing public debt, distancing himself from the view popular in parts of the left that government debt is not a serious concern.
The less the speeches and panels resembled political manifestos, the more valuable they became. Morawiecki’s first speech, focused on ambition, national pride, and development, was therefore much better than his later one. His observations about the increasingly difficult international environment were accurate – not only regarding the threat from Russia but also the systemic challenge China poses to the West.
Much less convincing were the critical assessments of Poland’s post-communist transformation and of the 1989 Round Table negotiations, which helped pave the way for the peaceful end of communist rule. Lech Kaczyński, later president of Poland and one of the founders of PiS, himself took part in those talks.
His twin brother Jarosław Kaczyński said in 1999: “I have great respect for Balcerowicz for carrying out a decisive surgical operation. It was painful, but absolutely necessary.”
Morawiecki himself probably did not always regard Balcerowicz as a symbol of everything wrong with Poland’s transition either. When Morawiecki headed a major bank, that institution was for several years the main sponsor of an economic education program for schools run by the Civic Development Forum (FOR), an organization founded by Leszek Balcerowicz.
Morawiecki’s second speech ended very differently, with rally-style attacks on “Tuskism”, “laziness”, “villainy”, “deception”, and “theft”. Apparently, part of the PiS electorate needed a sharper message, while party-aligned media needed material that could easily be turned into headlines and social media posts.
It is difficult to reconcile such rhetoric with the appeals made during the same event for agreement on fundamental issues and with Morawiecki’s declaration that he wanted to be someone capable of “building bridges and compromises”. Even Jan Rokita, a veteran of Polish centre-right politics and a former Civic Platform candidate for prime minister, was unconvinced, describing the dominant feature of Polish politics as “permanent historicization”.
Investment: Private or State-Led?
I listened closely to the panel on investment. Paweł Borys, former head of the Polish Development Fund, rightly argued against becoming too attached to a rigid target of investment reaching 25% of GDP. What matters more is that investment grows sustainably and makes economic sense. The quality of investment matters more than an arbitrary numerical target.
In my view, private investment should play a much larger role than it does today. Yet some participants continued to place their greatest hopes in state-owned companies, while calling mainly for improvements in their management.
Because there is little political appetite for a return to privatization, the debate has shifted toward the “professionalization” and depoliticization of state-owned enterprises. But this raises an obvious test.
Would politicians returning to power leave competent managers appointed by the current government in their jobs if those managers were running state-owned companies well? Or would another electoral victory simply produce another wave of replacements?
The most interesting contribution to the investment panel came from Jan Růžička of the Czech PPF Group. He noted that many Czechs now look with envy at Poland’s economic success and called for a stronger Central European voice in the EU debate on deregulation and competitiveness.
He also offered what I consider the best metaphor of the entire event: the state should be a referee, not a shepherd.
It should establish and enforce the rules rather than lead citizens and businesses in a direction chosen by politicians. Růžička also praised the scale of Czech privatization – a striking contrast with the anti-privatization views voiced by some participants.
There were other sensible ideas in the investment debate: simplifying the tax system, reforming VAT, strengthening the culture of entrepreneurship, modernizing education, and creating stable conditions for investment.
Predictable law, efficient courts, strong property rights, and high-quality legislation are essential. On all these fronts, the PiS governments left behind a deeply problematic record.
When the Statist Left Meets the Statist Right
I also listened to the entire panel entitled “Development and Exclusion: How to Move Forward Without Leaving Anyone Behind – A Left-Wing Perspective”.
There was a dedicated discussion of development from the left, but no corresponding debate from a liberal or freedom-oriented perspective. Instead, there were occasional sarcastic remarks about liberal and libertarian voices, conservative liberals, and the Austrian School of Economics.
This says something about where Rozwój Plus currently does not intend to look for voters. It does not seem particularly interested in competing for the economically liberal part of the Confederation electorate or for free-market voters disappointed with Poland’s current governing coalition. That may be good news for political forces that would like to reach those voters.
Morawiecki has also made clear that he wants to compete for centrist voters. This could create problems for Poland’s smaller parties that like to define themselves through the word “center”. Civic Coalition, led by Donald Tusk, should not simply sit back and enjoy divisions within Jarosław Kaczyński’s political camp either. Rozwój Plus may also try to attract voters from parts of the left.
The left-wing panel featured several familiar prescriptions: improving public services primarily by spending more money, “socializing the means of production”, and directing additional taxpayer resources toward state housing programs.
There were also positions less typical of the contemporary left. Journalist Rafał Woś called for a moratorium on migration and for defending Poland’s national currency, the zloty, “as if it were independence itself”. When tax privileges were discussed – a real issue worthy of debate – attention focused almost entirely on preferential taxation for some self-employed workers, while other privileges, including those enjoyed by farmers, received far less attention.
The panel, and the positive reaction it received from parts of the audience, illustrated just how close the statist left, and statist right can become. They differ in their language, attitudes toward religion, and views on social and cultural issues. Yet they often share the conviction that the answer to new problems should be higher public spending, more state ownership, and greater political direction of the economy.
The Liberal Alternative
The liberal alternative begins by questioning the assumption that development should primarily be designed from the top down.
Poland’s success over the past few decades was not the work of one government, one development strategy, or one political party. It was built by millions of people who worked, started businesses, moved in search of better jobs, invested, and took risks.
The Balcerowicz Plan played an important role in Poland’s history. Even more important, however, were the millions of smaller, private plans pursued by individual citizens and entrepreneurs.
I share Mateusz Morawiecki’s ambition for Poland to become one of the best places in the world to live. Poland should aspire to rank among the world’s top twenty not only in terms of the size of its economy, but also in income per capita, institutional quality, diplomatic influence, and conditions for doing business.
Where we disagree is on the road to get there.
Borrowing Jan Růžička’s metaphor, Poland does not need a shepherd-state trying to direct the economy and lead citizens toward goals selected by politicians.
It needs a referee-state: efficient and predictable, protecting property rights, security, and competition, while leaving citizens and entrepreneurs as much room as possible to pursue their own ambitions and plans.
This article was originally published in Polish on August 04, 2026, on NaTemat.pl.