Content uploaded by Adam A. Ambroziak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adam A. Ambroziak on Jun 28, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Management and Economics 2022; 58(1): 44–63
Adam A. Ambroziak*
Forms of COVID-19 state aid by beneficiary
size in Poland in 2020
https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2022-0003
Received: December 10, 2021; accepted: March 31, 2022
Abstract: Lockdowns imposed by the European Union (EU) Member States produced significant
consequences in the form of losses to companies, which is why the Member States decided to assist
businesses from public funds. This paper aims to identify and initially assess the implementation of
schemes under which coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-related state aid was granted in Poland in
2020 for different instruments and beneficiary sizes. The idea was to find out how well aforementioned
schemes responded to the needs of companies affected the most by the COVID-19-inflicted crisis. To this
end, statistical analysis was deployed to learn about the share of individual groups of businesses of
different sizes in support instruments granted in relation with COVID-19 by type of aid. The study helped
to demonstrate that Polish aid schemes approved by the European Commission in 2020 assisted mainly
micro- and small-sized companies, which usually suffered from poor liquidity, by predominantly soft
instruments.
Keywords: COVID-19 crisis, COVID-19 state aid, European Union, Poland, SMEs
JEL Classification: G38, H25, H32, H71, L53
1 Introduction
As a result of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, governments of all the European Union
(EU) Member States put in place a number of instruments designed to contain the spread of the virus and to
alleviate the health problems of their respective populations. In most instances, these instruments restricted
or led to temporary closures of selected industries. This, in turn, produced distortions in supply chains
and in production, which affected the supplies of goods and services in the EU market, combined with a
rapid decrease in demand for selected goods and a significant increase in demand for certain other goods.
This market imbalance led to a significant decrease in investment made by businesses, governments, and
households. As a result, the EU economy suffered from the loss of liquidity felt by many companies and
produced by the absence of transactions among companies, consumers, and public authorities. The above-
listed effects had major consequences for European economic integration [Dimitrakopoulos and Lalis, 2021;
Ferrara and Kriesi, 2021], economic governance [Ladi and Tsarouhas, 2020; Wolff and Ladi, 2020]), and the
previous perception of some policies, including state aid policy [Meunier and Mickus, 2020; van Druenen
and Zwaan, 2021].
In order to limit economic and social tensions, the European Commission decided to partially relax state
aid regime and adopted a Temporary Framework for State aid to support the economy during the COVID-
19 pandemic (hereinafter, the Temporary Framework) [European Commission, 2020l]. It was subsequently
amended several times to clarify, but more importantly, to introduce new forms of admissible state aid. This
Empirical Paper
*Corresponding author: Adam A. Ambroziak, Collegium of World Economy, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland.
E-mail: Adam.A.Ambroziak@sgh.waw.pl
Open Access. © Ambroziak, published by Sciendo.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs . License.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 45
allowed Member States, including Poland, to develop their own aid schemes not only based on the Treaty
provisions but also relying on the above-mentioned Temporary Framework. It should be noted that State
intervention, i.e., the distribution of financial resources in the form of state aid granted to companies, was
one of the instruments intended to improve liquidity. On the one hand, the instrument is effective; however,
on the other hand, it may seriously distort competition in the EU.
Due to the short time that divides us from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU,
comprehensive analyses that require longer research periods are missing. At the microeconomic level,
the available research analyses cover primarily issues related to the resilience of enterprises and the
preparedness to face external crises [Giancotti and Mauro, 2020], identification of transformation drivers
and readiness to apply digital technologies [Gregurec et al., 2021], and improving the interlinkages between
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and large companies (in Malaysia) [Utit Ch. et al., 2021]. Another
group of studies includes the initial results of analyses focused on the effects for individual companies or
sectors in EU Member States, which – in most cases – rely on fragmentary data describing the situation in
the course of the pandemic and its effect on the performance of various sectors, industries, or economies,
including the following: e.g., the construction industry in Czechia [Nový and Nováková, 2022], gym and
fitness clubs in Poland [Piotrowski and Piotrowska, 2021], tourism in Czechia [Vaishar and Šťastná, 2020],
tourism in the entire EU [Williams, 2021] and globally [Gössling et al., 2021], society and sports activities
[Begović, 2020; Drewes et al,, 2021], labor market in agriculture [Cortignani et al., 2020], agriculture as an
individual sector of economy [Barcaccia et al., 2020, Štreimikienė et al., 2021], the position of women in the
labor market of the countries of the Global South [Rivera and Castro, 2021], fiscal policy in Slovakia [Burger,
2020], the presence of foreign investment in Poland [Umiński and Borowicz, 2021], social and economic
growth in European countries [Erić et al., 2021], or the economies of, e.g., Mediterranean EU Member States
[Urbanovics and Teleki, 2021].
The above analyses, however, fail to consider the antishock and anticrisis measures applied by the
Member States. From the viewpoint of the assessment of available aid schemes, it is important to identify
the composition of state aid rather than its total amount. As Sullivan and Wolff [2020] observe, any map
of the distribution of benefits and costs during crises must include the conditions, eligibility criteria, and
forms of these benefits. When it comes to the ways in which aid was granted, as observed by Dobaczewska
[2021], Commission guidelines on COVID-19 State aid have identified forms of state aid that, if appropriate
conditions are met, could be approved following the fast-track procedure and these categories of aid have
been exploited by the Polish legislator to the fullest. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to identify and
initially evaluate the implementation of schemes under which COVID-19-related state aid was granted in
Poland in 2020 taking account of the type of instruments and size of beneficiaries. The point is to find
out how well-fitted public intervention was to the needs of the weakest companies that could be the most
affected by the crisis inflicted by COVID-19. Based on earlier studies, a conclusion is reached that, compared
to large firms, SMEs have often been more affected by the COVID-19 crisis, which has exposed their greater
vulnerability [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2021]. Due to the above
observations, a research hypothesis has been put forward, according to which, SMEs were the major
beneficiaries of COVID-19 aid. This outcome can be attributed not so much to the sectoral nature of aid
schemes but to the negative effects of lockdowns for this group of economic actors.
In order to validate the above hypotheses, statistical analyses have been carried out based on available
data on both state aid notified to the European Commission and reported by the Office of Competition
and Consumer Protection (OCCP). In the first case, based on the examination of all decisions issued by
the Commission in the period covered by the study, we manage to capture the sizes and forms of state aid
notified to the Commission by the Member States, which allows us to estimate the potential engagement
of Poland in the intervention under individual aid categories. Next, relying on data collected by the OCCP,
an in-depth analysis of the structure of granted aid from the point of view of the size of enterprises is
conducted considering the forms of state aid. Since the time from the start of the pandemic has been too
short and, consequently, appropriate data are not available, having the research goal in mind, a decision
has been made not to juxtapose the results obtained for granted state aid with potential changes resulting
from opening new or closing existing companies, their financial performance, or investment in fixed assets.
46 A. A. Ambroziak
The paper starts with the literature review of the preliminary studies on legal and economic consequences
of new COVID-19 State Aid. Then, the position of Poland compared to other Member States in the context
of potential COVID-19-related state aid (hereinafter referred to as ‘coronavirus state aid’) and tools or forms
included in national aid schemes is discussed. In the next section, the results of the statistical analysis are
presented, which reveal the share of groups of entrepreneurs of different sizes in the support instruments
offered in 2020 broken down by types and forms of granted state aid with their description. Unfortunately,
due to the absence of similar studies that would rely on data concerning aid that was actually granted and
not only notified to the European Commission, the presented results can be discussed in contrast to other
publications only to a very limited extent. The available analyses [KPMG, 2020; Urbanovics and Teleki,
2021] are based on amounts earmarked in budgets and proposed instruments notified to the European
Commission rather than on data on aid actually granted to enterprises. In addition, this aid cannot be
compared to any other aid to companies as the time of the COVID-19 pandemic seriously differs from any
earlier crisis mainly because this crisis did not emerge as a result of negligence or excessively risky behavior
exercised by business actors in the financial markets, as was the case of the previous 2008–2010 crisis. The
COVID-19 crisis has resulted from a pandemic that made governments across the world freeze a substantial
proportion of economic activities to protect the health and lives of their citizens. After the presentation
and discussion of the results, the paper finishes with a summary containing conclusions linked with our
current situation and the identification of further research areas, which will be especially useful to evaluate
the consequences of the granted aid on the economy and the competition in the European Single Market.
Data used in the study come from original analyses of the decisions made by the European Commission
concerning admissible coronavirus state aid, as well as data from the OCCP and Statistics Poland (GUS).
2 The literature review
In principle, state aid in the EU is seen as incompatible with the internal market if, due to its selective
nature, it distorts or threatens to distort competition in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
However, further paragraphs of Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of The European Union provide
for mandatory and voluntary exemptions from the above prohibition. The first case covers situations when
specific categories of aid are considered compatible, while, in the second case, the Commission is competent
to declare them compatible with the internal market. This is the outcome of exclusive EU competence in
competition policy in the Single European Market and, thus, the Commission’s competence to assess and
ex-ante decide about the admissibility of public intervention by the governments of EU Member States. The
above modus operandi is critical as, after traditional barriers to trade got eliminated with the creation of
the customs union, which was followed by the elimination of more advanced nontariff barriers, including
physical, technical, and fiscal barriers, when the internal market was launched, the only protectionist
and interventionist instrument left in the hands of the Member States is state aid. Therefore, it seems
that especially during crisis periods, strong supranational institutions and their indispensability for the
preservation of the single market make the EU competition policy a fundamental pillar of the EU economic
policy [Dierx and Ilzkovitz, 2021].
As already mentioned, there are many exemptions from this general prohibition, which, however, permit
limited state intervention in the free market economy. To ensure identical interpretation and application, as
well as to reduce uncertainty with regard to the feasibility of intervention, the Commission drafted a number
of guidelines that specify the goals, scope, beneficiaries, and maximum intensity of admissible state aid
[Ambroziak, 2017]. In 2005, state aid rules were put in order and modernized following political suggestions
made by the Member States [European Council, 2005; Nicolaides et al., 2005] and conceptual documents of
the European Commission [2005]. They unambiguously state that the policy of state aid admissibility in the
EU should focus on the reduction of the value of intervention and limits goals exclusively to those resulting
from the market failure concept. In this latter case, aspects that were stressed included externalities, public
goods, imperfect information, coordination problems, and market power. The Commission decided that,
“State aid should be the appropriate policy instrument and should be designed so that it effectively solves
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 47
the market failure, by creating an incentive effect and being proportionate. In addition, state aid should
not distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.” [European Commission, 2005] Next,
reforms of state aid took place in connection with the preparations to the implementation of subsequent
Multiannual Financial Frameworks of the European Union and were subordinated to the idea of admissible
intervention when specific market failure occurs.
Market failure can be interpreted as “the failure of a more or less idealized system of price-market
institutions to sustain ‘desirable’ or to estop ‘undesirable’ activities (production and consumption)” [Bator,
1958]. More precisely, we are speaking of “a situation where a market, in the absence of intervention, fails
to allocate resources efficiently” [New South Wales (NSW) Department of Industry, 2017]. It seems that the
actions taken by the Government are based on the principle that companies are not purely private assets
but agents for positive change [Dowling, 2021]. In order to ensure the best possible allocation of production
factors, the EU allows for granting selected types of state aid specified as to the goal, scope, intensity, and
potential beneficiaries. To reduce the negative impact of public intervention, the EU put an end to sectoral
aid in favor of horizontal aid, which is available to a much wider group of entrepreneurs, and focused
on concrete goals, such as, e.g., regional development, environmental and social initiatives linked to the
limitation of climate change, better energy efficiency, and better education and employment opportunities
for employees (including the disabled) [Ambroziak, 2017, 2021b].
At the outset of the pandemic in Europe, the European Commission did not reflect much will to
liberalize the restrictive provisions on state aid. In the first communication, the Commission indicated that
the then-binding provisions should be fully sufficient for the pandemic as they allowed for the possibility
to support SMEs, i.e., those potentially hit the strongest by the crisis, making sure at the same time that
“subsidy races” detrimental to competition were avoided [European Commission, 2020d]. At that time,
attention was paid primarily to horizontal measures available to all economic entities as well as on support
to consumers instead of selective aid to companies. Enterprises should build resilience to achieve long-term
sustainability and to overcome unexpected events. Giancotti and Mauro [2020] presented an extremely wide
array of conceptual frameworks that could be used to guide enterprises in improving resilience; however,
the shock produced by COVID-19 could have been anticipated by companies to a rather limited extent.
Yet, it quickly turned out that the Commission had to refer to Treaty provisions that enable granting
aid, which would urgently meet the demand for liquidity and assist companies threatened with bankruptcy
(Art. 107 para. 3 subpara. C of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU]) or compensate
the damage suffered by entrepreneurs caused by exceptional occurrences, such as the COVID-19 pandemic
(Art. 107 para. 2 subpara. B of the TFEU) (much less frequently invoked – Nicolaides, 2020; Ambroziak,
2021a; Kubera, 2021).
However, one needs to bear in mind that aid planned based on the above-mentioned legal premises was
not to have been mobilized as a result of an identified market failure. Hardships faced by companies were,
in fact, the effect of a series of decisions made by the governments of the EU Member States, which froze
specific areas of the economy. This meant de facto that entrepreneurs, who – until that time – had pursued
fully legitimate business activities, could not continue to operate due to arbitrary decisions made by their
governments. Setting aside the rationale of these decisions from the viewpoint of the free market economy,
the governments imposed restrictions or put on hold certain industries. Consequently, losses suffered by
entrepreneurs were not inflicted by their bad business decisions or potential negligence. Thus, the reasons
for granting coronavirus state aid did not meet the market failure criteria as it was not the market (i.e.,
entrepreneurs and consumers) that voluntarily changed the operating mode but the governments that
arbitrarily decided about the fate of specific types of economic activities. As a result, voices could be heard
about the need to even comprehensively rewrite the rules of the economy [Stiglitz, 2020], a suggestion
within which further proposals of the Commission fit in to a certain degree.
The Temporary Framework drafted by the European Commission [European Commission, 2020l] was
subsequently updated and modified on many occasions in 2020, and it provided for a broad range of
categories of allowable state aid [European Commission, 2020a, 2020e]. Starting from aid that was limited
only with regard to its amount (first up to EUR 800K, up to as much as EUR 1.8M in 2021), aid in the form of
guarantees, subsidized interest rates for loans, preferential short-term export credit insurance through aid
48 A. A. Ambroziak
in the form of deferrals of tax and/or of social security contributions, wage subsidies for employees to avoid
layoffs during the COVID-19 outbreak, and recapitalization measures, up to research and development
(R&D) aid in the area of COVID-19 tests and vaccines. The analysis of the above-listed legal solutions leads
to a joint conclusion that a set of completely new, unprecedented legal solutions has been put in place,
which facilitates granting of state aid to companies hit by government decisions that shut down some areas
of economic activity [Buendía et al., 2020; Honoré, 2020; Motta and Peitz, 2020a, 2020b; Robins et al.,
2020; Rosiak and Przybyszewska, 2020; Kopeć, 2021]. This new approach, different from the previous one,
is a novelty in the EU competition policy. The policy of state aid admissibility departs from the market
failure criteria and focuses on assisting entrepreneurs who face economic hardships actually not inflicted
by themselves. Examples of such decisions were those connected with the collapse of demand after the
World Trade Center (WTC) terrorist attacks in 2001 [European Commission, 2002a, 2002b] or certain
occurrences such as the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano [European Commission, 2010]. However,
all these occurrences were short term by nature, and they ended within a foreseeable period. The COVID-
19 pandemic is different; its nature suggests its relatively long-term persistence in the form of alternating
rounds of intensification and constraints. The outcome materialized in subsequent freezing and unfreezing
of the economies of the EU Member States in 2020. As a result, Ferri [2020] indicated that state aid control
has been used by the European Commission as an important “risk management tool”.
In 2020, the European Commission issued almost 500 decisions on COVID-19 state aid of the total
available budget of EUR 3.3trillion, representing 20.6% of the total EU gross domestic product (GDP). As
in the previous years, state aid intensity in the EU accounted for 1%–1.5% of EU GDP, according to the
conclusion drawn by Agnolucci [2021], who confirmed that “classical policy objectives of state aid measures
such as environmental protection, regional aid, and R&D and innovation, have been set aside in order to
aid undertakings in difficulty”. It seems that flexible state aid rules and significant differences in COVID-19
state aid budgets approved by the Commission may, in the future, distort the competition in the EU market
[Van Hove, 2020; Ambroziak, 2021a].
In terms of relevance of support, available preliminary analyses covering only the first quarters of COVID-
19 indicate that COVID-19 state aid tended to go to firms that are most in need of it [Luja, 2020; Groenewegen
et al., 2021], which are overwhelmingly SMEs [Antonescu, 2020; Cowling et al., 2020]. According to OECD
studies, this was mainly the case for SMEs. This was mainly due to five reasons: (a) the overrepresentation
of SMEs among the industries most affected by lockdowns (wholesale and retail trade, air transport,
accommodation and food services, real estate, professional services, and other personal services); (b) the
limited financial resources available for SMEs as a buffer in case of crises; (c) SMEs being less adaptable to
value chains than big companies; (d) SMEs using new digital technologies to a limited extent; and (e) SMEs
being less adaptable to new circumstances that call for significant changes in management [OECD, 2021].
It confirms earlier findings according to which, SMEs are particularly dependent on external financing,
which is why they are not resistant to external shocks [Narula, 2004; European Commission, 2019]. Studies
conducted so far suggest the need to adjust certain elements of the SME business model in relation with the
COVID-19 pandemic [Fitriasari, 2020; Lai et al., 2020] and introduce different risk management methods
[Cepel et al., 2020; Grondys et al., 2021]. In addition, attention has been drawn to the allocation effects of
employment and capital in connection with COVID-19-related restrictions [Kemmeren, 2021].
At the same time, the results of recent studies point to a major problem for SMEs during the COVID-19
pandemic: maintaining liquidity [Albonico et al., 2020; Cowling et al., 2020; Martinez-Cillero et al., 2020;
McGeever et al., 2020]. In such a situation, some companies reduce costs to avoid excessive debt [Thorgren
and Williams, 2020]. Moreover, some authors highlight that seed finance is the main type of entrepreneurial
finance most acutely affected by the crisis, which typically goes to the most nascent entrepreneurial startups
facing the greatest obstacles in obtaining finance [Brown et al., 2020]. This confirms earlier findings of pre-
COVID-19 research on the impact of crises on the position of SMEs [Laufs and Schwens, 2014; European
Commission, 2019]
Previous research on the situation of SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that without
government support, the failure rate of SMEs would have increased significantly [Belghitar et al., 2021;
Gourinchas et al., 2021] and that government support limited only to threatened firms should have relatively
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 49
low fiscal costs [Barrero et al., 2020]. It can therefore be assumed that the COVID-19 shock required to
rebalance entrepreneurial actions looking inside (frugality) and outside (support) [Giones et al., 2020]. In
the case of external financing for SMEs, many forms of assistance are mentioned worldwide, including,
among others, government guarantees, as instruments that provide liquidity but also put the least strain
on public finances [Corredera-Catalán et al., 2021], credit guarantees [Brault and Signore, 2020], reverse
factoring as an option for small-sized businesses looking for quick access to cash without going into
debt [Elizundia et al., 2021], as well as direct liquidity subsidies [Dörr et al., 2021], subsidized workers’
remuneration designed to preserve employment [Antonescu, 2020; Dörr et al., 2021], and payment breaks
[Duignan and McGeever, 2020]. Despite individual evaluations of aid programs available in Poland in
relation to COVID-19 [Ambroziak, 2021a; Łopatka and Fedorowicz, 2021; OECD, 2021], a comprehensive
study of the effectiveness of targeting aid schemes to the most needy enterprises is still lacking. Indeed, the
literature indicates that policy interventions need to be sensitive to the different types of SMEs, rather than
adopting a one-size-fits-all approach [Juergensen et al., 2020; Belghitar et al., 2021; Dörr et al., 2021], as well
as targeting promising firms to reduce deadweight loss [Santarelli and Vivarelli, 2002].
3 Coronavirus state aid mechanisms available to entrepreneurs
inPoland
At the end of March 2020, i.e., only 2weeks after the announcement of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe,
Poland notified the first aid scheme under the entire series of so-called Crisis Shields. Finally, in 2020,
the Commission approved 26 Polish state aid schemes against COVID-19, which provided for 45 financial
instruments offered to entrepreneurs, while 44 Danish , 38 Italian and 26 French schemes (Figure 1). Many
of them were amended and adapted to the needs of entrepreneurs and economic conditions, in addition to
being extended over the following months of 2021.
The total budget of Polish COVID-19 state aid schemes covered by the positive decisions of the
Commission amounted to EUR 61.4billion, including aid to agriculture and to Polish Airlines LOT (LOT)
and airports in Poland (around EUR 1.3billion). It is worth noting that the aforementioned budget was not
correlated with the size or economic potential of Poland. The largest coronavirus state aid budget approved
by the Commission was proposed by Germany (52.8% of the total state aid for anti-COVID measures in the
Note: DE – Germany, IT – Italy, FR – France, EL – Greece, UK – United Kingdom, BE – Belgium, PL – Poland, ES – Spain, AT – Austria,
PT – Portugal, NL – Netherlands, CZ – Czechia, DK – Dankmark, SE – Sweden, HU – Hungary, SI – Slovenia, FI – Finland,
SK – Slovakia, RO – Romania, LU – Luxembourg, EE – Estonia, IE – Ireland, HR – Croatia, MT – Malta, LT – Lithuania, BG – Bulgaria,
LV Latvia, CY – Cyprus.
Figure 1. Number of decisions and the budget of coronavirus state aid approved by the European Commission in 2020.
Source: author’s calculations based on the European Commission decision (https://ec.europa.eu/competition-policy/
state-aid/coronavirus_en).
50 A. A. Ambroziak
EU, while the share of Germany in the EU GDP in 2020 amounted to 21%) as a result of a substantial change
in the country’s approach to fiscal policy [Crespy and Schramm, 2021], followed by Italy (15.1% and 10.4%,
respectively) and France (12.5% and 14.5%, respectively), while Poland ranked seventh (with the share of
total state aid of 1.9% and 3.3% share in the EU GDP).
From the point of view of the impact on both the economy and competition in the EU market, not only
the amount but also the form of support offered is important – it is crucial whether the entrepreneur could
have or had applied for support in the form of grants, loans (including nonrefundable ones), or guarantees.
A significant number of the Member States offered mainly guarantees at the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic. These helped companies to secure liquidity, constituted state aid in the meaning of Article 107
of the Treaty, but, at the same time, had no immediate impact on public debt should the beneficiaries
repay the guaranteed loans. This was particularly the case for Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and
also Germany, i.e., countries that struggled with public debt problems after the 2008–2010 crisis (Figure 2).
The EU Member States that decided to offer more public aid in the form of direct subsidies or soft loans
(often nonrefundable) constituted a separate group. This group of countries included the United Kingdom,
Poland, Denmark, Slovakia, Finland, Hungary, Croatia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. Poland (as was Slovakia;
see Burger, 2020) was therefore among those countries that offered a relatively significant proportion of
nonrepayable aid instruments in the form of (a) grants and subsidies and (b) soft loans, which depleted
public resources on an ongoing basis and may significantly reduce interventions in the event of further
business freezes.
The main objective of the coronavirus aid instruments was to reduce the expected problems of both
maintaining financial liquidity faced by companies affected by the implemented restrictions and the
freezing of parts of economic activity. The mentioned tools can be divided into either three groups from the
point of view of the forms of state aid or into two groups, considering their relation to the budget. In the first
case, these tools are grants and subsidies, soft loans, and collaterals and guarantees. In the second case, a
distinction can be made between instruments transferring money from public budgets (central and local)
to entrepreneurs and tools reducing or completely eliminating public financial obligations of companies
toward these budgets (Table 1; Ambroziak, 2021a).
4 Structure of the coronavirus state aid in Poland
According to OCCP data available at the end of June 2021, from this pool, Polish entrepreneurs received
a total amount of about EUR 19.6billion as coronavirus state aid in 2020. It can, therefore, be noted that
Poland has not transferred all the funding approved by the Commission to companies and has extended
some schemes to 2021. Of the aforementioned total amount of state aid granted in 2020, 74.8% were soft
loans, 23.7% grants and subsidies, and only 1.5% guarantees and collaterals (Figure 3). This indicates a
different final use of available aid funds in relation to those budgeted in the aid schemes approved by the
Figure 2. Forms of COVID-19 State aid approved by the European Commission in 2020.
Source: see Figure 1.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 51
Table 1. COVID-19 state aid measures offered to entrepreneurs in Poland in 2020
Measures Donors
Support instruments created on the basis of resources from European funds
offered, both those from the previous financial perspective and the then current
one, namely, for –:
Guarantees
“Liquidity loans” that were written off at later stages.
Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (Bank
of National Economy), Polish Agency
for Enterprise Development, and other
institutions implementing the EU funds
Exemption from the duty to pay social security contributions
“Work suspension” benefits
ZUS
Grants to cover the current running costs of a business to microenterprises and
small-sized companies
Grants to protect existing jobs
Regional and county labor offices
Subsidizing salaries and wages of disabled employees and workers
Refunds of costs of the adjustment of workplaces to the needs of disabled workers
Hiring employees who assist disabled workers
Training disabled workers
State Fund for Rehabilitation of Disabled
People (PFRON)
Subsidies to entertainment industry Ministry of Culture and National Heritage
Subsidizing the running costs of a business to sole proprietorships that do not
have employees
Subsidizing employees’ remuneration and social security contributions to SMEs
Subsidizing employees’ remuneration and social security contributions to NGOs
and organizations of public benefit
Regional and local authorities
(governors, strarosts, mayors, and
heads of villages and municipal
councils)
Exemption from property tax
Exemption from rent and long-lease payments, as well as from rent for use
Local authorities
Suspension of charges (property tax, rent for spaces that were leased from local
authorities, or other civil law liabilities)
Local authorities
Source: Decisions of the European Commission on Polish State Aid measures.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; NGO, nongovernmental organization; SME, small- and medium-sized enterprises;
ZUS, Social Insurance Institution.
Figure 3. Structure of coronavirus state aid budgeted and used in Poland in 2020 (billions of EUR).
Source: Own calculations based on the data of the European Commission and the OCCP.
Decisions of the European Commission on Polish State Aid measures.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; OCCP, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
European Commission. This is because soft loans (65% of the total value of coronavirus state aid) and grants
and subsidies (23.7%) were significantly used, while guarantees granted in 2020 under this assistance
mechanism used only 1.1% of the amount allocated for this form of assistance accepted by the Commission.
Aid in the form of soft loans was, therefore, the most important value-wise form of coronavirus state
aid in 2020, reaching the level of EUR 14.7billion (which accounted for 71.3% of the total coronavirus
52 A. A. Ambroziak
state aid). Such support was granted in almost 2.2million cases, which accounted for 23.7% of all aid
cases (one entrepreneur could receive aid several times). This was more than half the number of cases
of grants and subsidies (almost EUR 5.4million). At the same time, the value of support granted in the
latter form reached a level exceeding EUR 4.6billion, which meant 23.7% of all aid cases (see Figures 4
and 5). As far as guarantees and collaterals are concerned, 1,600 cases generated a total aid of more than
EUR 300million.
When analyzing the relevance of coronavirus state aid in the Polish economy, the special role played
by the size of enterprises is worth noting (Table 2). On the one hand, the number of micro- and small-sized
enterprises in Poland exceeds 99% of the total business population; however, when we look at the share of
these in total employment, the rate drops to <50%, and in the generation of GDP, their share slightly exceeds
32%. Such a distribution of accents in the role of SMEs, and in particular the position of micro businesses,
results from the fact that many people run sole proprietorships offering (a) specialized engineering,
professional, and management services and (b) basic transport or security and cleaning activities. This
means, as expected, that although SMEs lie at the foundations of employment, it is the large enterprises
that offer the highest value addition to the economy measured by their share in GDP generation.
Given the above, it is worth noting that, in 2020, coronavirus state aid was granted mostly to micro-
sized companies (93.7%), followed by small (5.9%), medium (0.3%), and large enterprises (0.1%), which
correspond to their share in the total population of economic entities in Poland. However, taking into
account the value of granted coronavirus state aid, one would expect that the respective percentages
should, to some extent, reflect the role in the economy measured by the share either in total employment or
Figure 4. Coronavirus state aid value and number of cases in Poland in 2020.
Note: A – grants and subsidies; C – soft loans; and D – guarantees and collaterals.
Source: Author’s calculations based on the data of the OCCP.
Figure 5. Structure of state aid granted in relation with COVID-19 in Poland in 2020 by type and beneficiary size.
Note: A – grants; C – soft loans; and D – guarantees. Internal circle: cases of state aid; external circle: value of granted state aid.
Source: Author’s calculations based on the data of the OCCP.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; OCCP, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 53
in the generated GDP. However, this was not the case – more than half (51.2%) of the total value of state aid
went to the microenterprises, 32% to small, 15.5% to medium, and only 0.2% to large companies (Figure 6).
5 Coronavirus state aid in the form of soft loans
As already mentioned, value wise, the largest share in state aid granted in Poland was reported for the so-called
soft loans (71.3% of the total coronavirus state aid). Two forms dominated in this group of instruments, i.e.,
repayable advances (C1.5) and conditionally waived loans (C1.4). The total value and number of cases of public
aid offered under this form of support amounted to >99% of all soft loans. As far as repayable advances are
concerned, they were offered as a financial shield for micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises by the
Polish Development Fund (PFR) [European Commission, 2020h], while the second instrument was loans
written off to cover the current costs of business activity mainly for microenterprises [European Commission,
2020i]. Therefore, it is not surprising to see a 100% share of microenterprises in the latter instrument, although
the share of this measure in the total amount of assistance provided under soft lending was 13.6% (and 83.7%
of all cases of this form of assistance support) (Table 3). The situation was slightly different in the case of the
PFR offer. In fact, the share of small-sized companies in the aid granted under this measure reached 41.7%,
but from the point of view of the number of cases, it was far below the share in the total number of enterprises
(83.6%). A better position in both rankings (value and number of cases) of coronavirus state aid was scored by
small- and medium-sized enterprises, taking into account the number of cases.
Other categories of soft loan instruments included various types of payment deferrals and installments
of civil and property tax dues offered by local government units. However, they accounted for a much
smaller percentage in the coronavirus state aid (Figure 7). As a rule, relatively, most support of this kind
Figure 6. Structure of state aid granted in connection with COVID-19 in Poland in 2020 by beneficiary size.
Note: Internal circle: cases of granted state aid; external circle: value of granted state aid.
Source: Author’s calculations based on the data of the OCCP.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; OCCP, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Table 2. Share of economic entities by size in key economic indicators in Poland in 2020
Enterprises Share in the total business population Share in employment Share in GDP generation
Total % % %
Micro .% .% .%
Small .% .% .%
Medium .% .% .%
Large .% .% .%
Source: Author’s calculations based on data of Statistics Poland (https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/BDL/dane/podgrup/temat/25/377).
GDP, gross domestic product.
54 A. A. Ambroziak
Table 3. Structure of state aid granted in the form of soft loans in connection with COVID-19 in Poland in 2020
Aid Enterprises Share in a given form
Micro Small Medium Large
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Repayable advance C. . . . . . . . . . .
Conditionally waived loans
C.
. . . . . . . . . .
Preferential loan C. . . . . . . . . . .
Deferred tax payment C. . . . . . . . . . .
Distribution of tax payments
in installments C.
. . . . . . . . . .
Postponement of the
payment date C.
. . . . . . . . . .
Payment in installments
C.
. . . . . . . . . .
Postponement of payment
of tax arrears with interest
C..
. . . . . . . . . .
Postponement of the
payment of the overdue fee
C..
. . . . . . . . . .
Spreading the payment of
tax arrears with interest in
installments C..
. . . . . . . . . .
Payment in installments of
the overdue fee C..
. . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . .
Notes: Cells marked in gray indicate bigger share of a given group of enterprises in received state aid in terms of value or number of cases compared, respectively, to the share in generation of
GDP or the total population of businesses.
Source: Author’s calculations based in the data of the OCCP.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; GDP, gross domestic product; OCCP, Office of competition and consumer protection.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 55
(in relation to the share of these entities in GDP generation) in the form of almost all forms of available
aid was granted to microenterprises. On the other hand, SMEs applied for this kind of support relatively
most often (in relation to the share in the total business population), yet its value was relatively lower.
Therefore, it means that for the group of micro-sized companies, allowances offered by local governments
were significant value wise, while they were much smaller for SMEs.
Support for large companies was definitely different as relatively most aid was provided in the form of
liquidity loans and preferential (redeemable) loans under the so-called “shield” for this type of enterprises.
It is worth noting, however, that in the case of this category of companies also, deferrals and installment
payments of property tax granted under the tax ordinance by local government units were attractive
considering the number of cases and were significant in terms of value.
6 Coronavirus state aid in the form of grants and subsidies
Value wise, grants and subsidies ranked second (28.7%) among the types of instruments offered as
coronavirus state aid, while they ranked first (74.8%) when we consider the number of all cases of such aid
granted by Poland in 2020. This means that entrepreneurs would have reached for them much more willingly
if the budgets of the relevant aid schemes were larger. Moreover, in this group, fee calnceleations (A2.10) and
grants (A1.1) were the two dominant forms. Both the value of aid made available and the number of aid cases
under the two aid schemes exceeded 99% of the total support within this group of state aid forms (Table 4).
Figure 7. Share of beneficiaries of coronavirus state aid in different forms of soft loans in 2020.
Source: Author’s calculations based on the OCCP data.
OCCP, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
56 A. A. Ambroziak
Table 4. Structure of state aid granted in the form of grants or subsidies in connection with COVID-19 in Poland in 2020
Aid Enterprises Share in a given form
Micro Small Medium Large
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Share in
the value
of aid, %
Share in the
number of state
aid cases, %
Fee cancellation A. . . . . . . . . . .
Grants A. . . . . . . . . . .
Tax exemption A. . . . . . . . . . .
Bank loan interest subsidies
A.
. . . . . . . . . .
Reduction in the amount of the
fee A.
. . . . . . . . . .
Fee waiver A. . . . . . . . . . .
Failure to collect a toll A. . . . . . . . . . .
Refund A. . . . . . . . . . .
Tax deduction A. . . . . . . . . . .
Reduction or reduction
reducing the tax base or the
amount of tax A.
. . . . . . . . . .
Cancellation of late payment
interest A.
. . . . . . . . . .
Failure to collect tax A. . . . . . . . . . .
Total . . . . . . . . . .
Notes: Cells marked in gray indicate a bigger share of a given group of enterprises in the received state aid in terms of value or number of cases compared, respectively, to the share in genera-
tion of GDP or the total population of businesses.
Source: Author’s calculations based on data from the OCCP.
COVID-19, coronavirus disease-2019; GDP, gross domestic product; OCCP, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 57
In the first case, it is mainly exemption from the obligation to pay social insurance contributions, as
well as allowances and write-offs in payments for rent, lease, or use to local government units [European
Commission, 2020i]. In the latter case, the largest proportion of support consisted of additional “work
suspension” benefits offered by the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) and subsidies to cover the running
costs of business to SMEs paid from the Labour Fund by voivodeship and county labor offices [European
Commission, 2020c, 2020k, 2020i] and also for R&D-related activities in connection with COVID-19
[European Commission, 2020j]. A separate category of aid included in this group was grants offered by the
Ministry of Culture and National Heritage to institutions of culture [European Commission, 2020b], as well
as grants and repayable aid available from financial intermediaries using EU funds.
Among the remaining types of aid in the discussed aid category (grants and subsidies), one may
distinguish those that were both common and different for enterprises of particular sizes (Figure 8). First of
all, both micro- and small-sized enterprises received aid that was relatively the highest in terms of value (in
relation to their share in GDP generation) in almost all categories. In addition, the same result was achieved
by small-sized companies, i.e., their share in the number of cases of aid was relatively the highest in relation
to their share in the total business population in Poland. At this point, the support granted by State Fund
Figure 8. Share of coronavirus state aid beneficiaries in different types of grants and subsidies in 2020.
Source: Author’s calculations based on OCCP data.
OCCP, Office of competition and consumer protection.
58 A. A. Ambroziak
for Rehabilitation of Disabled People (PFRON) in the form of refunding the costs of adapting workplaces
to the needs of disabled employees and general operating costs of businesses that employ the disabled is
worth noting. A relatively significant share in the aid granted to both micro- and small-sized enterprises
originated from local self-government units and took the form of real estate tax waivers, allowances in civil
law liabilities, and those related to lease, rent, and use of property. Not without significance for both groups
of enterprises was also the support from the ZUS in the form of exemption from the obligation to pay the
mandatory social security contributions.
As far as small-sized companies are concerned, in addition to the above-mentioned instruments offered
by the ZUS and local government units, they also used interest subsidies on loans, which significantly
reduced their financing costs. This instrument was also often chosen by medium-sized companies, which
resulted in a relatively high share of these companies in the value of this aid. Medium-sized companies also
enjoyed a significant share in the value of aid for selected instruments made available by local government
units in the form of allowances or waiver of fees for rent, lease, and use of local property.
The distribution of both preferences (number of cases) and real effects (share in particular forms) of
coronavirus state aid for large enterprises was slightly different. National, central government aid schemes
did not provide for grants or subsidies for large companies; hence, these enterprises benefited mainly
from subsidy instruments offered by local governments, but the aid provided to them definitely did not
reflect their relevance in the creation of GDP. It is, therefore, worth noting that large companies, similar to
medium-sized ones, were oriented toward repayable instruments offered by financial institutions in the
form of subsidized loans available from commercial banks.
7 Coronavirus state aid in the form of guarantees and collaterals
In 2020, aid granted to Polish entrepreneurs in the form of guarantees from two aid schemes accounted
for a total amount of EUR 300.8million. The most important instrument was the loan guarantee offered
by Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego (BGK) [European Commission, 2020g], although a small amount was
also distributed under the factoring guarantee [European Commission, 2020f]. In the former case, the aim
was to secure loans granted by banks to maintain liquidity in business entities. The instrument concerned
working capital loans intended for the current financing of business activities or the financing of investment
expenditures that contribute to improving financial liquidity. The maximum amount of a guaranteed loan
depended on the amount of salaries paid, total turnover, or a justified statement of the entrepreneurs’
liquidity needs, up to PLN 250million [BGK, 2020a].
In principle, large and medium-sized enterprises were almost the only beneficiaries of this support
(respectively, 68.9% and 30.8% of the total value of this form of aid and 719 cases among medium-sized
and 900 among large companies’ see Figure 9). Such a relatively low interest in this form of support offered
under coronavirus state aid had two reasons. Firstly, the government introduced many other instruments
providing faster and cheaper access to finance in the form of grants or soft loan tools. Secondly, the
Figure 9. Value of state aid granted in the form of guarantees to large and medium-sized enterprises (in millions of EUR).
Source: Author’s calculations based on OCCP data.
OCCP, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 59
BGK offered in parallel the already well-known de minimis guarantee instrument to SMEs [BGK, 2020b].
Operating in the same way as the new tool, it provided, however, that the support granted would be
treated as deminimis aid, i.e., limited only by the EUR 200,000 ceiling over the past 3years and with no tax
implications for beneficiaries.
Conclusion
In 2020, coronavirus-related state aid budget in Poland amounted to 11.7% of the national GDP, which was
huge compared to the previous years but not necessarily the highest if compared to other EU Member States.
The share of the Polish national GDP in the EU GDP was 3.3%, while the value of this aid represented only
1.9% of total national state aid. This suggests a relatively smaller value of intervention measures in the Polish
economy planned in relation with COVID-19 compared to other EU Member States and, above all, compared
to Germany, France, and Italy. These countries, however, offered mainly guarantees and collaterals, while
Poland was one of the Member States that offered a relatively high proportion of nonrepayable aid measures,
such as subsidies, grants, and soft loans. Such an approach caused the current depletion of the reserves
of public resources and may bear meaningful consequences on public finance and the ability to further
support companies during subsequent waves of COVID-19 after 2020.
Considering the support mechanisms available in Poland, one may conclude that all potential state aid
donors have been engaged in the distribution of resources: central-level institutions, government agencies,
and local authorities. All of them offered diverse aid instruments depending on their area of competence
and available resources. Institutions at the central level, including government financial agencies (BGK),
collected resources from own budgets and reallocated to COVID-19-related activities, founded them on bonds
issued by the PFR, and used EU resources from the current and previous financial perspective (PARP- Polish
Agency for Enterprise Development, BGK). ZUS decided to waive employer obligation on social security
contributions and to pay additional benefits for economic work stoppage. Furthermore, voivodeship and
county labor offices (WUPs and PUPs, respectively) transferred subsidies from the Labour Fund to micro-
and small-sized companies to cover both the current cost of business and the benefits intended to retain
jobs. At the same time, territorial self-government units rather broadly offered all sorts of allowances,
write-offs, and deferrals in the payment of fee and tax liabilities and payments due to them. Given the
absence of compensation from the central budget, this move should be evaluated especially positively. In
most instances, local entrepreneurs could pay taxes, charges, and other dues in installments or on deferred
deadlines; less frequently, these liabilities were reduced. This was the reflection of responsibility and
farsightedness that helped companies survive the most difficult period of the pandemic.
Polish aid schemes approved by the European Commission in 2020 supported mainly micro- and
small-sized companies, which – in most cases – suffered from poor liquidity. This finding is in line with
observations made in other Member States. By ensuring the survival of SMEs and, through some schemes
and instruments, also the preservation of jobs, the upward pressure on unemployment was reduced to some
extent. At the same time, it was assumed that medium-sized enterprises and, above all, large companies
should have enough savings to stay on the market for several months with no or relatively little support
from public coffers (although, in the case of the national carrier LOT and regional airports, this proved
impossible).
Entrepreneurs in Poland used mainly soft loan instruments, mainly liquidity loans offered by the PFR
with the possibility of their write-off if, e.g., employment is maintained. Consequently, once this condition
was met, the instrument became more of a grant than a repayable instrument. Further, exemptions from
contributions to the ZUS turned out to be a wide stream of financial support. However, it seems that grants
and subsidies would be the main tool that Polish entrepreneurs would like to use. In terms of the value of
granted coronavirus state aid, it was the second group of tools, while, in terms of the number of cases, it was
the first and most important. This may mean that entrepreneurs would have reached for these tools much
more willingly if the budgets of the relevant aid schemes were bigger.
60 A. A. Ambroziak
At the same time, guarantees and collaterals, dedicated primarily to medium-sized and large enterprises,
did not gain in popularity. This trend stands in contrast to the situation in more-developed countries,
which decided to make greater use of repayable instruments, including the aforementioned guarantees
and collaterals. As a result, national budgets were protected to a greater extent, credit action was launched
in commercial banks, and entrepreneurs could count on relatively cheaper financing on the market. This
gives more room for possible interventions during the next announced waves of COVID-19 and support for
domestic entrepreneurs in the following years. It would also be interesting to determine the effects of this
support over a somewhat longer period. No doubt such analyses will be feasible as soon as data on the
operations of enterprises for the first years of the pandemic are available. They will be expected with interest
as initial surveys conducted with the participation of aid beneficiaries suggested that insufficient amounts
were mobilized to assist businesses affected by the closure of economy [Piotrowski and Piotrowska, 2021].
References
Agnolucci, I. (2021), Will COVID-19 make or break EU state aid control? An analysis of commission decisions authorising
pandemic state aid measures, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpab060.
Albonico, M., Mladenov, Z., Sharma, R. (2020), How the COVID-19 crisis is affecting UK small and medium-size enterprises,
McKinsey&Company retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/
how-the-covid-19-crisis-is-affecting-uk-small-and-medium-size-enterprises [31st July 2021].
Ambroziak, A.A. (2017), State aid policy and industrial policy of the European Union, in: A.A. Ambroziak, (Ed.), New Industrial
Policy of the European Union, Springer, Switzerland, pp. 87-111.
Ambroziak, A.A. (2021a), Financial measures adopted in poland in the light of COVID-19 state aid EU framework, in: M. Suska,
J. Menkes, (Eds.), Poland’s response to COVID-19: government actions and international context, Routledge, London and
New-York, pp. 85–107.
Ambroziak, A.A. (2021b), Poland towards a new approach to state aid policy after accession to the European Union, in: A.A.
Ambroziak, (Ed.), Poland in the European Union. Report 2021, SGH Press House, Warsaw.
Antonescu, D. (2020), Supporting small and medium size enterprises through the COVID-19 crisis in Romania, Central
European Journal of Geography and Sustainable Development, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 38–57.
Barcaccia, G., D’Agostino, V., Zotti, A., Cozzi, B. (2020), Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 on the Italian agri-food sector: An analysis
of the quarter of pandemic lockdown and clues for a socio-economic and territorial restart. Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 14,
pp. 1–28, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145651.
Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J. (2020), COVID-19 is also a reallocation shock, NBER Working Paper Series, No. 27137.
Bator, F.M. (1958), The anatomy of market failure, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 351–379, https://doi.
org/10.2307/1882231.
Begović, M. (2020): Effects of COVID-19 on society and sport a national response, Managing Sport and Leisure, https://doi.
org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1779115.
Belghitar, Y., Moro, A., Radić, N., (2021), When the rainy day is the worst hurricane ever: the effects of governmental policies
on SMEs during COVID-19. Small Business Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00510-8.
BGK (2020a), Gwarancja płynnościowa, retrieved from https://www.bgk.pl/male-i-srednie-przedsiebiorstwa/pakiet-pomocy-
bgk/systemy-gwarancji/gwarancja-plynnosciowa/ [ 31st July 2021].
BGK. (2020b), Gwarancja de minimis, retrieved from https://www.bgk.pl/male-i-srednie-przedsiebiorstwa/pakiet-pomocy-
bgk/systemy-gwarancji/gwarancja-de-minimis/ [access: 31st July2021].
Brault, J., Signore, S., (2020), Credit Guarantees in the COVID-19 crisis – relevance and economic impact, The European
Monetary and Finance Forum, SUERF Policy Note, No. 176,.
Brown, R., Rocha, A., Cowling, M. (2020), Financing entrepreneurship in times of crisis: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on
the market for entrepreneurial finance in the United Kingdom, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.
380–390, https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620937464.
Buendía, J., Dovalo, A. (2020), State aid versus COVID-19, European State Aid Law Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3–7, https://
doi.org/10.21552/estal/2020/1/4.
Burger, A. (2020), What can be learnt from the effectiveness of Slovenia’s anti-crisis state aid measures during the great
recession: application to the COVID-19 downturn, Teorija in Praksa, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 1167-1177.
Cepel, M., Gavurova, B., Dvorsky, J., Belas, J. (2020),The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the perception of business risk
in the SME segment, Journal of International Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 248–263. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-
8330.2020/13-3/16.
Corredera-Catalán, F., di Pietro, F., Trujillo-Ponce, A. (2021), Post-COVID-19 SME financing constraints and the credit guarantee
scheme solution in Spain, Journal of Banking Regulation, Vol. 22, pp. 250–260, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41261-021-
00143-7.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 61
Cortignani, R., Carulli, G., Dono, G. (2020), COVID-19 and labour in agriculture: Economic and productive impacts in an agricultural
area of the Mediterranean. Italian Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 15, No. 1653, pp. 172–181. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2020.1653.
Cowling, M., Brown, R., Rocha, A. (2020), Did you save some cash for a rainy COVID-19 day? The crisis and SMEs. International
Small Business Journal. Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620945102.
Crespy, A., Schramm, L. (2021), Breaking the Budgetary Taboo: German preference formation in the ’EU’s response to the
COVID-19 crisis, German Politics, https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2021.2020253.
Dierx, A., Ilzkovitz, F. (2021), EU competition policy: an application of the failing forward framework, Journal of European
Public Policy, Vol. 28, No. 10, pp. 1630–1649, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1954063.
Dimitrakopoulos, D.G., Lalis, G. (2021), The EU’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic: disintegration or ‘failing forward’?
Journal of European Public Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1966078.
Dobaczewska, A. (2021), Pomoc publiczna na zwalczanie ekonomicznych skutków pandemii COVID-19 w kontekście prawa
Unii Europejskiej (EN: State Aid Combating Economic Consequences of COVID -19 Pandemic in the Context of European
Union law), Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 72–82.
Dörr, J.O., Licht, G., Murmann, S. (2021), Small firms and the COVID-19 insolvency gap. Small Business Economics, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11187-021-00514-4.2
Dowling, D. (2021), The role of the company in the time of COVID-19, King’s Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 37–48, https://doi.
org/10.1080/09615768.2021.1888446.
Drewes, M., Daumann, F., Follert, F. (2021), Exploring the sports economic impact of COVID-19 on professional soccer, Soccer
& Society, Vol. 22, No. 1–2, pp. 125–137, https://doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2020.1802256.
Duignan, D., McGeever, N. (2020), Which firms took COVID-19 payment breaks? Financial Stability Notes, Central Bank of
Ireland, Vol. 2020, No. 6.
Elizundia, G.P., Delgado Guzmán, J.A., Lampón, J. F. (2021), COVID-19 liquidity crisis: May reverse factoring be the solution to
SME financing in Mexico. ESIC Market Economics and Business Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 571–596.
Erić, O., Popović, G., Bjelić, J. (2021), Economic response of the European countries to the first wave of COVID-19, Economy and
Market Communication Review, Vol. XI, No. I, pp. 63–78.
European Commission. (2002a), Germany – compensation for direct damage caused by the closure of external airspace for the
period 11 to 14 September 2001, SA 269/2002.
European Commission. (2002b), France – Sûreté aérienne – compensation des coûts à la suite des attentats du 11 septembre
2001, SA 309/2002.
European Commission. (2005), State aid action plan. Less and better targeted state aid: a roadmap for state aid reform
2005–2009, COM (2005) 107 final, Brussels, 7.06.2005.
European Commission. (2010), Slovenia – Rectification of consequences of the damage caused to air carriers and airports by
earthquake activity in Iceland and the resulting volcano ash in April 2010, SA.32163.
European Commission. (2019), Annual report on European SMEs 2018/2019 Research and Development and Innovation by
SMEs, Background Document, Luxembourg.
European Commission. (2020a), 4th Amendment to the temporary framework for state aid measures to support the economy
in the current COVID-19 outbreak and amendment to the Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the
Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to
short-term export-credit insurance, OJ CI 340/1, 13.10.2020.
European Commission. (2020b), Amendment to the scheme SA.56922 (2020/N) – Polish anti-crisis measures – direct grants,
repayable advances, tax and payments advantages, tax deferrals and wage subsidies schemes related to COVID-19,
SA.57282 (2020/N), C(2020)3268, Brussels, 13.05.2020.
European Commission. (2020c), COVID-19 support to tour operators and other undertakings active in tourism and culture,
SA.58102 (2020/N), C(2020) 6582 final, 21.9.2020, Brussels.
European Commission. (2020d), Coordinated economic response to the COVID-19 Outbreak, COM(2020)112 final, 13.03.2020
Brussels.
European Commission. (2020e), Fifth amendment to the temporary framework for state aid measures to support the economy
in the current COVID-19 outbreak and amendment to the Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the
Member States on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to
short-term export-credit insurance, OJ C 34/6, 1.02.2021.
European Commission. (2020f), Guarantees on Factoring, SA.57452 (2020/N), C(2020)5165 final, Brussels, 23.07.3030.
European Commission. (2020g), Liquidity guarantee fund, SA.56876 (2020/N), C(2020)2225 final, Brussels, 3.4.2020.
European Commission. (2020h), Poland COVID-19: repayable advance scheme for micro, small and medium-sized enter-prises,
SA.56996 (2020/N), C(2020) 2822 final, Brussels, 27.04.2020.
European Commission. (2020i), Polish anti-crisis measures – direct grants, repayable advances, tax and payments
ad-vantages, tax deferrals and wage subsidies schemes related to COVID-19, SA.56922 (2020/N), C(2020) 2686 final,
Brussels, 23.04.2020.
European Commission. (2020j), R&D aid for COVID-19 relevant research and development, investment aid for the construction
and upgrade of relevant testing and upscaling infrastructures, and investment aid for investments into production
facilities for the production of COVID-19 relevant products, SA.57519 (2020/N), C(2020) 4186 final, Brussels, 18.06.2020.
62 A. A. Ambroziak
European Commission. (2020k), State aid in the form of grants or repayable assistance under operational programmes for
2014 - 2020 to support the Polish economy in connection with the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak,
SA.57015 (2020/N), C(2020) 2782 final, Brussels, 24.04.2020.
European Commission. (2020l), Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19
outbreak, 2020/C 91 I/01.
European Council. (2005), Presidency conclusions, EUCO 7619/1/05, 22-23 March 2005.
Ferrara, F.M., Kriesi, H. (2021), Crisis pressures and European integration, Journal of European Public Policy, https://doi.org/10
.1080/13501763.2021.1966079.
Ferri, D. (2020), The role of EU State Aid Law as a “Risk Management Tool” in the COVID-19 Crisis, European Journal of Risk
Regulation, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 176–195.
Fitriasari, F. (2020), How do Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) survive the COVID-19 outbreak? Jurnal Inovasi Ekonomi,
Vol.5, No. 2, pp. 53–62.
Giancotti, M., Mauro, M. (2020), Building and improving the resilience of enterprises in a time of crisis: from a systematic
scoping review to a new conceptual framework, Economia Aziendale Online, Business and Management Sciences.
International Quartely Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 307–339.
Giones, F., Brem, A., Pollack, J.M., Michaelis, T.L., Klyver, K., Brinckmann, J. (2020), Revising entrepreneurial action in
response to exogenous shocks: Considering the COVID-19 pandemic, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 14,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00186.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., Hall, C.M. (2021), Pandemics, tourism and global change: a rapid assessment of COVID-19, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708.
Gourinchas, P.-O., Kalemli-Özcan, S., Penciakova, V., Sander, N. (2021), COVID-19 and SME Failures, National Bureau of
Economic Research, Working Paper 27877.
Gregurec, I., Tomičić-Furjan, M., Tomičić-Pupek, K. (2021), The impact of COVID-19 on sustainable business models in SMEs.
Sustainability, Vol. 13, p. 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031098.
Groenewegen, J., Hardeman, S., Stam, E. (2021), Does COVID-19 state aid reach the right firms? COVID-19 state aid, turnover
expectations, uncertainty and management practices, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 16, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00262.
Grondys, K., Ślusarczyk, O., Hussain, H.I., Androniceanu, A. (2021), Risk assessment of the SME sector operations during the
COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18, No. 8:4183. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph18084183.
Honoré, M. (2020), State aid and COVID-19 – Hot topics, European State Aid Law Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 111–114, https://
doi.org/10.21552/estal/2020/2/2.
Juergensen, J., Guimón, J., Narula, R. (2020), European SMEs amidst the COVID-19 crisis: assessing impact and policy
responses, Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Vol. 47, pp. 499–510, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-020-
00169-4.
Kemmeren, E.C.C.M. (2021), ‘Tax Haven’ Conditions Included in COVID-19 State Aid Schemes: Can They Be Tested? EC Tax
Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 2–7.
Kopeć, A. (2021), Pomoc publiczna w dobie pandemii COVID-19, Internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny,
Vol. 1, No. 10, pp. 81–99.
KPMG. (2020), Government response – global landscape. An overview of government and institution measures around
the world in response to COVID-19, retrieved from https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/04/government-
response-global-landscape.html [16th March 2020].
Kubera, P. (2021), The state aid instruments in response to the COVID-19 crisis, The Journal of Organizational Management
Studies, Vol. 2021, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.5171/2021.930488.
Ladi, S., Tsarouhas, D. (2020), EU economic governance and COVID-19: policy learning and windows of opportunity, Journal of
European Integration, Vol. 42, No. 8, pp. 1041–1056, https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1852231.
Lai, H.B.J., Zainal Abidin, M.R., Hasni, M.Z., Ab Karim, M.S., Che Ishak, F.A. (2020), Key adaptations of SME restaurants in
Malaysia amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, Vol. 9, No. 6,
pp. 12–23, https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i6.916.
Laufs, K., Schwens, C. (2014), Foreign market entry mode choice of small and medium-sized enterprises: a systematic review
and future research agenda, International Business Review, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1109–1126.
Łopatka, A., Fedorowicz, K. (2021), Evaluation of the effectiveness of state aid offered to enterprises during the COVID-19
pandemic, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 192, pp. 4828–4836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.261.
Luja, R.H.C. (2020), EU fiscal state aid rules and COVID-19: will one survive the other? EC Tax Review, Vol. 29, No. 4,
pp.147–157.
Martinez-Cillero, M., Lawless, M., O’Toole C. (2020), COVID-19 pandemic and SMEs revenues in Ireland: what’s the gap?
Quarterly Economic Commentary, Economic and Social Research Institute retrieved from https://www.esri.ie/system/
files/publications/QEC2020aut_SA_%20Martinez-Cillero_0.pdf [31st july 2021].
McGeever, N., McQuinn, J., Myers, S. (2020), SME liquidity needs during the COVID-19 shock, Financial Stability Notes 2/
FS/20, Central Bank of Ireland.
Forms of COVID-19 state aid in Poland 63
Meunier, S., Mickus, J. (2020), Sizing up the competition: explaining reform of European Union competition policy in the
COVID-19 era, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 42, No. 8, pp. 1077–1094, https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.1
852232.
Motta, M. Peitz, M. (2020b), The EU recovery fund: An opportunity for change, VOX CEPR Policy Portal, retrieved from https://
voxeu.org/article/eu-recovery-fund-opportunity-change [31st July 2021].
Motta, M., Peitz, M. (2020a), EU state aid policies in the time of COVID-19, VOX CEPR Policy Portal, retrieved from https://
voxeu.org/article/eu-state-aid-policies-time-COVID-19 [31st July 2021].
Narula, R. (2004), R&D collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation,
Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 153–161.
Nicolaides, P. (2020), Application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU to COVID-19 measures: state aid to make good the damage caused
by an exceptional occurrence, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol. 11, No. 5–6, pp. 238–243, https://doi.
org/10.1093/jeclap/lpaa026.
Nicolaides, P., Kekelekis, M., Buyskes, P. (2005), State aid policy in the European community. A guide for practitioner,
International Competition Law Series, Vol. 16, Kluwer Law International, European Institute of Public Administration,
Hague.
Nový, M., Nováková, J. (2022), Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on construction companies in the Czech Republic, Procedia
Computer Science, Vol. 196, pp. 717–723.
NSW. (2017), A guide to categorising market failures for government policy development and evaluation. New South Wales
Department of Industry retrived from https://www.opengov.nsw.gov.au/download/17004 [31st July 2021].
OECD. (2021), An in-depth analysis of one year of SME and entrepreneurship policy responses to COVID-19: lessons learned for
the path to recovery, OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Papers No. 25, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/6407deee-en.
Piotrowski, D., Piotrowska, A.I. (2021), Operation of gyms and fitness clubs during the COVID-19 pandemic – financial, legal,
and organisational conditions, Journal of Physical Education and Sport, Vol. 21, Suppl. 2, pp. 1021–1028.
Rivera, V., Castro, F. (2021), Between social protests and a global pandemic: working transitions under the economic effects of
COVID-19. Social Sciences, Vol. 10, No. 145, pp. 1–21, https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10040145.
Robins, N., Puglisi, L., Yang, L. (2020), State aid tools to tackle the impact of COVID-19, European State Aid Law Quarterly,
Vol.19, No. 2, pp. 137–149, https://doi.org/10.21552/estal/2020/2/5.
Rosiak P.K., Przybyszewska E. (2020), Poland. State Aid in Time of Global Pandemic, EStAL, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 395-398,
https://doi.org/10.21552/estal/2020/3/20.
Santarelli, E., Vivarelli, M., (2002), Is subsidizing entry an optimal policy? Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 1,
pp.39–52.
Stiglitz, J. (2020), Conquering the great divide: The pandemic has laid bare deep divisions, but it’s not too late to change
course. Finance & Development, September issuepp. 17–19.
Štreimikienė, D., Baležentis T., Volkov, A., Ribašauskienė, E., Morkūnas M, Žičkienė A. (2021), Negative effects of COVID-19
pandemic on agriculture: systematic literature review in the frameworks of vulnerability, resilience and risks involved,
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1919542.
Sullivan, E., Wolff, E.A. (2020), Politics, pandemics, and support: the role of political actors in Dutch state aid during
COVID-19, Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 50–71.
Thorgren, S., Williams, T.A, (2020), Staying alive during an unfolding crisis: how SMEs ward off impending disaster, Journal of
Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00187.
Umiński, S., Borowicz, A. (2021), Will multinational enterprises contribute to Poland’s economic resilience and recovery during
and post COVID-19 pandemic, Transnational Corporations Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 74–87, https://doi.org/10.1080/1918
6444.2021.1888638.
Urbanovics, A., Teleki, B. (2021), The economic context of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Mediterranean countries: A
comparative analysis, Intersections: East European Journal of Society and Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 157–177.
Utit Ch., Shah, N.R.N.R., Saari, M.Y., Maji, I.K., Songsiengchai, P. (2021), Reforming economy in post-COVID-19 periods by
improving the inter-linkages between SMEs and large firms. International Journal of Economics & Management, Vol. 15,
No. 2, pp. 205–217.
Vaishar, A., Šťastná, M. (2020), Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural tourism in Czechia Preliminary considerations,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 187–191, https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1839027.
van Druenen, R., Zwaan, P. (2021), Distorted promotion of undistorted competition? Commission decisions after formal investi-
gations in the EU state aid regime, Journal of European Public Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1898661.
Van Hove, J. (2020), Impact of state aid on competition and competitiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic: an early
assessment, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, Directorate-General for Internal
Policies, European Parliament.
Williams, C.C. (2021), Impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on Europe’s tourism industry: addressing tourism enterprises and
workers in the undeclared economy. International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 79–88. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jtr.2395.
Wolff, S., Ladi, S. (2020), European Union Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: adaptability in times of permanent
emergency, Journal of European Integration, Vol. 42, No. 8, pp. 1025–1040, https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2020.18
53120.
