Poland’s political transformation forced significant changes in the structure of the economy and the methods of public factors’ influence on economic and social processes. A number of concepts have been re-evaluated. This also applies to the concept of maritime policy, around which a lot of misunderstandings have arisen in recent years. Suffice it to say that the divergence of views ranges from the postulate of deep government intervention in all activities related to the maritime economy, understood as supporting this or that activity with public funds, to complete negation.
What is “maritime policy”?
There are few concepts related to the sea that would arouse as much controversy in Poland as the statement “maritime policy”. The range of views in this regard extends from recognizing the necessary omnipresence of maritime policy in the life of the state, to denying the existence of its need altogether. The second concept arousing similar emotions is “maritime economy”. The dispute is about the subject itself and the role of the state. In this matter, there are two points of view. The first one recognizes that government participation is necessary, even in market economy conditions. This opinion strongly and unequivocally emphasizes the need for a conscious state maritime policy. The second one treats the concept of state maritime policy almost exclusively in journalistic terms. In this case, transport policy specialists do not deal at all with, for example, the issues of the shipbuilding industry and sea fishing, leaving these areas to specialists in industrial and food policy. It also turns out that the political transformation does not constitute a boundary moment in the ways of interpreting the phenomenon, although in almost all concepts the presence of new entities in public and economic life was noticed, namely local governments. The maritime economy began to be viewed also from the point of view of local communities and the needs of regions, although these were identified only with coastal voivodeships, which, as a result of institutional conditions, were not able to create a significant regional policy.
The above-mentioned views on maritime policy generally assume that it should primarily concern the maritime economy. The very concept of maritime economy is conventional in an economic and legal sense. It includes industries and sectors of the economy oriented towards the transport of passengers and cargo by sea, the production of means of transport serving these purposes, the exploitation of sea resources, etc.
Activity at sea or related to the sea, and thus with a certain natural environment, cannot be an economic criterion determining the mutual coherence of these types of activities. What, therefore, should be the subject of maritime policy so that it becomes what policy is by its essence, i.e., “conscious action of specific entities to achieve set goals”? It seems that this subject should be the opportunities that a seaside location creates for the country. And these opportunities lie in the possibilities of undertaking various forms of activity created by access to the sea. Their very variety means that maritime policy will have diverse goals. It will also be implemented by various entities and with the help of very different instruments. However, its effectiveness depends on the correct selection of the entity and the set of instruments to achieve the goal. Its principles, however, are common. It is also worth pointing out that utilizing the opportunities flowing from economic activity is not possible without ensuring the defense of the country’s interests at sea.
These opportunities by their very nature relate to forms of human and societal activity related to the sea. It can therefore be assumed that the goals of the policy can be defined as the optimal realization of each of the mentioned forms.