Mechanisms for Stabilizing Crisis Situations in Visegrad Europe

In the article, the authors, pointing out the main challenges faced by the Central European countries in the last two years, analyze the measures taken by the governments of the Visegrad countries ‒ individually and jointly ‒ in an effort to overcome the negative consequences of crisis situations and to give a new impetus to the development of societies in social, political and economic spheres. The pandemic of 2020/2021 in a certain sense can be considered as a milestone measuring the effectiveness of political and economic systems established over three decades in these countries. The authors have chosen for this publication only some, but decisive measures, such as internal political stabilization, social, as well as economic devices to help the population in a pandemic. Analyzing the main “alarming points” of Central European countries, the authors come to the conclusion that the democratic parliamentary system established in these countries over the years of reforms, based on a network of non-governmental organizations, plays a significant positive role in overcoming them; the manifestation of independence in taking decisions affecting the interests of the nation despite delays or counter-measures of Brussels; taking into account the peculiarities of national and regional development in other areas.

Globalisation Scepticism in the Visegrad Countries

Recent developments in the European Union revealed significant differences between the Visegrad countries and the remaining members of the EU. The enlargement euphoria of the first decade of the 21st century was replaced by certain enlargement fatigue, manifesting itself not only in concrete governmental policies but also in the public opinion towards the EU. As European integration and globalisation are parallel processes, declining support for European integration must not necessarily be the result of disagreement with specific policies and should be examined in the broader context of globalisation fears and anxieties. The article describes variations in globalisation scepticism between the group of Visegrad countries and the remaining countries of the EU as well as variations within the Visegrad group itself, focusing on the main drivers of economic globalisation – international trade, foreign direct investment, and immigration. The development of public opinion since the financial and economic crisis in 2009 indicates that Visegrad countries should not be treated as a uniform bloc of globalisation sceptics as there are significant differences in opinion between the more pessimistic Czechs and Slovaks and the more optimistic Poles and Hungarians. Their globalisation scepticism also varies across different dimensions of globalisation and is fuelled by different motivations.

Varieties of euro adoption strategies in Visegrad countries before the pandemic crisis

The enlargement of the euro area (EA), an unfinished process, was low on the European agenda in the period between the 2008 and the 2020 crises. The socio-economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic and frictions in geopolitics would call for a coherent Europe, yet new and old fault-lines appeared in the EU involving the eastern periphery where sovereignty issues gained particular importance. The authors revisit the euro adoption process of the new member states, with a focus on the Visegrad Group (V4) countries, applying a two-track approach: a monetary policy analyses of EA entry as a rational cost/benefit issue and, second, a political economic survey of key stakeholders, set in the context of the dilemmas of retaining or sacrificing nominal monetary sovereignty. Even a piecemeal enlargement of the EA, involving Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania, would cause business consequences and political repercussions in the countries left out of EA. The paper concludes that further moves towards a developmental state model would preclude euro adoption and put such member state in collision course with the core Europe.

Foreign direct investment in the storm of the COVID-19 pandemic and the example of Visegrad countries

The immediate effects of COVID-19 on the global flows of foreign direct investment (FDI) were devastating, resulting in a large drop. Flows to the Visegrad countries were also affected but less than the world average. The fall in FDI was the result of underlying trends that started before the pandemic but accentuated by the latter, creating a “perfect storm”. These secular trends include the digitalisation of production and the birth of Industry 4.0, resulting in more asset-light international production and reorganisations of company networks, the sustainability imperative, making the impact of FDI more relevant than its quantity, and a slowdown in the liberalisation of the policy framework for FDI both in individual countries and at the multilateral level. The recovery of FDI from the shock of 2020 is expected to be long and it will be impossible to return to the pre-pandemic structural and geographical patterns. Building resilience and diversification of production at the expense of the search for the lowest-cost locations will be the top priorities of investors, forcing the host countries to revise their investment promotion strategies focused on cost reduction. In the Visegrad countries, the model based on low labour costs will sooner or later reach its limits.

Are the Visegrad countries independent players in European politics and economics?

The article examines the degree of independence of the Visegrad Group countries in the European Union in terms of economic prerequisites and actual implementation. It has been suggested that the countries of the Visegrad Group, having reached a certain level of economic prosperity and diversified their foreign economic relations, began to strive to play a more independent role in making integration decisions in the EU, including on issues of basic common European values. This hypothesis is tested on the example of the negotiation process of the EU countries on the adoption of the MultiYear Financial Plan for 2021–2027 and the creation of a Next Generation EU Fund to work together to tackle the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The main directions of the negotiations, the positions of the participants and the general results are analyzed. Particular attention is drawn to the fact that Poland and Hungary have succeeded in achieving ambivalent language on the issues of linking the allocation of funds to member countries with their provision of the rule of law and observance of other democratic principles. It is shown that in practice the European Commission still does not abandon this linkage. It is concluded that during the EU membership, the Visegrad Group countries have succeeded in demonstrating their economic capabilities, and their ability to influence the solution of common European issues has increased, but the real degree of autonomy of the Visegrad countries within the EU has not reached a qualitatively new level, including and due to contradictions in the positions of countries within the bloc itself.

Investigation of Certain Components of Tourism Safety in the Visegrád Countries

Before 2019, tourism around the world was breaking records in numbers every year. If we compare the number of people involved in tourism with the values of a few decades ago, we can witness an amazing development. Concerning all four countries (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) we can say that the historical roots are very similar. Still, at the same time, they have taken a specific and, in many cases, separate paths to reach the current level of development.The World Tourism Organisation does not consider Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia as a separate touristic region. However, considering the current touristic trends, we can say that more and more people arriving from far-away places look at this area as one region. During their holiday, they visit several countries. Those working in the field of tourism mostly speak the most common world languages. It is not easy to use exact indicators of the local population’s helpfulness, but most Europeans can be said to be understanding and helpful to tourists. The current study aims to introduce and analyse the current trends of tourism safety of the V4 countries.