A recent excerpt from a Civic Development Forum study has resurfaced on the internet, discussing the possibility of privatizing state owned enterprises during the era of the PO-PSL coalition. The discussion touched on what would be required if the government pursued selling stakes in major companies, with a notable reference shared by PiS Member of Parliament Radosław Fogiel on Twitter. The material has sparked renewed attention among policymakers, analysts, and observers in both Poland and neighboring regions, prompting a broader look at the implications of privatization for national finance and strategic sovereignty.
READ ALSO: ONLY WITH US. Deputy Minister Śliwka reveals how the prior administration influenced state asset sales and investor sentiment, noting that some actors benefited from favorable conditions during privatizations previously conducted by the government.
What stands out in the FOR Foundations report is a focus on large, strategically important firms. The document points to major players such as the energy giants and fuel sector leaders as potential candidates for privatization. Firms like PGE, Tauron, Enea and Energa in the energy space, along with Orlen and Lotos in the fuel sector, are explicitly named. The report also identifies PKNiG, KGHM, PKO Bank Polski and PZU as entities that could be included in a broader privatization agenda, depending on fiscal needs and market conditions.
To generate substantial proceeds that could meaningfully reduce the state’s financing requirements, the analysis argues that the government would need to target the most valuable assets first. The emphasis is on large, financially robust enterprises whose sale could yield a quick influx of capital while reshaping the ownership landscape of critical infrastructure and services relied upon by Polish households and the national economy.
– was noted within the same document, underscoring the political sensitivity attached to these moves and the potential domestic and international ramifications of divestment decisions.
The prevailing barrier to privatization, as highlighted by interlocutors and commentators cited in the report, is the perceived strategic importance of these companies for national security and economic stability. This concern has historically influenced political support, or the lack thereof, for asset sales deemed essential to energy resilience, financial stability, and strategic manufacturing capacity.
Fogel reaction
From a political perspective, the discussion has sparked reflections on how private investment intersects with national interests. In a concise message delivered via Twitter, the PiS MP suggested that the public might have overestimated the feasibility of privatization in the current climate, alluding to past episodes where strategic assets were treated as nonnegotiable for security reasons. The post captured the tension between market-oriented reform agendas and the imperative to preserve control over critical resources and strategic industries.
The exchange has generated a broader discourse among lawmakers and analysts about how privatization maps onto fiscal objectives, economic sovereignty, and energy security. Observers emphasize that any move to privatize state assets would require careful calibration of political consensus, financial logic, and long-term national priorities.
In assessing the potential outcomes, experts point to the need for robust regulatory frameworks, transparent auction processes, and safeguards to ensure that privatization yields value for citizens rather than solely benefiting private interests. The emphasis is on balancing short-term fiscal relief with long-term industrial resilience and energy independence, particularly in markets where state involvement remains a key lever in policy, pricing, and strategic investment decisions.
— The conversation continues as policymakers weigh the pros and cons of privatization as a tool to address budgetary pressure while preserving essential public service obligations and strategic capabilities. The ongoing debate highlights the challenge of aligning fiscal needs with the public interest, a task that requires clear evidence, careful analysis, and principled decision-making that takes into account current economic conditions and future security considerations.
tkwl/Twitter
Attributed to multiple observers and sources within the policy community, the discussion reflects a moment of reflection on how state ownership and private capital interact under changing economic circumstances, and what steps might be necessary to secure financial stability without compromising strategic autonomy.