NextFin News - Poland's central bank will consider raising interest rates this year or in early 2027 if its own forecasts show inflation exceeding 4% for longer, policymaker Ludwik Kotecki said, drawing a bright line that clashes with Governor Adam Glapinski's view that borrowing costs can stay unchanged until the middle of next year. The tension matters because the market has already moved ahead of both: derivatives are pricing in three quarter-point rate increases over the next 12 months, even as the National Bank of Poland held its benchmark rate at 3.75% for a sixth month on September 9.
The setup is a classic central-bank communication problem. The governor is leaning one way, a voting member is leaning the other, and the bond market is betting on a third outcome. Kotecki's condition is specific and testable - inflation above 4% for longer, not a one-month spike. That threshold sits just above the upper bound of the NBP's tolerance band, which is 3.5% around the 2.5% target. Poland's annual inflation rate printed at 3.4% in August, up from 3.0% in July and above the roughly 3.1% consensus, leaving it 0.1 percentage point below the ceiling Kotecki is effectively using as his trigger.
Glapinski, speaking on Thursday, said he sees rates staying unchanged as long as to mid-2027. That guidance was already dovish relative to the inflation path. The governor has repeatedly framed the current price pressure as temporary.
Inflation may grow temporarily but it would remain within the target range and will not exceed 3.5 percent.
Between the two officials sits the market. Pricing in derivatives pointed to three 25-basis-point hikes within a year - a 75-basis-point tightening cycle that would lift the reference rate from 3.75% to 4.50%. Poland's 10-year government bond yield, a barometer of where investors think policy and inflation are heading, rose to 6.27% on September 10, up 43 basis points over the past month and 81 basis points higher than a year ago. The zloty traded near 4.25 to the euro on European Central Bank reference rates, close to the weaker end of its recent range.
The combination is what makes this more than a routine policy hold. A central bank that cut rates from 4.00% to 3.75% in March and has held since is now being asked, by one of its own members, to contemplate the opposite direction - while inflation is still technically inside the target band. The question is whether the 4% line is a tripwire the economy is about to cross, or a threshold that will prove as temporary as the fuel-tax measures driving the current increase.
Why 4% Is the Line That Matters
The 4% threshold is not arbitrary. It is the psychological extension of the NBP's own inflation-targeting framework. The bank targets 2.5% with a symmetric tolerance band of plus or minus 1 percentage point, putting the formal ceiling at 3.5%. Kotecki's 4% condition adds a persistence test on top: not just a breach, but a breach that forecasts show lasting "for longer." That formulation does two things at once. It gives the hawkish wing of the Monetary Policy Council a concrete criterion for changing its mind, and it signals to the market that a single hot print will not trigger a reaction.
The mechanics of the current inflation increase are concentrated and, on their face, reversible. August's 3.4% year-on-year reading was driven overwhelmingly by energy and fuel. Prices for fuels and lubricants for personal transport were 24.2% higher than a year earlier and 5.2% higher than in July alone. Electricity, gas and other fuels rose 4.1% year on year. Meanwhile food and non-alcoholic beverages were still 0.9% cheaper than a year ago, and down 0.7% month on month. In other words, the part of the basket that households buy most often is still in deflation; the headline number is being pulled up by the pump.
That pump-price story is a policy artifact as much as a market one. Poland has been adjusting fuel taxation in response to Middle East tensions: the government suspended fuel price caps at the end of June as oil and gas prices stabilised, then reinstated an 8% VAT rate on fuel on August 17 alongside daily maximum retail prices, with the measure legislated only through August 31. Each adjustment creates a mechanical step in the price level, which then flows through the year-on-year inflation rate for twelve months before dropping out of the calculation. A tax change is not a structural inflation shift; it is a one-off level effect that shows up as a year-on-year rate for a year.
The transmission mechanism from here is what Kotecki is watching. Energy prices feed transport costs, which feed food distribution and fertiliser costs, which eventually feed the grocery bill. Turnleaf Analytics estimates that full transmission of the current fertiliser and grain shock takes roughly a year, and projects headline inflation above 4% from the fourth quarter of 2026, peaking a little above 5% around mid-2027 before settling near 4.5% in August 2027. mBank economists see the current wave peaking around the end of the year, with CPI potentially moving slightly above 4%. Pekao expects inflation to approach 4% by year-end, reaching a local peak. These are not fringe forecasts - they are the base cases of institutions that watched the same data.
The Cyclical Shock, and the Structural Risk Beneath It
The right call on this episode is that the driver is cyclical, not structural - but with a structural risk attached that is easy to miss if you focus only on the fuel pump. The cyclical case is strong. The inflation impulse comes from two mean-reverting sources: a geopolitical energy shock tied to the Middle East conflict, and a sequence of domestic fuel-tax interventions that by design reverse themselves. Core pressure is contained, with food still in deflation. When the shock that pushed prices up is a tax rate and a war premium, the natural path is back down once the tax normalises and the risk premium fades. Poland's inflation has repeatedly spiked on energy and reverted, from the 2022 post-invasion surge through the 2025-2026 fuel-cap cycle.
But the structural risk is fiscal policy, and it is the part of the story that would make a 4% breach persistent rather than transitory. The European Commission's autumn forecast puts Poland's 2026 budget deficit at 6.5% of GDP, with public debt rising. Loose fiscal policy works against tight money: it adds demand into an economy that the central bank is trying to cool, and it raises the term premium that investors demand for holding long-dated zloty debt. That is one reason the 10-year yield has climbed 81 basis points year on year even while the policy rate sits at 3.75% - the bond market is pricing fiscal risk, not just policy expectations.
The second-order channel is the exchange rate. If the NBP does hike, the zloty would likely strengthen, which lowers imported inflation and partly does the central bank's work for it. That is the attractive side of tightening. The offsetting side is that Poland's mortgage market is dominated by variable-rate and short-term-fixed loans, according to European Central Bank interest-rate statistics, so a 75-basis-point hiking cycle would transmit quickly into household payments and consumption - exactly the channel that would slow growth. And the government's own interest bill would rise, tightening fiscal policy through the back door even as the deficit stays wide. A rate hike in Poland is not just an inflation tool; it is a fiscal and household-cashflow event.
This is why the "is it already priced?" question has a sharp answer. Derivatives are pricing three 25-basis-point hikes over the next 12 months. If you believe the cyclical view, that is too much tightening priced in, because the inflation print that justifies it has not yet shown up in core data. If you believe the structural-fiscal view, it may not be enough, because a persistent 4%-plus inflation path with a 6.5% deficit would demand more than 75 basis points. The market has picked a side - hikes are coming - without resolving which story is driving them. That is the gap between the pricing and the thesis.
A Council Split the Market Is Already Trading
The political economy inside the Monetary Policy Council is as important as the data. Kotecki's position has shifted over the year in a way that tracks the inflation print. In July, after the central bank's projection showed inflation returning to target, he told the PAP news agency that it "puts an end to the discussion about any rate hikes" and that there were "grounds to consider rate cuts later this year." In June, he said the council was "somewhat less inclined to raise rates than we were just a month ago - though even then this wasn't the most likely scenario." The September comment - open to hikes this year or early 2027 if inflation stays above 4% - is a clear pivot back toward hawkishness as the data turned.
Glapinski, by contrast, has been steadily more dovish. In July he did not rule out proposing a 25-basis-point cut after the summer, though he noted other council members might be more cautious. His Thursday guidance - rates unchanged as long as to mid-2027 - is the dovish anchor of the current debate. When the governor and a council member are publicly pointing in opposite directions, the market typically prices the data, not the rhetoric. The three-hike pricing suggests investors are doing exactly that.
A European lender's research team captured the institutional middle ground after the September meeting: the post-meeting statement was broadly unchanged from July, but the bank revised from expecting two 25-basis-point cuts in the second half of 2026 to seeing no scope for cuts at all, as inflation prospects deteriorated. That is a meaningful shift - from easing expected to easing off the table - and it happened without a single rate move. It shows how much of the policy action in this cycle is happening through communication and forecasts rather than through the policy rate itself.
The Counter-Thesis: Why the Governor May Be Right
The strongest case against Kotecki's hike scenario is the one Glapinski is making: this is a temporary energy spike inside the target band, core inflation is benign, and growth is slowing enough that tightening would be self-defeating. The European Commission expects Polish GDP growth of 3.5% in 2026 before easing in 2027, and the NBP's own March projection put 2026 growth at 2.9%. Hiking into a slowing economy on the back of a tax-driven fuel spike risks breaking demand for an inflation gain that base effects would deliver anyway. The falsifying signal for the dovish view is concrete: if inflation prints at or above 4.0% year on year for two consecutive months - September and October - and core inflation excluding energy and food accelerates over the same period, the "temporary spike" story is wrong and Kotecki's threshold has been met.
There is also a credibility dimension. The NBP cut rates to 3.75% in March after inflation fell back to target, and Glapinski has repeatedly told markets that the battle against inflation is effectively won. Reversing into a hiking cycle within six months would be an awkward admission that the March cut was premature. Central banks dislike that kind of pivot because it damages forward guidance. But that discomfort is precisely why Kotecki framed his condition as forecast-dependent rather than data-dependent: it gives the council a way to change course without conceding that the earlier cut was a mistake.
What to Watch Next
The practical implication is that the next two inflation prints matter more than the next policy meeting. The September and October CPI releases will determine whether the 4% line is a tripwire or a mirage. If inflation peaks near 4% at year-end as mBank and Pekao expect and then rolls over, the dovish hold-until-mid-2027 guidance survives and the three-hike pricing in derivatives unwinds. If inflation pushes through 4% and stays there into early 2027, Kotecki's condition is satisfied and the market's pricing becomes the base case - with the first hike likely coming in the first quarter.
Split by time horizon, the picture differs. In the short term, sentiment and liquidity dominate: every hot print strengthens the case for the hawks and keeps the 10-year yield elevated near current levels. Over the medium term, the question is whether energy and food pass-through lifts core inflation sustainably - that is the mechanism that would force the council's hand. Over the long term, the structural fiscal deficit is the real constraint: a central bank cannot hold real rates negative forever while the government runs a 6.5%-of-GDP deficit, and at some point the bond market sets the policy rate for the central bank.
Base case: inflation peaks slightly above 4% around year-end, the NBP holds through the first quarter of 2027, and one or two hikes follow in early 2027 as the persistence test is met. Upside case for rates: a prolonged Middle East disruption keeps oil elevated, the fuel-tax relief is not renewed, and inflation runs above 4% into mid-2027 - forcing a faster, deeper tightening cycle than the three hikes currently priced. Downside case: energy prices fall back, food deflation deepens, and the dovish guidance holds with no hikes at all before mid-2027.
The signal to watch is simple and quantifiable: two consecutive monthly CPI prints at or above 4.0% year on year, accompanied by accelerating core inflation. That combination would confirm the structural-fiscal risk story and validate the market's three-hike pricing. Without it, Kotecki's 4% line remains a warning, not a trigger.
The market is pricing a hiking cycle; the governor is promising patience; and one policymaker has drawn the line between them. The next two inflation prints will decide which of the three is right - and Poland's bond market has already made its bet.
Data as of September 11, 2026.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
